WCM really needs your help

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?

Thanks flo. It is appreciated = ) We had a city council meeting last night. Kerry asked the team NOT to go, as our board members and captains (all 14 of them) were going to speak on our behalf (Kerry's behalf). They wanted smaller numbers b/c the mtg. was going to be filled to the rafters, as it included ALL budget cuts in the city. Great idea Ahelee. I'll see how the meeting went and then perhaps post elsewhere. Thanks everybody. And still, if you could take a minute to e-mail and let Walnut Creek know what an amazing program Kerry O'Brien has built, that would be huge for getting to keep him. mayor@walnut-creek.org :)

We know you are right Mr. Ninny. In fact we have all gotten the same "canned response" e-mail. I sent a not-very-nice response to their letter. I hadn't thought about the media, that's a great idea. And even if that doesn't save Kerry's job, perhaps it would garner interest for building our own facility. A friend of mine that I grew up swimming with was a newscaster on the local Fox station here. She now works for the Giants doing their on the field stuff. I'll call her. = ) I have been swimming for 30 years this year. Hopefully, I'll be swimming for another 40-50, so I am very excited at the possibility of our team, and that's who it would be, building our own state of the art facility with 2-50m pools, and all that would make it world class. No one has said that's what we will do, but that's something I am certainly going to push for. My only concern is that pools usually operate in the red. However, if we could get one nationals a year... There are two nearby high schools who desperately need a facility. I have NEVER seen a water polo practice or game. I'm at the pool almost every day! I dare say water polo would be interested in a new facility. I don't care too much for synchro (really, the way the parents are pressuring their children to look a certain way- tears daily in the locker room!), but I'm sure they'd want a new pool. The thing is that there is such a need in the extemely large aquatic community. Anyway, thanks for the great suggestions. Pressing on!

There was a big public hearing on the budget in Seattle last night, too. Several people including myself spoke in support of pools. It was packed. I arrived before 5:00 and didn't get to speak until 9:00 or so. It was pretty impressive the number of programs people spoke out for. Everything from programs for the disabled, the homeless, parks and community centers, libraries, sidewalk repair. Pretty much everything imaginable! I was impressed that very few speakers resorted to ranting.

Mrs. Duggan, I am sorry to hear about WCM troubles. Kerry's current position with the city is probably toast no matter what you do. Having done a bit of lobbying at the state level, it has been my experience that politicians don't really care about feel good programs that make the community a better place. They may say they do, and even act by giving funding. Then when the issue dies down they slowly starve the program to extinction. Politicians care about getting re-elected. In a small community a block of voters can have an effect, and you need to let your elected officials know of your feelings. Have you gone to the news? Politicians hate negative news stories about the unpopular decisions they make. I know you don't want to get nasty, but politics is a very nasty sport. Employees like Kerry can't speak out. You can. The old saying is that to win your pol over you have four options: dirt (unethical but not uncommon), money, employee strike (probably not an option), or something that threatens their job. Community outrage works, temporarly. A stable source of funding is what you need to look for. Sponsorships are nice, but the plug can be pulled at a moments notice. If you could force the city to allocate a portion of your members dues to go in a special fund or lockbox (to borrow from Mr. Gore) that supports WCM you would have won a huge battle. Politicians don't like to be told that they can't spend money any way they choose. The facility that you swim at is beautiful. I can't believe that they would close it, but then again I can. Good luck.

Our coaches are paid (to make it easy) half by WCM and half by the city. The city wants to eliminate their share of the cost. Yes, we could pick up the rest, however, Kerry gets medical through the city. He's only 52 so he won't be up for medicare for awhile. That would be hard for us to pick up. Our program makes the city over $150K/year with our splash fees. They do not even come close to paying that in salaries. If they cut our coaches, they, in effect, lose $150K. Let me know if this helps. :D

BTW, there are not enough ways to say thank you to all of you who have written letters on Kerry's behalf. He is touched, as are we all. Please continue to write letters: mayor@walnut-creek.org I've written 3!

