Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KReed

First Arena

Recommended Posts

KReed    442
Posted (edited)

I would  welcome discussion on the County Executives remarks regarding long-term plans for First Arena.

https://www.mytwintiers.com/news/first-arena-s-cheap-deal-questioned-by-moss/2040107005

For decades, various entities operating the Arena have struggled to maintain the facility.

While it seems everyone agrees that an "attraction" of some sort is important to restoring vitality to the city (and county), it needs to be an attraction that has a market demand that will sustain itself - not propped up at great expense to the taxpayers. 

There is a backfield on the riverbed behind an old tavern in Big Flats that has managed to become a regional attraction that relies its own revenue to operate. A few years before the Arena opened, a bar owner started growing a successful venue that paid for itself with enough profit to keep improving the facility and bring more business (something the alphabet soup of County agencies and committees does not seem to grasp). The difference is that apparently is that he identified and filled an actual demand. 

 

Edited by KReed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris    951

Long term plans up to now seem to have been make it taxpayer funded and hope someone will come along with something that sill keep the doors open. 

It's high time to fish or cut bait. Sell it to a private individual or tear the damn thing down and make it a parking lot. At least that might generate some revenue. (Assuming they don't hire another person to check those meters. And assuming the meters actually work. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris    951

Also, I saw on social media people asking why Moss is concerned about this "all the sudden".

Actually, he was questioning this when he was running for office, specifically on Frank Acombs show when all three candidates were in studio. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hal    218

More important overall are the violations , one in particular stands out ... chains on exit doors ! How many times have we seen this in other smaller ( not locally ) venues where there was great loss of life ? ! God forbid it should happen here ! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Go    167

What good is any attraction in Elmira when the roads are becoming impassable for normal vehicles?  They don't have money to maintain exiting roads, but they have money to destroy some successful businesses and build a roundabout to solve a non-existent problem.

There should not be a single taxpayer dollar going to support what is essentially private business until basic needs are taken care of.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris    951

Agreed. It's bad enough that the building has been allowed to fall into disrepair causing these code violations. It's even worse that the taxpayers continue to be on the hook for it when there's so many better uses for that money. 

If this was a "hockey town", it would be a successful endeavor. But this really isn't, except a small following. This dead horse has been beaten and pulverized into dust. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one area where I am not comfortable speaking publicly at this time. I am a member of the Chemung County Industrial Development Agency Board, and CCIDA owns the Arena. Moreover, I have been working with a small group of people to address many of these issues. Any public statements at this time really need to come through CCIDA Board Chairperson Dave Sheen or CCIDA Executive Director Joe Roman.

However, I can state that we all value and greatly appreciate feedback about what the community thinks should happen in the future with respect to the Arena. Your opinions all matter very much.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris    951
20 minutes ago, Christina Sonsire said:

This is one area where I am not comfortable speaking publicly at this time. I am a member of the Chemung County Industrial Development Agency Board, and CCIDA owns the Arena. 

I saw you said that on Facebook and get it. Just knowing someone sees these concerns helps. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris    951

Some of these repairs should not be up to the taxpayers to pay for. ( Well, ideally NONE of this should be coming out of tax monies, but ya know... ) 

arena.jpg

Things like hockey nets are, in my opinion, the cost of doing business. And for items 15-20 there's no cost noted. Is that part of the $140k? What is "Sponsor sitiuation"? 

And 30 televisions replaced? Thirty?!?! What the hell for?

Seems to me the only people who want the county to pay this and stop answering questions are either the few hard core hockey fans that want to make sure they have games to attend next season or the team management/ staff. 

There needs to be receipts produced to the penny before any checks get cut. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KReed    442
Posted (edited)

 

5 hours ago, Chris said:

Some of these repairs should not be up to the taxpayers to pay for. ( Well, ideally NONE of this should be coming out of tax monies, but ya know... ) 

 

There is no "ya know" about it. None of these expenditures should be reimbursed. Period. 

The lease clearly states that any expenses are required to be previously approved in writing by the Landlord** in order to be reimbursable. 

 

5 hours ago, Chris said:

There needs to be receipts produced to the penny before any checks get cut. 

Receipts? Nope....too late. Paying the tenant back for expenses they incurred far outside the conditions of the lease is not an option and if CCIDA’s legal counsel recommends it, they should be disbarred.

Exhibit C states that (when previously approved in writing by the Landlord), invoices are to be paid by the Landlord directly to the vendor. Furthermore, CBS indicated that CCIDA asked for at least two estimates for Capital Improvements before they would approve them.

Multiple estimates are a fundamental internal control for any business. We have no way of knowing that any of these expenses were appropriate for the service/work….even if they may have been considered to qualify for reimbursement under a proper submission for prior approval.

