December 15, 2006

City Council News

Re-use options please council members

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

After more than a year of discussion, Parks, Rec-reation and Neighbor-hood Services offered a facility re-use plan with four options that appeared to please City Council members. The plan was unveiled at a study session held in the City Council chambers on Friday, Dec. 8 where only Mayor Ron Gonzales and District 4 Councilwoman Nora Campos were absent.

The facility situation began several years ago when the dot.com bust and recession forced stringent cuts that bit into the PRNS budget, creating employee and funding losses at the same time community buildings were aging and required updating. More problems emerged when the department took steps to find other sources to operate most of the centers.

The public’s outcry was loud and furious. Their tax dollars paid for such services and they wanted the city to maintain and operate all of them efficiently.

Cuts impede services
However, the economy had already done its work. Cuts of $3.9 million from the community services budget and the loss of more than half the community center employees required a dramatic solution. According to the report, the number of employees in the 2002-03 fiscal year, before cuts, was nearly 152 full-time equivalent people with a staffing budget of $10.7 million. Over two years, the staffing budget was cut to $6.8 million, leaving community centers only 75 employees.

At the same time, many of the 35 buildings needed upgrades and were not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Those needs come to a cost of about $1.9 million. Restoring prior cuts and adding building maintenance is another $8.8 million adding up to the $10.7 million needed.

Here is where the re-use idea came in. Early on in the process, staff determined that a good number of the centers didn’t need city employees or that buildings were too small to accommodate employees. They determined that in many cases, nonprofits could come in and take over.

The hue and cry deepened. There were concerns that centers would be shut down. First, there were the senior centers that provide activities and nutrition programs. The senior centers were added back in. Next the centers that served children after school or helped keep kids active and away from gangs needed to be included so as not to impair preventative programs. Third, much of the public wanted to know why their tax dollars weren’t able to fund services in their areas—such as park bathrooms.

New plan
Noting a “disconnect between the resources allocated for the operations of community centers and the staffing standards set forth in the Greenprint Strategic Plan for parks and community facilities and programs,” Angel Rios, the deputy director of community services, announced the four options for council members. The options are derived from a series of community meetings over the past year as well as staff recommendations.

Because it was a study session, council members now have the time to think and then choose the option that would best fit the city’s needs:

Option #1—the city operates all sites according to the Greenprint staffing standard at a cost of about $3.3 million
Option #2—A nonprofit is selected through an RFQ process to operate all sites at $169, 594 (this one is least liked by staff)

Option #3—Nonprofit or neighborhood association partners in operating all sites with the city providing oversight staff at $660,984

Option #4—A combination of options 1, 2 and 3 where the city operates four sites, RFQs one site and manages 19 sites at a cost of $1.8 million (most preferred by staff).

The staff prefers option #4 because it allows high use/high need facilities to remain open. It also protects vulnerable populations, minimizes public safety impacts, serves diverse community needs and reduces General Fund personnel costs. In addition, it preserves successful partnerships and ensures community access to a neighborhood facility.

Public comment
After PRNS finished its presentation, and before council members asked questions, about 12 members of the public spoke to the council. These people noted that community needs should be paramount. For example, there are some 350-400 people using the St. James center daily. If that is shut down, the seniors in the area would need to get transportation for the Roosevelt Park Center, which is 13 blocks away.

When the Edenvale Teen Center was closed, crime and other problems began to increase. “The center is small, but it has a big impact on teens,” said one member of the community.

Others suggested potential solutions. For example, the San Jose Astronomical Society meets at Hogue Park in District 9. The group is willing to keep the building clean for the 60 events it holds annually. “Our events are free and open to the public and would have a minimum impact on PRNS,” said one of the astronomers.

Council comments
District 10 Councilwoman Nancy Pyle asked if staffing shortages could be made up with volunteers. But PRNS Director Albert Balagso cautioned, “One size doesn’t fit all. It might work at one facility but not another.”

Pyle also asked how many nonprofits had expressed interest in helping out. Rios answered that so far eight nonprofits were interested, and he expects that number to increase, but it would be “partnering with the city, they don’t show interest in leading the centers,” he said, adding that in most cases the nonprofits are unable to afford to run the centers.

“We need to have flexibility in terms of how we manage our community centers,” added District 2 Councilman Forrest Williams. “No one plan has the ability to meet the variety of needs” across our city, he added. “I support Option 4, but I don’t want any restrictions. We need total flexibility to be able to deliver what people need.”

“We need to clearly understand why our staffing ratio is so low compared to other cities,” said Vice Mayor Cindy Chavez, “as we continue to evaluate issues, then we need to decide what to do.”