HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020.02.18 PPFD Meeting Agenda Packet Documents will be provided with Agenda.
Pasco Public Facilities District Board
Building Regional Facilities through Community Partnerships
AGENDA
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
4:00 p.m.
Pasco City Hall – Council Chambers
I. Call to Order and Roll Call:
II. Recognition of Visitors/Public Comments:
III. Approval of Minutes:
February 11, 2020 Meeting Minutes
IV. Executive Session:
To Consider Acquisition of Real Estate, per RCW 42.30.110(1)(c )
V. New Business:
2013 White Paper – Analysis of “NO” Reasons
Master Plan and Council Goals Discussion
VI. Other Business:
VII. Adjournment:
February 11, 2020 PPFD Minutes Page - 1
PASCO PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT BOARD
February 11, 2020
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
Call to Order:
Pasco Public Facilities District (PPFD) Board President Morrissette called the meeting to order
at 4:07 PM the in the Council Chambers at Pasco City Hall.
Roll Call:
BOARD MEMBERS
CAROLINE BOWDISH Board Member Present
LEONARD DIETRICH Board Member – Secretary/ Treasurer Present by telephone
MARIE GILLESPIE Board Member – Vice President Present
SPENCE JILEK Board Member Present
MARK MORRISSETTE Board Member - President Present
COUNCIL & STAFF
ZACH RATKAI Admin. & Com. Services Director Present
DAVID MILNE City Council Liaison Absent
CRAIG MALONEY City Council Liaison Present
ERIC FERGUSON City Attorney Present
DAVE ZABELL City Manager Absent
DEBBY BARHAM City Clerk Present
BRENT KUBALEK Recreation Manager Present
Approval of Minutes:
Ms. Gillespie moved and Ms. Bowdish seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the January
28, 2020 meeting. The motion carried unanimously.
Executive Session:
Mr. Morrissette stated that the scheduled Executive Session was cancelled so that the PPFD Board
could concentrate on reviewing and determining the preferred plan for the aquatic center in the
recreational facility.
Old Business:
Review Recreation Facility Options – Sites and Plans
Mr. Morrissette distributed a copy of a Regional Public Facilities District (RPFD) Response
Paper, prepared by former Deputy City Manager Stan Strebel , dated December 17, 2013, as
DRAFT
February 11, 2020 PPFD Minutes Page - 2
well as a handout of a comparison of the aquatic center options prepared by Mr. Morrissette
and a copy of the estimated revenue and expense potential for various components within the
recreation facility.
The PPFD Board and City staff discussion ensued regarding the three concept plan options that
were presented by Ballard*King & Associates at the January 28, 2020 PPFD workshop. After
much discussion, the Board came to a consensus that Option A was the preferred conceptual
plan for an aquatic center with the caveat that the report be based on the estimated bonding
amount of $28 million. This option will be relayed to Ballard*King & Associates so that they
may prepare their final report for the aquatic center’s design, programs and amenities.
PPFD Bonding Update
Mr. Ferguson confirmed that the PPFD taxing authority is from one-tenth of one-percent up to
two-tenths of one-percent of the sales and use tax. He also stated that the sales and use tax, if
voted in, would be an evergreen tax and not sunset (or end) when the bond is paid off. The
continued tax revenue would be used to maintain and/or enhance the facility to keep a viable
enterprise for years to come.
Adjournment:
There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 5:01 PM.
________________________________ ________________________________
Mark Morrissette, President Debra Barham, Pasco City Clerk
APPROVED this ___ day of ________, 2020
.I
RPFD RESPONSE PAPER
(December 17, 1013)
On August 6, 2013, voters in the cities of Kennewick, Pasco and Richland, voting as citizens of the
Tri-Cities Regional Public Facilities District (TCRPFD), rejected a ballot proposition which would
have allowed the TCRPFD to levy a sales tax of 1/10th of one-percent on retail sales· for the purpose
of constructing and operating a regional indoor/outdoor aquatics facility and water park.
