I have been out of town on some family matters and hope to return home soon. I was provided this weekend with the local newspapers from last week and in reading Friday's paper regarding the proposed skatepark, I feel compelled to respond to the article written by Angie Thompson.

In reading the article, numerous questions and concerns regarding comments made by numerous individuals concerned me and I will attempt to state my concerns accordingly.

The article stated that members of the Tift County Recreation Department were of the opinion that the skatepark was a needed project within our county. While I cannot possibly comment on every person's opinion, I am a member of the local Athletic Advisory Committee associated with the recreation department and this skatepark group did address the AAC several months prior. As a group, the AAC did not endorse this endeavor. I do not dispute that some members of this community would benefit from a skatepark; however, it was presented to the AAC that this number was presently somewhere between 50 to 135 Tifton kids. Those numbers were presented to the AAC as persons from Tift County that were attending the skatepark meetings each month.

Comments were made that the county commissioners needed to designate land and SPLOST money for this endeavor. First and foremost, designating land is a different issue than designating money. First, the land could be designated, I suppose, contingent upon funds being generated to complete this project. However, why would a county designate land when funding is so lacking at this point. Secondly, funding from the county is limited and why would Commissioner Setters and the county fund money that still would be less than half of the projected cost?Assuming the county funded the requested $125,000, am I to assume that the county believes that amount is necessary and used beneficially by them for a maximum of 135 kids without even figuring in the value of the land?

These funds are needed elsewhere at this point. Suppose the county funded the requested $125,000 and the remaining money was not raised, would we be left with a skatepark that consists of a concrete slab and some miscellaneous “structural” construction which is not useful? What about all of the other needed areas of recreation that already exist? I would encourage each citizen to ride by the local ball fields and look at the amount of needed repairs to existing recreation areas.

Commissioner Setters is quoted as saying he “supported it 100 percent.” He further was quoted that “if we don't get it, we can't spend it.” First, I would hope he had all of the information provided to him on cost, economic impact of the skatepark, the number of individuals that would use this facility, and the need for these SPLOST funds to be used elsewhere before he made such a comment about his support. The article suggests that cost itself is still not clear as Ms. Thompson writes “the park could be as much as $350,000.” As for the second quote, I do not understand at all what Commissioner Setters is trying to state. The funds do not disappear just because they are not used on the skatepark. I can only hope that he may have been misquoted on this.

As stated in the article, no funding from the city or tourism group is anticipated, so I thought I would review the numbers presented in the article. $350,000 is the projected construction cost of the project on land potentially used for other means. Using only the projected construction cost, the $125,000 requested from the county is 35.7 percent of the cost. A grant from the Department of Community Affairs, which I understand to be contingent on the actual construction of the project is $10,000 and amounts to 2.86 percent of the cost. The group, in one year of raising funds, has raised only $2,000 which amounts to 0.57 percent of the projected cost. Another grant from the Tony Hawk foundation, which I remind you is not absolute per the article, is potentially between $2,000 to $10,000 which is somewhere between 0 percent and 2.86 percent of the cost if the maximum grant is obtained.

Another question I have is if there is so much support from within the community for this skatepark, why has the group only raised $2,000 in 12 months of fundraising? I would suggest the support is not as widespread as reported.

Further assuming that the county does fund $125,000, that the $10,000 from the Department of Community Affairs is received, that the group has raised $2,000, and the maximum grant of $10,000 is received from the Tony Hawk foundation, the total amount of $147,000 will have been generated on a $350,000 project which constitutes 42 percent of the cost of the project if further built within budget. Where are the remaining funds going to be generated from? Are we going to be left with a one-half completed project? Have these questions been asked and, if so, have they been answered? The 42 percent generated funds seems to me to be a best-case scenario with all the contingencies in the situation like the Tony Hawk and state grants along with the actual cost of the project itself. Has Commissioner Setters considered these possibilities in light of his 100 percent support?

In addition, I would be interested to know the terms and conditions outlined in the SPLOST referendum these funds would come from. Can the commission appropriate funding for a project not in existence at the time of the SPLOST referendum? Even if they can legally, will this have an impact on future SPLOST referendums if voters know that the commission can merely apportion monies generated to projects not included in the referendum? I would think it would have a negative impact. Have Commissioner Setters and fellow commissioners considered this possibility?

Comments were made in the article that no liability would be present because no fees would be charged, but that tourism would benefit. I suppose potential visitors from outside of the county could come and use the skatepark and generated revenue from gas and eating establishments would exist, but no fees would be generated directly to the county. Have numbers been provided that show the number of out-of-county participants or is this just a general statement? I would expect the latter to be true.

If the county is interested in tourism and revenue, I would encourage the commissioners and citizens alike to go to the E.B. Hamilton Complex this weekend as a baseball tournament including teams from as far away as Florida and Savannah are taking part. My understanding is there are 30 teams with several on a waiting list because Tifton does not have adequate facilities to handle more. Doesn't it seem that more tourism dollars will be generated in these tournaments and still be used by local citizens if the money was used on baseball and softball fields? My son's team played recently in LaGrange and there were over 70 teams present. Hotels and restaurants were full and gas stations and shopping areas benefited tremendously. Comments were made to me by locals in LaGrange that they would be busy all weekend. Wouldn't our SPLOST money be better served where tourism dollars are more abundant and where more local kids participated as in baseball and softball than in skateboarding? Would not those local kids' lives be enhanced also by better facilities to play on than the deteriorating ones we have now?

I encourage each of you to go to the complex this weekend and notice the amount of people in Tifton this weekend and encourage your commissioner to support recreation, but to also use the limited funds intelligently and not in such a cavalier manner. My hope is that all governmental entities will take better care of SPLOST dollars and not treat them as a “blank check” as I can only surmise the quote “if we don't get it, we can't spend it” leads me to believe. SPLOST dollars are a tax generated not only by out-of-county persons, but also of Tift County citizens who are taxed on our purchases as well and should not be spent just because it is there.

Sincerely,