Wasilla should take closer look at sports complex

Spectrum by Steve Stoll

It is difficult to address the many issues still facing the proposed Wasilla Multi-Use Sports Complex in a public forum [Wasilla City Council meetings], so I am addressing them herein.

My primary concerns to this point are threefold:

1) The cost of building a facility that will satisfy the needs of all of its diverse supporters will be far greater than anticipated,

2) the cost of the infrastructure to serve this project has been significantly understated and

3) the costs for staffing and maintaining this facility have been grossly misstated.

Before we commit our children to our vision and the subsequent debt, I would like to have a chance to see exactly what services the facility will provide my family, and determine which unneeded services currently provided by the city that we are willing to cut in order to subsidize this project.

The basketball folks testified for floor space. So did the soccer people. One is hard surface, one is turf. In reality, we can't have both. Football? Not on concrete or wood. Conventions? Not on turf.

Will people really come to Wasilla in the winter for a convention…? Not likely. Summer maybe, but then, well, there goes the ice.

Just what will we be voting for on March 5? That's only two months. It is unreasonable to ask for an educated vote on this project until we have specific plans, realistic numbers and a chance to analyze the proposal and educate the public.

It appears to me that the estimates for construction and equipping of this facility have been done in a rather serendipitous fashion. While $1.2 million has been promised by the Alaska Railroad for the new depot site, this will not begin to pay to construct the Parks-Church intersection or an above-grade crossing of the railroad tracks.

Another $1.2 million of the bond principal has been designated for utility extensions, once again very inadequate considering the costs of water crossing the highway and the tracks, sewer from the west side of Lake Lucille across wetlands, gas, electric, phone. My best sources estimate the cost of constructing and equipping the building at $100 low end to $120 solid per square foot -- $120 multiplied by 125,000 equals $15 million.

The report entitled "Income/Expense Analysis" was delivered to the city [of Wasilla] on Monday afternoon, just a couple of hours before the scheduled meeting to vote on this issue. Within this report are some figures estimating the anticipated costs and revenues for this still broadly conceptualized facility. The expense figures are totally unrealistic, and I am surprised and disappointed the council, the mayor or staff did not consider the proposed operational costs important enough to scrutinize or question.

The proposal would staff this facility with about eight employees: one maintenance position for about $17 per hour, two $10-per-hour janitors, two $12-per-hour rink attendants, one $8-per-hour concession operator, a $60,000-per-year manager and a $40,000-per-year assistant.

Eight employees to care for a three-acre facility with dozens, hopefully hundreds, of daily users, open at least 12-16 hours a day. I would suggest the staff will be more than double that, and considerably better paid.

The proposed contingency of $25,000 annually for unanticipated expenses and maintenance is ridiculous for a building of this size and exposure. There is no security budgeted in this proposal! My feeling is that every single item in the expense column is understated, and that when the users who now so ardently plead for this facility balk at the proposed fee schedule, revenues will be far less than hoped, too.

Conventions? This isn't Hawaii; a few gun shows and a home or boat show won't make our retailers and hoteliers rich, or even start to pay the heating bill. Basketball tournaments? Not if we go with the turf.

The truth is, we deserve to know exactly what we are voting for and a realistic idea of the costs. Remember, too, that the debt load we assume here will impact future bond issues -- public works has identified $127 million in needed infrastructure in the next 10 years. The additional interest we will have to pay to fund those projects needs to be factored into the real cost of this facility.

My conclusions are these:

Wasilla has more crucial infrastructural needs than a sports complex.

A concept facility that promises all potential user groups all that they want will certainly be widely embraced. A clearer and narrower scope for the project will also narrow down the support.

The infrastructure to support this facility will cost far more than is currently stated by the promoters of this project.

The 125,000-square-foot building alone will cost $15 million, and other infrastructure needs will drive the cost of this project over $20 million.

Operation and maintenance of this facility will cost the city $500,000 annually above expenses.

To fully finance this project will cost at least $2.5 million per year, far more than the $1.5 million raised by the proposed half-cent increase in the sales tax. A sales-tax increase to 3 percent is necessary to fully fund this facility.

The alternative to full funding is to cut $1 million worth of unnecessary services currently provided by the city.

The additional tax load will be unfairly borne by the working poor. The average Wasilla family will be taxed an additional $70 a year on their groceries and utility bills, while the real estate broker will pay $12.50 on his $20,000 commission or his $40,000 sport-utility vehicle.

There is nothing "conservative" about this project or the process. Pie-in-the-sky promises and understatements of costs are usually associated with "liberals."

If the state of Alaska would need to institute a sales tax, would our next administration advocate taxing groceries statewide? This decision could have a grave impact on our ability to pay for the Wasilla complex. It is a question that candidates for those offices must be prepared to answer.

Steve Stoll is a Wasilla resident who regularly attends Wasilla City Council meetings and ran for the council in 2000.