Certified election results show that the ballot issue was defeated in Benton County (Kennewick,
Richland) by a margin of 59-41 % while it was approved by Pasco voters 57 -43 %. Given the rather
mixed results of the election, the TCRPFD Board met on August 14 to receive public input and to
undertake discussion of what the election results mean for the future of the TCRPFD. (It might be
noted that 2011 survey respondents indicate.cl by 79% that it was a good idea for the Tri-Cities to
work in cooperation in the study, funding, development and operation of regional centers to serve
area residents. Of those surveyed~ 16% indicated "not sure" with 5% indicating ''no.") The
TCRPFD Board felt that it was important to discuss the major reasons that have been identified by
residents for the negative votes cast, in order to learn the basis for the difference in the survey data
and the actual vote com1ts, to the extent possible. The following reasons have been placed in order
of importance, as viewed by the TCRPFD Board,
SUMMARY OF IDENTIFIED REASONS FOR "NO" VOTE
1. No New Taxes
Voters, oppose new taxes, particularly in Kennewick and Richland (The vote for the
convention center in Kennewick failed by approximately the same margin as the aquatic
center failed in Kennewick and Richland. Pasco voters saw enough benefit (demographics,
location to favor it.
2. No Sunset Clause on Tax
Voters did not understand or did not agree with the reasoning of the TCRPFD that the tax
. would have to be continued even after the bonds were repaid in order to guarantee continued
• coverage of any possible operational losses as well as replacement over time.
3. NoNeed
· Generally more affluent (and more likely to have access to private pools or clubs) voters in
-Benton -County were less supportive of the facility. The. case for the broader benefit to the
commllliity was not made.
4. Conflict with Private Enterprise
Some voters felt that the outdoor recreational features, in particular, should be privately
financed and operated. The combination of the recreational (revenue generating) features
and the competitive (net operating loss) features was viewed as essential by the TCRPFD in
order offer a public facility within the tax capacity and create the best chance for enough
customer revenue to break even on the operating cost.
S. No SO-Meter Facility
Voters may have been misled to believe that a 50 meter facility was a firm requirement for
all competitive swim meets. It is not generally understood that most swimming
competitions, other ~ during the summer long course season, ilfe held in 25yd facilities.
6. Pasco l,ocation
Benton County voters were less supportive of the facility as described above, reflecting
some possible bias, however, the ·site was central and easily accessible. No possible sites in
Kennewick and/or Richland wete offered.
7. Election· Timing
While the issue of an aquatic facility has been discussed for several years, perhaps there was
not sufficient time to develop public awareness and support of the project in the May -
August timeframe. The _Kennewick results suggest that this made-little, if any, difference.
8. Length of Information Campaign
There, clearly was not enough time to answer legitimate questions.
(See Attachment "A" for background information and a more complete discussion on each of
the identified ''rio" vote reasons.)
OPTIONS FOR FUTURE DIRECTION OF REGIONAL PFD
This section identifies possible future courses of direction for TCRPFD, considering the fact that the
interlocal agreement between the three cities provides that while the agreement may not be
terminated prior to January 1, 201 S without the agreement of each of the cities, the district, may be
terminated after that date, by any of the cities' passage of a resolution of the City Council, provided 1
that such termination may not impair the rights of any bond holders or similar others.
1. Dissolution
Perhaps the easiest direction for the TCRP-FD to take would be to dissolve. This ~ould be a
statement that Board members believe that the regional PFD concept is hopeless or no value to
the area. Without returning to the cities for additional operating revenues and with the
interlocal agreement dictating ". :.not to e9ntinue the TCRPFD, in the absence of a project, for
an unreasonable period ottiine.~~--There may be no reason to continue the organization for ttre
near term., however it may be prudent to define a process for reviving the district when/if
sufficient interest arises.
2. One More Try
Many of the supporters of the aquatics facility urged the Board to take the proposed facility
back ·to the voters for a subsequent election. Some suggested that the public was not sufficiently
aware or comfqrtable with the idea of a regional facility and added that it would take ·additional
time for · the public io be adequately infoimed on the proposed plan. From most of the ptior
discussions on reasons that have been expressed for ''no" votes, perhaps the condition that can
most easily be changed to effect a different outcome in the public vote is to implement a sunset
clause on the prQposed tax: Voters 20 years from now should be able to figure out if they
wanted to extend the tax (if needed) to keep a facility operational or expand, demolish or?
While it appears that the Pasco City Council will exercise its option to purchase the property on
which the district planned to construct the facility, the City's purpose is to pursue economic
development. The same site may not be available in 2014. Is another suitable site available?
Should a site be identified prior to a vote? These are questions that would need to be considered
before any decision on a possible ''rerun" of the election. At this point it would seem that 2014
would not be the best year to attempt another election given that these and other questions will
need to be addressed.
The Board made a calculated choice· to present the tax proposal in August, knowing that the
possible costs of the election (due to uncertainty in the number of required ballot races) could
exceed those of a November election by many times. In the end, the August election cost was
close to $80,000. Based on January 2013 estimates, a November election would likely cost in
the range of $5,000.
