The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packet CITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA lop C U P E RTI N O PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall Thursday, March 5, 2020 7:00 PM This Meeting Will Be Televised CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: ChairNice Chair Selection. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2. Subject: Special Meeting of February 6, 2020. Draft Minutes POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 3. Subject: California Association of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and Board Members. OLD BUSINESS 4. Subject: Receipt of the Marketing Report Prepared by Learning Resources Network (LERN). Staff Report A-City of Cupertino Marketing Report Produced by LERN Page 1 Page 1 of 198 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda March 5,2020 5. Subject: Blackberry Farm Entrance Road Improvement - Feasibility Study Alternatives. Staff Report A-Public Meeting Flyer 6. Subject: Receive a Presentation on the Senior Center's Classes and Programs. Staff Report 7. Subject: Rancho Rinconada Recreation & Park District. Staff Report A-Public Review Draft Report,Special Study Governance Options,Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District, ,anuary 29,2020 B-Letter from Rancho Rinconada Board C-Information from District residents Sophia Badillo and Sandy Yeaton D-Letter from LAFCO Executive Director Neelima Palacherla E-LAFCO Service Review 2007 F-LAFCO Service Review 2013 8. Subject: Satellite Community Garden Project. Staff Report A—List of potential locations for Satellite Community Gardens 9. Subject: Dog Off-Leash Area Update. Staff Report 10. Subject: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update and Appointments to Assist With the Development of the Specific Plan. Staff Report NEW BUSINESS STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 11. Subject: Receive Monthly Update Reports from: -Director - Commissioners ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use Page 2 Page 2 of 198 Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda March 5,2020 during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk's Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue during normal business hours. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City's website and kept in packet archives. You are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to the City. Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the members on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so during the public comment. Page 3 Page 3 of 198 CITY OF CITY OF CUPERTINO 12 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION EOC CUPERTIN❑ 10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA Thursday, February G, 2020 7:00 PM SPECIAL MEETING DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Tambe called the meeting to order at 7:00p.m. in the EGC, at 10350 Torre Ave, Cupertino, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Neesha Tambe, Gopal Kumarapan, Carol Stanek,, Helene Davis, Shashi Segur Commissioners absent: Xiangchen Xu Staff present: Randy Schwartz, Christine Hanel, Whitney Zeller,Jenny Koverman, Mellownie Salvador Guest speakers: None CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Introduction of New Commissioner. Commissioner motioned to approve the minutes. Commissioner seconded. Motion was approved with 2. ChairNice Chair Selection. Coramissioner motioned to approve the minutes. Commissioner seconded. Motion was approved with APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. Special Meeting of January 9, 2020 Commissioner motioned to approve the minutes. Comn-dssioner seconded. Motion was approved with POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Page 4 of 198 OLD BUSINESS 4. Satellite Community Garden-Update Recreation Coordinator,Danny Mestizo presented on the youth and teen services 5. Review and Finalize Commission Proposals for the 2020/2021 City Work Program. Recreation Coordinators Marilu Mejia, Molly James, Kelsey Hayes, Danny 6. Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update Recreation Coordinators Marilu Mejia, Molly James, Kelsey Hayes, Danny NEW BUSINESS 7. Blackberry Farm Entrance Road Improvements—Feasability Study Public Meeting. Assistant Director Christine Hanel reviewed the 2020-2021 City Work Program S. Schedule Commissioner's Attendance of Mayor's Monthly Meetings. Recreation Coordinators Marilu Mejia, Molly James, Kelsey Hayes, Daiuzy STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 9. Receive Monthly Update Reports from: Director - Interim Director Randy Schwartz provided the Director's Report. Commissioners - Commissioner ADJOURNMENT—Chair Tambe adjourned the meeting at p.m. to the March 5, 2020 meeting at 7 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Whitney Zeller, Administrative Assistant Parks & Recreation Department Minutes approved at the regular meeting Page 5 of 198 PRC 03/05/2020 Item #3 California Association of Parks and Recreation Commissioners and Board Members Written Communications Page 6 of 198 CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF PARK & RECREATION COMMISSIONERS & BOARD MEMBERS �EOQ,v1�,!1'1X1�'r'OJ A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION SINCE 1993 • • Founded-1968 IJ�GIEksx�u*4�� February 10,2020 OFFICERS 2019 Jeff Milkes President Loretta Herrin Recreation and Community Services Director Lake Forest City of Cupertino President Elect 10300 Torre Avenue Betsy Truax Cupertino, CA 95014-3202 Mammoth Lakes Vice President Greetings Director Milkes, Bill Lock South San Francisco Treasurer Over the past 50 years,the leadership of the California Association of Parks& Recreation Steve Hoagland Commissioners& Board Members has engaged with your agency one time or another. Bay Point Like most organizations,our membership numbers have increased and decreased Secretary depending on leadership changes,economy,or fulfilling member needs. Each Dave Benevento membership is important to us and we want you back! For some reason we lost your Folsom organization; and, regardless of the reason,we believe we have something to offer your Immediate Past President City and your Parks& Recreation Commissioners. Bill Carman Moraga To enhance Cupertino's return to the Association,we are currently offering 17 months of Executive Director membership at the cost of 12 months. If you rejoin today your organization will receive Paul Romero the months of February through June at no cost. Renew today and beat the membership fee increase anticipated to go into effect on July 1, 2020. CAPRCBM is also presenting four training sessions geared to Planning Commissions this March in conjunction at the CPRS Conference and Expo at Long Beach, CA. Renew now and support Citizen Advocacy in California and the park profession that"Makes Life Better." I have also included brochures to share with your commissioners, as well as a synopsis of Membership Benefits. We want Cupertino back into the Association of Park Commissioners& Board Members. Go to https://www.caprcbm.org/2019-2020-renewals.html or contact us by email at contact@caprcbm.org. Or, if you have questions call (916)693-5207 M-F, 8 am to 5 pm. Sincerely, Patricia Bentson Gilroy Parks& Recreation Commissioner and CAPRCBM Board Member 1750;Prairie City Road -Suite 130-PMB 157 • Folsom,California 95630-9579 Email contact@caprcbm.org a Telephone(916) 693-5207 •Website www.CAPRCBM.org Affiliated with the California Park&Recreation Society and the National Recreation&Park Association,Citizen Branch Page 7 of 198 Membership Benefits 2019-2020 Agency members receive significant benefits that make joining the Association not only cost effective but also a great value. Benefits include the following: Cost to attend the annual CPRS Conference and Expo at the professional member rate. This is a significant cost saving and is extended to all Commissioners who register for the Conference and Expo. Participation in workshops or training sessions at minimal or no cost. Sessions offered by the Association may be sponsored by private partners, sponsoring businesses, or a benefactor. Participation in YouTube training webinars that require membership access code. Monthly newsletter and updates on events and activities. • Reduced cost for tours and educational trips to selected park sites. . Legislative support for State and Federal bills affecting parks and recreation. • Participation in networking at the annual Banquet held in conjunction with the CPRS Conference and Expo. . Help in problem solving on relevant issues confronting your organization. Award and/or recognition for programs or projects, outstanding Commissioner/Board member, outstanding professional, or outstanding Commission. Awards are presented annually and your organization must be an Association member to receive and award. Undoubtedly, their is value in membership! Page 8 of 198 ��o��ylA ASSOCI9�jo 1 � . . 1 1 1 PARK �x o��ylA ASSO�I9�f x Lon PARK r 1 t 'vERS&BON ;. E qq x. t tite�•, i., is ws:i "yTz r. ID Cz • d Q a v • � � • � 1 e. IF J -d • .•• • • • • • .