New Field House Proposal Must Address Existing Civic Center Needs, Too!

....any talk of simply yanking dedicated Civic Center funding away for a new project, with no plan for what is to happen to our Civic Center, would be reckless and short-sighted.  It would not garner my support--and that is putting it mildly.  I would be vocally opposed.....

We will soon be hearing another pitch for a field house downtown.  I believe it will be coming this Thursday at the BCC’s Committee of the Whole workshop.

Full disclosure:  I support the field house concept under the right financial circumstances.

However—my firm belief is that we simply cannot siphon-off ANY existing revenue stream(s) from the aging and ailing Civic Center until we figure out what we must do with this existing county asset.  I have put forth plans (here and here) to renovate, modernize, and improve the Civic Center to get another 20 years of usefulness from it. 

But there has been no forward motion on these ideas.  I tried—hard—last year when I was chairman to move those renovation plans forward. 

Theboard took no action.

There are multiple forces at work and at play on this issue though.  We all know this.

But my two cents here (and for my vote)—ANY field house proposal that is floated must come with a rigorously-vetted, detailed, and well-grounded study justifying the need and economic viability for such a facility going forward—particularly considering the new venues that have opened in Foley, Panama City, and the (soon to be announced) planned facility in Mobile.  To put it bluntly:  Do we still need one given that other markets all around us have now apparently beat us to the punch?

Also—there must be multiple financing sources contributing to the total for a new downtown field house to be viable, in my opinion.

It is for this reason I supported the concept last summer that was presented; it was a model that brought in multiple financing sources (new market tax credits, triumph funds, TDC funds) and it had a financing team in place to front-load the construction financing.  It was planned near a freeway and it was centrally-located.  It also would have greatly benefitted an area of the county that has blight, high unemployment, and a high crime rate.  This would have been a great way to inject jobs and capital into that area.  It was a project we should have moved forward.

 

But we didn’t.

The latest proposal I am hearing about now is a scaled-back version of a field house that is to be placed downtown.  No NMTC’s are available, and I’ve heard no mention of a Triumph Gulf Coast ask.  No realistic and viable financing plan has been put forward, and the financing, so far as I am

 told, relies upon pulling $1.4 Million from the Civic Center’s yearly funding.  And using that funding exclusively.

If we did what will be requested of us—without addressing the Civic Center’s facility deficiencies as well as a part of the overall conversation—we will be shooting ourselves in the foot!

  

We will be tearing away the only realistic funding source we could use to modernize the Civic Center.  And without a renovation and modernization, our Civic Center’s losses will continue (if not grow wider) while the NEW field house downtown will poach regular, returning events currently held at our Civic Center (cheerleading competitions, second Baptist church, school graduations, etc.)—exacerbating our losses even further.

So, the only option that makes any sense if we want to pursue a field house downtown is to make friends with the fact that we need to identify and create new revenue source (s) for the field house while simultaneously keeping currently allocated resources FOR the Civic Center AT the Civic Center for renovations.

 It must be both facilities in the mix if we decide to even entertain a new field house proposal. 

And If it is only ONE facility folks want to push—then in my opinion it must be a “renovated” Civic Center that becomes the object of discussion and consideration. 

That facility is paid-for already, and a reasonable injection of renovation funding could extend the useful life of that facility by another 20 years while SIMULTANEOUSLY trimming, reducing, or even ELIMINATING our current operating losses at this facility.   The only “one facility” plan that makes any sense economically is the Civic Center and how to fix it.

But this is not to say we can’t do both.  We can!

If we can muster the courage to activate the 5^th cent on the bed tax--we could create the revenue stream necessary for a new downtown field house in addition to fixing the Civic Center.  I would SUPPORT this!  

The fifth cent would generate $2.5 Million yearly—which if bonded correctly—could finance a very nice field house facility downtown while simultaneously leaving us the revenue necessary to fix the Civic Center.  This would be a win-win and under these circumstances-both facilities could complement one another and coexist downtown successfully.

I believe this is the plan that should be pursued if we are truly being fiscally responsible and if there remains a need for a stand-alone fieldhouse in addition to the Bay Center downtown.

But any talk of simply yanking dedicated Civic Center funding away for a new project, with no plan for what is to happen to our Civic Center, would be reckless and short-sighted.  It would not garner my support--and that is putting it mildly.  I would be vocally opposed to this for the reasons mentioned above.

I guess we will see Thursday what the full board thinks……