Greensboro Coliseum complex pitches $60M in projects : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

GREENSBORO — It’s a wish list that would make Santa blanch.

Director Matt Brown has proposed $60 million worth of upgrades to the Greensboro Coliseum complex, half of which would be funded with hotel-motel taxes designated for the entertainment venue.

Next week the City Council will consider the biggest item on the list, a new $36 million performing arts center to replace the aging War Memorial Auditorium.

That project would require voter approval. Similar ideas have failed twice before.

The council will discuss the issue at its annual retreat Tuesday.

The coliseum complex already has more than $24 million in debt from improvements that date back 20 years.

But the city is free to take on new projects.

Brown has plenty of them.

He’d like to add more bathrooms and better concession stands to the upper concourse of the coliseum.

“We think this will be a significant upgrading and modernization of our venue,” Brown said.

Some of the things on the wish list are long overdue, like the replacement of 20-year-old stadium seats.

Others are fixes to newer problems, like widening the concourse of the Greensboro Aquatic Center. Since it opened in late summer, coliseum officials have found the hallway is too narrow to accommodate the crowds it has drawn.

By far, the most expensive item is the proposed performing arts center. The coliseum staff is working on plans for the building, which Brown said would seat more than 3,000 people.

It will be a different design than the venue rejected by voters in 2008.

Many of the coliseum projects could be paid for using hotel-motel taxes, fees collected when someone rents a room in Greensboro.

About $15 million worth of those projects could begin as soon as this year, with the council’s approval, Interim City Manager Denise Turner said.

The hotel-motel taxes could cover $6 million worth of the proposed performing arts center. But the bulk of that effort would have to be paid for with bonds that require voter approval.

Council members will debate whether to begin the referendum process at their retreat. If they proceed with the idea, the issue would come before voters in November.

Council members are still considering how much they are willing to spend and which projects are necessary.

“Some of the things I think I could support. I am trying to prioritize and look at what I am comfortable with right now,” Councilwoman Yvonne Johnson said. “I like the whole auditorium thing. That’s long overdue.”

The council will have to balance the coliseum’s needs against the overall needs of the city, council members said.

“There are so many things the community wants. How can you feasibly, in these economic times, support all of that?” Councilwoman Marikay Abuzuaiter said.

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

TravKM

January 19, 2012 - 5:32 am EST

Let met get this straight...The coliseum complex is $36 million in the hole and Matt Brown wants to spend $60 million more??? Oh, for crying out loud! This guy should run for Congress! He'll fit right in.

luvdowntowngso

January 19, 2012 - 6:43 am EST

I agree that this building needs to be replaced. I wish they would consider a site downtown. It's NOT smart to put everything new on Lee St./High Point Rd. With UNCG expanding, that roadway will soon become another W. Wendover Ave. I know a lot of clueless people hate Matt Brown. This man "gets it" with regards to how important it is to keep the complex competitive. Rock on Matt!!

Traveler

January 19, 2012 - 11:34 am EST

Matt Brown seems to be an ok guy, personally. The problem I have is that he, like Robbie, Yvonne, et al, are too quick to spend other people's money, aka the taxpayer's money.

Many years ago, the old coliseum was torn down and replaced with this newer version. I think the proposal (bonds) were twice voted down before they were passed. At that time, the voters were told the coliseum would be profitable. A couple of years later, we were told that the taxpayers would need to cover a deficit for operating expenses. We were told that the city needed to lend Bill Black, Don Brady, et al $200,000 to operate a hockey so the coliseum would have a tenant. That failed, and none of the money was repaid. The same people, Matt Brown, Robbie, Yvonne, et al are proposing this $60,000,000 debt.

Now they want $60,000,000. Based on their past record I do not believe their stated expectiations with happen.

The fact is this is another done deal. It will be placed on the ballot, probably at a time when there will be little voter turnout. Voters who don't pay taxes, renter's, college students, et al, will flock to the polls and pass the bonds.

I hope for some fairness. It is not right to make the property owners pay for what a few use. If the coliseum is going to spend $60,000,000, then those who use the coliseum should pay for it. A fair way to pay for this would be to increase the ticket prices to all events at the coliseum, performing arts center, aquatic center, outdoor theter, etc by enough to pay the coliseum's bills. I would think $2 to $4 "debt repayment" fee for each ticket should cover it. It only seems that those who incur the debt should repay the debt.

DonMoore

January 19, 2012 - 4:29 pm EST

While the Coliseum/City spent $200,000 to operate the Generals, the Coliseum received approximately $500,000 in advertising directly related to the Generals. That money was credited to the Coliseum and NOT against the Generals account. This was verified by talking with a former City Council member, who was on the Coliseum Committee at the time. The Generals operation was technically $300,000 in the black, not $200,000 in the red.

January 19, 2012 - 5:45 pm EST

$500,000 in advertising for that low level professional hockey team? That's hard for me to believe. Is there any way to prove that?

