The city engineer said that one of the options will "leave everything in its place based on streets as they exist today."  A second option removes part of Stieger Lake Lane and includes land acquisition.
It was pointed out that the $32,900 for this report ends up being part of the assessment costs if the project is a go.  If it's a go, downtown utility construction would begin in 2007.  The money is not recoverable if the city does not do the redevelopment project.

PROBLEMS AT THE VICTORIA FIELD HOUSE
CITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE YMCA

The Victoria City Council meeting Thursday evening, July 27^th, was short, but the Council Workshop was long.  Point of discussion:  What should be done about the escalating cost of operating the Victoria Field House? 
In addition to the debt service, the Victoria taxpayers are footing an annual bill of approximately $300,000 to keep the Field House in operation.  Housing starts in Victoria have slowed.  Lifetime Fitness has moved in.  Membership at the Field House has declined.
At the end of the workshop, Victoria Council voted 4-1 to direct city staff to work with Ballard King & Associates to devise a process to develop a public-public partnership for the Victoria Field House.  The YMCA, for example, is a nonprofit public entity.

Ballard King had been previously hired by the City of Victoria to perform an audit assessment of the Victoria Field House operations, at a cost not to exceed $9,000.  Jeff King of Ballard King began this evening of July 27^th by presenting results of that audit assessment. 
At one point, after a couple hours and several criticisms of the Field House operations, Councilmember Terry Bishop interrupted Mr. King and pointedly asked, "What can we do to make this better for the City of Victoria?  We want advice and direction.  You've got five people sitting here who don't know spit about running this facility.  What's the next step?"
Jeff King then moved to the conclu-sion of his presentation and offered some options or solutions for Victoria council-members to consider, including selling or closing the Field House, implementing a change in management, training existing staff, or forming a partnership with the YMCA or School District 112.
"Which of those would you recom-mend as the best option for Victoria?" asked Councilmember Kim Roden.
"Clearly it's the partnership with the YMCA," replied Mr. King.  "They have the expertise, a network of support you'll never have.  There are many examples of these kinds of partnerships ... You put me on the spot, but that's the one that sticks out to me."
"And yet," he added, "the YMCA is run on memberships and you'd want your citizens to have daily access.  How com-fortable would you be to have a facility you don't have any say over?"
Replied Councilmember Kim Roden, "Right now we have the illusion we have control over it."
Stated Councilmember Richard Tied-en, "I think this is a mistake.  Sounds to me like we're giving up ... We've never had a director for that place.  If we could only do what was intended, give it a try ... I think we're moving too fast."
Replied Councilmember Roden, "It's costing Victoria taxpayers money to not move quickly.  We're here to respect the people who put us here.  I might say we're moving too slow.  The information tells me we have to move quicker.  We've got a huge problem in terms of our operating budget."
Said Councilmember Terry Bishop, "The partnership is looking more attrac-tive to me ... It's a wonderful facility, made with good intentions, but things change."
Said Councilmember Mary Thun, "This council recognizes we have some serious financial situations with the Field House.  This in no way reflects on our Parks and Rec Supervisor or our Field House Supervisor.  We must communi-cate that to them."

Jeff King included results of his mar-ket analysis that indicates, he said, a rec-reational facility could be supported in the "Victoria service area."  It was not imme-diately made clear, however, that there is a big difference between supporting with debt and supporting with solvency.
*Family size on a national level is 2.4; in Victoria it's 3.2.
*Median income on a national level is $48,000; in Victoria it's $87,000.
*On a national level, 24.7% of the population has an income under $25,000; in Victoria it's only 8.2%.
*On a national level, 48% of the pop-ulation has an income over $50,000; in Victoria it's 77%.
"It's not a surprise that Lifetime Fit-ness moved in down the street," he said, adding, "Aerobics, walking, and exercise equipment are all growing in popularity and you've got these activities at the Field House.  The market potential for aerobics in the Victoria Service Area is 648 people.  Even if you only picked up 15% of that, you should have 100 members.  Against this backdrop, you are not seeing this growth at the Field House."
He also said, "The Victoria popula-tion area is too small to support a recreation center on a solvent basis."

Click here to continue Field House Problems.