Op-Ed: Sports Complex Deserves Transparency by Andrew Ball

Opinion

By: Andrew Ball, Davidson County resident

Davidson County is preparing to spend $65 million of public money on one of the largest discretionary projects in our history — a proposed multisport complex in Southmont featuring sports fields, gym space, an aquatic center, and a water park.

I support recreation. I support parks and growth.

But recreation and responsibility are not the same thing, and we owe it to taxpayers to tell the truth about what documentation exists — and what does not.

After weeks of asking the county for the basic studies that usually accompany a project of this size, I have learned that many of the documents residents assume exist simply do not.

And that should concern anyone, whether they support the complex or not.

No Feasibility Study Has Been Produced

When the county describes the projected revenue, attendance, or long-term sustainability of the complex, many residents reasonably assume this information comes from a written feasibility study.

It does not.

After repeated requests, the county has confirmed in writing that:

• There is no written feasibility study for the sports complex.

• There is no written financial model showing how the project makes money.

• There is no written attendance projection or methodology.

• There is no economic impact study or cost-benefit analysis.

The only document the county has repeatedly provided is a conceptual slide deck from a February 6, 2025 presentation — a PowerPoint with concept drawings and broad revenue claims but no underlying calculations.

For a $65 million project, that is not due diligence.

The County Hired Designers, Not Analysts

The county has repeatedly suggested that Providence Partners “reviewed financials” from other facilities or that their work constitutes feasibility analysis.

However, the contract between Davidson County and Providence Partners tells a different story.

Providence Partners was contracted strictly for:

• Architectural design

• Civil engineering

• Schematic design

• Construction documents

• Bidding and permitting

• Construction administration

Nowhere in the contract — not once — does it authorize:

• Feasibility work

• Financial analysis

• Revenue modeling

• Attendance projections

• Market studies

• Economic impact work

The invoices match the contract: design, design, and more design.

The county spent nearly $4 million on design before proving the project made sense financially.

The Project Was Approved Before the Data Existed

The March 10, 2025 Capital Project Ordinance — the official approval of the $65 million — cites only two meetings as the basis for greenlighting the entire project:

• A February 6 informational meeting

• A March 6 budget workshop

Those meetings contained concept drawings and general revenue estimates, but not one of the following:

• A feasibility study

• A formal financial model

• Attendance methodology

• Independent third-party review

• Cost-benefit analysis

In fact, the ordinance itself instructs future budget submissions to include the “detailed analysis” — meaning that analysis did not exist at the time of approval.

This is backwards budgeting: approve first, analyze later.

This Isn’t Anti-Recreation — It’s Pro-Responsibility

Davidson County needs recreation. Parents need more options for youth sports. Families need places to gather. No reasonable person disputes that.

But recreation has to be matched with transparency.

The public should not have to fight for the documents that justify a $65 million decision.

They shouldn’t be told a feasibility study exists when the contract shows none was ever commissioned.

And taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to trust attendance and revenue numbers that have no written basis.

This is not about stopping the project.

It is about making sure we build the right project, at the right size, with the right information, at the right time.

A phased approach, backed by real data, would still deliver recreation while protecting taxpayers from unnecessary risk.

Davidson County Deserves the Full Picture

Before we spend $65 million in public funds:

• The feasibility study should exist — and be public.

• The financial model should exist — and be public.

• The attendance projections should exist — and be public.

• The county should explain why design was funded before feasibility.

Residents deserve facts, not assumptions.

Transparency builds trust.

And for a project of this size, trust should be earned — not presumed.

— Andrew Ball