news-record.com

NEWS

Council questions cost of coliseum operations

Article
Comments (15)

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

(Updated Wednesday, February 24 - 7:58 am)

By Amanda Lehmert
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — If Tuesday’s City Council work session was any indication, the Greensboro Coliseum’s budget could get closer scrutiny this year.

City Council members told the coliseum staff to wait to book acts for a planned amphitheater until they can dig deeper into the entertainment venue’s finances.

While some council members said they support the outdoor venue concept, others said they would like to explore privatizing the coliseum or reducing the amount of tax money that goes to operating the facility every year.

The recently elected City Council got its first in-depth look at coliseum operations Tuesday afternoon.

Coliseum Director Matt Brown explained the progress of a partially built amphitheater on the property that formerly housed a Canada Dry bottling facility.

Council members were stunned late last year to learn that the coliseum staff already was working on constructing the outdoor theater without the council signing off on it.

Brown said Tuesday that area residents have backed the idea, and the amphitheater could start hosting shows as soon as July.

But the council were concerned about cost of the new venue. Some council members pointed out that the city gives the coliseum $1.8 million to cover its operating deficit.

Councilwoman Trudy Wade argued that if the coliseum had room in its budget to fund a new project like the outdoor theater, the money might be better off being given back to the city at the end of the fiscal year.

“We as a council need to look at that,” Wade said. “You are already working at a $1.8 million loss. If you didn’t lose the $1.8 million, should it not revert back to the general fund?”

Brown defended the amphitheater idea, arguing that it could add $150,000 in new revenue for the complex without having to add more staff members to run it.

“It’s real dollars and it is real positive impact,” Brown said.

Councilman Robbie Perkins agreed. He said the venue would pay for itself in two years.

“The math on the amphitheater seems pretty simple to me,” he said.

Mayor Bill Knight said he’d like to explore privatizing the coliseum complex, an idea that has been studied in the past.

Council members decided not to let the coliseum staff finish the amphitheater construction until after they have more time to discuss the finances and other coliseum policy issues.

In other news Tuesday, the City Council also put the brakes on a proposed new parking deck for the downtown area.

The city-owned parking decks on Greene and Bellemeade streets are both near capacity, according to city staff.

Staff members suggested the city add a new deck at the corner of McGee and Greene streets to help ease parking in the area. The construction — projected to cost about $8 million — would be funded with parking fees.

But council members didn’t agree that downtown needed a new parking garage right now and asked that the idea be shelved.

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

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

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.

DonMoore

February 23, 2010 - 8:03 pm EST

Trudy hits one out of the park.... We don't need frills right now.

Perkins needs to extricate his head, saying that the amphitheater would pay for itself in 2 years is crazy. If the coliseum was every going to ever pay for itself it would have done so already. Possibly, the coliseum could be profitable, as it once was; but not without strong control and leadership of the City Council.

taxed out

February 24, 2010 - 11:00 am EST

Thank you Trudy Wade! We as tax payers are glad to have someone looking out for the citizens of Greensboro.

Don, you are exactly right. The coliseum would have paid for itself already if it were under different management with better controls. The tax payers give the Coliseum 1.8 million per year and they are still over budget. There was a time when the Coliseum either broke even or made a profit. We need to remember this when the pool does not pay for itself either.

citywatcher

February 23, 2010 - 9:15 pm EST

In terms of the parking deck, does this mean city council is holding to see what happens with the proposed downtown hotel? and are there plans for two parking decks? City staff is recommend a deck at Greene and McGee but there was also talk of a deck near the site of the proposed downtown hotel.

jeaniegnc

February 23, 2010 - 9:23 pm EST

Thank you city council for looking after the taxpayers and making the coliseum accountable to you, particularly Trudy Wade and Mayor Knight. This is what we elected you to do.

glenwoodresident

February 23, 2010 - 9:23 pm EST

First, I think the backing of the amphitheater by the neighborhood is way over stated. I do not know anyone that supports it. I had problems with the Pavilion when it was first build. They held a concert, April 13, 2003, in it, Los Temerarios in concert, and I listened to music till the early morning hours, 12:25 am. I live 6 blocks away. I got a nice apology from the city about that. The coliseum did not realize the plastic covered steel frame was not sound proof and did not realize the sound would carry. Of course they got $50.00 a head so I am sure that clouded their judgment. Now let's see, an amphitheater, a open filed, outdoor music, stage, beer, drunks, it can't be good. But I am sure we will get it anyway. You know the city motto "Build it and they will come".

taxed out

February 24, 2010 - 11:07 am EST

Matt Brown should be required to request a petition from the City of Greensboro and have 75% of the people that live within a 6 block radius approve the building of the amphitheater. Anyone that has plans to have something like street lighting updated in a neighborhood is required to send in a competed petition.

Building an amphitheater should require the same approval process because of the impact that it will have on the neighborhood.

piedmontheights

February 24, 2010 - 4:57 am EST

Dont know how they got the notion that "area residents backed the idea..." No one ever contacted me or my neighbors, let alone know that we approve or not. Brown seems to be talking out the side of his mouth with that one.