�j. 1 J } ya .. CAPRCBM Mission: California Association of Park & Recreation Commissioners and Board Members (CAPRCBM) provide education, networking F and advocacy that enhance the role of commissioners and board members. E AFFILIATED WITH THE CALIFORNIA PARK AND z — 0 RECREATION SOCIETY AND THE NATIONAL o w RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION. - The Benefits Membership • • • - - •• - • - •- Annual Awards: Members are eligible Categories • - • • • • - for, and encouraged to, nominate fellow a�ssocq�� • • - - • members for annual awards presented at Usti °l� •- - •• - • • • • • : • • the Awards Banquet held concurrent with Agency member—Each o o • - • •• •- • the California Park and Recreation Commissioner or Board w _ Society annual conference in March. Member receives the s ' c' AT1O, a • • _ • Award categories include: same benefits as part of the es�Boe•�° ••, • • • I• • o Outstanding Commission or agency membership. Annual • • _ • • _ Board Member agency membership is $225. o Outstanding Board or Commission • • • • • • • Individual members—Individual members, o Outstanding Professional • • • . --• past presidents, and Commissioners or veil• - • •• _ - _• • o Outstanding Project/ Program Board Members who are not part of an o Honorary Life Member/ Presidents •" • • • • - • Awards are two additional categories that agency membership. Individual membership are infrequently nominated and awarded. is $40 and is pro-rated by quarter depending • _ • • • _ _ upon when membership commences. . .. . . .. . • ., Reduced registration fees for the CPRS Sponsoring member- Sponsoring • . . . annual conference (member agencies). membership of$200 is open to vendors, • • • • • • • Academy Training: These are intensive,topic business, and supporters of CAPRCBM • • • • • • driven sessions for our members (at no who do not qualify for agency or individual • additional cost) offered in member-centric membership. • • • - • ••- •= • - • geographic locations numerous times per ••• • •• • • Honorary member- Periodically, CAPRCBM year.Topics include: recognizes individuals who have provided • • o Public finance process outstanding service to the Association • . . .- . .- • o Working with elected officials and the Board of Directors bestows the :• - • o Ethics recognition of honorary member. Honorary • - . ., • o Conducting public meetings members pay no dues. • .. o Advocacy -• - - •- o Role of Commissioners •- • and Board Members ffi 4 q r_ -Page 10 of 198 PRC 03/05/2020 Item #7 Rancho Rinconada Recreation & Park District Written Communications Page 11 of 198 From: Sophia Badillo Rancho Pool Board Reform To: City Council; ;Gooal Kumaranpan;Xiangchen Xu;Carol Stanek;Cupertino City Manager"s Office; Neesha am e; 1 o upertino Parks and Recreation Commission;- Subject: Re:Clarifying misunderstandings from my meeting with Randy Schwartz-Cupertino parks and recs director-on February 10,2020 Date: Tuesday,March 3,2020 5:03:32 PM CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I also want to mention Randy's notes says sandy mentioned something about "we thinking there are kickbacks." I dont know who "we" refers to. I never said anything about kickbacks in any meeting. I want to clarify this. Sandy and I are two different people. She is responsible for what she says. In the future I would like to meet separately so there is no confusion. This way I have a chance to discuss my own notes and concerns. Thank you, Sophia On Mon Mar 2 2020 9:30 PM So hia Badillo Rancho Pool Board Reform >wrote: A number things from Randy's notes from my meeting with him need to be clarified. I would like to do this at the next parks and recs meeting this thursday March 5. Randy's notes what Sophia said: The private rentals schedule and 20 hours of lap swim take all of the pool time Correction: I said that an employee's private school - oasis swimming school -has rented the pool on the weekends while residents have problems renting the school for their child's birthday party. Rental time are harder for the tax paying residents to get. Please see screenshot below of what I was referring to: https://photos.appoo.gl/KuUTzU8UOXdNp I JJ8 Page 12 of 198 In addition, i said the pool only has lap swim hours during the morning. And while it's only open roughly 20 hours a week during the winter months, the pool doesnt have evening lap swim despite demand as seen as people waiting at Fremont high school and Rancho residents stating more even lap swim hours. I also mentioned evening and weekend lap swim program was mentioned in a previous Rancho board meeting years ago but never implemented. Please see screenshot from Dec 2013 Rancho meeting regarding extending lap swim by having the evening and weekend lap swim run concurrently with other programs. However this was never implemented and now an employee's swim school is usually booked on the weekends instead of Rancho's own programs or residents using the pool: https://photos.appoo.gl/68R57Ez3P9ps8EMS6 https:Hphotos.app.goo.gl/n9r5JcYeetCgDxcs7 Randy's notes what Sophia said: The board does not allow anyone to record the meetings. Correction: I mentioned that the Rancho board and management said it was not feasible to buy equipment to record the meetings because people live within 1 to 2 miles of the district. I mentioned that I bought a chromebook and microphone for a total of 200 bucks and streamed the meetings on YouTube for free. This is because most people cant get to the meetings at 630pm on a weekday but still should be able to see the meetings. I mentioned I got resistance from Rancho District Manager Kevin Davis for recording the meetings as a board member because of AB510 and got an email from him stating AB 510. Kevin told me I should stop recording the meetings in april 2019. However i did more research and AB 510 mentioned nothing regarding my not having permission to record the meetings. Screenshot of email I'm referring to: htjps://photos.appoo.gl/zcW2saU5xggWZsx7 Randy's notes what Sophia said: Sophia was on the board for 5 or 6 months and not allowed to see the budget or audit report Correction: I mentioned that I was on the board and had resistance seeing documentation regarding the budget and audit. I never said I was not allowed to see the actual budget or audit. These documents were posted online on the Rancho website. However, I had resistance getting supporting financial documents for the District budget and audit especially since I noticed account amounts didnt match on the audit with the account amounts from the balance sheets from the Rancho board meetings. Please see here regarding my resistance getting financial information regarding the Page 13 of 198 budget and audit: https://docs.google.com/document/d/l ccHb7vSl- FJesRYxY8chjjE8ifPs2jb3XZaA72vPPXw/edit?usp=drivesdk Randy's notes what Sophia said: City needs to take over RRRPD because the board didn't listen to their ideas Correction: I never said the statement above. I mentioned that I had problems getting things on the agenda for example talking about having the pool have cameras for safety issues, increasing lap swim to evenings and having the pool take credit cards. Randy's notes what Sophia said: Nancy Clark(County Counsel) was in closed session and has something going on with Kevin. Correction: I never said the above statement. Randy's notes what Sophia said: City needs to lay off Kevin Correction: I said that if the city takes over the Rancho rinconada district, the current district manager should not be part of the transition be I have seen issues with financial mismanagement, lack of outreach to residents and safety issues like people using the pool while it is closed, including board member Steve Wesolowski. Please see pic of board member using pool: https://photos.a goo.gl/WTDV30eJvnnJXBST7 Randy's notes what Sophia said: The fence is very low, there are no security cameras and there was almost a drowning there once. Correction: I never mentioned the height of the fence but said that I had heard of people jumping or climbing the fence to use the pool during closed hours. I also told Randy I brought up my safety and liability concerns at a lafco meeting last year. Please see screenshot about my safety concerns brought up at the april 2019 lafco meeting: https://photos.app.goo.gI/p3E3YisSaWcBemnSA Page 14 of 198 Thank you for your time. Please let me know if you have any questions or need me to clarify anything. Sophia Badillo Page 15 of 198 Independent audit for FY ending June 2017 was passed by the board in December 2017 yet is filled with inconsistencies. Audit: https:Hdrive.google.com/file/d/lwWjjTRn3X6003KMjB6S2geMxzehNklz_/view RANCHO RINCONADA BOARD MEETING Minutes 6:30 PM,December 14th,2017-Rancho Rinconada Recreation HaH Sandy called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm Board present:Miriam Salo(6:32 pm),Patricia Bustamante,Sandra Yeaton,Steve Wesolowski Staff&Guest:Michael Bryant,Kevin Davis DRAFT AUDIT REVIEW&APPROVAL Steve made a motion to approve the draft audit Motion passed:In favor Miriam,Patricia,Sandra,Steve Corresponding data from this audit do not match from the Rancho District's balance sheet for FY ending June 2017. This balance sheet was unanimously approved by the attending board members at the August 2017 meeting. Balance Sheet: https:Hdrive.aooale.com/file/d/OB5kvNfl FXvNARzBpclQOeTgzQTQ/view RANCHO RINCONADA BOARD MEETING Minutes 6:30 PM,Augu.sr 101h,2017-Rancho Rlnranada Recreation Hall Sandra called the meeting to order at 630 pm Board present:Julie Jervis,Minam Salo,Patricia Bustamante,Sandra Yeaton,Steve Wesolowski Staff present:Kevin DAvis COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications at this time, CONSENT CALENDAR Julie made a motion to approve the consent calendar Motion passed:In favor-Julie,Miriam,Patricia,Sandra,Steve.Against-Hone t, June financial repun Some financial inconsistencies examples include Current value of fixed assets, Current County cash account balance, checking accounts balances, checking accounts balances, Deferred revenue, Current Liabilities, and Accrued compensation. Page 16 of 198 For FY ending Current Current checking Deferred Current Accrued 6/30/17 value of County accounts revenue Liabilities compensation fixed cash balances assets account balance Balance Sheet 1,083,671 819,625 172,335 124,640 176,610 34,922 Audit 1,016,322 819,625 174,780 124,600 127,890 41,348 pg. 9 and 818,199 pg 11 DISCREPANCIES 67,349 1426 2445 40 48720 6426 BTN BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT Current Value of Fixed Assets: Balance Sheet Amount: 1,083,671 Audit Amount: 1,016,322 Page 17 of 198 fined ►►SWtS Land 186,546 [Wilding A Irvrover ts 194.2ss 194,255 s,wimwwq PWI ' het Boo 5 3,21 towipm - rmn book vik 5 69,354 S 69,474 &so Tot aI Feted Asses 1,093,671 $ 1AMJ,791 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ E rM,r'N a-ros rm FavW 4reaeww%m r cmwgr+q r',d Mcmw bed I+v4MLng ■[Kirdt id- hem by es.7rrmm quY - —re•Nrlwrw PmA. D'm MAO&*&* rrt}Ilrwee I w k."Trrwraml 4prup" [4 rRport W-m*f w"ac tor v"m b to D*nm V1*r[ Rw Eq} M-pn" 4 PD" OM #Ylrlaftm fpmmvrmm el " E" M"Mma[y n%VFpnplR Pam *Off~~bM"cow"cr soft CJa*TM oMW&s Nrfubsmd on"bars rot MOW Wl w %pK#k pa"VA.