WALKING PAPERS!WALKING PAPERS!WALKING PAPERS!
Bloated RSCVA Needs More Bloating?
To: John Stearns Reno Gazette (RGJ) Reporter, 08/02/02
Dear John,
You postulate that: (Reno) Convention Center understaffed
Bloated RSCVA Needs More Bloating?
To: John Stearns Reno Gazette (RGJ) Reporter, 08/02/02
Dear John,
You postulate that: (Reno) Convention Center understaffed
1. This is more blatant alibiing for the Fairgrounds and Recreation
Board by your mouthpiece... for the "visitor-dependant" RSCVA...
that calls itself a newspaper.
1a. We can see the giant teardrops running down the cheeks of the
hard-working Reno citizens who feel so sorry that the corporate
welfare-funded RSCVA can't find enough workers for its already
bloated staff.
To work at a Convention Box that is only about 25% filled up!!!!
2. The RGJ is promoting the hiring of a bigger staff for a bureaucracy
that is at least 3 times bigger than it ever should have been allowed to
bloat itself to.
3. It's the Encyclopedia of Reno Govt that is understaffed. Reno needs
more of these patriots... to offset the preposterous propaganda blitzes
from the RGJ.
4. We hope you enjoy tonight's grand pooh bah opening of the Costco South.
4a. See if you can pick up a guest list... so citizens can see how many of the
noodleheaded "usual suspects" you got to hobnob with.
Sincerely,
Sam Dehne, The Encyclopedia of Reno Govt
PS
I postulate that your newspaper "bosses" could join the RSCVA "bosses"
in the middle of an isolated desert... and within 30 days they would be
understaffed. It's called bureaucratic paralysis of habit... a disease that
infests Reno's govt bureaucrats.
PSS
Speaking of "bloated" things... if the top brass at the "visitor-dependant"
RSCVA would shave their bloated salaries... there would be lots of money
to hire more people to hang around the empty Convention Box.
A Perspective on Convention Authorities.
Should they be allowed to exist?
Should they be in jail?
Los Angeles' Field of Pipedreams (click)
By Geoffrey F. Segal
Published in the Los Angeles Daily News on October 18, 2001
If the outlook for the Los Angeles Convention Center looked uncertain before Sept.11, it looks
downright bleak in the wake of the terrorist attacks. A recent audit by the Los Angeles City
Controller throws yet another cloud over the faltering complex, reporting that the Convention
Center has incurred millions of dollars of losses through poor management and lax bookkeeping.
Unfortunately, city officials seem hell-bent on throwing even more money at the facility.
Reminiscent of Kevin Costner's movie, "Field of Dreams" they seem to believe that if they build
it, people will come. In reality, the proposal to invest an additional $1 billion in the facility and surrounding areas,
including a subsidy for a major new hotel seem akin to Costner's more recent films—big budget, very little return.
In such uncertain times, public officials should be dubious about putting more money into failed projects.
In 1983, city officials first visited the idea of convention center expansion. Officials studied the matter and were
convinced that expansion would boost economic activity and create new jobs in Los Angeles. The feasibility study
that swept officials off their feet reported that expansion would boost attendance some two and a half times. It is
now painfully evident that the optimistic projections consultants made about future conference attendance have not
panned out and have left taxpayers footing the bill. The devastating impacts of the terrorist attacks on convention
business only make matters worse.
Even before the attacks, Los Angeles' most expensive publicly financed building ever carried an annual price tag
of $30 million to pay bonds that financed a $500 million expansion and annual operating subsidy. Not only has the
convention center not covered the costs of the expansion, it can't even cover operating costs. In fact, the center
is doing just about the same level of business now as it did in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
One would think that such a failure would engrain a healthy dose of skepticism about future investments but public
officials do not seem changed. City officials blame the center's abysmal performance on too few hotel rooms.
