Decision looms on proposed center

After two years of discussion that has largely gone nowhere in bringing the project to a public vote, let alone fruition, the fate of the proposed community center is nearing its conclusion. And that conclusion doesn’t look good for the project.

During a study session Tuesday, Feb. 3, the Mill Creek City Council talked about the project for two hours, but didn’t reach a final decision. That is expected to come during the Council’s legislative retreat on Feb. 21, but it’s unlikely the center as proposed will come to a public vote. Setting an election date on the issue is on the retreat agenda.

That’s because a recent study conducted by outside consultants Ballard*King &Associates cited that no matter what amenities the center offered, or how big it was, that it would still end up losing money to the tune of approximately $300,000 a year, a shortfall the city would somehow need to make up. City officials have suggested that adopting a utility tax could cover that deficit, but the Council has balked at that idea.

That figure appears to have turned off most of the City Council. Another area of concern is that the study indicated that within the city of Mill Creek the need is not so great, but that the need is greater in the area surrounding the city. The Ballard*King study says the majority of users of such a facility would come from outside the city limits, what the report calls the “service area.”

“What troubles me is that we’re thinking of bonding our citizens for the benefit of those who live in the service area,” said Council member Dale Hensley, a position that was echoed by colleague Mark Bond.

Hensley’s argument is one that citizens have been making, according to Council member Mary Kay Voss.

Council members had other concerns as well. John “Jack” Start said he was concerned about the potential staffing costs, which were done using current city pay scales as its basis, that the report stated. Bond, meanwhile, said he would somehow like to see a way to have non-residents carry the burden of such a facility, provided one could be found without overcharging for various park department programs that would take place at the center.

Mayor Terry Ryan, meanwhile, had a different proposal. He said he has received numerous phone calls about the issue, and that most people he has talked to don’t want what they call an elaborate facility. They’d rather just have a gymnasium and some meeting rooms. City officials said at the meeting that they would look into the cost of that kind of center and bring it back in time for the retreat.

“Is this something we need, or something we want?” Ryan asked. The mayor also wondered aloud if there really is a need for such a facility, and that he doesn’t want to hire any more consultants to study the issue.

“I’d like to find something that’s do-able,” Ryan said.

Ryan said that the Council will need to consider several factors at the retreat next week. Those factors are: Is there a need, can it support itself and if not, how can the shortfall be made up. Hensley also said the Council should look at the center’s impact on both the parks department and all city services.