[Mel31d Rb WM V*DWI&s tNMWj•r I OF r"nab,CrwM FMb6 and aorlp mm m d oaa flEL Tvw capW mma tw Rhr Mr w4W k f A MO K as toY114- Lally � fA6.4{A DE2MdM�1 del ia[� F2#.2++ raW iYJ,7a0 iwnRwintl M41�+ti1[r6[ 1if1.443 L,�71,11b Leos i,atin•ysa[� u�prrcrf�rn [�e,49]] Mee AfaDa+tY aId .�Igsr►Ie'IR � d.0=b.32� Dep, wn ripe for the rem rrl"h JA 201!r#s;KJ49- Page 18 of 198 Current County cash account balance Balance Sheet Amount: 819,625 Audit Amount: 819,625 pg. 9 and 818,199 pg 11 Checking accounts balance Balance Sheet Amount: 172,335 Audit Amount: 174,780 Petty cash and cash on hand Balance Sheet Amount: 1,599 Audit Amount: 1,683 MUT5 Jun 30, 11 31, 17 , C�lck��JS�{r+n €.as.h -Coumy Actourd S A19.62S $ 769,702 S ; Herrtage/Focux$onk 5 139.M $ 124.720 S HenUge/F otus N wwn 5 S0,228 SO,215 VOB-Oirs+ness Checkin 32,547 32,547 Pelts cash S00 SS sw Cash om HAnwd S 1,0r99 $ 10" Total ChecklngrA,rtf g% S 1.043.777 S 1,038,704 nMerrd by deposamr7 rrrurFanc,e and are (a) unc,allaSraaNxed� I bw I'm* W*dv" faowetrl InstlfullaO. or 10) OAMOnNied w rlanual rnslnullon'y TruaT deparlmool or agimt bw real It r Ail of the Dkarrkl's c"h end mreatme'nte fall under arou uninsured, we not tegislrred In ihr name of She go-vernrnerl' R#+MChp AinCorla4.s RaCr• N the Munl#r PSFllr, ItUSI depvtrnimt pr iQQni bul not In STaEsrrnenl of 11% Al ed juna I w qh surnmwued CQFFLWabl� ao 0 ihr *r and In 4acal tinangal IntutLmmi ; ulions, all Iymin. rrisy exceeLd iederallk miuwed IlmlTs of 1125� ed am IoaM In EUCh 60Cowr+11 16119049emrnl Gllrewn Ii i rt,nr btiW sificsnt credal risk ielaled la cashAcbvoft cuff"ASS" 7s a June 30, 2017 conrrslyd of liho Wawin0: CAMA ; qd 791 7 Q 1 F C.airl it� 81 d trio � Cash Tti#Id vrlllh 06 r COu my 0 11;.625 Snr+ Car rrrarNxy Cr,rck ing 174.780 F2e€�rWrbllrE #1 7 Prap"emPOPI +WO dePoWta 14,074 Wkwev Mit1w 54.218 PeTI y cafh and casfr an hand 6a 3 ; TOW Corr Mt A $N 101 i t,44Fi 30i CAPWMwft rw 1b1f5_ _ -------------------------------------------------- Page 19 of 198 Deferred revenue Balance Sheet Amount: 124,640 Audit Amount: 124,600 vb——er UM p"-*R-sn.uv'w r.r.Mr J111 O.ftm OIL Ntr fora�-.-IIW C goo— Onso s d AM N.M" Tstr E'�v�F*ry� �181r�an &Ufa .d4wr� orl Jo11s Cw1wwCtY1yOM�J•IZ* y ijlp¢ Y7rl�p i 1#].yJl i eA nca 43 Y IJ Y 'IV dWP3§b t I-M f 32" it 3.16b Tt�xC LLondon Ip 4" 5774Y0 71J Jg} LW4Krf14k IULM hn 10.Lr Mry 14-77 tcb1 w ♦Ckp-w 1hAdr1h t~Lr.Y— OR M f®rb M1AL4 S L3.01J # ILMF J LI.7SF7 704Li nW 7ec�'-nh l�M} .071 ILAW i 11.2"1 704k OIMM tam Chm VTpx 1;10 S 1.770 S I-M I AWE W R IMACAMMUqu !' 1.337 i I-M t on M3.1L O•r•_..._urrr. DW6-o&w % 73'kM4 } Ll�A�017 10o VL +CCy"M"n } I#4"w } 77J71 1 AAGW :Vk k1*,a11 tA.M p"M } 5,1Y # L MF 3 **LYJ -raj% r�lrarlenLa.� S LY.&M M L75M 11i��rFr # 1*6 } r7 # >7} tI3AR R'ao CC1w C�'sakY 4 VLJJ+ S As-MI S IM715 ri%7% 1•x uyJra } �7i1,■LG } �,a.rr,r } Fflrp ift. Page 20 of 198 Current Liabilities: Balance Sheet Amount: 176,610 Audit Amount: 127,890 .,,he ARK W "Mormon wM Fw%D%*-m Suftewww er ftM IF*~-ErWprN+R..rY Am*JLw*IL atr im" #1M7 T,W E pw Ft�4 Afi W wWLw"m Arr Min Cw via e1w*1 .1 Y* ! IVAN R 17PM9 11 143.507 TOTAL ASMrB # 12T C ,■�1�e I WIIY M FWIwVs r�1h'Qwpu� f kzW f 32M 1 i.T!* 1howwww"M 114#19 1?4.tIw 4I0-071• T.M C �Lqponn 11174w 177MM 111 J46 L WOUT411a Idfir M M.P Mry n-I; 1<[kp LWYiLn'w,d. .._ Aq- grrwyy 0�PEWS* } L3.01i S IC7R f L1.75i7 MCK FWW&o jq ft"hk S Lk071 IL 0 i LLMI -MM" #n"taph CNN"he[.e 1 1.170 1 1_ne I ow -1034 Grf�urrr. C1—vVIindEN } I�k�14 Laim e000ti swum wilo I#4rA f i7J?7 1 IU Mi Ila% 5~ospomb } 1.e50 f xM a LL'W .3.1i\ 06*0 tj.L ra'Y y 3,iY ! $Jft # **M -r♦1k Aciw we.+u�� 1 17.&M S L73}i $ IM S Al S It M45 �t�CS S� LY} WIN S •}_f!1 S 17ik71} ri%7% .pvw;~Lioww $ Omw W.FM } i1Ljm Inn% INNudhrm 3 UMAW 1 ►f " ! WAN lrr.ls Page 21 of 198 Accrued compensation: Balance Sheet Amount: 34,922 Audit Amount: 41,348 Mote F - !Accrued Comoenation Accrued corrlpenaation is co+nprr'sed of accrued ocmpensared absences, accrued wages, and accrued payrcA tavea for payr6l earnea in the last week of the flscai wear but pabd in the first week of the subwquent fiscal year. Accrued wades at June 30. Z017 wife $15,07$.,Totai cornpenSatm absences at Jurre 30, 2017 were $23,984, Acmed poyrgit takes at June 30, 2417 were S 1.28G- I-MiLMES&EQLpr" lun W. 17 Miy 31,17 $Chi %C%&W l iab&tvs Currpnl uabd4tks X[MMS Palrh" AkL"nts Payatd* $ 13,011 $ 16.269 $ M2W '20.0% tatad+j:e* sts PV140* S 13bp13 -#O M €reopt{#+05 Chase Credot Carge S k 320 *a 1,954 S f4m) -32-m TotalCreq-M Cjrds 5 I'M i 1.95o S t ) -32.3% Mhu€utrem Lkkil�tw% Delerred Revenue 5 224.6m $ 124,6M iM Cft Awmad W Wn $ Man $ 22.323 $ (5.1461 -28 0% RtlT,91 CFC0d yts S 2.630 $ 3.950 5 (1,3001 -32.l94 !Piero!!T.,%n e."at S 1=1110 S IA598 S (9121 •14.2% Mrrued vaub ns 17 $ 37,SSS Suet t4l:Pbvmbte S les S 32 $ 73 7#iJd7L Tu1al Other{wTenl Li: 5 162.176 $ 63.561 $ 116,71S 256.2% T4'14l CwriM� o f 971WO f 6).779 3 1U.830 1764% Page 22 of 198 Once again, some FY ending June 30, 2017 financial inconsistencies examples include: Current value of fixed assets Current County cash account balance Checking accounts balances Petty cash and cash on hand amounts Deferred revenue Current Liabilities Accrued compensation Page 23 of 198 CITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 • FAX: (408) 777-1305 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 5, 2020 Subject Receipt of the Marketing Report prepared by Learning Resources Network (LERN). Recommended Actions Receive the report. Discussion In April 2018, the City contracted with LERN, a corporation in Wisconsin, to complete a two-day program review of the Parks & Recreation Department and complete a comprehensive and long-term marketing plan. Due to registration software issues and staffing changes, the report was delayed but delivered to the City in November of 2019. At the March 2020 Commission meeting,a representative from LERN will be available by telecommunication to review the report's findings and recommendations with the Commissioners. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact is associated with the receipt of this report. Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of this report, although there may be fiscal impacts to the City associated with future marketing efforts. Prepared by: Randy Schwartz, Interim Parks&Recreation Director Reviewed bv: Approved for Submission by: Attachments: A-"City of Cupertino Marketing Report" produced by LERN. Page 24 of 198 *N& City of Cupertino Marketing Report PART I: Findings • Cupertino's population is over 60 percent Asian with a medium household income of over $130,000. Approximately 60 percent of fee-based registrations are by Generation Z/ Generation Alpha and 31 percent by Baby Boomers and Veterans. • There are five primary Centers, as well as buildings, parks, fields, tennis courts, an outdoor pool, and a golf course. • CPRD has implemented ACTIVE Net recreation software system and over 50 percent of registrations are generated online. • CPRD's operating budget is over$15,000,000 with CPRD generating approximately 40 percent of the monies through fee-based programming, memberships, passes and rentals. • While events and festivals are free, other programming is fee-based, including membership options. • CPRD has approximately 32 full-time equivalent staff and between 100 and 200 part- time staff depending on the season. • CPRD's primary marketing tools include a Recreation Schedule, newsletters and flyers, earketing and social media. • Repeat Rate (People repeating from Year 1 to Year 2/People from Year 1). Parks and recreation departments, like all businesses, grow because of their ability to get participants to repeat from one year to the next. Parks and recreation departments increase their repeat rate by providing quality and needed programming, developing and distributing targeted high-quality promotional efforts, and delivering"Al, Second to None" customer service. The industry benchmark is 30-50 percent. CPRD's repeat rate is approximately 45%. Page 25 of 198 PART II: Positive Accomplishments The following are positive accomplishments identified during LERN's review of CPRD's marketing efforts: 01. Covering Direct Costs. With the fees generated from CPRD's offerings and services, CPRD covers all direct (promotion and production) costs, as well as covering some administration costs. 02. Marketing Materials. The CPRD marketing materials produced are high-quality and along with distribution methods, follow many industry best practices. 03. Repeat Rate. CPRD's repeat rate is where a parks and recreation department repeat should be, thus highlighting quality and customer-focused programming. 