The mayor has been tooting his horn lately that the EC will operate in the black, he even mentioned it in his State of the City address yesterday.

Do I believe him?

I don’t think it is far-fetched, I think if we have enough private sponsorships subsidizing the operating costs, it is possible. But how much truth is in the word ‘black’. The Pavilion has tooted this horn in the past (without mentioning there entertainment tax subsidy and building maintenance CIP subsidy).

The same goes for the EC. While the EC may have their operating costs covered and probably even some bonuses for the facility manager, what about the bond payment taxpayers will be responsible for each year?

I think if there are any surpluses (profits) at the EC it should go directly towards the bond payment. DIRECTLY.

See, because if the EC does well and operates in the black, the facility manager will wallow in the financial bonuses BUT if it comes up short it will expect the taxpayers to bail it out.

So the mayor can talk ‘black’ all he wants, taxpayers will still have to pay the mortgage each year for the next 30 years (around $180 million) no matter how successful the operations are.

6 Thoughts on “The Events Center will operate in the Black? Oh really?

  1. Winston on March 27, 2014 at 4:27 pm said:

    I have always wondered how the EC vote would have turned out if the citizens would have known before the vote that the SkyForce team was planning to start playing at the new Pentagon, which was not announced until after the vote?…. But soon after….

    This is another example where our local media seldom asks the tough questions, like how the SkyForce reality could effect the bottom line of the eventual Event Centers solvency and whether our city leaders knew this SkyForce announcement prior to the vote?

  2. l3wis on March 27, 2014 at 5:18 pm said:

    Winston, I still think Jamison had the best idea, remodel and expand the existing arena, turn the CC space into a Rec center, with an indoor pool and build a new CC downtown. The economic impact would have been great for DT and we would have saved taxpayer’s millions, we might have even been able to pay for it out of the CIP.

  3. Winston on March 27, 2014 at 8:56 pm said:

    Lewis, did we ever hear the cost estimates to remodel the Arena which would require it to meet the seat capacity and the future potential seat capacity of the new Events Center in order for it to be a probable alternative. Maybe we did, I just don’t remember them if we did.

    As far as moving the CC downtown, yes, that would be a plus for the DT, but separating the CC and the Arena or EC from each other complicates and places limits on many of its potential bookings.

    Personally, I favored Hildebrand’s idea of placing the new EC downtown, but in hindsight that does not solve the need to have the CC nearby to the degree that is an issue. Unless you are going to foot the bill for a new CC downtown too, which the Jamison plan was willing to do. So it all comes down to the actual costs of an Arena remodeling and how would have that looked. Would we have even recognized the Arena afterwards and what would we be saving, structurally?

  4. pathloss on March 28, 2014 at 8:55 am said:

    It’s credit card accounting. As long as you make minimum payments and never pay down debt, you’re in the black.

  5. In their dreams.

  6. No event center in the country operates in the black.
    There are subsidies at at all of them

Post Navigation