Contract Food Management Service
Nov0
Maybe it's just another of our "dense" days. We've been going over the article headlined "Bidders line up to manage venues" in the current IBJ. They're talking about privatization of the "management" of the stadium and the convention center - and maybe the fieldhouse.
The first question coming to mind is, if in fact the decision is made to go this route, which city agency will complete the contract with the winning private firm?
The CIB already has contracts in place - food service, etc. - which would seem to indicate that might be the logical place to start. But quite frankly if that is the case, and if precedent gives us any food for thought, adding a private management service to the current mix will only wind up being another hand in the till.
We're not quite clear on what the term "management" includes. At one place in the news item, reference is made to "...operation and maintenance savings in the millions." It is suggested that mass purchasing power (up to and including hot dogs!) will help lead to this very desirable end.
But if some other municipal body contracts for the "operation and maintenance" of the properties, why is the CIB needed at all? The city controller should be able to take over writing the checks to the state for bond service.
One of the suggestions is that private management would be in a position to bring more activity to the stadium. That would be a real plus. The "Upcoming Events" schedule for the stadium dated November 22, 2009, shows a total of 43 days - 28 events - booked for the coming year. Of the 28 separate events, at least ten appear to be gatherings of a size not requiring the use of the 135,000 sq. ft. open stadium area. Surely we did not build this monster to host meetings which could be held in any downtown hotel
We continue to believe that "privatization" should not mean government hiring someone to do its job. In this case, privatization should at least resemble what we have already suggested. For instance, the city should deed the stadium over to the Colts, along with responsibility for operating and maintenance, then go directly to the assessor's office and put the property on the assessment rolls. Then there will indeed be a "private" operation, just like any other private entertainment business in the city.
We've been warned that the team would turn down the offer. Very likely. But maybe rejection of a $1,000,000,000 gift would alert more folks that, somewhere along the line, the taxpayer has gotten the very dirty end of the stick.
An aside - An editorial in the same paper comments on the fact that the city is "playing hardball" with tenants of the City Market about over-due rent payments. Right on! We can't afford to let that fruit and vegetable stand free-load. The city's got to find $15 million for the Pacers somewhere!
Maybe it's just another of our "dense" days. We've been going over the article headlined "Bidders line up to manage venues" in the current IBJ. They're talking about privatization of the "management" of the stadium and the convention center - and maybe the fieldhouse.
The first question coming to mind is, if in fact the decision is made to go this route, which city agency will complete the contract with the winning private firm?
The CIB already has contracts in place - food service, etc. - which would seem to indicate that might be the logical place to start. But quite frankly if that is the case, and if precedent gives us any food for thought, adding a private management service to the current mix will only wind up being another hand in the till.
We're not quite clear on what the term "management" includes. At one place in the news item, reference is made to "...operation and maintenance savings in the millions." It is suggested that mass purchasing power (up to and including hot dogs!) will help lead to this very desirable end.
But if some other municipal body contracts for the "operation and maintenance" of the properties, why is the CIB needed at all? The city controller should be able to take over writing the checks to the state for bond service.
One of the suggestions is that private management would be in a position to bring more activity to the stadium. That would be a real plus. The "Upcoming Events" schedule for the stadium dated November 22, 2009, shows a total of 43 days - 28 events - booked for the coming year. Of the 28 separate events, at least ten appear to be gatherings of a size not requiring the use of the 135,000 sq. ft. open stadium area. Surely we did not build this monster to host meetings which could be held in any downtown hotel
We continue to believe that "privatization" should not mean government hiring someone to do its job. In this case, privatization should at least resemble what we have already suggested. For instance, the city should deed the stadium over to the Colts, along with responsibility for operating and maintenance, then go directly to the assessor's office and put the property on the assessment rolls. Then there will indeed be a "private" operation, just like any other private entertainment business in the city.
We've been warned that the team would turn down the offer. Very likely. But maybe rejection of a $1,000,000,000 gift would alert more folks that, somewhere along the line, the taxpayer has gotten the very dirty end of the stick.
An aside - An editorial in the same paper comments on the fact that the city is "playing hardball" with tenants of the City Market about over-due rent payments. Right on! We can't afford to let that fruit and vegetable stand free-load. The city's got to find $15 million for the Pacers somewhere!