HomeMy WebLinkAboutMaterials Distributed at MeetingSpecial Meeting _.
Arcadia Unified School District Board of Education
Arcadia City Council
Joint Use Facilities Committee Update
January 26, 2010
Committee Overview
• History
— Began in the Spring of 2008
— Joint Use Gym
— Identify joint use facilities, use and cost
— Identify capital replacement cost and funding
— Update the District & City Joint Use agreement
• Composition
— District Staff
• Christina Aragon, Asst. Superintendent of Business Services
• Paul Letson, Director of Facilities & MOT
• Kathy Patterson, Facilities Manager
• Mike Miller, Maintenance Supervisor
• Michael Cooper, Operations Supervisor
— City Staff
• Sara Somogyi, Director of Recreation and Community Services
• Tom Tait, Director of Public Works Services
• Dave McVey, Superintendent of General Services
• Ken Petty, Recreation Supervisor
• Overview
— Interest
— Mission Statement
— Inventory of Facilities
User Groups
— Annual cost & capital cost
2
Joint Use Committee Mission
Statement
• Mission Statement
— The City of Arcadia and the Arcadia Unified School
District are committed to the joint use of facilities to offer
programs that encourage a healthy school environment,
city and lifestyle. It is our goal to maximize the use of
public resources, using them efficiently and effectively,
to create the greatest public benefit. We are dedicated
to ensuring there are safe, well maintained, quality
facilities for the students, Arcadia community members
and Arcadia based non - profit organizations. This
commitment to working together will result in a
complementary utilization of our resources and provide
the type of facilities Arcadia needs to encourage a
healthy and active lifestyle.
tl
Asset Inventory &Facility Maintenance
• Identification of
— District & City Facilities
— Amenities (lights, courts, fields, etc.)
— Field Users
• Researching and Calculating
— Cost of Ongoing Annual and Routine Maintenance
— Estimating Life and Capital Long Term Replacement
• Question to Consider:
— Limiting Field Use?
• Ability to maintain fields
— Who will share cost and /or pay?
• City, District, 3rd Party Users
0
Current Use of Facilities
0
0
0
0
School Program
— Recess & PE Instruct
— AHS CIF leagues
City Programs
— Recreation Programs
• School Playground
• Intramural Leagues
• AHS Pit
3rd Party Use
— Organized play by youth and adults (not sponsored by District or city)
Community Use
— Drop in use of a facility during non programmed hours by an
individual or persons not associated with an organization /team.
5
Organizational Use Form &Data
League Name
Total # of
Participants
# of Arcadia
Residents
% of Arcadia
Residents
Non-Profit
Coaches
Paid or
Volunteers
Registration
Open or Cut
YOUTH SOCCER
AYSO
2300
943
41
Yes
Volunteer
Open
Santa Anita Soccer Club
200
70
35
Yes
Paid
Both
YOUTH BASEBALL & SOFTBALL
Arcadia American Little League
180
180
100
Yes
Volunteer
Open
Arcadia National Little League
140
119
85
Yes
Volunteer
Open
Arcadia Pony Baseball
90
54
60
Yes
Volunteer
Open
Santa Anita Little League
250
88
35
Yes
Volunteer
Open
Astros`
Arcadia Girls Softball Association
170
105
70
Yes
Volunteer
Open
YOUTH BASKETBALL
Arcadia Youth Basketball'
EM
Arcadia Indians"
100
200
99
140
99
70
No
Yes
Volunteer
Volunteer
Open
Open
t rt School
r
Women's Soccer of SGV`
27
116
400
4
87
140
15
75
35
Yes
Yes
No
Paid
Paid
Volunteer
Both
Open
Open
Chinese Stars Soccer
30
11
35
No
Volunteer
Cut
Adult Soccer
150
38
25
No
Volunteer
Cut
ADULT BASEBALL