04. Members. The Senior Center and Sports Center have done a good job selling and retaining members, which is one reason CPRD's repeat rate is strong. 05. ACTIVE Net. CPRD staff has done a good job quickly getting ACTIVE Net up and running and is starting to generate valuable data and information. Page 26 of 198 PART III: Recommendations Do More Marketing. Successful parks and recreation departments understand you need to spend money to make money. Not spending enough money on marketing is one of the biggest reason parks and recreation departments do not meet revenue and participation goals. CPRD should focus on marketing improvements. The following are the primary actions CPRD should take to improve marketing: • 1. CPRD must identify the Department's unique selling proposition or USP. Why do present and potential participants register for CPRD classes? CPRD identifies the USP as a list of benefits and/or a slogan by working with present participants. Once a USP is determined, then CPRD can consider branding—consistent look, consistent experience, and consistent performance by partners. • 2. Participant registration data will allow CPRD to perform data analysis to determine best promotion methods and where marketing monies should be spent. The participant registration data will guide CPRD in determining best carrier routes and the next activity a participant should be taking. • 3. 20 percent of CPRD's participants generate 80 percent of CPRD's revenue and participation. Within the 20 percent, using participant registration data, CPRD can identify the Department's primary market segments—a grouping of participants defined by key demographics and their interest areas. Normally a parks and recreation department has seven primary market segments where resources should be focused. • 4. Parks and recreation printed promotions, websites, and activity descriptions should follow the AIDA Principle. The first A stands for Attention, the I for Interest, the D for Desire, and the second A for Action. Using the AIDA Principle ensures best practices are utilized in design and writing. • 5. Planning is critical and using five ways of marketing—print,website, emails, social media, and video is a must. Each activity or grouping of activities being sold, must have a documented campaign that remains on track to get the best return-on-investment for marketing monies spent. • 6. Parks and recreation departments grow their business on repeat participants. Participants should repeat from one year to the next at a 30-50 percent rate. Having a strong repeat rate requires great activity quality, exceptional customer service, and listening to participants to determine important fixes and new opportunities. By listening to repeat participants, you make the changes that draw similar people who are more willing to register once the change is made. Page 27 of 198 PART III: Action Items Action. By reducing production costs as a percentage, CPRD should increase the present percentage being spent on marketing. CPRD is spending less than two percent and the immediate goal should be to increase to three percent(which on $6,500,000 in revenue is $195,000) and ultimately to five percent Action. CPRD should have one centralized marketing budget, instead of a centralized Recreation Schedule budget and other marketing monies spread out among programming areas. The centralized marketing budget should then be broken down by programming areas, categories, subcategories, and so on. Action. Before each session, a Marketing Meeting should take place with the Programming Team to determine session marketing strategies and to build a session promotion campaign(s). Programming staff should be prepared to share marketing strategies they believe will work to generate registrations for their activities. To track promotion campaigns, CPRD should consider LERN's Promotion Tracking Tool or a similar promotion management tool. Action. CPRD needs to ramp up eMarketing and social media. Although 75 percent of CPRD's marketing budget should be spent on print marketing, 75 percent of CPRD marketing staff time should be spent on digital media. CPRD should consider hiring or repurposing another staff position for marketing with a focus on digital and content (generation of written, photo and video content)marketing, or contract with a digital/content marketing resource. Action. Use ACTIVE Net for tracking registrations. What promotion method got a person to register? This information should be collected when a person builds their profile, but also every time they register. If ACTIVE Net does not have the functionality, I can teach other methods for collecting the information. Most important is figuring out CPRD's Recreation Schedule: Registration Ratio (ideally no higher than 20:1). Remember not all registrations are generated by the Recreation Schedule. Action. Consider a Summer Camp-Only Schedule, as well as testing a second Recreation Schedule mailing to people who registered in the last year. Most successful parks and recreation department summer camp programs have a separate summer camp schedule. Action. As stated above, CPRD should figure out the Department's unique selling proposition. There may be unique selling propositions specific to certain programming areas. Once you know your unique selling proposition,promote it zealously to remind current participants and engage potential participants. Action. Have one person write activity descriptions. Programming staff should provide the first draft,but then a person with the right skill set should write the final descriptions. Activity descriptions should be between 40 and 120 words.They should follow the AIDA Principle where the title gets your Attention, the first sentence (good question, important fact or big Page 28 of 198 benefit) gets your Interest, the description full of benefits generates Desire (use full sentences and write in"you" language—you will learn), and the logistics, including price, gets Action. Action. General Needs Assessment: Once a year reach out to Cupertino residents to gather information about how CPRD can better service them. Some of this work was done as CPRD developed the Master Plan. Action. Experience Survey: Once a year survey people who have participated in the last year and ask them to rate the quality of CPRD's activities 1-5 (1 =Poor, 5 =Excellent) and CPRD's customer service 1-5. The survey can be done using a survey tool such as Survey Monkey. The goal is to average scores of four or higher. Action. Activity Needs Assessment: Twice a year programming staff should be surveying participants by category about ways programming can be improved, as well as specific new programming that can be offered. Action. Polls & Focus Groups can be used to dig deeper into actions CPRD should take, whether with programming, facilities, or other CPRD services. Action. Participants in classes should evaluate the specific class they attended. This is most important for new classes, new teachers, and revamped classes. It is not always necessary to evaluate every class every time it is offered. Action. Cross-promote Adult programming in 50+promotions and promote 50+in Adult programming promotions. Action. Consider changing the name of the Senior Center. Could be something like Lifelong Learning Center or named after someone like the Quinlan Center. 50-65 year-olds do not want to hear the word senior. You have already shifted to 50+, so continue the shift. (NOTE: Personally, I like renaming and rebranding all adult programming options away from senior and 50+ to another name. Maybe Lifelong Learning?In Rhode Island I ran a program called Learning Connection that primarily attracted people 40+.) Page 29 of 198 PART IV: Market Plan FOUNDATION • Explanation of CPRD, which could include high-level program and service mix, demographic highlights, and community engagement/outreach. • CPRD's unique selling proposition, which could include CPRD vision,mission, and values, as well as strategic advantages and challenges. • CPRD's primary market segments. • CPRD's marketing model and process and overall strategies and goals. • CPRD's marketing budget monies historical amount by percentage and distribution. PLAN • 3 to 7 goals for the year to improve CPRD's marketing efforts and performance. • Break overall marketing budget down by distribution method and/or programming category. • CPRD marketing benchmarks with year's goal. • List the different promotion methods CPRD will use to market CPRD programming and services. • Actions CPRD will be taking to improve and/or maintain repeat rate. • High-level CPRD promotion plan: a listing of promotion campaigns by quarter. As an attachment each campaign would have a campaign plan with tasks, due dates and person/staffing group responsible. LERN's Promotion Tracking Tool could serve as the campaign plan home. • A breakdown of which staffing group is responsible for which marketing tasks. • Quarterly Update. Each quarter, CPRD should provide the Commission, City and City Council an update to make sure that all three understand CPRD's successes,where CPRD needs help, and plans going forward. The CPRD Quarterly Report should be no more than two pages and include: o Success Stories o National/Regional Trends CPRD Understands/Acting On o Annual Goals Progress o Numbers: Examples—Participation and Cost Recovery o Benchmarks: Examples - Cancellation and Repeat Rate o Support: How Can the Commission, City and/or City Council Help CPRD o Next Quarter Priorities Page 30 of 198 P and R Commission 03.05.20 Item #4 Community Outreach Resources Classes, Activities, Sports, Fitness & McClellan Name