(12) How do you view the $1.8 million Henderson spent on the cultural side of
the Embassy Square project?
Alston: As I answer this question, I do not have a breakdown of the actual funds expended by the City on the cultural side of the Embassy Square Project in front of me, and therefore I am not commenting on the precise figure you have used in your question. However, I do support the Embassy Square Project. It is an effort which will pay long-term dividends for this city. The financial terrain has changed since this effort began. Some of the changes in the financial climate have made funding the project more challenging. We need to be practical, but we should proceed.
Gupton: I view the $1.8 million Henderson spent on the cultural side of the Embassy Square project as a loan, which needs to be repaid. It would be very beneficial to the city if payments could begin as soon as possible.
Harper: The $1.8 million spent on the land and architectural fees is a lot of money. Many citizens I talk to feel the city made a financial mistake by deeding the land to the foundation and could sure use that money to shore up the very low savings account that the city now has. Others say this is the best investment the city has ever made because a group of private citizens is raising the money privately to build this library. My view is a practical one. No matter which view you have, the library is nearly complete on one-half of the land. The new council will have to find a way to fund its increased cost over the old library. My solution to do that is through grants for programs.
Daeke: I believe the new library will exceed everyone’s expectations once it is built and being fully utilized. The library will certainly enhance the potential for our youth and their futures. And the benefit to all adults will be surprising. I do believe we should have planned better for the operational costs, because, at this point, with the knowledge I have of the budget and impending costs, I’m not sure how to fund it.
Yount: First, the city of Henderson was negligent by entering into a contract that promised to pay us back “if and when money was available.” Second, the transfer of the land purchased with this money came about after a change to our city charter. I cannot find on the record where the council asked the legislature to change our charter to allow this; nevertheless, our city charter was changed. Third, the city budgeted for this money on their books by designating $400,000 to come back to the city from “fundraising proceeds.” The city did not get this money back from fundraising, and, at the same time, the city overspent the budget by another $400,000. Additionally, in order to purchase the land, the city budgeted $1 million to be borrowed. However, Henderson did not borrow this money. Why? Some will say the LGC would never have approved the loan, and others will say we could not borrow the money because the city had nothing to use as collateral since Henderson had deeded the land to the Embassy foundation already. The argument also has been made: “Why borrow when the city has the cash on hand?” The answer is plainly clear now: If Henderson had borrowed the money, then the city would still have $1 million in cash in our account, and Henderson’s fund balance would be healthy. The city budget took a $1.8 million hit in one year as we finally had to account for all the expenditures, and that left Henderson in financial distress. The city did not conduct business correctly on this project.
Wester: The city’s initial investment will be returned. If we had not gotten the ball rolling to pay for the library with private funds, the city and county would be facing the issue of how to pay for it with tax dollars. This is not a pet project of the “few.”