Feelings Clearest Part Of Science Center Debate Costs Uncertain, Benefits Disputed And Impact On Park Bitterly Debated

Months of passionate debate climax Tuesday when Spokane voters decide the fate of a proposed science center in Riverfront Park’s Pavilion.

City Council members approved a 20-year lease with the Seattle-based Pacific Science Center last March. A month later, a petition drive kicked the issue onto the primary ballot.

Feelings are intense on both sides.

Supporters talk about the center’s tremendous benefits - a hands-on science museum designed to trigger the Einstein lurking in children and adults alike.

“It’s like a gigantic lab where students can come in from all over Eastern Washington,” said Joanne Tripp, who heads the campaign with her husband to bring the $10.3 million center to the Pavilion. “What an investment in our children.”

Critics question the cost, the fate of the carnival rides, the effect on Spokane’s precious Riverfront Park.

Steve Corker, leader of the petition drive, said he worries the park’s chemistry will be ruined by moving the rides out and the center into the Pavilion.

“People really care about that park,” he said. “They really want to preserve the synergy in the park.”

The two sides constantly spit out numbers and facts, reaching opposite conclusions.

Critics say the center will be a drain on city taxpayers. Center cheerleaders say it’s the park that’s the drain.

In truth, only time will tell who’s right.

“They’re making all these accusations that we’re not being honest,” said Kate McCaslin, the paid consultant for the “Yes! Spokane’s Science Center” campaign. “The perception is that this is a bond issue, and that’s just not true.”

A proposed $1.6 million, five-year service contract calls for the city and Park Board to pay the center $400,000 annually for two years. The payments drop during the next three years and could stop when the contract expires.

“There’s no obligation to pay after five years,” McCaslin said.

At that time, the Park Board, council and science center officials will renegotiate the contract.

“What if they come back for more money?” Corker said.

Annual taxpayer subsidies to Riverfront Park range from $600,000 to $1 million since the park opened.

Parks Department officials say a study done last year showed handing the Pavilion to the science center would save taxpayers about $400,000 over five years. The rides lose money, the study showed.

“The city is losing a lot of money, particularly in the Pavilion,” McCaslin said.

Critics contend those estimates are loose.

Hal McGlathery, Riverfront Park’s manager, said the park doesn’t break down the costs of maintaining the green space, rides and Pavilion. Everything is lumped together.

“It’s hard to refute or defend any of those figures,” he said.

Most troubling to critics is the fate of the rides. A March survey showed that 65 percent of the 400 residents polled said they want rides in the park.

The Park Board planned earlier this year to study the costs of moving the rides, possibly to the north riverbank. After the successful petition drive, the board decided to put the study on hold until after the vote.

“Why are they so afraid of telling the true costs?” Corker said.

Park Board president Dennis Hession said the board is “committed” to addressing the ride issue, but not committed to keeping the rides at any cost.

“If moving the rides costs substantially more than they could ever make, that’s not fiscally responsible,” Hession said.

The rides are old and require almost constant repair, Hession said. If the Park Board decides to keep rides, it’s likely they would need new ones.

Also uncertain is how much work must be done to the Pavilion before the center moves in. An engineering study of any potential structural defects won’t be done until after the vote.

The city would have to cover the cost of any major structural problems.

Hession said the city would have to do that anyway. The Pavilion has fallen into disrepair over the years, which is why the Park Board pursued the science center.

“We knew we had to do something with the Pavilion,” he said, adding that if the current proposal fails, there’s no money in the parks budget to do something else.

Also raising critics’ fears is the cost to move security, maintenance and administrative offices in the Pavilion.

Hession said security and administration likely would relocate to City Hall. The maintenance offices would be consolidated in a building just north of the park.

The Parks Department eventually hopes to build a $750,000 central maintenance building, but doesn’t have the money, Hession said.

The questions still looming about possible costs infuriate Jonathan Swanstrom, a center critic.

“This city is in bad shape financially,” Swanstrom said. “No tax money should be spent on this project. It’s not a priority.”

Critics also contend Spokane doesn’t have the population or tourist draw to support the center. Residents will tire of the exhibits over time.

“My biggest fear is not the science center coming to Spokane, but the center coming to Spokane and failing,” Corker said.

McCaslin said the variety of exhibits will be “endless. It’s constantly in a state of change.”

She talked about the tremendous tourist revenue the center will bring to Spokane.

“The Convention and Visitor’s Bureau projects $2 million in new tourism dollars every year,” McCaslin said.

Pavilion renovation is expected to use about $6.3 million of the center’s $10.3 million cost. Exhibits should cost about $3.3 million and start-up about $634,000.

Corker and other opponents say the $10.3 million estimated in 1992 won’t fly if construction starts in 1996. He and other opponents put the cost closer to $12.8 million.

McCaslin countered that the money’s being raised privately. If costs go up, supporters are committed to raising more.

So far, about $2.2 million in private money has been raised, McCaslin said. Federal taxpayers have committed $1.25 million to the center, state taxpayers $2 million.

The center’s $2 million annual budget is designed to be self-supporting, said Kevin Hughes, the Seattle center’s public affairs director.

Eighty percent of the money is earned through admissions and other revenues, Hughes said. The remaining 20 percent would come from donations and training services.

, DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: SCIENTIFIC FACTS A few facts about the Pacific Science Center proposal: Voting “yes” means you want the Pacific Science Center. Only city residents can vote on the issue. The center is a hands-on museum where children and adults take part in science experiments. The center would offer reduced and free passes to low-income families, disabled persons, students and seniors. The center would operate the IMAX Theatre and ice rink. The rink would stay as it is now, remaining open for skating and hockey. People could visit the IMAX and ice rink without paying for science center tickets. The gondola and Carrousel would be unchanged. The IMAX and ice rink would stay open past the center’s hours. A family group - the center doesn’t define a family - could pay $39 for a year’s membership, which includes skating but not skate rental and admission to IMAX films. By city charter, the center can’t build outside the Pavilion area. The center is considering ways to keep public access to Pavilion restrooms and restaurant. School buses would be allowed to cross the Howard Street bridge and drop students off at the center between 8 and 10 a.m. and pick them up between 2 and 4 p.m. No other cars or buses would be allowed access. The center would need to continue raising from $45,000 to $220,000 in private donations for at least seven years after it opens. - Kristina Johnson