Senior Center Facilities, Programs and Recreation Ranch/BBF Events Branton 50+ Scene x A-Frame Signs x x Banners x x x Bay Area Parent x Booths at Events x x Campbell Express x City Calendar x x x x City Channel x x City Radio x City's Social Media x x x Corridor Bulletin Boards x Creekside Farmers Market x x Cupertino Courier x Direct Mail x x Electronic Display Board x x x Email flyers to local homeschool networks x Email Library Staff x Email Past Participants x x x x Emails to Past Volunteers x x Facebook x x x x Facebook Events x x x x Facebook Targeting Pixels x Facility Signage x x x x Festivals x x Flyers x x x Grassroots Ecology x Groupon x Instagram x Internal Information provided to Customer Service Representatives x x x x Isuu.com x Page 31 of 19Page 1 of 2 P and R Commission 03.05.20 Item #4 Classes, Activities, Name Senior Center Facilities, Programs and Sports, Fitness & McClellan Recreation Ranch/BBF Events Branton Items of Interest x x x x Library Tabling x x Local Community College Instructors x Local High School Biology Teachers x Local Weaving and Spinning Guilds x Mailchimp x McClellan Facebook Page x x Midpeninsula Environmental Educators x Alliance Nextdoor x x x Peach jar x x PnR Brochure x x x x Post Cards x x Posters x x Rolling Hills 4H x SCALA Screens x x School Career Centers x Targeted Facebook Ads x x The Scene x x x x Trello Card x x Tri-Folds x Twitter x Website x x x x Word Journal x Yard Signs x Yelp x Youth/Teen Website, Cupertino Website x x Page 32 of 19Page 2 of 2 CITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 • FAX: (408) 777-1305 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 5, 2020 Subject Blackberry Farm Entrance Road Improvements-Feasibility Study Alternatives Recommended Action Receive the presentation on the Blackberry Farm Entrance Road Improvements- Feasibility Study Alternatives and select preferred alternative. Discussion The Department of Public Works is working with Underwood and Rosenblum on a feasibility study to provide safer pedestrian and bike pathways at the entrance road to Blackberry Farm on San Fernando Avenue. The various design options and the highly rated options based on several rating factors such as safety, amount of tree loss, environmental and traffic impacts, and constructability will be presented to the Commission. The Commission can reference the website to review the alternatives presented and the comments that were received at the public meeting that was held on February 12,2020. After careful review of the design alternatives, the Commission can provide their comments and collaboratively select their preferred alternative. Sustainability Impact The feasibility study phase of the Blackberry Farm Entrance Road Improvements does not have any sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact Funds for this project are allocated in the FY2019-2020 Capital Improvement Program. Prepared by: Mellownie Salvador, Public Works Project Manager Reviewed by: Randy Schwartz,Interim Parks&Recreation Director Attachments: A-Public Meeting Flyer Page 33 of 198 PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE Blackberry Farm Entrance Feasibility Study Wednesday, February 12, 2020 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. CUPERTINO McClellan Ranch Preserve EEC _ f ir +� U i Project Location The City of Cupertino is working with Underwood and Rosenblum on a feasibility study to provide safer pedestrian and bike pathways at the entrance road to Slack- Do you walk or bike to berry Farm on San Fernando Avenue. Blackberry Farm? The City would like to invite you to attend the first public meeting for the project to provide feedback on the conceptual design recommendation for the proposed We want to hear from you! improvements. The meeting will be an open house format where participants can arrive any time during the event window and have one-on-one discussions with City staff and project consultants. For more information and to sign up for e-notifications,please visit: lellari uan n 122 1 M9C��Ilarr�vaa parking lot .McCfel7an °jT" wwsv.cupertino.org/bbfentranreroad. aieserve_-�- �S,�e�1aT c! QFriendG of Stevens MEETING DETAILS Creek Trail ail re] • - Wednesday, -a ■ 2020 1 p.m. to 11 p.m. Location: McClelaRanch Preserve Environmental • • • Center22221 ■ ■ Cupertino City • •ct: Mellowrie Salvador, • • •• Meeting Location is) 777-3292 1 MellownieS@cupertino.org Page 34 of 198 CITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 • FAX: (408) 777-1305 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 5, 2020 Subject Receive a presentation on the Senior Center's Classes and Programs. Recommended Action Receive presentation from the Senior Center's Classes and Programs Coordinator. Discussion The Cupertino Senior Center annually hosts 250 classes, with roughly 3,500 registrants. This includes up to 20 contracted instructors and another 20 volunteer instructors who offer to a wide variety of interests such as art,music,exercise, and special interest classes. Highlights include the ever-growing Chair Exercise class, and the incredibly popular Chinese Brush Painting sessions. Many special events are held at the Senior Center as well, such as the yearly Hidden Treasures fundraiser, which collects donated items from the public for three months before hosting a massive sale.The proceeds benefit the Senior Center's Case Management program, and the Stay Active Fund. Various concerts and performances are hosted at the center including appearances from its very own volunteer-led HarmoniKatz band and Ukulele classes. Twice a month the Senior Center welcomes members to register for luncheon programs—the large Birthday Bashes that include entertainment as well, and the smaller, more intimate Lunch with Friends. Volunteers staff the kitchen for both events and take care of decorating the room according to theme. The Senior Center also has agreements in place with several external organizations. FUHSD's Adult Ed program uses the facility to offer further classes to Senior Center members, De Anza Adaptive PE hosts two classes through the Senior Center, Stanford Health has their Matter of Balance program, and the Cupertino Library Foundation hosts a Film Series Program on Tuesday nights a few times yearly. All Senior Center programming is advertised in the center's major publication: The 50+ Scene. This newsletter has recently undergone an expansive content and aesthetic overhaul in order to adhere to the Office of Communication's branding guidelines,as well as ensure the publication is more readable and user-friendly. Page 35 of 198 Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact. Prepared by:Jason Bisely,Recreation Coordinator Limited Term Reviewed bv: Kim Frey,Recreation Supervisor Approved for Submission by: Randy Schwartz, Interim Parks and Recreation Director Attachments: No attachments (Any attachments that are amendments to resolutions or ordinances will note one attachment as the Draft Resolution or Draft Ordinance (clean version) and a separate attachment as the redline changes to the resolution or ordinance only.) Page 36 of 198 CITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 • FAX: (408) 777-1305 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 5, 2020 Subject Rancho Rinconada Recreation&Park District. Recommended Actions Receive the report, listen to public comments, edit a draft public survey and appoint one or two Parks and Recreation Commissioners to work with staff on this topic prior to the Commission's April 2,2020 meeting. Discussion The Overview of the report states the following: "The Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO) prepared a Service Review of the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District (RRRPD) in 2013 which recommended further analysis of governance changes for the District. RRRPD has had a zero sphere of influence since 1982 indicating that the RRRPD should eventually not exist as an independent special district. LAFCO reaffirmed the District's zero sphere of influence in its 2013 Service Review for the District. The 2013 RRRPD Service Review found that a significant service overlap contributes to "the duplication in services delivered within the boundaries of Cupertino [which] creates inherent inefficiencies and fragmented service delivery and impedes long-term planning for the delivery of recreation services to the residents of Cupertino." In recent years there have been disputes and allegations of mismanagement among the Board leading to the resignation of two board members and a lack of a quorum to conduct RRRPD business. As noted in LAFCO's Request for Proposals (RFP)for this special study, LAFCO has received complex questions and complaints from residents concerning the RRRPD. At the February and April 2019 LAFCO meetings, community members informed LAFCO of their concerns about RRRPD's inefficient pool operation lack of public outreach and public awareness of the District, and requested that LAFCO address these concerns, resulting in the current special study. Comments regarding allegations of mismanagement, and responses by the District to the complaints, were submitted at LAFCO's meeting in June, 2019. In 2019,following board resignations, RRRPD was left with two filled seats; the County Board of Supervisors appointed a temporary third RRRPD board member for the purpose of adopting the Page 37 of 198 FY20 budget. Currently the District has three filled seats sufficient to function with a quorum,and the two remaining vacant seats could be filled at the 2020 general election. The 2013 RRRPD MSR considered several governance options which are addressed in