Is there any dispute that Matt Brown was one of the key individuals to put that deal together?

Also, is there any dispute that the public was lead to believe the $200,000 loan was guaranteed by Black, Brady, and their partners, and that when the team failed and attempts were made to collect the money, that Black, Brady, and their partners successfully argued that the loan was made to the corporate entity?

Is there any dispute that the case later went to court and that the courts found that hockey team owed the city (aka Greensboro taxpayers) $200,000?

January 19, 2012 - 1:43 pm EST

What I am hearing is this is pretty much another done deal.

A current back room proposal is to "earmark" a large percentage (exact percentage still being discussed) of the work to minority contractors. It is a tactic Brown, Robbie, Yvonne, et al have used several times to get large African American turnout to support a bond issue.

b-logical

January 19, 2012 - 6:55 am EST

This is exactly the logic Washington displays and the reason we are in a debt crisis.

PAY YOUR BILLS BEFORE YOU START BUYING THE STUFF YOU WANT.

Why is that so hard to wrap your head around .............

....

koolaiddrinker

January 19, 2012 - 7:14 am EST

Why should they??? Its not their money they're spending!!!

woodman114

January 19, 2012 - 1:05 pm EST

Right,when your in the hole STOP digging....

Fact Checker

January 19, 2012 - 7:26 am EST

It is important to know, as the N&R Editorial pointed out Sunday, that this came about because $48 million of Coliseum bond debt has matured. Also, it is estimated that the Coliseum contributes over $200,000,000 to the local economy. When you consider the tax revenue the City gets from that economic impact, the real cost for the City to generate that economic impact may be minimal.

walker

January 19, 2012 - 1:39 pm EST

I'll buy your logic as soon as I see an actual economoic impact study (done by an independent entity)....not the never ending and unreliable guess-timates that come from those who have a dog in the fight.

January 19, 2012 - 3:15 pm EST

We can not do a "study" of the economic impack. That would require spending taxpayer money. That would give people one more thing to complain about. Anyone that thinks the coliseum does not have a very positive impact on the local economy is on crack!

January 19, 2012 - 1:50 pm EST

The figures I have seen for economic impact are debatable. It includes estimates of how many people came from out of town for an event, an estimate of what they paid for lodging, food, gas, etc.

There is no way to determine how many locals come to a coliseum event and how many come from out of town. There is no way to accurately how many out of towners rent a room vs staying with intown friends. There is no way to determine how much they pay for a room, how many share rooms, etc.

In orther works, every "study" I have seen is a guess.

Reminds me of my statistics 101 class. My professor got my attention with his opening remark "you can prove any dam* lie you want with statistics".

January 19, 2012 - 2:50 pm EST

Your statistics teacher also taught you that there are ways to determine if statistics are reliable. The City employs an Economic Development person who has the skills and tools to answer your concerns with reliable data.
We need to know how much tax revenue is generated by the Colisuem. This tax revenue gets lost when it goes into the general fund. When the Coliseum gets money from the City to cover shortfalls, some or all of the money was put there by the Coliseum's events. You can't call that a loss.
If I give you $20 and ask for $19 back a year later, you didn't lose $20, you made a $1.

January 19, 2012 - 4:17 pm EST

I have seen some of the studies, and seen the methodoligy supporting them.

There is a lot of guess work and "assumptions" in the figures.

For example, putting figures on "economic impact" of an aquatics event starts with attendance. The number of enteries and the number of coaches and ticket buying audience is a known.

Then we begin guessing and assuming. There are assumptions of how many of these attendees are from out of town. There is no hard count. It is an assumption, aka a guess.

Then they assume (again guess) how many of that figure spends money to stay at a hotel vs staying with intown friends. I used to coach a soccer team. I know we made friends and had connections with soccer families in other towns. When they would come to Greensboro, GYSA would try to arrange for families to "take in" visitors in order to save them the expense of a hotel room. I'm GUESSING that the aquatic teams do the same.

So, once the trained person guesses how many people are renting rooms, they assume a number sharing the room. For example, they assume that 3 or 4 or 3.2 of the ESTIMATED people renting rooms stay together. That figure is used to estimate (or guess) how many rooms are rented. Then they estimate how much the visitors pay for each room. The cost of a hotel room varies. Places like the Korey convention center often charge $100 plus per night. The Days Inn is usually closer to $39 per night. So, the trained person putting the figure on the economic impace takes the estimated number of out of town visitors, then estimates the number of hotel and motel rooms that are rented, and then estimates the amount paid per room. That estimated figure is part of the estimated impact.

Then the trained person estimates how many meals the visitors buy and what they pay per meal, and if any of the out of town crowd buy an adult beverage or three, if they go clubbing, how much they spend clubbing, how many buy gas in Greensboro, how much gas they buy, etc. Gas costs a lot more in Greensboro than it does in Virginia or South Carolina. Still that trained person uses estimates to determine how much in spent on gas here vs the people who buy enough to get them to the state line. Some families go the the grocery store and buy bananas and the like, and some go out to dinner and clubbing.