I understand your plight, but don't see the problem. Let's assume, times being what they are, that the city does cut the coaching salaries completely. Why wouldn't the club simply raise monthly dues, rent space back from the city (eliminating the per swim fee), and pay the coaches through the club? With WCM over 400 swimmers it should be a slam dunk to operate in the black. Of course, that's how the Aquabears do it. Yes, it's true that the cheapest annual dues for the WCAB program are $1195 per year as a entry level swimmer. National Level Swimmers pay up to $2700 per year. I'm not saying that WCM swimmers should pay that much, but why should the city subsidize an adult program if they are not doing the same for every other community aquatics program? Where are the city paid coaches for age group swimming, water polo, diving, synchronized swimming, etc.? The city is on the verge of spending $20 million to update our pools to meet modern standards. The city hopes to move their aquatics programs into the future with amazing modern facilities, more "family" aquatic facilities, and hopefully a new entrepreneurial management spirit. ( www.walnut-creek.org/.../WCAquaticsDraftNeedsReport.pdf ) WCM should embrace what the city is trying to do and take this opportunity to take back control of the program. If it's a good business (and I believe it is), then there should be no problem turning a profit. If not, then why should the taxpayers make up the difference?

Thanks Heather. I really appreciate it. :angel: OK, here's the scoop as I know it. The City of WC pays most of Kerry's salary, and half of the asst. coaches salaries (which aren't very big- I think all 3 of them don't even make up 1 FT coach). Kerry is a FT employee w/benefits. Our team, through our dues, which are about $250/year (I think- it's no more than $300 for sure), pays the rest of Kerry's salary, and half of the asst. coaches. These funds have been eliminated by the city. We will most certainly have to pick up the difference as a team. Our concern is that Kerry has 30 years in with the City and full medical. We can't pick that up. Furthermore the city is asking us to use the Aquabear model where we rent the pool for x$/month. The Aquabears do not make the city money with this pool fee ($24,000/yr), and they don't make the city money at all. On the other hand, WCM, in addition to our dues, pays a splash fee $4.50, every time we swim. We bring in over $150,000 to the city every year! That more than pays for our coaches. Our board is looking at several options: 1) save our current situation- this pool is in a perfect central location (that's why we all swim in the same pool!) 2) moving to a new location, so no more WC anything (fine with us)- there aren't any other pools centrally located- probably lose people (not the goal of USMS) 3) trying to raise funds to build our own facility- that would take corporate sponsorship and that's a whole other can of worms. I am all for #3. I think that we could do it. It would probably take 5 years but I think we could. We could have as many meets as we wanted, etc... Anyway, please e-mail and let our city council know what an amazing team Kerry has created. Believe me we've been singing his praises, but they expect that from his swimmers. They'd be hard pressed not to listen to other swimmers from across the country, or even the border (hint hint): mayor@walnut-creek.org Please, it will take you 3 minutes max, and if takes longer than that, I'll buy you a beer. :chug: I sent in an email in support of the WCM program, and you don't owe me a beer, but thanks for the offer. :) We are facing a challenge with the budget cuts in our city as well, here at Mountain View Masters. Our program is structured pretty differently, in that we pay our coaching staff from our membership fees and pay pool rental time to the city. Like you, we are the only cash cow of all pool users and the city's proposal to us would put us under. However, we had good team turnout at a recent city council meeting and I think there is a lot of positive room for our team to negotiate a viable solution and partly this is based on confusion at the city level about what they are charging us compared to what other expenses we and other comparable teams have. I wonder, after looking at your list of solutions, whether a fourth alternative, trying to negotiate for a flat-rate hourly pool rental, eliminating the splash fee, and taking on the cost of your coaching salaries via your membership dues would not work? That is basically how we have been operating all this time. I do not know what the out of pocket cost to your swimmers would be, but the splash fee seems like a pretty hefty costs while your membership dues are very low (I pay about double what you do to belong to MVM). I realize this does not solve the problem of your head coach's full medical and 30years with the city issue, but perhaps there can be a solution found for that one issue and this otherwise could be a better longterm solution for WCM? Building another pool, going corporate, moving, etc. seem like all would be destructive to your awesome team. But maybe I'm biased by liking how our team is run? Really hope something works out for you guys!

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. Interesting. I expect them to play political hostage with popular programs that the public use that operate at a loss - lifeguards at public beaches that do not charge admission for example, are a favorite. I am trying to figure out why they would cut a self-sustaining program.