Loading...
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.