The Greensboro City Council recently decided to dive into a taxpayer-supported, $18 million aquatic center. But the council violated a basic rule of safe diving — always judge the water’s depth.
The newly elected council upheld a funding proposal for the aquatic center passed by the previous council during a last-minute, lame-duck meeting.
The previous council’s proposal, voted on just hours before the new council and Mayor Bill Knight were sworn in Dec. 1, will use $12 million from a $20 million city parks and recreation bond passed in the November 2008 election, then use revenues from Guilford County’s hotel-motel tax to cover the approximate $6 million shortfall in the aquatic center’s construction costs.
But immediately after the new council was sworn in, Danny Thompson — a political novice elected on a platform of fiscal conservatism — made a motion to rescind the previous council’s vote. Some council members expressed displeasure that such a motion was made during a supposedly ceremonial meeting. Thompson’s motion failed after a heated debate, but the issue was put on the agenda for the next meeting.
The aquatic center was added to the parks and recreation bond at the last minute at the insistence of former council member Mike Barber. Critics maintained that when voters passed the bond, many might not have realized they were also voting for an aquatic center.
Proponents say the aquatic center could serve as a regional competitive and diving venue with an economic impact that could reach $14 million.
At a June meeting, city engineer Butch Simmons told the council that costs were starting to rise and a shortfall was more than likely. But council supporters kept insisting that an $18 million venue could be built for only $12 million due to the competitive bidding atmosphere in a down economy.
As the bids continued to come in, however, it became apparent that the type of competitive swimming facility supporters envisioned would have to cost at least $18 million. Council members scrambled to find an alternative funding source, and came up with the idea to use the county hotel tax to fund the shortfall.
There were a couple of problems with that plan. For starters, revenues from the tax are designated for improvements to the Greensboro Coliseum, the city’s main economic driver for entertainment events. If hotel tax money were diverted to the aquatic center, then scheduled improvements to the coliseum would have to be delayed.
The controversy escalated when Tony Wilkins, a member of the War Memorial Commission — the body overseeing the coliseum complex — posted a memo on his blog citing a footnote in a city report on the hotel tax fund’s balance.
The footnote states: “Beginning FY 08-09, City is loaning funds to Hotel/Motel Tax Fund to pay a portion of debt service due to decline in revenue FY 01-02 to date.”
That set off a debate in the media and blogosphere about exactly where the money would come from to repay the shortfall in the hotel tax fund. At times, the council members themselves didn’t seem to know.
All of which led up to the showdown at the Dec. 15 meeting. Proponents of the aquatic center — which included many members of Greensboro’s thriving swim community — showed up en masse to urge the council to approve the funding plan.
“You know there’s going to be an economic impact with this project,” said Marc Bush, former president of the Greensboro Sports Commission.
“This project will help address an economy that has taken a beating,” said Scott Lineberry, a diving coach who added that Greensboro has “one of the most talented groups of young divers in the country.”
Other speakers said they were in favor of an aquatic center, but they were opposed to taxpayers footing the bill.
“It looks to me like this aquatic center could become a money hole,” said one speaker. “How far can you keep straining the taxpayers?”
Discussion among council members was no less animated.
Those arguing in favor stressed that funding and maintenance would be borne by out-of-towners rather than Greensboro property owners.
“This is foreign money coming in,” said council member Nancy Vaughan. “It’s kind of like the ultimate user fee.”
Council member Zack Matheny, a staunch supporter of the aquatic center, apologized for the previous council’s last-minute meeting and acknowledged that there “could have been more communication with the public” on the issue.
But he still supported the aquatic center, insisting that the hotel tax represented “private dollars.”
An attempt to place the funding shortfall on the May ballot as a bond referendum failed, with five members voting no. An additional vote reaffirming the diversion of hotel tax dollars passed by a 5-4 majority.
Sam A. Hieb is a contributor to Carolina Journal.