more detail in this special study: • Option 1:Maintain RRRPD's Current Governance(Status Quo)—RRRPD remains intact as an independent recreation and park district,and continues to operate and improve its programs,facilities and planning. • Option 2:Merger of RRRPD with the City of Cupertino—RRRPD would be dissolved and its functions, services, assets, and liabilities transferred to the City of Cupertino. The City would integrate RRRPD programs and facilities into current City operations and recreation planning. This option assumes that RRRPD's current property tax allocation would be entirely transferred to the City, and that all RRRPD services would be maintained at current levels (or better). • Option 3:Reorganize RRRPD as a Subsidiary District to the City of Cupertino— RRRPD would remain a special district, but the Cupertino City Council would function as its board. As required by law, "...The district shall continue in existence with all of the powers, rights, duties, obligations, and functions provided for by the principal act, except for any provisions relating to the selection or removal of the members of the board of directors of the district." All subsidiary district accounts would be held and reported separately from City funds. Legal and financial responsibility would be limited to the subsidiary district. The subsidiary district would continue to receive its current share of property tax to be used for district purposes. This Special Study further investigates the financial feasibility and the process required to implement the governance options described above." City staff reviewed the preliminary draft report and provided early input to the preliminary draft report that was presented to the LAFCO Board on February 5,2020. No action was be taken by the Board at that meeting. The report is open for public comments until March 11, 2020. On February 181", the City Council accepted the report and added to the Parks & Recreation Commission's work program to review the report, poll and have a robust discussion with the homeowners of the District to determine if they can support either Option 1 or Option 2. The Commission would then return a recommendation to the City Council in either April or May. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact is associated with the receipt of this report, although there may be impacts depending upon which option is ultimately approved. Page 38 of 198 Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of this report, although there may be fiscal impacts to the City depending upon which option is ultimately approved. Prepared by: Randy Schwartz, Interim Parks &Recreation Director Reviewed bv: Approved for Submission by: Attachments: A-Public Review Draft Report, Special Study: Governance Options, Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District,January 29,2020 B-Letter from Rancho Rinconada Board C-Information from District residents Sophia Badillo and Sandy Yeaton D-Letter from LAFCO Executive Director Neelima Palacherla E-LAFCO Service Review-2007 F-LAFCO Service Review-2013 Page 39 of 198 Berkson Associates r Urban Economics `tom Policy Forensics & Forecasting Planning & Policy Analysis PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT REPORT SPECIAL STUDY: GOVERNANCE OPTIONS RANCHO RINCONAb RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT I Prepared for LAFCO of Santa Clara County Berkson Associates In association with Policy Consulting Associates, LLC January 29, 2020 richard@berksonassociates.com 1 510.612.6906 www.berksonassociates.com Page 40 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW................................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER 2. RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT(RRRPD).............................3 District Boundaries and Service Area Assessed Value, Population and Voters RRRPD Goals, Policies and Plans RRRPD Programs, Staff and Facilities RRRPD Revenues and Expenditures RRRPD Assets, Liabilities and Financial Net Position CHAPTER 3. GOVERNANCE OPTIONS............................................................................................ 15 Option 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Status Quo........................................................ 17 Option 2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Merger.............................................................. 17 Option 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of a Subsidiary District.........................................21 CHAPTER 4. LAFCO PROCESS.........................................................................................................23 Findings Required for LAFCO-Initiated Reorganization richard@berksonassociates.com 1 510.612.6906 1 www.berksonassociates.com Page 41 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 FIGURES AND TABLES Figure1 RRRPD Boundaries............................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Aerial View of RRRPD Facilities..........................................................................................8 Figure 3 County Assessor Parcel Map—RRRPD Property...............................................................9 Table 1 Summary of Assessed Value, Population &Voters............................................................5 Table 2 RRRPD Revenues and Expenditures................................................................................. 12 Table 3 Comparison of Governance Options ............................................................................... 16 Table 4 RRRPD Budget vs. City Options 2 and 3...........................................................................20 Table 5 Summary of LAFCO Proceedings for Reorganization Process..........................................26 APPENDICES Appendix A—Detailed Budget Estimates Appendix B—RRRPD Programs and Pricing Appendix C—RRRPD Staff Information richard@berksonassociates.com 1 510.612.6906 1 www.berksonassociates.com Page 42 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 1. OVERVIEW The Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO) prepared a Service Review of the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District (RRRPD) in 2013 which recommended further analysis of governance changes for the District.' RRRPD has had a zero sphere of influence since 1982 indicating that the RRRPD should eventually not exist as an independent special district. LAFCO reaffirmed the District's zero sphere of influence in its 2013 Service Review for the District.2 The 2013 RRRPD Service Review found that a significant service overlap contributes to "the duplication in services delivered within the boundaries of Cupertino [which] creates inherent inefficiencies and fragmented service delivery and impedes long-term planning for the delivery of recreation services to the residents of Cupertino.113 In recent years there have been disputes and allegations of mismanagement among the Board leading to the resignation of two board members and a lack of a quorum to conduct RRRPD business. As noted in LAFCO's Request for Proposals (RFP)for this special study, LAFCO has received complex questions and complaints from residents concerning the RRRPD. At the February and April 2019 LAFCO meetings, community members informed LAFCO of their concerns about RRRPD's inefficient pool operation, lack of public outreach and public awareness of the District, and requested that LAFCO address these concerns, resulting in the current special study. Comments regarding allegations of mismanagement, and responses by the District to the complaints,were submitted at LAFCO's meeting in June, 2019.4 In 2019,following board member resignations, RRRPD was left with two filled seats;the County Board of Supervisors appointed a temporary third RRRPD board member for the purpose of adopting the FY20 budget. Currently the District has three filled seats sufficient to function with a quorum, and the two remaining vacant seats could be filled at the 2020 general election. 1 Special Districts Service Review: Phase 1, Prepared for LAFCO of Santa Clara County by PCA, LLC, Adopted June 5,2013. 2 LAFCO Staff Report,April 3,2019, Item 7. 3 ibid,2013 RRRPD MSR, pg.27. 4 See correspondence received by LAFCO at its 6/5/19 meeting from Sophia Badillo and from Sandra Yeaton,and letter from Kevin Davis, RRRPD General Manager to LAFCO,June 14, 2019. www.berksonassociates.com Page 43 of 198 Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 The 2013 RRRPD MSR considered several governance options which are addressed in more detail in this special study: • Option 1: Maintain RRRPD's Current Governance(Status Quo)— RRRPD remains intact as an independent recreation and park district, and continues to operate and improve its programs, facilities and planning. • Option 2: Merger of RRRPD with the City of Cupertino—RRRPD would be dissolved and its functions, services, assets, and liabilities transferred to the City of Cupertino. The City would integrate RRRPD programs and facilities into current City operations and recreation planning.This option assumes that RRRPD's current property tax allocation would be entirely transferred to the City, and that all RRRPD services would be maintained at current levels (or better). • Option 3: Reorganize RRRPD as a Subsidiary District to the City of Cupertino—RRRPD would remain a special district, but the Cupertino City Council would function as its board. As required by law, "...The district shall continue in existence with all of the powers, rights, duties, obligations, and functions provided for by the principal act, except for any provisions relating to the selection or removal of the members of the board of directors of the district."5 All subsidiary district accounts would be held and reported separately from City funds. Legal and financial responsibility would be limited to the subsidiary district.The subsidiary district would continue to receive its current share of property tax to be used for district purposes. This Special Study further investigates the financial feasibility and the process required to implement the governance options described above. 