by Don Wilder

Should the City boot the YMCA (i.e., not extend the lease) from the YMCA Marguerite Center ("Marguerite Center") and turn into just another recreation center like Sierra or Montanoso (the "Rec Centers")? That is what a number of 'community activists' seem to be carping for . . . or at least open up the Marguerite Center to Rec Center members. Let's look at some numbers.

Please consider the following comparative data for FY '03 and '04

Rec Centers costs to the city:
      Operating cost - $1,324,525
      Maintenance costs - $516,452
      Total costs $1,840,977

Marguerite Center costs to the city:
      Operating cost to the city - $0
      Maintenance costs - ? $15,000
      Total cost to the city - ? $15,000.

Capital improvement costs:
      Rec Centers - $2,069,304
      Y's Marguerite Center - $0

Revenue (membership and day use fees) to the City for the Rec Centers -
       $855,044.
Revenue to the City for the Marguerite Center -        $2.

Net profit(loss) to the City (excluding capital expenditures):
For operation of the Rec Centers -
       ($985,933) loss
For operation of the Marguerite Center -
       ($14,998) loss

Net profit(loss) to the City (including capital expenditures):
For operation of the Rec Centers -
       ($3,055,237) loss
For operation of the Marguerite Center -
       ($14,998) loss

Current membership:
Rec Centers - 3766 (?10% non-residents)
Marguerite Center - Over 10,300 (6824 full facility memberships plus another 3500 community memberships for various special programs). (? 15% non-residents)

Facility usage:
Rec Centers - 9,554/month average
Marguerite Center - 13,488/month average

The City currently is planning an expenditure of $1.3 million in "capital improvements" at the Marguerite Center. A closer look will show that most of this amount is actually to cover deferred maintenance items. Improvements made since 1994 when the Y's lease contract commenced, have essentially been limited to major facility modifications for ADA compliance (? $400K), roof replacement (? $200K), and locker room upgrade (? $300K) that included replacement of non-functional lockers and ADA modifications that were not included in the first ADA facility modifications. It is not unreasonable to presume that these modifications all would have been necessary regardless of who occupied the facility, and as the owner of the facility, the responsibility of the City.

So, in the last two years the City has spent over $3 millions to operate the Rec Centers to serve 3766 members and $1.315 millions for the Y to operate the Marguerite Center (including the yet to be approved $1.3 millions facility upgrade  (i.e., deferred maintenance) to serve 6824 members.  If the operation and maintenance costs alone (excluding capital improvements) for the Rec Centers approached $2 millions for the last two years, is the City prepared to assume the additional financial and administrative burden of operating the Marguerite Center as well?

Currently, the Y spends about $1.7 millions annually for operation costs. Is the city prepared to assume that burden? And if they did, would the programs offered come close to comparing with the YMCA programs. I think not. One only need compare the YMCA programs with those of the Rec Centers.

Membership fees for the Marguerite Center are more or less comparable, with the Y being slightly more expensive. But the costs to the City for the operation each of the Rec Centers greatly exceeds those of the Marguerite Center. It is important to note that the Y is a not-for-profit organization and that any surplus funds (from memberships, program fees, fund raisers, grants, etc.) are plowed back into community programs or scholarships to assist families with programs who otherwise would be unable to participate.

Some community activists have suggested that because the Marguerite Center is a city-owned recreation facility, that it should be open to members of the Rec Centers. The Y has expressed a willingness to work out such an arrangement, financially and otherwise. However, this would mean opening up Sierra and Montanoso rec centers to the Y membership. Could the facilities at the Rec Centers handle the increased usage by being available to an additional 6800 members? Are members of the Sierra and Montanoso centers prepared to handle all the potential additional usage by Y members in exchange for access to the Marguerite center? One can only guess. Do the community activists believe that the Y should welcome Rec Center Members for free because they paid Rec Center fees? Servicing additional members comes with a cost. What share of Rec Center fees do they suggest be provided to the Marguerite Center to handle the participants from the Rec Centers? And vice versa.

Is the YMCA good for the City of Mission Viejo? One should look at the benefit to the community provided by both Sierra and Montanoso Rec Centers, as well as the Y. To be sure, the Rec Centers provide a nexus for health and physical fitness, summer fun for families, and community gathering. But I doubt that one would find anything there to compare to the benefits to youth and family values, changed lives (for the better), aid to disadvantaged families, memorable camp experiences (for children and families), youth sports, in addition to all the same kinds of health and physical fitness benefits offered by the rec centers. The Y offers programs for all ages and families that the Rec Centers have never offered, nor could offer with nearly the effectiveness and cost efficiency as those offered by the Y. What the Y contributes to the community is far beyond that of the City's other rec centers. City activists should check out the details of these benefits for themselves. The relationship between the City, the community and the Y is symbiotic and mutually beneficial.

