Answers to Harvey West Pool Task Force City Council Candidate Questionaire 

1. Harvey West Pool (HWP) has been funded by the city for fifty years. Because of recent budget difficulties, closing the pool became a topic of debate. Below are proposals that have been discussed in this matter. What would your be your preference for how to approach this problem, and why?
   • Continue to support the pool with city funds, treating the pool equally with other Parks & Rec Dept. (P & R) programs when budget cuts are necessary
   • Require the pool to become self-sustaining
   • Other suggestions you would support:

   ... combine reduced public funding with increased fees and reduced operating hours to cut required city funding by at least 50%. Seek grants from other governmental agencies, and private support, including formation of a city-sponsored endowment/foundation for this and similar purposes.

2. If the P & R budget faces additional cuts in 2003-2004, would you support proportional cuts across all recreation and other relevant P & R programs, or would you single out particular programs for closure? Please explain your response.

   The city has to prioritize funding in an environment of reduced resources, and must seek to operate in the most efficient way possible. Administrative, facility, and other overhead costs increase as a percentage of operating budgets when total funding is reduced, if programs are not eliminated and facilities are not closed. Some programs simply don't make sense to operate at a reduced level, and thus must either be cut completely, or retained at their existing levels - in the latter case, other programs must either be cut completely, or reduced disproportionately.

3. What are your thoughts on providing city funding for P & R (and other relevant community) programs vs. requiring those programs to become self-sustaining? How would you determine which should be city-supported and which should be self-sustaining?

   I don't see it as an appropriate goal for most programs of this sort to become self-sustaining--these are community services our city provides as a means of enabling equal access to recreational services for all citizens. I do think, however, that the city should, when it is feasible and not an unreasonable burden, seek contributions via fees and private sector funding, to support such programs - and I also think that funding and subsidies should be prioritized for programs which target under-served and economically disadvantaged communities. Thus, for example, I would prioritize funding for operating a healthcare outreach program to the Beach Flats area, over funding for the local symphony... although if that entity choose to fashion a program which brought music to the children of local schools, especially those with high concentrations of poor children, I would prioritize funding for that particular aspect of their service.

4. The HWPTF energy team has researched and presented a plan to obtain and install renewable energy/co-generation systems that would lower the running costs of HWP by approx. $26,000/year. The recommendation installation would cost approx. $110,000 which can be reduced by $30,000 by an available PG&E grant. Would you vote to allocate the CIP funds for the project? If yes, why? If not, why not?

   If the money is in the budget, this makes total sense - the city just approved a similar project with a longer time to payback for the Water Treatment facility (5-7 years). If it is not in the budget, the city should seek to offer some sort of bond or arrange some other financing mechanism that will allow this to be done ASAP.

5. Would you support the City Council directing the P & R staff to take over the pool marketing efforts the HWPTF has initiated? (Some of our work/plans to date include: developing plans to increase business participation in/sponsorship of the pool, including pool information in CVC literature, improving signage to the pool, askign hotels to provide pool information for guests, and hosting a swin-a-thon (which raised more than $15,000)).

   I think the City should request that the CVC allocate some of its funding and staff time to supporting a volunteer marketing effort, that City Staff should support this effort (but not head it up), that we should seek to identify a local private sector marketing firm to support this effort, and that we should seek to identify a means by which this effort can be self-supporting from a percentage of additional revenues generated. I don't think handing this to City Staff and saying "do this" (on top of everything else) would be effective or produce the desired results. City Staff, in general, are not marketing specialists, and that is not their role or an appropriate use of their time.

6. What are your thoughts on an established facility (Harvey West Pool) suffering budget cuts and threatened closure, while the city considers spending funds to develop a new park site (the Depot property)?

   Development of the Depot site is a critical part of the City's long term vision for connecting the downtown to beach front area, and much of the funding for this project has and will come from sources other than the City's general fund (such as Prop 12 and outside grants). This project has been many years in the making, and has involved the efforts and support of many many people. This question is like comparing an apple to an orange. Furthermore, the park proposed on the Depot site would serve many more people of a much greater diversity than the Harvey West Pool.