news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

NEWS

Council agrees to pursue bond referendum for performing arts center

Wednesday, January 25, 2012
(Updated 11:39 am)
By Amanda Lehmert
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — The City Council agreed Tuesday to pursue a bond referendum for a performing arts center, ideally to be built downtown.

A downtown theater would cost upward of $29 million more than a theater proposed at the Greensboro Coliseum Complex, according to rough city staff estimates. That difference would have to be made up with private funds, council members said Tuesday at their annual retreat.

It will take several months of planning and a public hearing before council members can formally agree to put a referendum before voters in November.

The council also agreed to spend about $24 million in hotel-motel tax revenue to pay for a variety of coliseum improvement projects.

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

Accompanying Photos

Margaret Baxter (News & Record)

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.

rooster8786

January 24, 2012 - 3:39 pm EST

You reap what you sow. Barely a month into their tenure and we can see how the "new" council is. Same old same old is how I see it. A $100K "loan" to a developer to move a business approx 5 miles, a bond referendum for a PAC that, despite the current horrible economic situation, and has been voted down TWICE recently, the council thinks we want/need this? Who exactly are they representing?

Traveler

January 24, 2012 - 5:19 pm EST

This is what Robbie, Yvonne, et al said they would do before the election. They promised growth and development. Anyone who is surprised by the council's actions was not paying attention.

Having said that, I am surprised at the amounts being spent. I thought they would go a little slower and be more selective.

retiree

January 24, 2012 - 6:43 pm EST

You're missing Rooster's point . . .they promised growth and development, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.

If the PAC is to be built (and I will vote against it), let the elite crowds and foundations (Bryan, et al) step up since they might even get their name on it.

Traveler

January 24, 2012 - 8:10 pm EST

I agree with you that the taxpayer's should not pay for things like a PAC toy for the rich.

I don't remember Robbie that ever said in his campaigning who would pay. Knowing Robbie, I assumed it would be the taxpayers.

bigdog2

January 24, 2012 - 6:58 pm EST

You need to leave the country like Rush, Hannity and Neal.You aways crying about something so just leave please!!!!!!

InventorNC

January 24, 2012 - 8:02 pm EST

If these people want wonderful things let them put on spaghetti suppers to fund them.

Let's not scare away potential citizens who might be interested in moving here. Taxes are already sky high!

zeketreese

January 24, 2012 - 9:55 pm EST

I don't understand the logic behind 'scare away potential citizens' with high taxes. If you look at the leading indicators of why people choose to relocate to an area the leading factors are almost always "lifestyle factors". Meaning people look for public amenities such as parks, greenways, schools, museums, science centers, etc. Things like a Performing Arts Center Downtown would likely attract way more people to move here than it would deter.
Also, to my understanding, this would not be something that would increase your taxes. The tax level we are at now affords us to carry a debt load to invest in Community resources. As we retire old debt for the things we have built that have improved our city (Fire Stations, Parks, Coliseum, Roads, etc) we can choose to take on new projects that enhance our city. Personally, I am not for going way into debt just because I want something or becoming over leveraged, but I still have a mortgage. It was and still is a good investment. I see a PAC as a good investment in our city.

Traveler

January 25, 2012 - 1:41 am EST

I am having trouble understanding you.

How is an elite playtoy that generates little to no revenue be an investment?

People are responsible for educating themselves about investments. Too many people invested in subprime mortgage loans because the ratings services rated them AAA. They did not look deep enough to realize the investment had loads of risks.

Please tell me how a Performing Arts Center, which draws locals, little or no revenue, a project which probably will require annual funding from city budget (aka taxes) for operating expenses, possibly be an investment.

