Henderson narrowly OKs $21 million for museum

By Jeremy Twitchell

Tuesday, June 9, 2009 | 11:05 p.m.

In a rare split vote, the Henderson City Council awarded $21 million from the city's land fund Tuesday night to the council-appointed board trying to raise funds to build a space and science center.

After the 3-2 vote, the city will keep the remaining $4.2 million that is in the fund to pay for infrastructure development on the proposed site, which is on 160 acres of city-owned property at U.S. 95 and Galleria Drive.

The city is planning to develop the area as a mixed-use site with the museum at its centerpiece.

Mayor-elect Andy Hafen and Councilman Steve Kirk cast the dissenting votes, saying the funding plan didn't leave the city with enough oversight of how the money would be spent and failed to set fundraising benchmarks to spur the group.

Mayor James B. Gibson and Councilman Jack Clark, who were in their final meeting as elected officials but will continue as chairman and vice-chairman of the center's advisory board, cast supporting votes with Councilwoman Gerri Schroder joining them.

The remaining members of the advisory board are current and former city employees, a consultant to NASA and a number of area residents from different backgrounds.

Hafen said he was concerned that the only way the council could control the money was a provision that would allow the city to retake the money if the center isn’t complete within 10 years.

"I think that's too vague," Hafen said. "I think we need some benchmarks."

Hafen said the city should earmark the funds for the center, but keep control of the money until it’s needed. He stressed that his dissenting vote only meant he didn't like the format for handing over the money.

"I don't want this to be misconstrued as me not being in favor of the space and science center, because I am, 100 percent," he said.

Kirk, who also supports the center, echoed the concern about the lack of fundraising benchmarks, but also expressed concerns that the city was only keeping $4.2 million for infrastructure improvement on the site when the estimated cost of the improvements are $8.7 million.

By taking too much money, the board could be hampering its ability to raise funds because it may need to raise millions to cover the cost of infrastructure improvement before it can begin raising funds for the center, he said.

"I don't know why you would want to put yourself in that position," Kirk said.

The proposal has had its detractors in the community as well, from some residents who question the wisdom of spending any amount on the center at a time when the city has made unprecedented budget cuts.

Clark, a longtime supporter of the project, said that the city's charter mandates that money in the land fund -- which comes from the sale of city-owned land to private parties -- cannot be used in the general fund to help the city cover salaries or any other expense.

By law, the land-fund money can only be used in one of five ways: Purchasing physical assets such as land, buildings or furnishings; constructing buildings; paying for the costs of developing comprehensive plans; salaries associated with the administration of the land fund or major road; and water and sewer projects.

Clark said the city's money would act as a "relatively small" investment that will be repaid many times over by the educational opportunities and jobs it will create. The city will also make as much as $75 million from selling portions of the 160 acres to private developers -- and because the site lies in a redevelopment area, it will also generate special tax increment revenue for the city when developed, he said.

"The development of this site will provide a unique learning opportunity," he said. "But when fully developed, it will create hundreds of private-sector jobs, millions in property tax revenue for the city and it will be a shining example of what a community working together can accomplish."

Clark said the city needs to move now because labor costs to install the infrastructure are at a low because of the economy, and the board needs to know what kind of challenges the site will present so it can plan accordingly.

Preliminary engineering reports show that the site will require major grading work and has raised concerns that the underlying water table may be high enough to require additional construction measures.

Gibson said he respected the concerns of Kirk and Hafen, but said that a provision requiring the advisory board to bring an annual budget to the City Council for approval will give the council control over every dollar the board spends.

Allowing the board to have the money would also allow it to invest in the city's investment portfolio and provide for a greater return, he said.

"The benefit that this will bring to our community is incalculable," Gibson said. "It will bring increased opportunities to this community that don't presently exist. ... I'm convinced that this is a good move; one that will only carry us on a path that will uplift us as a community."