Financing an Aquatic Center

[dhop]

Steve, That is a powerful post. IMO you should send it in to Don and ask him to print it in the letters to the editor. I think it would help a lot.

[PAL]

Well said SOulman. I like your last line.

[SOulman]

What is not explicitly said by the consultants hired by Proposition 1 proponents is that outside funding is VERY hard to come by. Consultants simply don't make those sorts of pronouncements to clients.

I spent my career in community development. Grants to fund recreation projects have only become more scarce over time. The costs of building and operating aquatic centers is much worse than other types of public investments.

If you read the consultant report carefully, they note that federal grants and direct state appropriations are long-shot attempts, at best. Grants from state entities or foundations will come nowhere near the cost of building and maintaining the facility. Private entities are not simply going to throw good money at a dream without some substance behind it. In other words, there will be no funding silver bullet. Building and operating a facility will require scrounging for loose change.

Assembling, coordinating and managing a variety of funding sources from entities with different missions and timelines is a herculean task. Simply finding a person capable of attempting the task will come at a hefty cost.

All of which leads back to local funding and support. Whatever happens will require significant contribution from local taxpayers. The consultants confirmed this position with their statement that the predominant funding would come from MPD taxation.

Proposition 1 is a mess. From the unelected governing board to the authority to take on debt and levy regressive taxes to the vague assertions of what might or might not result from an aquatic district. If this were a private or private, non-profit sales pitch I would run away as fast as I could.

[Fun CH]

Quote"Partnerships – There is certainly the possibility of including equity partners in the project."

Does this mean that a private cooperation could be a partner with the Aquatic Center Metropolitan Park District? And They could make a profit off of any revenue that tax payer funded recreational facilities bring in.

So we help build it and Finance all of the operational cost and the private Equity partner takes a cut?

If so, scary. Especially if that private Equity partnership comes from FOP board co-chairs Bo Thrasher's or Blue Bradly's vested corporate interests in NCMG and NCH.

The plot thickens especially now that we know that the FOP is considering plans to keep the Wagner pool operational and construct a new Mega pool complex most likely in Winthrop or Mazama. The two pool plan.

On a side note. A friend just informed me that he spoke with a proponent of this MPD plan, and now realizes that is not the best option to fund a pool.

[SOulman]

As we near the election, promotion of Proposition 1 appears to focus less on a concrete proposal and more on creating the opportunity for more debate about what could be built and how much it would cost.

It is important to remember what the hired consultants said.

"The pool will likely be funded through a range of public, private, and philanthropic funding sources, but it is likely that debt issued by the MPD will be a prominent source of capital." p. 70 of the feasibility study

The other things that might help fund construction are as follows:

Capital Funding: p. 72

"Partnerships – There is certainly the possibility of including equity partners in the project. There may be limits on the number of these types of partnerships that can established for the project due to competing interests. Partnership dollars could be received from other organizations as noted in the partnership section of the report. 

"Fundraising – A possible source of capital funding could come from a comprehensive fundraising campaign in the greater market area. Contributions from local businesses, private individuals and social service organizations should be targeted. To maximize this form of funding a private fundraising consultant may be necessary. 

"Foundations – There are a number of foundations in the area that could be capital funders for portions of the facility. Reaching out to these foundations to determine their level of interest, the key amenities that they would support and other project requirements for possible funding will be important. 

"Grants – There are a number of grants that are available for recreation projects. It is more difficult to fund active indoor recreation facilities than parks and open space from these sources, but an effort should be made to acquire limited funding from these sources. Key aspects of the facility that should be targeted for grants are serving youth, teens, seniors, and sustainable construction. 

"Naming Rights and Sponsorships – Although not nearly as lucrative as for large stadiums and other similar facilities, the sale of naming rights and long-term sponsorships could be a source of some capital funding as well. It will be necessary to hire a specialist in selling naming rights and sponsorships if this revenue source is to be maximized to its fullest potential. No lifetime naming rights should be sold only 20-year maximum rights should be possible. Determining the level of financial contribution necessary to gain a naming right will be crucial. 

"Washington State Legislative Funding – The state legislature has the ability through a general appropriation to provide a grant for new recreation facilities. This source of funding could be difficult to obtain but might be up to a million dollars. 

"Federal Funding – Obtaining some level of federal funding for the project is unlikely, but not impossible. The utilization of American Rescue Plan funding is possible and there has been some limited funding for evacuation shelters, communities in need, and also for energy efficiency initiatives."