Members of the Montgomery City Council expressed annoyance at the Montgomery County Commission and the Montgomery County Community Cooperative District (MCCCD) after it asked for $500,000 to continue funding the Montgomery Whitewater waterpark.
The park has been the source of tension between the city council and county commission due to its continued demand for more money while failing to turn a profit.
The funding issues began before the park ever opened. The project eventually carried a $90 million price tag, up from initial estimates.
The MCCCD took out bonds, accepted donated land and $10 million from the City, accepted county funding, and a donation from the Poarch Band of Creek Indians.
In December 2024, at a county commission meeting, commission chairman Doug Singelton claimed that while the City is enjoying the benefits of the waterpark, it is not equally shouldering the financial burden.
City council members have pointed to their own perceived inequities with the entire project, frequently pointing to the vastly larger resources available to the county.
The council met on Wednesday to consider a resolution authorizing a third amendment to the contract made with the MCCCDA. According to board chairman Cornelius "C.C." Calhoun, the money requested is part of the City's initial agreement with the county in 2019.
"The county was asking for $250,000 per year from the City to help, so what happened in the meantime in the last three years, the county did not invoice the City of Montgomery the $250,000 a year. So, we gave $250,000 this year to the county to assist with Whitewater. And they're in the need of the other $500,000. So, the ordinance that we passed said that we would only do $250,000 per year, and now they're asking for the additional that they didn't bill for."
During the meeting, District 9 Councilman Charles Jinright claimed that the City had already sunk $40 million into the park.
District 1 Councilman Ed Grimes was swift to bemoan the request for more money years into this project, also complaining that the county left the City hanging regarding funding for community centers.
"The County, y'all bailed on our community centers, so we couldn't finish some of them, so we're put in a bad spot, guys," Grimes said.
District 3 Councilwoman Marche Johnson echoed Grimes' complaints about the community center criticism.
"Those community centers were a top priority for ARPA dollars when we did it," Johnson said. "We all knew we needed it. They bailed on it, and we did not know they were bailing on it until the last hour. So, we used those $500,000 on our community centers. And I'm sure we still need to use it on this increasing cost for construction. Their budget is larger and wider than ours, and we are right now paying for a lot of costs at the City's expense, and this is just not one of those things that's a priority for our constituents."
Grimes went on to state that if the park continued its trend of operating in a deficit every year, the request is, in reality, asking for a permanent budget line item from the City.
"Not only do we need financials, we need a plan going forward so we quit bleeding money, or at least we know how much money we're going to bleed. I saw last year was about $2.8 million, or roughly there, of a loss. So, if that's going to be the number every year, then we know what we're dealing with."
He continued, "We got to understand that, if we're going to do this, this is going to be a line item every year. So if we're willing to do that, then that's what we need to realize. But don't just throw money at it because it's probably not coming out of the hole. It's probably not. So, that's what we have to agree as a council: are we willing to put it on the budget?"
Calhoun retorted, agreeing with Grimes about the need for financial transparency and a clear game plan while also claiming that the City needed to support the park's continuation.
"My good friend always say: 'either you're pregnant or you're not,'" Calhoun said. "The baby's born now, so what are we going to do? Are we going to let the baby drown, or are we going to try to work these type of things out? I put it on the table to make those amendments. It's up to the council to move forward. Do we want to say we had a partnership [and] in less than two years, we bailed on Whitewater and it closed and we got a big old facility over there?"
District 8 Councilman Glen Pruitt used the discussion time to complain about City representation on the MCCD.
According to the Montgomery County website, the MCCCD is governed by seven appointed members: four by the county, one by the City, one by the Montgomery County Building Authority and one by the Montgomery County Local Redevelopment Authority.
However, at Tuesday's meeting, MCCCD's Kindell Anderson stated there were only five members: two from the county, one from the City, and one from the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce.
The same document states that the City's appointment would "be elected by the governing body of the City of Montgomery." However, Anderson noted at the meeting that Mayor Steven Reed selected the current City appointee.
Pruitt was unaware that the City had an appointment and seemed taken aback that it came from Reed and not the council. Grimes seemed equally confused, declaring, "We need somebody from this group right here."
Ultimately, the council voted not to vote on the issue during Tuesday’s meeting, vowing to look at the financials and dialogue with the relevant people before making a financial determination.
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected].
Don't miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
