Posted on Fri, Apr. 21, 2006

email this

print this

reprint or license this

Some fear taxpayers to foot bill

By GINA SMITH

gnsmith@thestate.com

USC officials and others are hedging their bets that they can coax the money for the school’s master plan from a variety of sources and not lean too heavily on city taxpayers.

Others anticipate that Columbia residents — already facing their first city tax increase since 1992 — could be left holding the bag.

“I don’t see how the city’s people can fund this project, but they’ll probably ask us to,” said Bill Manley, a city resident and a regular at City Council meetings. “I believe that it should be left up to private investors and USC to put the money up.”

USC’s public-private plan to reinvent 500 acres of downtown will require nearly $109 million for two new roads, a riverfront park, water and sewer pipes, parking garages, burial of power lines and other infrastructure improvements.

Members of USC’s development team are emphasizing that when other cities’ projects have succeeded, it has been because city, state and federal governments have all gotten behind projects and opened their wallets. This project should be a strong candidate for federal resources, consultants said.

Once government invests in the project, they said, private development will follow, and city residents stand to gain from future city property tax revenue, estimated at $3.6 million annually once the project is mostly completed in 15 years. The Richland 1 school district would get an estimated $9.9 million annually after 15 years, and Richland County, $3.4 million.

“You don’t have to increase the tax burden on local people to realize this,” said Varoujan Hagopian, with Sasaki Associates Inc., a world-renowned firm that drafted the plan.

Hagopian points to other riverfront projects the firm has done, including one in Indianapolis, where the city and state provided about half of the money and the federal government, the other half. “Based on our experience, this is very achievable for Columbia, too,” he said.

HOW TO PAY

Possible funding sources that USC and Sasaki Associates are advocating include:

• Federal money like the Army Corps of Engineers’ Water Resources Development Act, which other cities have tapped for waterfront projects. The money can be used for parks, flood control near rivers, roadways and other infrastructure improvements.

• State dollars from the Department of Transportation and the Department of Natural Resources for roads

• Local government options like the sales tax, bonds or special tax districts like the one already in place in Columbia’s Vista area, along the river

But city bonds aren’t an option right now.

The city’s ability to borrow money is nearly maxed out, with only about $12 million available, said Steve Gantt, the city’s senior assistant administrator.

“There’s just not much available right now,” he said.

That means federal and state dollars are going to be imperative, said Daniel Rickenmann, City Council member.

“If you look at some other cities, like Columbus, Ohio, they have built parks with federal dollars,” he said. “South Carolina hasn’t taken advantage of it as much as other states. I want to make sure the majority of this is paid for by the private sector so the citizens can benefit from the revenue coming in from taxes and from business licenses.”

TIF TIFF

The city’s creation of another special tax district to pay for the USC project — or an extension the one that’s there — is certain to be controversial and downright impossible in the current political climate.

Earlier this week, Richland County accused the city of mishandling $6 million of the money from the Vista tax district, which has been in place since 1986. The city is denying the claim.

Since its last extension in 2001, the tax increment financing district, or TIF, has funneled an estimated $20 million into Vista projects including construction of the EdVenture Children’s Museum and the Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center.

Over the years, the city, the county and Richland 1 have butted heads over the projects, the costs and the benefits.

“There is great distrust from the county’s perspective on the use of a TIF,” said City Council member Anne Sinclair. “It’s really a shame because it’s a powerful funding mechanism that we won’t be able to use.”

THE CITY’S VISION

Another debate city leaders must have is whether USC’s plan fits in with other city projects.

“From the city perspective, we already have a lot on our plates,” Sinclair said, referencing recently released master plans for the redevelopment of north Columbia and the east central area of the city.

Also, the historic Olympia community was recently promised city dollars, a long anticipated shot in the arm for the community’s revival, after Richland County Council decided not to provide county money the neighborhood had long anticipated.

“Parts of the city have been waiting for their turns for years, and their turn has finally come,” Sinclair said. “I’m not certain that there’s a sense on City Council to change direction.”

But Columbia Mayor Bob Coble is contending that it’s not an either/or situation.

“The revenue sources (to pay) for each of these areas can be different,” Coble said. “To me, they all need to be linked together — the redevelopment of the entire city. We can’t just concentrate on developing one area of town.”

Reach Smith at (803) 771-8462.