Note: Financial, membership and usage information regarding the City provided by the City staff; and for the YMCA by the YMCA staff

by Max McDougall

YMCA 30 YEAR $1 PER YEAR EXTENSION

HISTORY:

 The Sports Leisure Group (SLG) which was nothing but a hiring shop was an enormous mistake by the early city counsel that hired this group for $10,000 per month to run all the rec centers given to the city by the Mission Viejo Company in 1992 for exchange of some property on Chrisanta. The SLG spent huge sums in attempting to market all of the rec centers and they had no knowledge of operating recreation centers. Instead of firing the SLG and hiring professional rec center managers (which the city finally did in 1995 or 1996) the city counsel decided to investigate a Laguna Niguel YMCA proposal.

FIRST 15 YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT:

 In August 1994 the city counsel then composed of Cody, Breton, Lowe, Susan Withrow and Bill Craycraft voted to lease the center to the Laguna Niguel YMCA for 15 years for a return of $1 per year. This gave the YMCA exclusive use of the Marguerite center for the last 10 years. They are now attempting to extend it another 30 years without any consideration for anyone outside the YMCA (except Natadore members use the Margurite fitness facilities and YMCA members use the “Natadore pool “ for lap swimming). 

The staff also advised the city counsel to put a termination clause that would allow either party to terminate the 15 year lease without cause with a one year notice prior to the 3rd, 6th, 9th, or 12th year (same arrangement as the Natadore lease). The YMCA turned this down and offered a convoluted counter proposal that in essence would eventually only be in the Y’s best interest. Craycraft seconded the motion to delete the 3,6,9,12 year termination clause and voted for the lease with Withrow. 

Another agreement was that the fee structures for the YMCA programs were similar to the current fee structure of the rec center – now they are twice the present MV rec center fee structure. What happened? This center is a cash cow for the Y.

CURRENT 30-YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT:

The agreement itself is no different then the original one of 1994 except that the YMCA promises to pay for all capital costs after the city pays another estimated $1.3 + to $1.5+ million for a laundry list that will probably exceed those figures. This then would total $3+ million of our tax money in the last 10 plus years and not one MV rec center member has used it. In essence the YMCA expects revamps that are just now being made to the Montanoso and next year to the Sierra.

WHY IT IS NOT FAIR TO MV CITIZENS:

The rec centers were given to the residents of this city- not to the Y. The Y does not have a senior program other than an exclusive “Silver Sneakers” ( which is free only to “Secure Horizens” members). Their membership rates do not reflect differences between out of town versus MV residents. Their membership rates are double what a MV resident pays for a MV rec center rate in almost every category. MV seniors not only pay half the Y rate but also get an additional 10% discount. Initial signup fees are double the MV rec fees. We are coming into the baby boomer retirement age and we in MV are going to require more rec center needs long before a 30-year lease has even started let alone ended.

SUMMARY:

 There have been no public meetings to get resident input to this ill-conceived power play by Bill Craycraft and the YMCA board of directors. The YMCA state that they have a 5 year planning process so they demand a vote now. This city has a two year $38 million dollar budget planning process so why should the city counsel give in to these YMCA executive directors’ intimidating, hostile demands that we all observed and heard at the two recent city counsel meetings. The YMCA has stated that they will not even discuss any plan that would allow a MV rec center member from having access to the Marguerite center until after the city allows a 30-year lease extension. This is putting the cart before the horse. We the citizens own the Marguerite not the YMCA. We demand that the city Counsel vote down this 30 year proposal and take it out of this election year politics. This is Bill Craycraft’s last year on the city counsel and he has given away far too much during his tenure on the counsel. He is the one who put it on the agenda before it was even out of closed session. In the new year of 2005 the new counsel can hold public meetings on plans to include the rest of MV residents in the use of this magnificent recreation facility. No one is opposed to the YMCA using this facility- we are offended by the manner and the aggressive tactics that the YMCA directors’ have attempted to stealthily steal it away from our citizens and who seem to have little consideration to share it with our MV residents and seniors without paying a double fee structure.