Loading...
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