New council dips into the details of swim center plan : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

GREENSBORO — The newest City Council members dove into the details of the proposed coliseum aquatic complex Monday.

At an afternoon briefing, the members questioned city staff and tourism officials on just about every aspect of the project — from its inception to the design to how it might be funded.

They didn’t make any decisions about the $18.8 million pool complex. The full City Council is scheduled to discuss a construction contract for the pool and how to pay for it at its meeting Dec. 15.

“We have to build them (city residents) a pool. Let’s do it in the most practical, cost-effective and revenue-generating way possible,” Councilman Danny Thompson said.

The four newly elected council members are trying to reconcile a $6.8 million funding gap between the $12 million aquatic center that voters approved in 2008 and the $18.8 million center that the previous City Council agreed last week to build.

At the briefing, the new council members and returning member Mary Rakestraw got a recap of the project.

Members wanted to know why city staff thought they could save money by building the pool in the recession.

At the time the city had been seeing other construction bids come in up to 15 percent under budget, Deputy City Manager Bob Morgan said. But because the pool project was so specialized, the project didn’t incur any savings.

“There was a lot of discussion about how much we think we could save if we go out in the marketplace now,” Morgan told council members. “There was a lot of hope we would get a good bid.”

Still, the city engineering staff felt like the $18.8 million center they helped design was a good price, considering a similar center was built for more than $20 million in Cary.

The architects and city staff have already redesigned some parts of the building to reduce the original low bid. They have kept the design features that major swimming organizations require of their facilities.

“We could get it down more, but then we wouldn’t have anything to market,” Morgan said. “So it wouldn’t be as good of an investment.”

The council members also got a lesson in hotel tax revenue, which the local tourism board recommended be used to fund the gap in the pool costs.

The money is designated, in part, to be spent on Greensboro Coliseum projects. Council members were concerned about whether property taxpayers would be left to cover the costs if the revenue falls below expectations.

Last fiscal year, the city paid $250,000 to cover the debt for other coliseum renovations when the hotel revenue fell short.

City Finance Director Rick Lusk said that money will eventually be paid back through future hotel revenue, but the issue left some council members concerned.

“Somebody has to pay that note,” Thompson said.

The city’s tourism officials also made their pitch for the project as an economic generator. They predict the aquatic center could draw at least one major meet every month and have an impact of $14.5 million on the local economy.

Mayor Bill Knight asked whether there are ways to protect taxpayers if the complex is not as successful as projected.

“If everything works, if the collections come in as anticipated, there is not a problem,” Knight said. “But if there is a shortfall … I would like to have a fallback to protect the taxpayers.”

Henri Fourrier, president of the Greensboro Area Convention & Visitors bureau, was confident that the aquatic center would meet those expectations.

“This is just one meet a month. It is not an outlandish expectation,” Fourrier said.

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

bbsmith2

December 8, 2009 - 3:26 am EST

Ms. Lehmert,

I have a couple of quick questions I wonder if you could answer for me. The TAC (Triangle Aquatic Center) in Cary, is this the facility the city staff spoke of correct? If so did they provide any numbers for the events and dollars generated for the TAC facility? Also was there any talk of competing for events between Greensboro, Charlotte and Cary? Did anyone talk about if the TAC broke even each year it has been open? I am curious about that and if any those questions were asked by the council or if any of the staff spoke about it.

In case you or anyone else were curious about the TAC here is their website. http://www.triangleaquatics.org

Thanks Ms. Lehmert!

Mick

December 8, 2009 - 9:22 am EST

The MAc in Charlotte would be good info to have as well as it is a three pool competitive facility that is publically owned.

This pool facility, like many public facilities including parks, cvms, auditoriums, marinas, etc, will run at a defecit each year. Which is why most are publically owned. The city and county will also garner additional tax funds from guests.

holland4

December 8, 2009 - 7:23 am EST

I tell you what. Whoever is in charge of creating the headlines down at the N&R sure is a clever son of a gun.