3. Minimalization ·
The TCRPFD can continue to exist, assuming the absence of a tennination resolution by one of
the cities, in a state of minimal activity. Without spending a lot of money, the Board can
continue to meet, perhaps less frequently than the current monthly schedule, to compile and
review updated sales tax revenue assumptions and to consider possible future opportunities and
alternatives. The Board would consult with the other three PFDs, City Councils and project
advocates, to recollllllend a path forward, in 2015 and beyond, to deal with major public_
recreation facilities.
4. The Grand Bargain
To some, the regional effort will only appeal to a majority of voters if each community was to
share in the overall regional "pie" -having some project located within each jurisdiction.
Proponents of the "grand bargain" suggest that if each community were to be able to see this
type of benefit, voters might be more inclined to support a package of regional facilities. There
are a number of possible packages that could be considered including the aquatics facility.
Perhaps the KPFD convention center expansion project could include a first phase of a
performing arts center while :funding for the Hanford Reach Interpretive Center ofthe Richland
PFD (to support the Manhattan District National Park and the Ice"Age Floods exhibits) could be
added to complete the package. In order to fund these projects at the ''regional" level, it would
require the entire .2% sales tax authority, however, if each community (and each local PFD)
ended up with its preferred project, there would be no need to consider future projects for many
years; until-debt service was repaid, or capacity to issue new debtirrcreased-through growth.
Attachment A
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
In a 2011 random survey (conducted by Leisure Vision for TCRPFD) of residents in the three cities
(a total of 666 households or enough for a 95% confidence level +/-3.8%), an aquatics facility was
the highest-rated project, according to those surveyed, with 72% indicating they were either ''very
supportive" or "somewhat supportive'' of construction and operation of such a facility. While 20%
of those swveyed indicated they would not be willing to support a tax for a regional project, 80%
indicated support for either of .2% tax (48%) 9r a .1% tax (32%).
Believing, based on the survey and mnnerous public meetings, that there was reasonable support
throughout the community for an aquatics facility funded by a .1 %_ sales tax, the TCRPFD Board
voted in January 2013· to prepare for a ballot issue sometime during the year; in May the decision
was made to place the issue on the August primary election ballot.
IDEN'l1F'IED REASONS FOR "NO" VOTE
The following is provided to discuss, more fully, the TCRPFD response to issues most often cited
by residents for a vote to reject the ballot proposal as listed above;
1. No Sunset Clause on Tax
Critics of the ballot issue frequently pointed to the fact that the tax W?S not set to end after the .
term of the original bonds (issued for construction of the facility) were paid off. The TCRPFD
Board discussed this issue at great length before ultimately deciding not to sunset the tax on the
ballot. The pivotal reasoning was that, other than the t.ax and revenue from operation of the
aquatics facility itself, the District would have no other source of revenue with which to
maintain the facility over time~ Public facilities such as pools, parks, libraries, schools, etc.,
almost always require tax dollars for continued operations after facilities are originally
constructed. A regional facility would be no different. The exception is that, unlike a city or
school district, the Regional PFD does not have general tax revenues available to it for
operations aside from the sales tax which would be used to fund (initially) construction. When _
city or school district bonds for new facilities are retired and the property tax assessed for bond
repayment is therefore eliminated, the city or district will use general fund or operating levy tax
funds to maintain and operate such facilities over their useful lives.
The TCRPFD _ Board wanted to make sure that, if the public approved of a· regional aquatic
facility, it would have the ability to maintain and operate such facility beyond the period for
repayment of the construction debt (assumed to be-25 years). While it was anticipated that
admission and other facility-generated revenue would cover most of the operational expense
(88%), the Board wanted to provide a steady funding stream, if needed; to repair, replace or
expand the facility, beyond the projected 25-year term of the bonds.
If the taxpayers are willing to build and operate a facility for 25 years, why would it not be
reasonable for the next generation of taxpayers to pay (at the same rate) to continue to maintain
and use the facility beyond that term?
Of course, it is possible that the .1 % tax, given prudent management of operations and growth in
the community, could prove to be more th.an would be needed to maintain and operate the
· aquatics facility after 25 years. With a track record of costs and revenues, the TCRPFD would
Attachment A
be in a position to offer different approaches such as: reductions of admission or use fees;
adding to the facility or asking the voters if they wanted to approve an entirely different project
to be funded with the wmeeded sales tax proceeds. (State law does not allow the tax amount to
be reduced.below .1 %.)
