In a 4 to 3 vote, the council approved a motion by District 2 Councilmember Dufour Woolfley that called for construction to stop at the Church Road site and for the contract with Costello Construction to be canceled. The motion also called for city staff to begin evaluating the same Church Road site for a future indoor court facility that’s already in the city’s capital improvement program. City staff were also instructed to begin evaluating options for the existing one-sheet ice arena at Allen Pond Park, including possible renovations and a public-private partnership.
The latest council meeting will likely be remembered as the longest and most contentious council gathering in the history of the city.
Both residents and non-residents submitted more than two hundred comments to be shared at the meeting, including 191 for the ice rink public hearing alone. City Clerk Awilda Hernandez read comments for most of the nine-hour meeting that began at 8:00pm on Monday and ended at 5:00am Tuesday morning.
Council debate was tense at times, highlighted by a fiery diatribe by At-Large Councilmember Henri Gardner. He hurled insults at other councilmembers and made the claim that some councilmembers had racial motivations behind their decisions to support cancelation of the ice arena project.
Mayor Pro Tem Adrian Boafo and District 4 Councilmember Roxy Ndebumadu offered similar reasons for supporting cancelation of the project. They both indicated that their votes were fiscally responsible and reflected the wishes of the majority of their respective constituents.
According to an estimate by the city’s finance department, the city stands to lose approximately $7 million by canceling the project. Woolfley insisted that despite that loss, the city should not continue to throw good money after bad on what would be the single most expensive project in the city’s history.
Mayor Tim Adams repeated his assertion that the ice arena project had to be canceled to prepare the city for expenses and lost revenue associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. He made the argument that it’s important to look out 18 months or longer because the city will likely be dealing with the effects of the virus for a long time.
All four councilmembers who voted in favor of canceling the project said that they support the ice community and are in favor of exploring plans for the Bowie Ice Arena at Allen Pond Park.
At-Large Councilmember Ingrid Harrison disputed Adams’ claim that the ice arena project impacted the current and future financial stability of the city. Harrison also expressed concern about possible lawsuits stemming from the cancelation.
District 1 Councilmember Michael Estève told the rest of the council that canceling the project would be premature without having additional information, and he warned that the cancelation was something that could not be reversed. Estève indicated that he was willing to consider a pause in the construction to give the city some time to get more questions answered, including cost and options for the Allen Pond ice arena, and Estève is concerned that there are questions about the bond issuance and implications to the city’s AAA bond rating that haven’t been addressed.
The new ice arena facility has long been criticized as a money-loser project being built for non-residents, and Estève took a few minutes to challenge those concerns. He pointed out that all Bowie facilities, including the senior center, the city gym, city parks, and the Bowie Ice Arena, are heavily used by non-residents. Estève quoted a recent city study that showed that 60% of South Bowie Boys and Girls Club members using city facilities are non-residents. The difference is that non-residents provide more than $200,000 in fees annually to offset expenses at the Bowie Ice Arena, and non-residents pay a tiny fraction of that amount in fees to support facilities like the Bowie City Gym. As a result, ice facilities can recoup 80% or more of annual expenses by collecting user fees, and court facilities typically recoup about 16% of annual expenses through user fees.
Some citizen comments read during the council meeting were submitted by District 3 residents who are concerned about the proposed ice arena’s impact to traffic and safety along Church Road. Based on the direction set by the council this morning, those concerns will likely switch to the impact of a court facility instead of an ice facility in the same location.
No comments:
Post a Comment