By that logic, having a thophy girlfriend who spends mega dollars, so that you can have good arm candy is a good investment?

zeketreese

January 24, 2012 - 9:56 pm EST

To roosters original comment--They represent me for one, and others like me who understand the difference between 'spending' and 'investing'. If done correctly a new Performing Arts Center Downtown has the potential to be a strong economic engine, creating new businesses and jobs. It also is the type of facility that makes our city attractive to larger companies looking to locate here (ie More Jobs). I know it's easy to get locked into the view of "the government just taxes us' and "this is just a toy for the rich' but if you look at the big picture you can see how a project like this can stimulate the local economy and be a prudent investment.

Traveler

January 24, 2012 - 11:38 pm EST

How?

Mick

January 24, 2012 - 3:40 pm EST

I am unclear if I am for or against a PAC in general. Probably against right now. But I am definitely against it at Coliseum (ever) due to number of venues already on site.

What is the 20-30 million dollar difference... just land?

Amanda Lehmert

January 24, 2012 - 4:16 pm EST

Land, parking, and utility infrastructure, all of which already exists at the Coliseum.

zeketreese

January 24, 2012 - 9:41 pm EST

I think you are glossing over the fact that there are challenges to the Coliseum site as well. One- Matt Brown admitted today that parking is an issue for him as well and that there is no way he could schedule events at all the facilities he already has at the same time because there wouldn't be enough parking. And while it is indeed land already owned by the city, there are several parcels of city owned land downtown to consider as well. So it's not like the Coliseum has the lock on Parking and Land. Even if land has to be acquired the estimated cost is $1-3 Million of the entire cost of the facility. Also, there are some large parcels of land downtown owned by some Foundations who may consider donating.

Traveler

January 25, 2012 - 1:44 am EST

Do you really believe any foundation will give away $1,000,000 or so in land?

Medical marijuara is not legal in North Carolina.

citywatcher

January 24, 2012 - 3:43 pm EST

If it goes downtown, Mr Issac Cain can fund the rest. I do question the $20 to $30 million as well. Sound like fuzzy numbers to convince people to support the coliseum location.

A local developer's proposal for a downtown PAC.

http://www.greensborotriumphcenter.info/Home_Page.html

http://www.greensborotriumphcenter.info/Project_Specifications.html

rooster8786

January 24, 2012 - 3:48 pm EST

When looking at "numbers" I urge everyone to look beyond the numbers. Who's numbers are they and what is their position? Any number from the supporters, (city council) will be wonderful to look at in terms of economic impact, ease of available parking, visitors, etc. The cost to build will appear to paltry, yet, after construction starts, there will be numerous "change orders" thereby inflating the actual costs. Look no further than the aquatics center. Bond referendum of $12 million and actual cost: who knows, it's not finished yet with updates... If a downtown PAC was such a wonderful idea, how come NONE of the highly successful local developers have attempted it?

citywatcher

January 24, 2012 - 3:54 pm EST

Well the economic climate was partly to blame. This has been on Action Greensboro's radar since 2001. But a downtown venue would be more successful than a venue at the coliseum for a number of reasons. A downtown location creates more excitement about it in the community and then there are the restaurants and other entertainment options that would be within walking distance in downtown Greensboro.

Traveler

January 25, 2012 - 1:48 am EST

Triad Stage is already downtown. They invested their money and are successful.

I cannot believe both Triad Stage and a downtown Performing Arts Playtoy can both operate at a profit in small town Greensboro.

Triad Stage is successful. Don't compete against it like the city council did with the farmers market that is located about a block away from where they gave $100,000 to a politically connected competitor.

newtogso

January 24, 2012 - 3:56 pm EST

Don't get ahead of yourself everyone. The Council, in essence, has said they want a PAC built in Greensboro. They would prefer it be downtown and that the citizens should be asked if they are willing to support it (in part or in whole) through issuance of a bond. As the article says, we are a long way from having it on the ballot in November. The wording of the bond proposal will subject to a public hearing. Lots of questions, not a lot of answers yet. Healthy skepticism is worthwhile at this point.

citywatcher

January 24, 2012 - 4:22 pm EST

city council is going to have some big controversial issues on their plate, from the performing arts center to Trader Joe's. I still say most of the money and maybe even all of it should come from the private sector. A non-profit should build it. Use the same model that was used to build the downtown ballpark. The ballpark was around $25 million.

