I was quoted in the article today;
Scott Ehrisman, a citizen advocate who attends city meetings and blogs about council discussion and decisions, said that in recent years, he has come around to supporting the subsidy.
However, he said the city should stop spending Capital Improvements Program money on the Pavilion.
Â
“I have often called it City Hall’s dirty little secret that really didn’t come to light until the window funding debate,” Ehrisman said.
Â
He is leery of the city backing other big projects such as an events center, using the Pavilion as a lesson in what it costs to build and maintain a center.
“The Pavilion teaches us that the city will use these projects as an excuse to raise our retail taxes, which is unfair,” he said. “Once we start charging people extra … to pay for Broadway plays and Elton John concerts, we send a message to the community that the city’s spending priorities are more about entertaining the minority then providing essential infrastructure for the majority.”
Here is the extended version of the quote I emailed, if you are curious;
“Should the Pavilion, at some point, support itself as opposed to getting a subsidy from the city?â€
I have come around on supporting a subsidy in recent years. The problem isn’t that the Pavilion receives a subsidy from the entertainment tax it’s that the city also subsidizes the Pavilion through the CIP fund, in turn giving them a double subsidy. For example, the entertainment tax subsidy only is for operational costs, while the CIP subsidy is for building upgrades and maintenance. In essence the Pavilion has been double dipping on subsidies from the inception without the public’s knowledge. I have often called it city hall’s dirty little secret that really didn’t come to light until the window funding debate was brought before the council. I guess I would like to see the Pavilion stop taking CIP funding and only manage from the entertainment tax subsidy. I would also like to see them pay their management for performance instead just automatic pay increases from year to year. I think if the Pavilion got into a ‘money making’ philosophy it would be helpful to their endowment, which benefits us all. A lot needs to change though before that occurs, for instance, they need to start gearing the facility towards working families like having the Science Center, the Visual Arts Center and Cinedome open at night instead of the day. I also think that the conflicts of interest that exists with board members not only looks bad, it can also cost the Pavilion more in what they pay for outside services because a board member may pressure them to use a more expensive service.
“And, as the city looks for new projects, like a new event center, does the 10-year run of the Pavilion with the subsidy still necessary, teach us anything?â€
Â
It teaches us that the city will use these projects as an excuse to raise our (retail) taxes. Which is unfair. A special tax, like an entertainment tax, should only be used to subsidize the facility. Once we start charging people extra for food and utilities to pay for Broadway plays and Elton John concerts we send a message to the community that the city’s spending priorities are more about entertaining the minority then providing essential infrastructure for the majority. I would support a new event center if the city would guarantee it would ONLY be paid for through a bed and booze tax. I’m afraid though with the city’s track record on the double subsidy to the Pavilion, that the taxpayers of Sioux Falls will have to put forward a significant amount taxes on essential goods and services without their knowledge to fund the facility. And if that’s the case, how is taxing things we need for everyday living so a minority can be entertained good for the quality of life of the majority?
L3wis,
I’m with ya right up until the the whole minority vs. majority crap. As was pointed out in the article, the primary reason for the subsidy is to allow the Pavillion to operate in a way to make attractions that are free or at a reduced cost. Has anyone been turned away at the door because they failed a means test? Just because a majority doesn’t utilize the place doesn’t mean they were in some way discriminated against. They’ve simply made a choice not to go check it out for themselves and have probably bought the line that only the wealthy can hang there. When they have and event for the wine & cheese crowd, they charge accordingly to get as close to the black as they can.
Also, what no one seems to be calculating into the mix is the indirect economic impact those 3 million visitors have had on the City and specifically, on the downtown district. If the core of your City begins to rot, the suburban sprawl it perpetuates can easily exhaust capacities to keep up with it, just ask Detroit, LA, San Fran, St. Louis, etc.
You missed my point. I’m okay with the entertainment tax subisidy, that’s what it was created for. I’m against taking out of our retail taxes to fund upgrades when they already receive of subsidy. As for the 3 million visitors (yeah right) even if it was true how does that impact my life? Seriously? The city collects taxes on that and turns around and gives the money to special interests. My life and economic situation would be exactly the same with or without the Pavilion.
It’s about time you got some attention. It’s citizens like you who police the politicians, an invaluable contribution. If Sioux Falls was a democracy, free speech could protect citizens rights and we all (even the city council) would have a voice in government.
It’s an asset the City has on it’s books, so why wouldn’t upgrades and maintanence of it not come out of the CIP? Especially, like any City park or Library, it is open to all to use whether they choose to or not.
The indirect economic impact is typically 3X whatever the direct impact is within the walls of the place. If the Pavillion wasn’t there, those dollars wouldn’t have been as well.
I am still not buying it. We are over $100 million behind on road maintenance and we are taking out loans for Flamingo barns? If this city is seeing all the economic impact benefits from the subsidy we give to the Pavilion, when do we get to cash in? 10 years from now? 20 years from now?
Right, much more logical to assume that we have the only facility in the Nation where a secondary economic impact isn’t realized.
Like I’ve said before, you don’t borrow money to fill a pothole. You borrow where you can realize a return to cover the expense of borrowing.
And you don’t throw taxpayer’s money away on principal and interest payments on a loan for monkey crappers when that money is SUPPOSED to go towards filling potholes.
My point is why does the city have the money to make loan and interest payments but can’t keep up with infrastructure? Hmmmmm?
Pingback: Best of DaCola, 250 pages down, 550 to go — South DaCola