"New council dips into the details of swim center plan"

Dips! Haha! As in dipping into a cool mass of water! Get it? No, the writer isn't saying that the council will LITERALLY dip into the pool. That will be done perhaps after it's built. What the headline writer is trying to convey to the reader is that the council will look more closely into the costs and benefits of building a public swimming facility. Too cute!

There are also many other recent examples of Pulitzer-quality headlines down the N&R:

"Commissioner tapped for clean water trust"
"Oh, deer! Woman OK after encounter on N.C. sidewalk"
"HondaJet cleared for takeoff"

Oh, it's great to start the day with a hilarious pun courtesy of our community journalists. It makes it that much easier to take seriously what they've written.

jbcarper

December 8, 2009 - 7:40 am EST

"The city’s tourism officials also made their pitch for the project as an economic generator. They predict the aquatic center could draw at least one major meet every month and have an impact of $14.5 million on the local economy."
Is there anywhere that we can see the detail related to how these estimates of economic impact were calculated? If all the positive economic impact projected to occur from government projects really had been realized, we never would have had a recession.
Since there already are swim meets occurring in Greensboro. we only need 1 incremental swim meet per month that brings in people who don't already spend money in Greensboro in order to have a positive economic impact. Sounds ' so simple even a caveman can do it'. ( My apologies to any area cave persons who might be offended)
It's easy to say that you'll generate revenue, it's another thing entirely to be held accountable when that revenue doesn't come to pass. Ask any private industry sales manager what it is like when they miss their sales goals. What teeth will be put into place to hold individuals responsible for performance? Missed bonus money, cut in pay, loss of job?

December 8, 2009 - 8:44 am EST

Due to limited facilities there are two of these types of swim meets per year in Greensboro. One very small one at Grimsley in the Fall and one larger one at Lindley Park Pool in June. High Point also hosts one meet per year at City Lake Park. There are one or two smaller ones in Winston as well. That's it.

There are argueably legitimate reasons to oppose this pool but suggesting that we already have swim meets here or that we have adequate facilities already cannot be included among them.

What you folks dont know, as it has for some reason never been reported, is that local swim clubs in Gso and HP often host meets in Huntersville, Hillsborough and Winston. So not only is there a demand for larger/better facilities in NC but also there is a built in demand for ANY facility in Greensboro.

Panacea

December 8, 2009 - 9:16 am EST

Which still doesn't answer the essential questions of:

How are we going to pay for it?
Are we going to get our money's worth? What evidence supports an answer of yes?
What happens if the pool goes in the red?

December 8, 2009 - 9:25 am EST

Who has ever said the pool wouldnt be in the red.? Most do operate at a deficit which is why most are publically owned. And, tax monies brought in dont go to the bottom line of the facility. There is more to this than bottom line stuff.

December 8, 2009 - 5:01 pm EST

Can the facility cover it's operational expenses via fees to users? Since tax money is being paid for the bond interest and redemption, I believe it is reasonable to expect the facility to pay it's own operational costs.

ingpark1

Mayor Knight is right on in asking how the taxpayers will be protected. Forgive my if I don't believe "projected revenue" from any government agency - whether the numbers are good or bad, they are never close to reality. Again, if this deal is so good, where is the private cash? Perhaps the council should ask that private cash close the shortfall - $6 million out of $20 is not a bad ratio. If the supporters can't make it up, bag the program.

Brandon Burgess

December 8, 2009 - 8:07 am EST

Ingpark, I agree about Bill Knight. Hopefully those who are judging him based on his race will acknowledge the fact that he has been looking out for all of Greensboro from the moment he took office.

Fact Checker

December 8, 2009 - 8:00 am EST

What was left out of the article was mention of the Coliseum bonds that mature in the next few years. The cash required to pay the interest on those bonds will then be available to cover the cost of the Aquatic Center.

oldtaxpayer

December 8, 2009 - 9:08 am EST

If there is money made available because of paid off Coliseum bonds would it not be better to use that money to pay for other bonds that have been approved such as the $134 million Street Improvement Bonds that were also approved in November rather spend it on new things.