Planners have long envisioned a facility that would attract new hotels and restaurants to move in. Unfortunately
even the lure of the Staples Center with scheduled events almost every night hasn't been able to bring the
necessary financing for a marquee hotel.
Now we are told that if only a new hotel were in place with adequate financing, more conventions, more jobs, and
healthy economic growth would certainly follow, in spite of a convention industry in decline across the nation.
Only two convention centers in the U.S. make money or break even—Orlando and Las Vegas. Both have
reported drops in attendance and revenue since the attacks on September 11th.
Several prominent expansions in Southern California have saturated the market, making the prospects of a
successful Los Angeles Convention Center even more unlikely. Space has been added or upgraded in Long
Beach, San Diego, and Anaheim—supply has ballooned even as demand has continued to drop.
The September 11th attacks will only worsen the situation in Los Angeles. Two conferences have already been
cancelled, costing millions of dollars—but convention center officials continue to assure city hall that other
conventions will go on as planned. Concerns about travel and the difficulties associated with travel, especially at
LAX, will undoubtedly have dramatic effects—lower long-term attendance, revenue, and economic activity.
Coupled with an economic downturn, companies will continue to shy away from hosting conventions or sending
their delegates to future conferences.
Los Angeles faces several challenges in the years to come that increased investment in a convention center would
certainly distract from. During times of a struggling economy and reduced public revenues city officials should
focus on the things that matter most--improving education, transportation infrastructure, and increased public
safety. Now is not the time for a grandiose convention center expansion.
While taxpayers must ultimately bite the bullet on the original expansion commitments, city officials can stop the
bleeding by refusing to dump even more public money into a field of pipe dreams.
(Geoffrey F. Segal is a policy analyst with the Los Angeles-based Reason Public Policy Institute)
What is the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority? (and why does it need $300,000,000 to expand the Convention Center?)
By Breck Middleton, RMC Member
Back in June I reported in the newsletter that the RGJ was quoting the RSCVA board as wanting $105 million dollars ($300,000,000 over the 30 year life of the loan) to expand the Convention Center by approximately 200,000 square feet. $98,000,000 would be used for expansion and the rest for upgrading facilities. When you do the math, that would make the expansion $490 per square foot for glorified warehouse space. At the RMC/RR luncheon, I asked John Farahi about this number. He said that the $105 million number was a preliminary estimate and that it was "the maximum it (the expansion) could possibly cost". Since that time many things have happened, but the $105 million number has remained in place. I’ve done some homework and I’d like to share it with you.
I would first like to point out that I’m absolutely FOR bringing convention business to Reno-Sparks. Reno relies far too much on gaming and tourism, the expansion of the warehousing/distribution business doesn’t seem to be the answer. I mean let’s compare gaming and warehousing. Both of these industries hire low wage workers with minimal education requirements, however warehousing requires increased air traffic and large trucks on our roads. I’d say the advantage goes to gaming. Bringing new business to town to attend conventions opens the doors for these business people to see the superior quality of life in the Truckee Meadows and perhaps bring better industries to Reno-Sparks.
I would also like to point out that "paranoia" about the fiscal practices of the RSCVA and it’s board are well founded. Nearly everyone is aware that the Bowling Stadium (BS) had cost overruns of nearly 100%, what a lot of people are not aware of is that there is still $17 million dollars of the reported $56 million that is unaccounted for. I agree with Mayor Griffin when he says that only one member of the RSCVA board is still on board, but I strongly disagree with his opinion that we should "get over it".
One final point before I continue. The latest information I’ve gotten on the Convention Center expansion is that it will actually be 400,000 square feet ($245/sqft) that will consist of actual convention space AND support services space. Councilman Herndon said at the most recent RMC meeting (1/19/00) that the $105 million figure IS preliminary and that they don’t have a final number. He was confident that it wouldn’t exceed that amount ( I can only hope that he’s REALLY confident as the County (our tax dollars) is backing that bond).