 

image.png.e57f56fe18992cf636192a0cdbe4bc14.png

image.png.976158b529c4dcc0800602c80cc31ba5.png

image.png.c51007b267a58fbf0ad21aac668fe8f9.png

image.png.ce3d1a6ad18b68f6ee70aafe23b8d605.png

** These exact words "previously approved in writing by the Landlord" appear several times and were italicized for emphasis in the Lease agreement. One would think such emphasis would indicate that taxpayers should expect this to be adhered to. 

Edited by KReed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris    951
40 minutes ago, KReed said:

There is no "ya know" about it. None of these expenditures should be reimbursed. Period. 

What I mean is, none of this should ever have been foisted on the taxpayers in the first place, but they have. So I'm sure to some the mentality is, "Well, they've paid for it this long..."

I hadn't read the actual contract earlier, but now looking at it you're right, work had to be previously agreed upon by the CCIDA. However if I'm reading it right, they DO have to pay for the ice plant repair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KReed    442
5 minutes ago, Chris said:

However if I'm reading it right, they DO have to pay for the ice plant repair. 

The way I read it, the Ice Plant reimbursement in 5.02 "shall be in accordance with this Section and Exhibit C attached hereto"....which seems to say they should have received approval and submitted an invoice to be paid directly to the vendor by CCIDA (and I would think would require a couple of estimates as CBS noted in her blog....otherwise, there is no way to know if the $45k for that is a fair price).

Hell...as a state employee we cannot buy basic office supplies without providing 3 estimates if we are not purchasing from a vendor with a pre-approved contact price for the goods or service. That's how accountability is supposed to work when you are spending taxpayers' money. If it is not proven to be a valid expenditure beforehand, it is invalid.

Of course, that is up to interpretation by legal counsel. I'm no lawyer, but I'd like to think I'm pretty fluent in the English Language...Repairs would be questioned even in the correct process, but not following the correct estimate/approval process should disqualify all expenses, the way it reads (in English).

I can't imagine any "real" landlord happily re-paying a tenant for painting, steam cleaning their apartment at whatever cost they decide without getting the property owner's approval....especially if the lease explicitly said I will reimburse you for such things if they are "previously approved in writing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hal    218
1 hour ago, Chris said:
1 hour ago, KReed said:

There is no "ya know" about it. None of these expenditures should be reimbursed. Period. 

What I mean is, none of this should ever have been foisted on the taxpayers in the first place, but they have. So I'm sure to some the mentality is, "Well, they've paid for it this long..."

I know what you meant Chris , there is that old keyboard failure at tones , inflections etc . . I see this attempt at reimbursement as a play at “ past practice “ ( well , they’ve paid for it this long ) otherwise known in “ good ole’ boy “ terms as “ well ya know “ ! But I need not tell you this as you have been to enough of our Town Board meetings in the past . And I agree , there is only a small percentage of area residents that push ( and it’s all uphill push at best ) to keep Hockey at the Arena and how many of them have skin in the game . Also rent on a facility like that $125.00 a month ? I would like to know the actual income vs expenditures not casting aspersions on the tenant but a portion of the gate , concessions and other gegaws I’m sure is no small amount and should have been used as ... yes , cost of doing buisness . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KReed    442
1 hour ago, Chris said:

What I mean is, none of this should ever have been foisted on the taxpayers in the first place, but they have. So I'm sure to some the mentality is, "Well, they've paid for it this long..."

I get that part. A lot of people (especially public officials) seem to be stuck in the mentality that it's "too big to fail" so taxpayers need to fund it. But I believe we are in the vast majority that has had enough of this.

I am glad that the IDA is growing a spine and resisting unfounded expenditures on top of the $100k we already paid toward Nichols's NYSEG bill. They need to hold their ground and force the tenant to abide by the lease or vacate. 

A free parking lot would bring more people to the city....and net more money than continuing to maintain the Arena.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris    951
3 hours ago, KReed said:

A free parking lot would bring more people to the city....and net more money than continuing to maintain the Arena.

At this point I'd rather see that and new businesses flourish than a dead, skelotonized horse beaten to dust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnny Go    167

So,what does a new roof cost?

I need to know how much money I need to save for my share.   /sarcasm/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KReed    442

Curiosity made me visit the Elmira Enforcers FB page this morning. I almost yakked up my coffee at some of the delusional adoring fans' comments.

Nichols's response when someone suggested it should be sold to someone that can make money was beyond infuriating:

 

Quote

Tom we are doing okay. We just want what was promised. Life is not always about making money. We are happy to see children and people happy. We will be fine. I have a very supportive wife and family, we have AMAZING SPONSORS AND AMAZING FANS!!! We will make it work.

Sure money is no object as long as it's coming out of someone else's pocket. 

It took all my self control not to blast this arrogant POS. It sure seemed to matter to him when he whined at the Legislature meeting about how he wants to be paid back for what came out of his pocket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×