Multipurpose - as in multipurpose building - refers to uses, not users.
Uses include indoor courts for basketball, volleyball and other recreation activities.
Two entities are planning such a facility - Lincoln University and the Jefferson City Parks, Recreation and Forestry Department. A partnership between them has been proposed.
The city agency is acting on behalf of municipal taxpayers, including residents who approached the parks commission and promoted the need for such a venue. LU is acting on behalf of its students, who are being assessed a fee for the facility.
In addition to the proposed partnership, facility size, costs and timing are issues being considered. Among the more pressing issues, LU has set a year-end deadline for parks officials to decide whether to proceed.
We understand. LU students are paying a fee and deserve a facility. LU must not repeat the past episode of assessing a swimming pool fee for an amenity that never was built.
Although LU is correct in imposing a deadline, the parks commission must not act hastily.
Also on the table is adding a third party. The City Council has invited university and parks officials to make a presentation designed to secure tax funding from the city's Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB).
City voters in 2011 increased the CVB's lodging tax, collected to promote tourism. If the multipurpose building's purpose is expanded to attract out-of-town sports events and visitors, council members could consider diverting lodging tax revenues to the building.
Although such a diversion would meet the letter of the law, it conflicts with its spirit; the lodging tax increase was marketed to finance a conference center in Jefferson City. Opposition to such a move is likely.
The purposes of a multipurpose building and conference center are different. A conference center is meant to attract visitors; if the multipurpose building adopts the additional purpose to attract visitors, opportunities for city residents and/or LU students will be diluted.
Local officials have been criticized, at times, for being overly cautious - to the point of inhibiting community growth and change.
A counter-argument, of course, is bold, premature action is reckless when millions of dollars - including tax dollars - are at stake.
Regarding the issues surrounding the multipurpose building, we counsel caution.