Hey Everybody-
Guess what? Our coaches positions have been eliminated by the City of Walnut Creek. This is not a joke. Of the Aquatics programs in the city, ours is the only one that operates in the black, and yet they are going to cut it.
If you could, would you shoot a brief e-mail, to the city council and let them know what a successful program this is across the country and in the world. All few hundred of us are doing what we can, but I think it's time to bring in the big guns- you.
Kerry has spent 30 years of his life building this program into what it is today, and helping many of you in the process, please help him and the program that he lives for.
The address is: mayor@walnut-creek.org
and ask them to respond to your e-mail.
Thanks,
Karen Duggan
I wish I understood the facts of the situation.
Does the team cover every cent of its own costs, including its share of debt service (if any) and operating costs for the pool as well as the full cost of salary and benefits for all coaches (e.g., "run in the black")? Or does the city provide a subsidy from its general fund? It's one argument to explain why the city should not cut a cost that actually functions as a moneymaker to subsidize other city aquatics programs; it's a different argument (harder, too, although not impossible) to justify a subsidy to WCM members from other city resources.
Is the city planning to eliminate the program completely? Or is it proposing to restructure the financial relationship in some way that some city financial analyst thinks (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) will be more financially advantageous to the city?
If the city stops paying the coaches, can the team keep the program going by paying them itself?
If the city started charging the team a flat rent rather than charging each individual swimmer a drop-in fee, and if the team then started paying its own coaches to be on deck during the time the team had rented, would each member end up paying more per month, or less?
I wish I understood the facts of the situation.
Does the team cover every cent of its own costs, including its share of debt service (if any) and operating costs for the pool as well as the full cost of salary and benefits for all coaches (e.g., "run in the black")? Or does the city provide a subsidy from its general fund? It's one argument to explain why the city should not cut a cost that actually functions as a moneymaker to subsidize other city aquatics programs; it's a different argument (harder, too, although not impossible) to justify a subsidy to WCM members from other city resources.
Is the city planning to eliminate the program completely? Or is it proposing to restructure the financial relationship in some way that some city financial analyst thinks (perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly) will be more financially advantageous to the city?
If the city stops paying the coaches, can the team keep the program going by paying them itself?
If the city started charging the team a flat rent rather than charging each individual swimmer a drop-in fee, and if the team then started paying its own coaches to be on deck during the time the team had rented, would each member end up paying more per month, or less?
