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.
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 5th
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……
No comments:
Post a Comment