But council "prefers" downtown? Hope its not a bait and switch....

looks like the "Greensboro Triumph Center project" has returned....

http://exemptinc.com/Project_Specifications.html

newtogso

January 24, 2012 - 4:31 pm EST

I want it downtown as well and will vote against a bond that says either/or. Of course I may vote against the bond for fiscal reasons as well. I'd rather see a public-private partnership of some sort. The City is already planning (contemplating?) on building a parking garage - that could be an "in-kind" contribution to the development of the PAC downtown. I'm assuming water and sewer already exist downtown as well as utilities, so I'm a little confused by Amanda's comment response above. There is also a hotel project (I believe) in the works for the space between Alex's Cheesecakes and the Guilford Building that might need parking. No doubt building downtown will cost a bit more and be a bit more complicated, but it will be worth it in the end.

citywatcher

January 24, 2012 - 4:46 pm EST

hotel project? Thats new to me. I heard a 6-story building with a parking deck was being proposed by Weaver to be built between the Guilford Building and Cheesecakes By Alex. But I assumed they would be apartments. Weaver was against the other downtown hotel proposal because they believed downtown wasn't ready for another hotel. That of course is when they weren't the developers. But interesting indeed.

But i'm still puzzled by the $30 million gap. I know land values are much higher downtown but infrastructure is already in place and there are vacant sites large enough for a PAC near city parking decks.

newtogso

January 24, 2012 - 4:50 pm EST

Yes, I'll be curious to see the numbers too. I guess it could be apartments. I had heard hotel a few months back, but not straight from the horse's mouth. Either way, parking will be needed for it.

Traveler

January 24, 2012 - 5:16 pm EST

I've heard apartments also, but that was before the new ones near the ballpark were built. I think they are waiting to see how those fill up, and at what price.

As best as I can tell, the condos are still 3/4 or so empty.

A more reasonably priced condo project might work.

newtogso

January 24, 2012 - 5:40 pm EST

The Southeastern building two buildings away will be apartments - above the old Espresso 2 Go.

Traveler

January 24, 2012 - 6:40 pm EST

If they do that, someone is going to sell out big bucks. Plumbing, electricals, and insulation are the first 3 things that come to mind. I've heard builders tell me it is a lot more expensive to take a building that old and make into apartments than it is to build new.

I think Roy Carroll found that out.

Amanda Lehmert

January 24, 2012 - 8:08 pm EST

I was speaking of the electrical capabilities needed. I figure downtown already has the water and sewer capacity.

Traveler

January 24, 2012 - 8:13 pm EST

Check on that. The plumbing is very old downtown. New water lines might be part of the the additional cost.

zeketreese

January 24, 2012 - 8:37 pm EST

I was at the City Council meeting today and I think this report doesn't tell the whole story about the numbers. To quote Interm City Manager Denise Turner the city estimates were "very rough". The numbers said that a downtown Performing Arts Center MAY cost $17 Million more and worst case as high as $29 Million more, however- as Mayor Perkins explained, it all depends on site location. The downtown estimate included $10-20Million for a new parking deck, but there are locations where we would not need a new deck, so that would save $10-20 million there. Furthermore, there is already a study done by the City DOT that says downtown needs two more decks. Since all the other decks have been paid off, the revenue generated from the existing decks could go towards building the deck needed downtown...one that pulls double duty for a downtown PAC. I don't think it's fair to include that in the estimated cost.

Amanda Lehmert

January 24, 2012 - 11:24 pm EST

Yes, there is a lot more to be worked out. The full story in tomorrow's paper actually spells this point out more clearly. To be continued.

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
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

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

Search