~other option would have been for the TCRPFD Board to have avoided the potential issue of
future repair, replacement and maintenance by sun-setting the tax, thereby leaving future
board/voters to make such decisions.
2. No 50-Meter Facility
Another reason expressed by many who opposed the aquatic facility as presented was the fact
that a 2Smx25y indoor competition and diving pool was proposed, as opposed to a 50m
Olympic-sized pool. To some, the smaller size was viewed as falling short of the need in the
community. Again, this was the subject of considerable debate by the Board, as well as by the
public, at several meetings of the TCRPFD. There were a number ·of factors that shaped the
decision, reached by the Board, not to propose the larger pool, including:
a. Capital .Cost. As estimated by the TCRPFD's aquati~ consultant,· replacing the
25mx25y pool with a 50-ineter pool would have added $7.1 million to the total cost of
the facility. This would have strained the ability of the District to finance the increased
cost or, in the alternative, would have required the elimination of other features proposed
in the aquatics facility. To the extent that the more contemporary recreational or water
park features were eliminated, the ability to attract family recreational users and
associated revenue would be diminished.
b. Operational Cost. The tradeoff outlined above would then have a corresponding effect
of operational costs with a more expensive (both at the construction stage and
operationally) SO-meter pool and less revenu~generating facilities, resulting in a larger
than proposed operations deficit. By way of illustration, the King County Aquatics
·center -the only public indoor 50 meter pool in the state, and one which is devoid of
any recreation features .. except for a small (25xl5yd) recreation pool, runs an operating
deficit of more than $2 million ($2.3 million in 2011,.$2.17 million ll12012) per year,
attracting anmial attendees (including spectators) of 350,000 on an annual basis. While
the facility (which is in the heart of the most populous area of the state) hosts about one
competitive event per week, this world-class facility covers only 32% of its operational
expenses with revenues generated from users of the facility. Admission prices run from
$3.75 to $5.00-fodap or public swim sessions; ------
c. Marginal Benefit. While supporters of the larger pool were disappointed in the
TCRPFD's decision not to include the larger competition pool, it was noted that, save
for Olympic qualifying and similar level competition, most swim meets operate with a
short course (25 meter) format. This is true for high school and college competition
(local Tri-City teams usually travel to CWU at Ellensburg for competition swim meets at
CWU's 25mx25y indoor facility). Long course competitions, which typically take place
during summer months, can continue to be accomttlodated ( as has been the case for
years) in the Tri-Cities at Pasco's 50 meter outdoor pool at Memorial Park. It has been
estimated by local swim competition enthusiasts that, with existing high school teams,
the 25mx25y pool would have been available to host approximately 20 dual meets each
year; while upgrading to a 50m size may have provided the opportunity to attract only
another 2 or 3 meets per year or every other year.
Attachment A
Because the Tri-City area lacks any type of indoor competition swimming venue, there have
been limited opportunities for high school or college swim teams to develop. The consultant
who prepared the feasibility study for the proposed facility (Ballard*King 2012) noted "jf a new
indoor pool with a strong competitive orientation is added, it would be expected that there
would be strong growth in high school swimming." The recommended 25mx25y pool was
designed to accommodate the short course competition which is standard at the high school and
college levels.
While it was not determined that the extra cost of constructing a 50-meter pool would have been
the best decision for the community at this time, the design of the proposed facility anticipated
the possible expansion of the competition pool to a 50 meter standard in the event that growth in
the competitive community and future demand were sufficient to justify the added expense.
3. Conflict with Private Enterprise
The TCRPFD Board widerstood that the facility, as proposed with indoor and outdoor water
park features, might be viewed as competing or infringing on private business opportunities.
However, the community and the ·aoard witnessed the failure of two separate groups, one in
Kennewick and one in Pasco, to secure financing to construct proposed private outdoor water
parks in the years preceding the formation of the TCRPFD and overlapping the first two years
of its existence. It is not unheard of for local governments to provide public recreational
facilities, particularly in areas where there is a possibility of an operating loss, in order to.
enhance the quality of life in the community. Notable examples are golf courses, stadiums,
sports fields and traditional swimming pool facilities.-Indeed, the 2011 survey of residents,
cited earlier, noted in the question regarding support for a regional aquatic facility that features
would include:" ... a leisure pool with waves, slides and a1azy river that would be accessible to
the public daily ... " The survey results suggested that the public was not concerned with the
addition of recreational facilities beyond the conventional, rectangular pool
While the water park type recreational features proposed for the aquatic facility may have been
viewed as competition for private facilities, the Board viewed their inclusion as a natural
marriage with the competition venue, which would assuredly always need an operational
subsidy, but which could be minimized with the inclusion of water park features where net
operating income would more likely be generated. The effect of blending the two types of
facilities would result in a one-stop . facility which would take advantage of common systems
(water filtration and disinfection) for efficiency in op~ation, while providing a variety of
_features,...:appealing to all ages; further resulting in the-ability -for the District to keep net
operating costs to a minimum (resulting in less subsidy required) and lower admission rates than
would be possible under private ownership.