Pacific Coast Adult* Baseball
`Book fields directly with the school district
"Book HS field directly with the school district
A
i
Field Use Totals b y Party 3rd User
Organization Total Hours Lighted Hours Non - Lighted What we are currently charging for
Hours lights per year
�Frs M. ENn m puce for 10 y— wth iw Ilvese
-C—.ft. e,ere s oo wry. r 4q nor.. a n w
0
AYSO' `-
7533
1170
6363
$5,500.00
Santa Anita Soccer °:
using 1tr'- -
360
102
258
$500.00
Arcadia American Little League
Windsor @ Holly Ave Primary, Hugo Reid,
Baldwin Stocker
2921
0
2921
0
Arcadia National Little League
Longdon, Holly Ave
1340
0
1340
0
Arcadia Pony League
Bonita Park
1798
822
976
$2:000.00
Santa Anita Little League
Lojeski, Foothills, Highland Oaks
2182
0
2182
0
Arcadia Astros
HS Baseball Field
272
40
232
$420.00
Arcadia Girls Softball
Longiey Way, Camino Grove
3652
0
3652
0
Youth Basketball
North & South Gym
150
150
0
0
130
620
32
98
$450.00
341
279
0
69
120
240
Pacific Coast Adult Baseball 105
HS Baseball Field
59
10
0
112
8
$540.00
224
16
$2,60000
0
105
0
TOTALS
21,492
3052
18,840
$ 12,010.00
�Frs M. ENn m puce for 10 y— wth iw Ilvese
-C—.ft. e,ere s oo wry. r 4q nor.. a n w
0
I
Qualifying User Groups
Descending order of priority
- Group A — Arcadia Unified School District and the
City of Arcadia's sponsored activities
- Group B - 3rd Party Use
- Group C - Qualified One -time Users
'Note: Community Use - is defined as drop in use of a facility during
non programmed hours by an individual or persons not associated
Nith an organization /team.
Next Steps &Questions to Consider
• How would you determine priority if all 3rd
Party Users could not be accommodated?
— Would priority be youth versus adult programs?
— Would number or percent of Arcadia residents be used and
if so at what level?
— Would we want non - profit organizations to have a higher
ranking than for profit/non- registered organizations?
— Which would have a higher priority; organizations that hav
volunteer coaches or paid coaches?
— Would a higher priority be given to organizations that are
open to all participants compared to organizations that a
player must try out for and make the tec-
Next Steps &Questions to Consider
0
0
Should we be considering a tiered fee system for cost
recovery of field use? If there are different priority
rankings, would you want the organizations that are ranked
at a lower priority to pay more for use of the facilities than
those with a higher priority ranking? Will City and District
share cost and /or will there be consideration of subsidizing
or absorbing cost for 3rd Party Users?
Limiting 3rd Party Use - Is the following acceptable?
— Considering the best practices recommendation of every
other day use of high impact activities (soccer, etc.)
How do we supervise the
use
community
and 3rd Party
Users to
keep users safe
and
protect our
property?
M
Next Steps &Questions to Consider
• What is the City's interest in continuing a joint use pool for
swim programs?
— School Program, City Program, Riptides
• Funding ongoing use and maintenance cost?
• Funding a new Pool and future capital replacement?
• What is the City's interest in sharing cost to maintain an(
replace the other joint use facilities?
— AHS Tennis Courts
— AHS Track
— AHS Field
— AHS Field Lighting
— Other AHS Fields
— Middle School Fields
— Other Field (not much impact)
• Would the City and the District consider a multi year
replacement for Joint Use Facilities?
11
Next Steps &Questions to Consider
0 +!