Like I said, the estimated economic impact of an event is a guess. There is no way to prove or disprove it's accuracy.

January 19, 2012 - 5:36 pm EST

Are you saying that everyone must be certain that every piece of information is 100% correct before anything can be done? That is an impossible hurdle. It is a standard that only assures that nothing ever gets done.

January 19, 2012 - 6:06 pm EST

Nope.

What I am saying is that the estimated economic benefit is an estimate, also called a guess. I am saying that the exact figure is unknown. I am saying that everyone should understand that this figure is a guess, instead of treating it as an absolute accurate figure.

January 19, 2012 - 8:25 pm EST

Of couse it is an estimate. No human can predict the future. All you can do is use the best tools and information available to try to make the best decision.

January 20, 2012 - 12:57 am EST

And all I ask is that people who use those figures for the economic impact let everyone know that the figures are an estimate that may or may not be correct.

January 20, 2012 - 7:39 am EST

An estimate with a 95% or 98% confidence level is a lot different than a SWAG. It will only be stating the obvious to say that an economic impact study is an estimate.
Statistics is a mathmatical science that gives honest, smart people a way to make good decisions. If you are a cynic and don't trust anyone, any decision making process will fail.

citywatcher

January 19, 2012 - 8:45 am EST

Why on earth would city council think this bond would pass after the citizens twice said no? I'm am a supporter of a performance arts center for downtown built with private funds. Imagine watching broadway productions and seeing well known actors and music artists perform in downtown Greensboro. It would create a lot of night life synergy. If you are a supporter of a downtown venue vote no on this bond. I know I will. In fact I think someone needs to start a group or campaign to educated the citizens on why a performance arts center needs to built downtown and with private dollars. If citizens choose between a plan that requires tax dollars and a plan that doesn't, which plan do you think citizens will choose? Let the arts community raise money and let the foundations and other private donors build a downtown performance arts center like they did with the ballpark. I don't see why they can't use that same model.

wctbl?

January 19, 2012 - 9:28 am EST

Let's remember that the Coliseum does not graciously share the current tax payer funded facility with the City Arts program. Why spend more for a facility local performing groups can't use?

buzzman

January 19, 2012 - 10:00 am EST

PERFORMING arts center
Another toy for the "elite" that Greensboro doesn't need.
But, Matt, Robbie et al will figure out how to do another bait & switch like they did with the GAC.

flagstik

January 19, 2012 - 8:03 am EST

If there is revenue available from the hotel / motel tax why can't it be used to pay down some of the other debt we already have?

4gsomom

January 19, 2012 - 8:48 am EST

Look for a PRIVATE investor and stop asking us to take on enormous new debt! The city would still benefit from all the increased tourism dollars but not be taking on new projects when we are still trying to pay for the Natural Science Center's SciQuarium, the new Aquatics Center (which already needs improvements??), road and infrastructure improvements, fix education, and minimize cuts to protective services. We can't take any more!!

January 19, 2012 - 8:59 am EST

Matt did not go far enough with his requests. The Aquatics Center is not a year old and he needs it expanded is just the tip of the iceberg. The coliseum is land-locked and UNC-G is eating up the neighborhood. The coliseum needs LAND for parking and expansion NOW before UNC-G annexes the facility.

newtogso

January 19, 2012 - 9:50 am EST

Not exactly Don. There is a significant amount of real estate between UNCG and the Coliseum on W. Lee. Neither of them can possibly use it all. The bigger likelihood is that private investment will beat UNCG and the Coliseum to the punch. Right now Sheetz is proposing a station at the corner of W. Lee and Coliseum on three lots - one of which is owned by the City of Greensboro. The expected improvements to High Pt. Rd and Lee St will continue to lure private investment pressure to the corridor.
The Coliseum needs to invest in a parking garage and not more surface parking. Surface parking is a blight on the corridor. Yes, you have to finance a garage, but it will eventually pay for itself.

arnie

January 19, 2012 - 9:53 am EST

Why all the debate? Matt gets what he wants and always has. He will this time too.

HumanGeo6

January 19, 2012 - 9:57 am EST

Matt Brown has helped deliver several important & successful projects in the Coliseum area over the last few years, including the GAC, the amphitheater, and the ACC Hall of Champions. Rather then naysaying any type of progress to this increasingly important source of money for the local economy, I would love to see more people supportive of this type of progress for our city

Having said that, I would much prefer to see the performance center located downtown. Here is an idea - Have the city and the coliseum leadership work together to speed along the improvements to Lee street that link the coliseum and downtown together, build the performance center in the area of the South Elm redevelopment, andperhaps have the Coliseum staff run the performance center?

January 19, 2012 - 10:02 am EST

PERFORMING arts center!!!!

news-record.com

NEWS