Realization of complex still far from final

Published 10:45 pm Saturday, February 20, 2016

After 14 months and two polls, the city of Vicksburg remains a city without a new sports complex or even plans for one.

It was December 2014 when the committee appointed by Mayor George Flaggs Jr. gave its report to the public calling for a mega sports complex on 270 acres of land with baseball and softball fields, soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts and a multipurpose indoor facility for the city. At that time, Flaggs set the price tag for the complex at $20 million to be funded by a 2 percent hotel and food and beverage tax.

Since then, a five-member site committee of Aldermen Michael Mayfield and Willis Thompson and two county supervisors and county administrator John Smith discussed and looked at several properties before deciding to use the city’s Fisher Ferry property off Fisher Ferry Road, a 200-acre tract the city bought in 2003 for $230,000 for a sports complex, spent $2.7 million on plans and site preparation and abandoned in 2009.

Email newsletter signup

Sign up for The Vicksburg Post's free newsletters

Check which newsletters you would like to receive
  • Vicksburg News: Sent daily at 5 am
  • Vicksburg Sports: Sent daily at 10 am
  • Vicksburg Living: Sent on 15th of each month

Except for participation on the site committee, Warren County officials have not been involved in the discussion or planning for the proposed sports complex.

And at this point, construction of a complex is no closer to reality than it was when the recreation committee presented its report.

Flaggs says he hopes to have an answer on the Fisher Ferry property within three weeks, adding he’s waiting on an analysis of the Feb. 11 poll and plans to meet this week with a group of private developers interested in building a complex.

“We’re talking two spots,” Flaggs said, adding the developers will build on property they already own and the city will build at the Fisher Ferry site. And everything depends on the developers.

“We’re waiting to finalize something with a private developer, but it is my intent to recommend to the board a comprehensive plan that would be all inclusive of a sports complex and entertainment facility on two separate sites, but they will enhance each other; they will be part of a comprehensive plan.”

He would not identify the developers or say where the site of the proposed private development will be or what is planned for the site.

Prospective plans for the Fisher Ferry site, Flaggs said, would include baseball, softball and soccer fields and an indoor facility, “but we won’t know (the final plans) until we meet with these developers.”

If the developers are ready to go with their project, he said, work on their project could begin within 6 to 7 months. Work on Fisher Ferry, he said couldn’t begin until 2017, when the city is expected to hold a referendum on a 2 percent sales tax during municipal general elections that spring.

“Fisher Ferry will be the second phase,” Flaggs said. “It’ll be done in two phases — private first, public second. Keep in mind we’ve got to have the money from the 2 percent sales tax before we can go ahead with the second.”

Mayfield said he would like to talk about the sports complex at a Monday work session to discuss city projects. And while he is interested in seeing what developers are planning, or even doing a public/private partnership, he opposes having two separate sites.

“I believe if you have private facility (and) you’re talking about on one side of the fence having to pay and on the other you have something that’s public, I don’t know how well that would go,” he said. “If you tie all that together, you have created a consortium, where every thing is there at your fingertips. I personally believe that would go over a whole lot better.”

Putting facilities on different ends of town, Mayfield believes, would not be popular among area residents, “because you’ve kind of split the pie, and you have to choose which side of the pie you want to eat from. Putting one thing on one side of town and one at the other, I just don’t see it.”

“I’ve always said we don’t need to have a one-stop shop,” said Thompson, who has recommended using two sites for sports facilities.

He also favors a public/private partnership if one could be worked out.

“I’ve always contended the best possible scenario for us is a public/private partnership, we pool our resources together and have some public and private money and decrease the risk on both sides,” he said. “That’s the ideal scenario, and if we can add to what we’re working on right now by working with a private group, I’m all for that.

“I’m not opposed to working with a private group as long as it’s good for the city,” Thompson said. “Probably the city could participate in a TIF (tax increment financing) where they pay for some of the infrastructure and lower the cost for them, and the city would have a stake.”

Thompson, who has favored the Fisher Ferry site, believes there is sufficient room to do what Flaggs wants or to go a different route.

“I think it’s a good place for a soccerplex,” he said. “You don’t have to have everything at one location and we can have soccer and an archery center (at Fisher Ferry), since that’s a growing sport — both high schools have archery teams — and a walking trail.

“We can go somewhere else for baseball and softball. That’s something we can with the land we have there and do it for a fraction of the cost we’re talking about.”

Mayfield questions an ambitious plan for Fisher Ferry, adding the room to build the ball fields and indoor facility Flaggs wants isn’t there.

“Looking at what’s out there now, you couldn’t do much of that,” he said. “You could have the soccer fields, you could probably have 4 to 6 baseball fields, but I don’t see where you could get an indoor facility out there with what you have out there now, I just don’t see it.”

And building the fields is only part of the problem, Mayfield said. There is not a safe way to enter or leave the property at Fisher Ferry, because the site is near a curve.

Flaggs and Thompson believe the property can be safely accessed from Fisher Ferry Road because traffic on Halls Ferry Road will be reduced by the relocation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Research and Development Center headquarters closer to Wisconsin Avenue.

To safely access the Fisher Ferry property, Mayfield said, requires building an access road to U.S. 61 South, a project that would cost about $3 million. Flaggs and Thompson say that access road is in the future.

While he still supports the sport complex, Mayfield believes the board needs to be careful and deliberate in its decision.

“These things need to be looked at very carefully, and they need to be thought out and we need to be sure the citizens understand what’s going on, because if you don’t, there’s going to be a real big backlash on you,” he said.

“This is the furthest Vicksburg has got with this, and we need to just decide on a location and educate the public on the benefits and how it’s going to be funded,” Thompson said. “I don’t see a reason not to do it, and we have to put a decision in place.”

 

About John Surratt

John Surratt is a graduate of Louisiana State University with a degree in general studies. He has worked as an editor, reporter and photographer for newspapers in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. He has been a member of The Vicksburg Post staff since 2011 and covers city government. He and his wife attend St. Paul Catholic Church and he is a member of the Port City Kiwanis Club.

email author More by John