Interested

February 24, 2010 - 6:23 am EST

One has to wonder if any of the commissioners has thought to ask Mr. Brown exactly who was contacted and what the numbers were regarding the purported community support for this new project. Might be a good question for a reporter to ask as well.

record2009

February 24, 2010 - 10:20 am EST

Community support is defined differently than residential support. It appears that Brown looks at all of Greensboro and Guilford County to define community support. By using this broad based word, community support, he is able to ignore the local residents' opinions. When he speaks of community support, he is probably talking about those people who have deep financial and political pockets, i.e., the Perkins of the world. If this was in Perkin's or Brown's backyard, they would probably oppose this type of development. Now, let's see, have the rezoning commission rezone the areas adjacent to Brown's or Perkin's home to allow for the building of an entertainment pavilion which can allow all types of venues to perform. The city can then condem the adjacent homes, but leave a few well-heeled neighbors who are excluded from the rezoning. In other words, don't let Perkins or Brown profit from the condemnation process. Build the amphitheatre, get loud class acts, and then let Brown and Perkins enjoy the night from inside the comfort of their homes. Basically, this is what is happening to the life time residents which surround the current High Point Rd. location.

Fact Checker

February 24, 2010 - 11:47 am EST

It seems to me that to properly evaluate the financial impact of the Coliseum you must first determine how much local area revenue the Coliseum is responsible for. From that you can determine the amount of taxes that are generated. If the tax revenue that is directly attributed to the Coliseum is more than the $1.8million subsidy, then it is a profitable venture. The sales tax is 6.75%. For hotels the tax is higher. If the average tax rate is 8% the Coliseum would need to have $22.5million of economic impact to generate $1.8million of tax revenue.
I don't know the economic impact or, the tax revenue generated. However, to say the Coliseum loses $1.8million per year does not seem like a proper conclusion.

DonMoore

February 24, 2010 - 1:36 pm EST

The cost of the coliseum is much higher than just the $1.8 Million annual bail out. We are also paying for bonds issued to improve the coliseum from its previous profitable capacity to its current money losing capacity. Additionally, area Hotels and Motels are taxed to cover coliseum expenses. You have to look at the city budget - even the simple one that is available on line to see that.

If the coliseum was privately operated, it would generate tax revenue. It's almost worth giving it away and cutting our bond costs, reducing the Hotel/Motel tax and our annual supplement.

taxed out

February 24, 2010 - 2:00 pm EST

Let's make sure the Aquatic Center is also included in this privately operated idea.

Mick

February 24, 2010 - 2:50 pm EST

Never gonna happen. Who'd take it? Seems doubtful anybody would buy it! This is exactly why most coliseums, auditoriums, pools, parks, some marinas, etc are publically owned or at least heavily subsidized.

That being said, striving for fiscal responsability is all good. Holding CVM types feet to fire is also much needed. Dont discount the taxes brought into city coffers by CVM complex. I dont know those numbers but CVM detractors tend to pretend that income doesnt even exist.

Never got the amphitheater idea but I didnt do much research on it. Seems odd to me an urban amphitheater with residential neighbors. Maybe at a park or something. Dont live in Glenwood but if I did I highly doubt I would like the idea.

WaterBaron

February 25, 2010 - 7:36 am EST

The City of Greensboro operates two rogue enterprises that don’t behave like all other city departments. One is the coliseum, an entertainment venue that sells tickets and collects revenue to earn a profit. Unfortunately it doesn’t and it never has. The other is the water works, a monopoly manufacturing enterprise that treats and sells water and then treats the waste water for profit. For the past 15 years it has been losing sales. It’s declining sales is being concealed by both the city and the media.

These two enterprises are the envy of other city departments because often they get to “do their own thing” without all the red tape and oversight that other city departments operating off the General Fund face.

This is why an outdoor amphitheater could be constructed without the council signing off on it. Anybody other than the coliseum director who tried such a stunt would be fired. This is also why the water works has been able to expand by 75% during a 15-year decline in water sales that is currently being kept a secret by the city. To learn more about the Greensboro water fraud Google dam scam.

WaterBaron

February 25, 2010 - 7:51 am EST

If a toothpaste manufacturer currently making 2 brands of toothpaste decides to add a third brand so it can make more money, one logical question is, “How will brand #3 effect the current sales of brands #1 and #2?

Won’t an outdoor amphitheater be booking the same acts that the coliseum could have placed indoors? Won’t the coliseum be competing with itself?

Lehmert reported, “Brown defended the amphitheater idea, arguing that it could add $150,000 in new revenue for the complex without having to add more staff members to run it. Councilman Robbie Perkins agreed. He said the venue would pay for itself in two years. “The math on the amphitheater seems pretty simple to me,” he said.”

What are these two smoking?

Mike J Baron
Greensboro’s only water conservation manager