Because the operating costs of a competition-only facility would not be as recoverable through
reasonable admission prices, it would not be expected (an~ in fact, has been experienced
throughout the country and as. shown for King County, earlier herein) that a private interest
would widertake the building of such a facility.
Attachment A
4. No New Taxes
Of all of the argwnents for voting against the proposed aquatics facility and the one-tenth of
one-percent sales tax necessary to fund the same, the position against new taxation is the easiest
to understand. Some may argue that since the US economy has struggled so much over the past
few years that now is not the time ta raise taxes. It is suspected that for most who oppose new
taxes, timing is seldom the critical issue. While the 2011 survey showed significant support for
a sales tax to support the aquatics facility, it also showed that 20% of those surveyed would not
support any tax increase. What continues to be puzzling about the vote in this context is that one
community approved the facility by a fair margin while the other two communities rejected it by
a similar margin.
5. NoNeed
The argument that an aquatics facility is not needed in the commwrity has been advanced by
some opponents. To many, there are ample opportunities for aquatic recreation in existing
pools, the Columbia and. Snake Rivers which adjoin the communities, at private facilities
(homes or clubs) or in other communities. That the demographics of Pasco differ somewhat
from Richland . and Kennewick Qower household income, larger family size, greater minority
population) might also suggest why Pasco voters were more likely to support a publicly-owned,
funded facility .
6. Pasco Location
It, of course, is notable that the sales tax measure was approved by Pasco voters (as earlier
referenced) and rejected by Kennewick and Richland voters. As stated in the prior section,
Pasco vciters are more likely to be of lower income, of a greater· household size and of a racial
minority. Some may translate th~se demographic differences into a community more likely to
approve of publicly funded (subsidized) recreational facilities. However, there is also the factor
of proximity ( either actual or perceived). The proposed location of the aquatics facility was not
known or identified at _the time the community survey was conducted in 2011. The subsequent
proposal for the facility to be constructed in Pasco may therefore be considered to be, at least, a
partial cause for the disparity of the vote between the two cpunties for approval of the facility,.
versus the results of the survey whic~ did not suggest such a disparity.
While some would argue that the proposed site was not central enough to appeal to voters of the
Tri-Cities, it would have been difficult to identify another developable location with adequate
size (13 acres) or better accessibility (near 1-182 and Road 100) and visibility (I-182 frontage)
than the selected site. No other sites·-were .. offered by the cities of Kennewick or Richland~-
Several have wondered if the vote illustrates that the community at large is too "parochial,"
when it comes to siting of regional facilities, to ever come together.
7. Election Timing
Some have noted the timing of the election, which was held in August, as problematic for
families given the summer season, vacation, etc. It has been suggested that holding the election
in November would have been a more convenient time and thus would have assured a better
voter turnout Given the fact that ballots were mailed to voters three weeks prior to the election
and that the current vote-by-mail system requires investment of only a few cents for postage and
a few minutes to complete the ballot, it is hard to believe that election timing was a factor in the
ultimate outcome. The decision by the TCRPFD Board to place the issue on the August ballot
was calculated: l) to provide for the most-timely decision, which, in the event of approval,
Attachment A
would have allowed for completion of the aquatic facility in time for swnmer 2015; 2) as the
Board had become aware that the Kennewick Public Facilities District was considering placing
a sales tax issue on the November ballot, there was some concern about having both issues on
the same ballot.
As the TCRPFD mailed an information flyer to the address of each registered voter prior to the
mailing of ballots, it is difficult to accept the notion that voters did not know about the project or
the timing of the election.
Response to Vic Epperly Proposal
Though not listed as one of the reasons identified by voters for rejection of the proposed sales
tax for the aquatic facility, it is perhaps worthwhile to discuss the proposal · offered by Vic
Epperly, former Mayor of Kennewick, who emerged as the most vocal critic of the TCRPFD
proposal. He proposed an alternative to that proposed by the District outlined as follows:
a. Conversion of the existing swimming pools in each of the cities [Kennewick•25 meter
pool, Richland-25 meter pool and Pasco-SO meter pool with zero depth leisure
pool/slides (2) pool] into indoor "regional aquatic centers."
b. Proposing the maximum .2% sales tax to fund the capital costs of conversion and
operating expenses for all three facilities.
