Residents mixed on spending for ballfields

York County Council heard plenty of voices in support of sports complexes in Lake Wylie and Fort Mill. In the hours leading into a decision, they also heard from the other side.

“The sports complexes really don’t help the citizens, per se,” said Rock Hill resident Paul Anderko. “They help the special interest groups.”

Several residents addressed council Dec. 21 ahead of decisions that would allocate $2.45 million for a sports complex on Crowders Creek in Lake Wylie and $1.6 million for another beside Riverview Elementary School in Fort Mill. Those residents argued infrastructure needs, mainly roads, are more pressing than fields.

“Instead of looking at ways to deal with these issues, you guys are sitting around looking at ways to spend money on soccer fields,” said planning commission member and Fort Mill resident Larry Barnett. “We got soccer fields at the Leroy Springs complex, we’ve got them at every school. There’s soccer fields in Regent Park. Why do we need more soccer fields?”

Resident Ragin Craig believes there is a developer slant to decisions made in the county, where special interests spur projects like sports complexes near their property regardless how much the community needs it.

“You’re enhancing people’s property to get a better price,” he said.

In Lake Wylie, he sees repairs to S.C. 557 as a bigger need than new fields. But the complex there, which still hinges on a public vote to create a special tax district, is preferable to the Fort Mill decision in which residents had no say, Craig said.

“The people in Fort Mill are screaming and hollering and fussing, ‘do something about the dang road!’” he said.

Support for facilities

Not all residents were against the facilities. Many have spoken in favor at prior meetings, including the official public hearing. Kim Trainer, a supporter of the Lake Wylie park, points to the thousand signatures in support gathered from residents and businesses in Lake Wylie, which has no local government and is under the jurisdiction of York County.

“We need this,” she said. “People have spoken.”

Planners behind both complexes had to show the value to the county, through tourism generated through tournament play. Tourism is a requirement for hospitality tax funding, a 2 percent charge on food and drink in unincorporated areas. Trainer said the numbers make the case for sports facilities.

“We’ve spent hundreds and hundreds of hours proving all of our numbers,” she said. “We are asking you because you are our ‘mayor.’ You are our governing body.”

Residents against the proposals say the spending is part of a bigger problem. Barnett said moratoriums, impact fees, overlays and permit holds where roads exceed capacity all are solutions to extreme community growth in neighboring communities, but not in York County.

“We’re told we can’t do that in York County,” he said. “I don’t understand why.”

While some might argue those measures would curb community growth, Barnett sees value there.

“It might do so in certain areas,” he said, “but that wouldn’t hurt.”

Anderko, a leader of a countywide conservative political organization that often speaks out against public spending, said the two projects are “a big portion of your hunk” of money, taking up about half the available hospitality tax fund revenue. As municipalities annex property, he sees the fund diminishing with fewer and fewer unincorporated acres. Anderko has issues not only with capital spending from hospitality funds, but the funds themselves.

“The hospitality tax is another tax to help cities and counties to spend taxpayers’ money without the citizens going to vote for the projects,” he said. “The council, basically I believe, some of the hospitality tax money is a slush fund to use where municipalities don’t have the money or the citizens really don’t want the project.”

Prior to approving the money, council heard a motion to defer the decisions allowing for more community input.

“This is right before Christmas,” said Councilwoman Christi Cox, who voted against both proposals. “If we want people to come out and actually have a vote and pay attention to what’s going on with this Htax, it shouldn’t be right before Christmas. Nobody’s going to come out and do that.”

Other members argued the public hearings were held and the public had opportunities to speak at the Dec. 21 meeting. Council allows a set number of speakers during its public comment period at each meeting, given two minutes apiece. Most speakers on Dec. 21 addressed an unrelated resolution on refugee settlement. Council decided on the park plans about three and a half hours into its meeting.

Councilman William “Bump” Roddey said park supporters or detractors had plenty of opportunity to participate, regardless how close the decision came to Christmas.

“If it’s important enough to you, you’ll be here,” he said.

In Lake Wylie, residents will have a larger scale opportunity to have their voices heard. Funding for the Lake Wylie complex is contingent on a public referendum on whether to create a special tax district to help fund the rest of the $8 million project. Ron Domurat, planner behind the Lake Wylie park, referred to that vote when asked by council if he could guarantee hospitality tax money would lead to construction within 18 months of a decision.

“I think that’s acceptable,” he said. “If we can’t do it by then, then the residents of Lake Wylie don’t want it.”

This story was originally published December 22, 2015 at 4:35 PM with the headline "Residents mixed on spending for ballfields."