5 Gov.Code Sec. 57534. www.berksonassoci ate s.com Page 44 of 198 BA Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January29, 2020 2 . RANCHO RINCQNADA RECREATION & PARK DISTRICT ( RRRPD) RRRPD was formed in 1955 as an independent special district with its own elected board of trustees.A five-member Board of Directors governs the District; members are elected to four- year terms.As described in the 2013 RRRPD Service Review board members as of 2013 all ran unopposed, eliminating election costs, but also indicating a lack of resident involvement. The Service Review stated that the lack of elections and opposing candidates "reflects a lack of candidate and resident interest in the District's activities and governance", however, all seats were filled at that time and in prior years. In 2018 an election occurred with multiple candidates. As noted in the Overview, in recent years there have been disputes and allegations of mismanagements among the Board leading to the resignation of two board members and a lack of a quorum to conduct RRRPD business. Currently the District has three filled seats and functions with a quorum, and the two vacant seats could be filled at the 2020 general election. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND SERVICE AREA As shown in FIGURE 1,the boundaries of the District are entirely within the City of Cupertino with the exception of two parcels owned by the County of Santa Clara; those parcels are to the east along Lawrence Expressway and include portions of the Saratoga Creek Trail and riparian area. The City of Cupertino is negotiating with the County of Santa Clara for the acquisition of the two County-owned parcels within the District but located in the City of San Jose adjacent to the City's boundaries;the parcels could then be detached from the City of San Jose and annexed to the City of Cupertino. If that process is completed,the District will be contained entirely within the City's boundaries.Alternatively,the parcels may be detached from RRRPD so that all RRRPD territory is contained within the City of Cupertino.7 District revenue data, which charges higher non-resident rates, indicate that District residents account for about 20 percent,on average, of program participation. Resident participation reaches 50 percent for public swim family passes and 15 percent for private swim lessons. 'See correspondence received by LAFCO at its 6/5/19 meeting from Sophia Badillo and from Sandra Yeaton, and letter from Kevin Davis,RRRPD General Manager to LAFCO,June 14,2019. Boundary changes would be processed through LAFCO as part of a potential reorganization of RRRPD. www.berksonassociates.com Page 45 of 198 EAPublic Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 FIGURE 1 RRRPD BOUNDARIES A� � '°Y'' Santa Clara Cupertino 91 - - C _ ❑ -. hpNLy6 AVE gYlBTA C6t I�I^,j�pj5, � taAR q � pd 4 M7R�Lx°R C.pLLE L�HARCSLOAM ram- � } ¢ SON A � WE570A1E DR g � c � Mf WAY 7 r� ' SYA San 4 Z _ x � ❑ ,Jose tsS q4 � n �� a� r+.GGLEAYE $ � 3 •yl �4 [� Z a $ ❑❑❑❑ FOREST VjELYBR x �+ � •Y ��Y� ��a y� h�{ FOftE3T GLOP ne q L $� 7 OLEN7REFDR 0.0. ._ � 17-!'iT. M1�1YSQ5fAVE y V d' cAS7LE WDOD DR casrAr QDR _ wrriw nos m �R ..4ndgp�A ae AVE 4 11LA.11aR y• .,< Rancho Rinc nada a Rancho creabo &Park _ LAFCO Recreation&Park District ■■ Recreation and Park District zwndh°sa—sph "Corhj "°° ■■ NDistrict Facility �or�wa�r Famana.u..mlww.ms�ra��r.coul.r v°0 ^ od+ ......February 2013 fW"Ch0-"f n16V cuc . .....:.-S_.. m .__. .._ rn 0 m 00 www.berksonassociates.com 4 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 ASSESSED VALUE, POPULATION AND VOTERS TABLE 1 describes key characteristics of the District. Reorganization of RRRPD could alter the manner of voter representation in District affairs which currently is determined by voters within the District.The current number of RRRPD registered voters represents approximately 6.8 percent of the City of Cupertino's 30,630 total registered voters. Depending on the manner of reorganization, and LAFCO terms and conditions,the current allocation of property tax could 1) shift to the City's General Fund; 2) remain allocated to a newly-formed subsidiary district to the City. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF ASSESSED VALUE, POPULATION&VOTERS Item Amount Land Area(1) 0.4 sq.miles Residential Parcels(2) 1,266 Population(3) 3,983 Registered RRRPD Voters(4) 2,086 Total City Voters 30,630 RRRPD Voters as%of City 6.8% Assessed Value(5) $1,200,662,755 Tax Increment Factors FY19-20(6) Rancho Rinconada RPD 4.61% City of Cupertino 6.17% (1)Special Districts Service Review:Phase 1,Prepared for LAFCO of Santa Clara County by PCA,Adopted June 5,2013. (2)Residential parcels based on review of assessor parcel maps.The District is built out according to the 2013 MSR. (3)ibid,2013 MSR. (4)As of 9/13/2019 in the following precincts:3645,3652,3654,3659, per Registrar of Voters. (5)County of Santa Clara Compilation of Tax Rates&Information Fiscal Year 2019-2020. (6)Share of annual change in 1%property tax from RRRPD TRAs, net of Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund(ERAF). TRA 013-266;https://payments.sccgov.org/propertytax/ www.berksonassociates.com Page 47 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 RRRPD is largely built-out and no significant population increase is likely, other than minor changes due to growth in housing unit occupancy rates and household size.The City of Cupertino's household population is estimated to increase from 64,335 in 2020 to 65,275 in 2030, an average annual compound growth rate 0.3 percent.' RRRPD GOALS, POLICIES AND PLANS The District's Bylaws, last revised in 1992, govern District procedures.The Bylaws state that the purpose of the District is to "...provide a well-rounded, wholesome program of leisure time activities for the people residing within the boundaries of the District and others not residing within the boundaries of the District who desire to participate. This shall be accomplished by the development of supervised programs, construction and maintenance of recreation facilities and park facilities, while cooperating with other agencies in an area which provide like services or can assist in providing said services." RRRPD does not have a strategic plan or a facilities master plan; those documents have been a major District goal which, according to District staff, "has been delayed due to the recent governance issues."' The District produces a budget annually; no long-term budget forecasts are included.The District's financials are audited annually. RRRPD PROGRAMS, STAFF AND FACILITIES RRRPD PROGRAMS Following is a summary of programs provided at the RRRPD facility. Additional detail and pricing can be found in APPENDIX B. • Swim Lessons-the most popular program at RRRPD is private swim instruction. There are roughly 8,450 lessons delivered annually with the majority clustered in the summer months. $Projections 2040,ABAG/MTC,downloaded 1/23/2020 from http://prolections.planbayarea.org/ 9 RRRPD response to 2019-07-25 Data Request. www.be rksonassociates.com Page 48 of 198 Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 • Precompetitive Swim Training—Provides endurance training and teaches advanced racing techniques and terminology. • Youth Swim Team—Hour-long training provided by swim coaches for the Rancho Swim Team that participates in nationally-organized competitions including the Junior Olympics and the Western Championships. • Public Swim—Second to swim lessons in popularity and open to the public. • BBQ Pool Party Rental—Offered hours concurrent with public swim,the privately-gated area provides a canopy, BBQ grill, and picnic tables for parties between 15 and 40 people. • Swim Camp—The swim camp started in 2018 and in its second year operated at full capacity with further expansion planned. • Pool and Hall Rentals—The pool and the hall are available for private events.The hall provides approximately 100 chairs,tables, and a full kitchen. • Other Recreation Partners—RRRPD charges fees to various recreation partners that provide programs available to the public,for example, scuba classes and a separate swim school.The hall is rented for yoga classes, after-school care, cultural gatherings and music events. RRRPD STAFF An employment contract with the General Manager was approved by RRRPD at its board meeting in October 2018 and expires October 11, 2020. This is the District's only employment contract. In addition to the full-time General Manager, RRRPD employs a full-time Accounting and Records Manager and a full-time Program Manager.These positions' benefits include a "defined contribution" retirement plan;10 therefore there are no unfunded pension liabilities. RRRPD hires part-time staff, including "graduates" of its swim programs; in 2018 there were 14,759 part-time hours worked. Additional detail about part-time staff positions and other personnel-related costs can be found in APPENDIX C. "Internal Revenue Code Sec.457. www.berksonassociates.com Page 49 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 RRRPD FACILITIES The District owns the building and