December 8, 2009 - 9:18 am EST

What was also not mentioned, is that the City has to pay interest on said Coliseum bonds until they mature. Thus, I don't see how hotel tax revenue will be available to pay for the swim center given that the city has already had to bail out the Coliseum this year.

Sounds like a lot of robbing Peter to pay Paul to me.

ryanshell

December 8, 2009 - 8:59 am EST

I think it would be very helpful to disclose how much the city currently gives the coliseum to cover a deficit. I believe the current fiscal year # is $1.8 million. Assuming that doesn't change and we add on the pool maintenance, the city (tax payers) could be giving the coliseum around $2.2 million per year.

Before this thing is built, no matter the size or cost, it would be nice to charge the manager with having a coliseum that was self sustainable. Think of it like this. If you give a kid $20 every week, they are eventually going to expect the money and will likely spend every dime you give them. The same could be said for the coliseum.

Ryan Shell
www.greensboropolitics.com

December 8, 2009 - 9:30 am EST

Are there facilities similar to the CVM that are self sustainable? Is it possible given the nature of the facility? The CVM complex brings benefits far beyond its bottom line which do not include any tax money brought in to the state, city or county.

December 8, 2009 - 9:59 am EST

Mick, I agree with the benefits, but at the same time can't help but wonder if budgets could be cut.

Matt Brown has stated that he can have current staff help with the pool facility and that only two new employees will be needed. What that makes me think is that he is currently over staffed if folks can simply be shifted around.

Ryan

H2O_Polo

December 8, 2009 - 1:29 pm EST

Ryan,
Check your facts!! With your site claiming that it is "based on factual information (nonpartisan)" it makes me wonder what information you're leaving out there with your blatant omission of information here.

December 8, 2009 - 1:53 pm EST

H20, feel free to fill in the gaps if I've left something out or correct a fact.

In reference to GreensboroPolitics.com, it's pretty straight forward and I stick to the facts.

December 8, 2009 - 11:01 am EST

Obviously there is a variety of views regarding funding for the aquatics center, the way this whole project came into existence, and whether or not this facility should be built right now, or ever. I think one thing we can all agree on is that we need to slow down and think this thing through; which is not what proponents for this facility have demonstrated a willingness to do at recent city council meetings. I am speaking about Matt Brown, Zack Matheny and Robbie Perkins. I think it is also worth mentioning that Diane Bellamy-Small has stated that although she does not agree with the way this center has been planned that she will vote to move forward anyway.

ulu36b

December 8, 2009 - 1:50 pm EST

Bottom line being, in todays economy, "Is this center a need or a want?"

boblowe

December 8, 2009 - 7:15 pm EST

If we have that kind of attitude, Greensboro will never do anything progressive.

There is a void out there for such a facility. There will be economic benefit. We've lost so many jobs (textile, for example) should we not roll the dice on swimming? Also, hotel taxes should support the facility and reduce the burden to the taxpayer.

A top-notch aquatic facility will result in some of our young people doing great things in the pool. It's amazing that many Gate City swimmers have excelled despite having to go to the Triangle or Charlotte for their closest meets. Such a pool will pay dividends and likely produce Greensboro Olympians.

December 9, 2009 - 9:47 am EST

I think you've mistaken attitude for plain common "cents!".
You stated a new facility as "top notch?" Seems that Greensboro has been flying first class again when we can barely afford coach. Careless and reckless spending and borrowing has led our federal, state and local economy to it's current crisis. That is fact my friend, not attitude!

Molly the Dog

December 10, 2009 - 8:43 pm EST

obviously you have not bothered to look at the financial position of this city but would rather reason on general knowledge, perhaps you should cite the great depression or WWII as other reasons.

