"One key difference between the finding strategy you described in your article and the Durham model was that Durham required that the project be built and financed with zero general funds, This include capital improvements for 30 years into the future.
They had $1.4m per year of Hotel Occupancy funds. So there was no property tax implications for the City."
Mr Szostak is talking about the use of "certificates of participation" which don't require voter approval. I'm not fully up to speed on "certificates of participation" but as I understand it they don't require public investment nor do they generate interest that has to be paid back by taxpayers.
Currently, the overwhelming majority of survey participants 88.9% are against the use of "certificates of participation."
So if the City decides to build the Greensboro Performing Arts Center by using "certificates of participation" then there will be no need for a November bond referendum. Currently, 66.7% say they will vote no should a bond referendum be placed on the November ballot.
Me? I'm confused. If "certificates of participation" are a means of raising the money through private funding without risk or burdens to taxpayers then why aren't they used more often? What are the drawbacks to using "certificates of participation?" And why are we talking about a bond referendum and costs to the taxpayers when it isn't really necessary to put us at risk?
Would someone please explain to me why we even have bonds if these "certificates of participation" can and will do the same thing without costing we-the-taxpayers our hard earned money? And why can't we use "certificates of participation" to build the Randall Jarrell Performing Arts Center in the little green circle in Northeast Greensboro where it's needed most?
Continue to article #99. Going To Durham Performing Arts Center Today.