Mr. Epperly contended that the park and recreation plans for each of the three cities outline an
''urgent" need for year-round swimming facilities -yet, thtjr capital plans do not include such
facilities within the (typical} five-year planning period.
He also contended, that if each of the cities had its own indoor (regional} aquatics center there
would be '-economic development" (shopping, fast food restaurants, etc.) that would develop in
the area around each of the newly renovated and expanded facilities.
As each of the proposed facilities envisioned by Mr. Epperly would be sited at existing
community swimming pools, it is difficult to imagine that any of them could be seriously
marketed as a ''regional aquatics facility!' Nor, since all. of the existing pools are in well-
established/developed neighborhoods, would there likely be the kind of "economic
development'' fullawin1rtheir-renovation, as suggesrnd oy Mr. E""pperty.-1ndeed, -t<f suggest that
the public would rather-have more, smaller, less feature-rich facilities{-ifthey were just closer)
is a bit like suggesting that the public really would like to see a return of the neighborhood
hardware (or other) store with its limited selection of goods and reduced hours of service;
together with inevitably higher prices, occasioned by limited access to volume buying power. If,
instead of building "regional facilities" the goal is to construct only "neighborhood facilities,
''what," one might ask, "is the purpose for having the Regional Public Facilities District?"
Mr. Epperly's proposed package of improvements was estimated by him to cost $69 million and
the .2% tax that would be required to fund that proposal would limit the ability of each of the
three city public facility districts to seek voter authorization to access any of the sales tax
options (.2% max) which the local PFDs effectively must share with the regjonal PFD. Both of
the recent votes suggest that Epperly's proposal, with a higher tax rate than proposed by either
Attachment A
the TCRPFD or the KPFD, would likely fail. Additionally, given the potential for considerably
higher operational costs, his proposal is unlikely to be supported by any of the three cities.
Mr. Epperly suggests that the comprehensive park and recreation plans underscore the ''urgent''
need for swimming facilities. It should be noted that both the Kennewick and Pasco plans point
to the efforts of the Regional PFD as the current focus of those cities for providing additional
swimming capacity. The cities have not included new community swimming facilities in their
respective park and capital plans because under current conditions, they cannot afford the
construction expense, let alone the ongoing operational losses (which each of the cities currently
absorb each year) associated with additional, conventional swimming fa,cilities. One only needs
to review the economics of the King County indoor aquatics facility, as referenced above [ see
2(b)], to gain an understanding of the magnitude of potential operating deficits which
characterize aquatic facilities that focus only on the narrow competitive segment of the
swimming community.
In 2013 the three cities were able to offer a combined total of 7,200 swim lesson spots through
the limited summer season [ a spot averages one person participating in nine 30-minute
(approximate) lessons]. It is conservatively estimated that the facility proposed by the TCRPFD
could have easily been programmed to provide over 19,000 spots for swimming lessons, due to
its variety of water features and year-round availability. It is hard to imagine that the significant
potential for swim lessons, not to mention the added availability of an indoor competitive.
facility and year-round recreational features would not be able to meet the needs of the Tri-
Cities community without the need to fund smaller, less efficient and less attractive swim
facilities.
Kroc Corps Community Centers
Not.e: during some of the deliberations of the TCRPFD, it was noted that several communities in
the county had benefited by the construction of community centers, including both aquatics
facilities and performing arts venues, fund~ in part, by grants from the foundation created by _
the Kroc family. The following summarizes the program: ' . i
Joan-Kroc, widow of Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds, donated $90 million to the Salvation·
Army to build a comprehensive community center in San Diego. Completed in 2001, the center
includes an ice arena, gyfuriasiuni, three swimming pools, a performing arts theater, as well as
other offerings for visual and performing arts. ·--· --·
When Mrs. Kroc passed away in 2003, she left $1.5 billion to the Salvation Anny to build a
series of centers patterned after the San Diego center.
To date, 23 Kroc Corporation Community Centers are operating nationwide with four additional
centers scheduled for completion in 2013. Center sites were chosen in a competitive process
with ·a local match of 60% of the funds required for the 40% Kroc dollars. Having fully
committed all of the funds from Mr. Kroc's generous bequest, the Salvation Army has no
additional construction plans for Kroc community centers.