Wednesday, October 29, 2003
|
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 |
|
Non-profit status sought City Manager Bernard McMullen said that among the first items of business for the council is applying once more for a 501(c)6 tax exemption, needed for whatever agency ends up overseeing the collection and distribution of the city’s hotel-motel tax revenues. The IRS designation, intended for “exemption from federal income tax as a nonprofit business league, chamber of commerce, real estate board, board of trade, or professional football league,” is necessary for the city to legally collect the taxes, city officials contend. The DAPC would not play a role in the distribution of the tax, and so would have no influence over either facility or operations. But sizeable chunks of the operating expenses at both the amphitheater and the tennis center would continue to be funded by the overnight-room tax, and by law some autonomous board, agency or authority must handle those funds on behalf of the city. It is presumed that a portion of the funds will continue to go directly to the DAPC to pay down debts estimated to be around $1.5 million, accumulated mostly during last year’s expansion of the tennis center. At Friday’s meeting, most shrugged off mention of the debt, with McMullen offering, “It’s not the city’s debt.” “We’re back to where we were before,” said McMullen, referring to the final week of September when he and city staff put together three different proposals for running the facilities. Though all were described as “viable,” none was formally discussed once the DAPC withdrew its original verbal agreement to “opt out” its management contract with the city. Agreement not final The DAPC first tried to back out of the agreement on Sept. 25; less than a week later, the authority did an abrupt about-face and reneged on the offer, saying it needed more time to explore other options, referring to Turner’s. No formal, written statement of resignation was ever delivered to City Council as required, nor has one been received as of Tuesday morning, said Mayor Steve Brown in explaining his hesitancy to declare it a done deal this go around, as well. It has been Brown’s two-year call for change within the DAPC that brought the issue to this point. “There is no such proposal,” argued Brown on Monday, clarifying that the deal to split off the venues and let the DAPC go back to industrial recruitment efforts was not brokered. “The DAPC merely voted, again, to hand the management over to the city. As of Oct. 28, the city has not received any official documentation from the DAPC,” wrote Brown in an e-mail sent early Tuesday morning in response to a series of questions posed by The Citizen. “I have had several promising meetings with three members of the proposed new tennis management group but there are a lot of details to be researched,” Brown continued. “I do believe that it would be best to have the Tennis Center and the amphitheater under separate management so that funds could not be taken from one entity to paid for the excesses of the other.” The amphitheater reportedly turned a profit of almost $112,000 last year, while the tennis center fell short by about $65,000. The DAPC was put further in the hole spending nearly $100,000 in legal fees this year to defend itself in a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by former amphitheater director Kristi Rapson, wife of City Councilman Steve Rapson. Police Chief James Murray, meanwhile, is reportedly nearing conclusion on his probe into Brown’s request that the DAPC activities be considered for criminal wrongdoing. An announcement of Murray’s findings could come by week’s end, said Brown.
|
||