THE CITY WILL HAVE ABSOLUTLEY NO REPSONSIBILITY FOR THE FOUNTAIN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OR FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF EVENTS.
The park will remain in private ownership, and Downtown Greensboro Inc. will take responsibility for its management. Ray Gibbs pointed out that DGI is well-equipped to do this with its current operation of the downtown clean program and its equipment. DGI will also add a Park Manager position to its staff to manage and oversee park operations. Ray noted that we want this park to be "a showplace for the community in which people will be comfortable any time of day or night."
DGI is able to contribute $140,000/year to this effort due to an unanticipated windfall. When the county commissioners changed the sales tax distribution formula, any entity that imposes a property tax became eligible to receive a portion of the sales tax. Since DGI admininsters the 9-cent downtown BID tax (Business Improvement District), it will receive unexpected sales tax revenues each year. This is the money they are now dedicating for use in operating and maintaining the Center City Park.
I am totally comfortable with this proposed agreement. For $200,000 a year in routine maintenance costs, the city's citizens receive a $12 million privately-funded gift of this park. Sounds like a winning proposition to me!
10 comments:
Hi Sandy,
Do you have any concern that the taxpayers will be paying for maintenance of private property? In that regard, Center City Park differs significantly from the city-owned parks you mention.
In five years, the owners of this private property could decide to sell it and Greensboro will have nothing to show for its money.
I'm also wondering, is the $200,000 a cash contribution or to be provided by the City in the form of services?
Roch,
Good point! I can justify maintaining this "private property" because it is going to be used by the public for public purposes - over 32,000 people have already used it in the last eight months.
I do not forsee the owners selling the park in five years, or ever for that matter.It was pointed out that features of the park and the various materials to be used in its construction have been designed for longevity. In addition, the endowment fund I mentioned is to help pay for future improvements/repairs as well as routine maintenance. On the highly unlikely chance that it would be sold, I would say that citizens still get five years of good use and service at a good price.
From the statements in DGI's written proposal, it appears we are talking about a cash contribution. They talk about using the same equipment they purchased to keep downtown streets and sidewalks clean as well as getting bids from local companies for other maintenance activities such as lawn care.
That's a heck of a deal. No property tax and $200,000 a year to help with upkeap.
If the City's contribution is to be in cash, then we should not expect to see City workers performing maintenance on the park, correct?
If this was for a for-profit company, I'd be concerned too. But we're talking about not-for-profit foundations that are pumping millions of private dollars into downtown improvement projects that could be argued should be public responsibility.
As for your question about city workers, I really don't have enough information to accurately respond at this point. While the operations & maintenance study of the "whats" was quite detailed (twice-a-day removal of trash, intensive mowing/raking/watering/pruning, restroom cleaning, powerwashing of hard surfaces, etc.), the cost-sharing agreement (the "whos" and "hows")is on the broadbrush, conceptual level at this point. Those fine details will be ironed out as discussions continue. In my thinking, IF the city could provide certain services without hiring additional personnel, it might make sense for some of that $200,000 commmitment to be in the form of in-kind service instead of cash. I'll keep you posted as things are worked out - since the park is not even under construction yet, there's plenty of time figure those things out.
I know you'll exercise your best judgement, Sandy. But this sounds a little like fire, ready, aim.
Roch,
I'm seeing this differently, I guess. We're only in the talking "figuring it out" stage, nowhere near ready to aim or fire.
Sandy,
In your post you claim that $200,000 to maintain the Center City Park is in line with the money spent to maintain the Arbortem, Bicentennial Park and the Bog Garden.
The parks you cite are all much larger than Center City Park and have extensive landscaping requirements. While Center City Park is one city block a quarter of which is paved and half of the remaining space is covered with gravel.
I dont see how it could possibly cost the same to maintain that space as it does to maintain both the Bicentenial Park and the Bog Garden. It seems to me that if the city spends $200,000 to maintain the Center City Park, that Downtown Greensboro, Inc, will have to spend next to nothing to complete whatever is still left to be done after city has completed thier portion of the work.
Mike,
What you see at the park now is temporary -- that pavement and gravel is going to disappear and be replaced with an elaborate park with lots of grass, shrubbery, walkways, lighting, performance aream pergolas, sculpture, benches, water feature, etc. that will take a lot more care. Plus this park is anticipated to be open 24/7 unlike other city parks that close at dark and is anticipated to have many more visitors/users due to its central location. That adds up to the significant maintenance and operating costs that were documented in the study.
If those costs should be turn out to be significantly less than projected, I would want to see the city's share drop proportionately -- that can be included in the contract agreement.
With all due respect Councilwoman Carmany, the city shouldn't pay ONE THIN DIME to upkeep something that is PRIVATE PROPERTY. I was against this park from the beginning (but not downtown growth in general), precisely because I knew the city (i.e. taxpayers, i.e. ME!) would eventually wind up paying for this small piece of square greenery where downtown residents' pets use for a toilet. That's not right...
Thanks for sharing your viewpoint, Ken. I respect it, and hope that you respect mine.
Post a Comment