DaveW

December 8, 2009 - 1:58 pm EST

I have no stake at all in an acquatic center but I am interested in what could happen with it.
I do not coach swimming. My son did swim in high school for one year mainly as rehab from an injury in his primary sport.When he regained his health he did not continue with competitive swimming. I do not live within the Greensboro City Limits.Basically having or not having a swim center does not affect me personally.
However, I have followed most sports in our area particularly non revenue sports like wrestling,track, cross country and swimming. I have noticed that parents of high school kids involved in these individual non revenue sports are very supportive of their kids and will travel well to watch them compete.There is that swim meet each summer at Lindley that draws very well.More meets at a quality venue could very well positively impact our local economy.Swimming parents are usually middle class or higher financially. I have noticed also how well NC A&T does with the collegiate, high school and agegroup track and field meets hosted at Aggie Stadium.There have been NCAA Regional track Meets there as well as State and National Level High School and age group meets. These meets have positively affected our economy.High level Cross Country meets at Hagan-Stone Park for the past 25 years and recently at Guilford College have drawn well.Last month they had 25+ colleges at a regional meet.If swimming can do as well or better than track and cross country then the thing should pay for itself in a few short years.Also, no one has mentioned this, but having this may cause more local kids to start competitive swimming. Any activity that gets kids moving and keeps them from becoming soft and overweight in this day and time of texting,internet and video gaming is very positive.This health and PE teacher had to put in his ideas in favor of more active children in our county.

December 8, 2009 - 2:19 pm EST

Dave I don't think anyone is saying that kids don't benefit from swimming. There are a number of things to consider. First and foremost are the, under-handed tactics used to place this aquatic center on the ballot. Second are the misrepresentations and miscalculations of how much it will cost. Third, are the unfounded claims that it will bring in revenue. We have also heard views from proponents ranging from "it will create jobs" to "it will only staff two people".

Sure, we want kids to be interested in staying fit. We also don't want kids to model their behavior after the city council members who support this and wanted the new council to have no say in how this project will be funded even though this is the council that will be around to see this project at least through the beginning stages of construction.

December 8, 2009 - 3:00 pm EST

Brandon,
Your lack of understanding of the original bond does not constitute underhanded tactics. The limited naturer of the ballot language for the park and rec bond was no more or less than the any other bond item (this year or any). The info was reported on at length via numerous media outlets (N&R, Rhino, Yes Weekly, blogs, City Website, TeeVee). It was very much debated and discussed.

The cost issues are legit and must be addressed. These issues as well as any economic impact will be studied at length by the new Council and taken into account in their decision making process. I wish them good luck.

Words such as "underhanded" and "unfounded" do your argument no good.

December 8, 2009 - 3:41 pm EST

Mick, why wasn't the aquatics center proposed to voters in the fashion that it was the previous two elections?

December 8, 2009 - 4:19 pm EST

"We" wanted every advantage. "We" wanted to be under parks and rec. "We" wanted to be under parks and rec the first two times (so I am told). No longer being under the auspices of P&R is one of "my" problems with this whole thing as is the very legitimate 12 v 18 million. I tire of the constant barrage of BS. Get the facts. Get the opinions but understand the difference. Joe G, tried to tell me today that a swimming facility wasnt even mentioned in the bond ballot language. Easily proven untrue. The issue was well debated here and elsewhere. GOOGLE it. This was no secret.

The ultimate decision now lies with the council. They will have the info with which to make the decision. I wish them luck

I wont vouch for the CVB study because I am not well versed in that world but why the use of the word "unfounded" to describe it? What is your evidence of that charge?

The first thing I noted was a LACK of non-major (sectionals, championships, etc) meets hosted by local swim clubs. There would be a handful at least (6-8 per year would be my guess). The survey shows only 2!

I wouldnt mind a study being commissioned by the council particularly if it could be done in a timely manner.
I do not fear good solid information for the council to make their decision.

December 8, 2009 - 5:07 pm EST

Mick,

The swim center was put in the P&R bond with the full knowledge that most voters would not understand what they were voting for.

In any case, it creates an appearance of impropriety that does not help your case.

December 8, 2009 - 6:59 pm EST

garbage!

news-record.com

NEWS