Governor's Proposals for the
2010 -11 State Budget and K -12 Education
Presented by
Christina Aragon
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Cherie Moreno
Fiscal Services Director
! The economic crisis is not over for California
L Unemployment is key and still very high
L Income and sales taxes tend to lag during a recovery
L Tourism is still down, people in other states are not traveling
L Real estate and construction are still the pits
L Property taxes have several downward pressures
The new federal healthcare proposals are a wildcard for business and
employment
* The one -time federal funds appear to be a thing of the past
! Bottom line:
The state hasn't recovered
The one -time dollars are gone and we have more budget cuts
2010 -11 promises to be the toughest year of the recession
The state has used, and continues to use, a variety of solutions to balance
the Budget
New federal funds
Budget reductions
Borrowing and special fund transfers
"Creative proposals"
9 Every segment of government support is affected
More Californians are depending on public support
Meeting even minimal support levels is very difficult
When families suffer, education suffers as well
We believe the Governor will have difficulty getting his proposals through
the Legislature unscathed
0
Mi
Problems and Solutions (in billions)
$19.9
$1.0 Build Reserve
$2.3 Lost Budget Solutions
$1.4 Caseload Growth
$6.9 Operating
Shortfall in 2009 -10
Budget Act Revision
OW $3.4 Revenue Decline
9 Adverse Court
Decisions
Reason for Shortfall
$19.9
$0.6 Fund Shifts
$3.9 Alternative Funds
$6.9 Federal Funds
Proposed Solutions
The Governor's Budget assumes that the federal government will increase
reimbursements to the state by $6.9 billion
40 The Budget also proposes "trigger" reductions and revenues if the federal
government does not provide the $6.9 billion
L Trigger reductions include:
* Elimination of CaIWORKs
* Reduce Medi -Cal eligibility
9 Eliminate the In -Home Support Services (IHSS) program
* Eliminate the Healthy Families program
■ Trigger revenues include:
! Extend suspension of net operating loss carryover
* Delay business tax credits
9 Extend the reduction of the dependent care
0
Mi
! The Governor's Budget assumes $6.9 billion in additional federal support to
fund state /federal programs
The federal government is running a $1.5 trillion deficit
! The Governor proposes funding shifts for various programs
! A major change is the Administration's proposal to eliminate the state tax
on gasoline and substitute an increase in the excise tax on gasoline
L This shift provides more flexibility in how the funds can be spent
L However, it also reduces General Fund revenues by $1.6 billion which
drives the calculation of the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee
0
Ei
! Other shifts include:
■ $550 million from the California Children and Families Act of 1998
(Proposition 10) to children's programs administered by the
Departments of Developmental Services and Social Services
■ $452 million from the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63) to
fund other mental health services
Uk Both require voter approval, but last May, voters rejected all of the
Governor's special election Budget initiatives
! The economic and revenue forecasts are vulnerable to downward revision,
especially when the economic signals are mixed
! Much has been made of the protection that the federal maintenance -of -effort
(MOE) requirement under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) provides to K -16 education
L Spending must be maintained at or above 2006 -07 level unless several
strict conditions can be met
The Governor has submitted two revisions to the state's original application
restating expenditures to allow cuts applied in 2008 -09 and 2009 -10 to meet
the MOE requirements
Based on the Governor's Budget, the proposed level of spending:
L Meets MOE in 2009 -10, but just barely
Fails to meet MOE in 2010 -11 by approximately $540 million
9 But the DOF expects the state to be eligible for a waiver
20.000%
18.000%
16.000%
14.000%
12.000%
10.000%
8.000%
6.000%
4.000%
2.000%
0.000%
Opp Oh Oco 01 Og Oo� Op O� O`i' O� Off` Oh %-% 0'1 '�°°�0• '�°�'�• �OOh �000 �001 �000 �000 1,000. 100. 100• X000• `yOO�• �OOh. X000.
