Quite a few people have contacted me in the last few weeks to tell me (in some cases yell) that "the Grand only gets about $65,000 a year in taxpayer dollars." For anyone still interested in looking at this issue seriously, here are the facts:
*Since 1983, the city's Capital Improvement Budget has allocated $1,515,820 to the Grand. That includes $1,045,000 during the restoration years (1983-1986).
*In 1997 the city began levying for the Grand as a separate line item in the Operations Budget for facilities and maintenance. Since that time, the Grand has received $742,178 in Operations Budget funds.
*In 1986 the Grand started to receive funds from the Hotel/Motel Room Tax. In fact the Grand Opera House Foundation and the Oshkosh Convention and Visitors Bureau are the only two non-city entities expressly designated in the city's municipal codes as tax recipients (see section 8-1.1(1)(B)(1)(c)). The Grand Opera House Foundation has received $2,014,329 in hotel/motel tax revenue.
So the grand total of taxpayer contribution to the Grand since 1983 has been $4,272,327. That's an average of about $158,000 per year.
None of this is an argument for or against taxpayer support for the truss repairs. On the other hand, the suggestion in some corners that taxpayer assistance to the facility has been insignificant compared to private sponsors is simply not accurate. Taxpayer support has been significant, annual (since 1985), and more than generous given the realities of the city budget and unmet needs of many of our neighborhoods.
Private donors were able to build the 20th ave. YMCA ($14 million raised), the Pollock Water Park (over $6 million raised), the teen center at the Boys and Girls Club ($2 million raised), and the Oshkosh Community Foundation loaned us a million bucks for the Convention Center. I understand that private sources are feeling "tapped out" when it comes to the Grand, but guess what: taxpayers are feeling pretty tapped out too. Again, that's NOT an argument for voting no tonight (I'm leaning toward Yes for reasons I'll explain tonight), but just a plea to put this issue in perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
And, as stated prior, it was not anyone stating that the taxpayers were not taking up their share of the burden. It was the assertion by Esslinger that private contributions were lacking and that the private sector was not taking part in the "partnership."
My own assertions here are that the private sector, in fact, has been keeping up their half of the partnership, and your numbers demonstrate that quite adequately.
The bottom line here is that the accusations that the private sector were not being good partners are patently false and contraindicative to a good working relationship between the city and it's industries and service organizations.
Post a Comment