But what is the RSCVA? Why are they in a position to have such a potentially huge impact on the Truckee Meadows? How are they able to get tax money? What is their responsibility to Reno-Sparks. I did some digging. And trust me, it took some considerable digging to find out, but I have some answers.
The RSCVA is a state agency. I discovered this at the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority web site ( www.lasvegas24hours.com ). I would suggest that everyone that’s on-line check out this site. It lists their history, their mission statement, tourism numbers, financial numbers, convention contact information and much more. I strongly suggest that you compare this site to the RSCVA’s site. There is none of the above information (although Reno Air is still listed as an air carrier). The lack of convention information is particularly distressing considering their emphasis on this type of business and the investment that is, and is going to be, made for conventions in the future. I also think it’s important because of the recent problems with local government disclosure issues. Certainly the Governmental Agencies in Reno need to do it cleaner and better. Finally, if you have budget to solicit tourism business in Great Britain, shouldn’t you have budget to build a workable, updated web site?
The RSCVA came into being by a piece of legislation from the Assembly in 1955. This law gave the counties the authority to establish county-wide "fair and recreation boards". Their purpose was to construct, acquire and improve fairgrounds, convention halls, public parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, golf courses, recreation centers, museums, zoos, "and other recreation facilities". In 1967 the legislature allowed each county to "designate the name by which the fair and recreation board of that county shall be known". It also gave the boards the "additional power" to "solicit and promote tourism and gaming". The RSCVA gets it’s budget to perform these tasks from room taxes which are approved by the legislature. For example, when the RSCVA wanted more money to pay for the expansion of the Convention Center it was forced to go to the legislature for approval. This is slightly different than Councilman Aiazzi’s portrayal of the RSCVA being handcuffed by the legislature (RMC/RR luncheon 1/19/00). Yes the RSCVA must get approval to raise room taxes, but it’s pretty obvious that once the money is in the RSCVA’s hands, the control is minimal.
Another issue I have with our council members was their insistence that this tax revenue was casino marketing money, as it was generated from taxing rooms, and was therefore money the casino’s couldn’t charge customers. I disagree. These taxes are a cost of doing business. They are not free money for the RSCVA to spend entirely on promoting the gaming industry. This thinking is dangerous, not just because it diverges from the laws which created and govern the RSCVA, but because the RSCVA board is made-up primarily of elected officials and their appointees. Imagine this scenario. A person runs for Mayor of Reno and gets large campaign contributions from certain gaming executives. Once elected, he is immediately the President of the RSCVA board. He appoints a representative of the gaming executives to the board. If other council people are marching in-step with this person, the RSCVA board, and therefore it’s budget, becomes a marketing tool for these special interests EVEN THOUGH it is collected from a wide group of business people and is meant, by law, for more than promoting gaming. It would be a very easy way for getting control of over $30,000,000 annually. This isn’t so far fetched. In 1997 the Sparks City Council asked the RSCVA for an accounting of how room tax revenues were being spent and Mayor Breslow, casino executives and an RSCVA lawyer argued that they shouldn’t have to give them that information because it was confidential and proprietary. Just a reminder, increased visitor traffic increases wear and tear on the community. This relationship must be a symbionic one, not a host and parasite.
I must admit that I have no idea why the CEO of this government agency gets $180,000 dollars a year in salary, $750 dollars per month in car allowance, as well as state health and retirement benefits. When I asked about the performance objects that were met which warranted such major hikes in pay (tourism has been flat, for two years there was no marketing plan written), I was told the board was very impressed with the restructuring of the organization and the new marketing message that was developed. Fortunately, the CEO, Phil Keene will be our guest speaker in February. It will be very important to ask him SPECIFICALLY what the community will get for $105 million, the mission of the RSCVA, and what type of performance goals the board has set for him. I will also be curious to find out who is on the current Board of Directors and how they got there.
(Editor's Note: Mr Keene has more important business in February and thus will not be at the meeting.)
Click back to The Reno Citizen