`1.001 X000 X000 cL0►1 %
IN
! After plummeting more than 14% between 2008 -09 and 2009 -10, the
Proposition 98 guarantee has stabilized in 2010 -11
L $58.1 billion for 2008 -09, based on the September 2008 enacted Budget,
but subsequently revised down to $49 billion
The minimum guarantee, however, does not provide sufficient funding to
honor the current -law requirements for revenue limits and all categorical
programs
! Proposition 98 is still owed major sums
L $11.2 billion from past deficits
L More than $1 billion for unfunded mandates
L Don't plan to collect this year
•
40 2009 -10 fiscal year — no further cuts proposed
40 2010 -11 fiscal year— "fully- funded" COLA; however, the COLA is -0.38%
The funded rates for 2010 -11:
* The biggest cut to education is targeted to "Central Administration" —
meaning not in the classroom
L $1.2 billion cut with no rationale
L Total of $1.5 billion, about $200 per ADA ongoing cut
! The cut is based on old data from 2007 -08 that has changed
L Most districts have made substantial cuts to "administrative services"
already
! This targeted cut:
Li Takes away flexibility
L Is simply nonsensical
* For now, plan to take the full dollar amount of the cut
Develop options to take only from administrative activities
And options to spread the cut differently
9 We do not expect to avoid the cut, but targeting won't work
* Additional cut of $300 million "savings from contracting efficiencies"
! As in the past, we continue to have
very high volatility in revenues
directed toward education
! 2010 -11 continues the roller- coaster
ride as revenue continues to fall
Revenue levels proposed for
2010 -11 are 13.9 %, lower than 2007 -08,
including the effect of an additional ongoing
reduction to revenue limits of $201 per ADA
(average unified)
The one -time cut of $252.83 per ADA made
in 2009 -10 is deleted for 2010 -11
40 California needs to provide a more stable
revenue stream for schools
� Multiyear projections (MYPs) are required by AB 1200/AB 2756
� Recognize that they are projections, not forecasts
L Projections are expected to change as various factors change -they are
not predictions
L Projections are the mathematical result of today's decisions based on a
given set of assumptions
Forecasts are predictions of the future - there is a higher implied
reliability factor than for projections
Projections will change anytime the underlying factors change - therefore,
plan
9 ARRA funds have provided LEAs with a welcomed level of relief — and,
depending on how the funding was used, either alleviated or created budget
challenges
* Districts need to be prepared for the loss of ARRA funding
Tough
choices will
need to be
made—
positions, services, and
supplies
funded
with
ARRA
dollars
will
need
to
be eliminated,
reduced,
or shifted
to another source of funding
! Don't include competitive ARRA funding in your 2010 -11 budget
L These funds are not a sure thing
9 MYPs need to acknowledge the loss of ARRA funding
Statutory COLA (use for K -12 and
COE Revenue Limit)
4.25%
(0.38 %)
1.80%
2.40%
2.80%
3.10%
K -12 Revenue Limit Deficit
18.355%
18.355%
18.355%
18.355%
18.355%
18.355%
Net Revenue Limit Change
(7.64 %)
(0.38 %)
1.80%
2.40%
2.80%
3.10%
Tier II
($252.83)
($191) ESD
($191) ESD
($191) ESD
($191) ESD
($191) ESD
Other Revenue Limit Adjustments
per ADA
($231) HSD
($231) HSD
($231) HSD
($231) HSD
($231) HSD
California CPI
0.80%
($201) USD
($201) USD
($201) USD
($201) USD
($201) USD
Special Education COLA (on state
and local share only)
0.00%
(0.38 %)
1.80%
2.405
2.80%
3.10%
State Categorical COLA (including
adult education and ROC/P) Tier 1
0.00%
NIA
1.80%
2.40%
2.80%
3.10%
Tier II
(4.46 %)
(0.38 %)
1.80%
2.40%
2.80%
3.10%
Tier III
(4.46 %)
(0.38 %)
1.80%
2.40%
2.80%
3.10%
California CPI
0.80%
2.00%
2.60%
2.90%
3.20%
3.40%
California Lottery
Base
$110.00
$110.00
$110.00
$110.00
$110.00
$110.00
Prop 20
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
$13.00
Interest Rate for Ten -Year Treasuries
3.50%
3.90%
4.30%
4.70%
5.00%
5.20%
0
9 The Governor has called a Special Session of the Legislature to enact
current -year savings
L The Legislature must act on the proposal within 45 days — by
February 22
L The proposed Budget assumes changes take effect March 1
! The past few State Budgets have been created mostly behind closed doors
by the "Big 5" — the Governor and legislative leaders
9 Assembly Speaker -elect Perez told members of the Assembly when he was
elected Speaker, "The Big 5 negotiations will be the ending point, not the
start. I will present your budget to the Big 5, not present the Big 5's budget
to you."
The California Constitution requires the Budget to be passed by midnight on
June 15
L Stranger things have been known to happen