property located at 18000 Chelmsford Drive shown in FIGURE 2.The property(assessor parcel number 375-22-104) is near the corner of Bollinger and Lawrence Expressway in Cupertino as shown in FIGURE 3. RRRPD also identified a nearby walkway which they believe is RRRPD property,and which is highlighted on the parcel map and recently has been blocked by private fencing. However,the walkway is designated as a public right-of-way and currently believed to be owned by the City of Cupertino." Facilities include a 25-yard pool, playground, barbecue area, and indoor hall. The barbecue and hall are available for rent for special events. FIGURE 2 AERIAL VIEW of RRRPD FACILITIES T-I . Cn ' G2 J •a f oil CD F R ° o Rinconada. tia ; 7 y e ilk bilin ■' °� POO. 11 Correspondence from C.Mosley,City of Cupertino, 1/22/2020 per communication with Santa Clara County Assessor's Office staff. www.berksona ssociates.com Page 50 of 198 EAPublic Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 r1GURE 3 COUNTYASSESSOR PARCEL MAP—RRRPD PROPERTY s Y S Y r � 1 6 a 3, %gyp' 1 % -b CT t f 3 r X x jNGTdN 9R19GE tN N W c � n s m � &➢� s � 'v O a r G 10C i ea 1 .6 BOdC PAC£ 375 22 —90LLINGER ROAD m 0 m w www.berksonassociates.com BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 Facility Improvements Required The District has identified a number of improvements required by its facilities:12 • Re-painting of the pool fence and interior of the shower room is needed in the near- term.The total cost is expected to not exceed $10,000. • The degrading pool deck requires re-surfacing; prior estimates ranged from $30,000 to $50,000 depending on materials. • A new pump and heater will be required within the next five years at a combined cost of approximately$15,000. • The bathrooms are roughly 30 years old and need an overhaul in the next five years; no cost estimates are currently available. • In addition, major upgrades are needed for ADA requirements,family/gender-neutral bathrooms, and user flow improvements; no cost estimates are currently available. The District anticipates that detailed cost estimates would be prepared, along with a phasing and funding plan, as part of a more detailed Master Plan (and/or Strategic Plan). RRRPD designates reserves for capital improvements, and current unrestricted net position of more than $1 million appears sufficient to fund currently identified improvements. It is unknown, lacking a plan by the District at this point whether the $1 million will be sufficient and fully available for capital replacement over the long-term;the District sets aside funds annually toward fully funding replacement of all facilities over their lifespan -- its reserve goal is$1.4 million.l3 The City of Cupertino recently inspected the facilities and identified related and additional improvements. A rough estimate of these improvements totaled $350,000:14 • Exterior ADA Upgrades (parking spaces and ramp landings) ($100,000) • Locker Room Upgrades including ADA Compliance ($175,000) • Kitchenette Upgrades-desired ($40,000) • Life Safety and Security Systems Compliance ($35,000) 12 RRRPD response to 2019-07-25 Data Request. 13 Reserve policy adopted Dec.,2016; present reserve goal of$1.4 million per correspondence with RRRPD,2019-08-14 14 City of Cupertino response to 2019-09-06 Data Request. www.be rksonassociates.com Page 52 of 198 Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 More detailed cost estimates and timing of improvements would be prepared as part of a Plan for Services if the City seeks to take over RRRPD programs and facilities. It is expected that the District will face these City-identified improvements as well as those that the District has identified; the lists of improvements prepared by the City and RRRPD are overlapping and address similar needs and concerns. Facility improvements may be needed to accommodate increased community use of the facilities (nature and extent of increased use and corresponding improvements are to be determined by the City in the case of Option 2 and Option 3).This issue would also apply to any expansion of current RRRPD activities. RRRPD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES As shown in TABLE 2, RRRPD's FY20 budget (as adjusted for purposes of this report) projects an ending annual net balance of about$51,000 including depreciation. Eliminating special election costs originally included in the budget produces this annual surplus. Excluding depreciation, a non-cash accounting expense,the net annual balance is$124,000.This balance would add to reserves for contingencies, planning and capital improvements. www.be rksonassociates.com Page 53 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 TABLE 2 RRRPD REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES STATUS QUO Item RRRPD REVENUES Program Revenues(1) $438,500 Property Tax(2) 530,000 Total Revenues $968,500 EXPENDITURES Administration and Office Expenses(3) $77,957 Facilities(4) Building/Yard,Pool,Utilities 113,000 Facility Depreciation(5) 73,000 Subtotal, Facilities 186,000 Program Expenses(exc.staff)(6) 26,200 Personnel(7) 626,982 Total Expenditures $917,139 ANNUAL SURPLUS OR(SHORTFALL) $51,361 Surplus or(shortfall)excluding depreciation $124,361 (1) Includes aquatics,rentals,and activities(snack bar,swim camp). (2) Property tax is the District's share of the basic 1%. (3) RRRPD"Administration"includes Board&office expenses,insurance and professional services. Status Quo adds$20,000 for general election costs instead of RRRPD budget for special election. RRRPD legal costs reduced vs. FY20 to represent a more typical year. (4) Facilities include building&yard,pool,and utilities. (5) Depreciation is a non-cash accounting expense. (6) Program expenses include advertising,program supplies,&snack bar. (7) Personnel costs include payroll,taxes&benefits,and related expenses. 1129120 REVENUES Service charges paid by program participants funded approximately 50 percent of FY20 total expenditures. Property tax funds most of the remaining expenditures, supplemented by interest earnings and miscellaneous revenues. www.be rksonassociates.com Page 54 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 Within the RRRPD area, RRRPD receives 4.61 percent of the increase in Prop. 13 property taxes, which are one percent of assessed value; the City receives 6.17 percent. City allocations outside of RRRPD vary due to differences among taxing entities throughout the City, but typically the City's share is about 6.5 percent and other taxing entities' rates are slightly higher than within RRRPD. Currently RRRPD charges a non-resident fee for program participants from outside the District, residents account for about 50 percent (or less) of program participation, and average about 20 percent overall. Rates are further detailed in APPENDIX B and on the RRRPD website. EXPENDITURES TABLE 2 summarizes District expenditures which are further detailed in APPENDIX A. Revenues exceed expenditures, producing a surplus. Depreciation is a non-cash accounting expense often not shown in a budget. Excluding depreciation from the budget shows a larger cash surplus. However,this increased surplus should be set-aside for capital replacement to effectively offset the effects of depreciating assets.The District's FY20 budget has been adjusted slightly to reflect a typical year,for example, special election costs of$150,000 were replaced by general election costs of$20,000. RRRPD ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND FINANCIAL NET POSITION RRRPD's financial condition indicates reserves exceeding 100 percent of annual expenditures.A typical minimum standard for operating reserves is about 15-20 percent of expenditures; the balance provides reserves that can fund capital improvements. ASSETS Capital assets include land, building and improvements,the pool, furniture and equipment.The historical acquisition value totals$1.8 million, and its current depreciated value is approximately $1 million after deducting accumulated depreciation." 11 ibid, RRRPD Financial Statements FY18, Note D—Capital Assets. www.be rksonassociates.com Page 55 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 LIABILITIES The District has no long-term debt (due beyond one year) or other long-term financial obligations. Current liabilities, due within one year, totaled $190,000 at the end of FY18.16 Approximately 75 percent of the current liabilities represent deferred revenue (generally swim lessons/camp reserved in one fiscal year but delivered in the next).These relatively high current liabilities result from a fiscal year cut-off midway into the District's peak season. FINANCIAL NET POSITION RRRPD's Net Position is a key indicator of fiscal health.The District's FY18 financial statements show a net position of$2.0 million including the net value of capital assets; approximately $1 million of the net position is unrestricted and comprised of cash and current investments.17 The$1 million unrestricted net position totaling more than 100 percent of annual operating expenditures, provides for operating and capital reserves.The amount exceeds currently identified capital improvement needs although it has not been entirely designated for that purpose.The unrestricted net position is less than the District's capital reserve goals of$1.4 million needed to provide for long-term repair and replacement of all capital assets based on estimated life span.18 A financial statement is typically prepared for RRRPD in the December following the end of the reported fiscal year. As shown in TABLE 2 above,the District projects a surplus in FY19-20, after eliminating special elections costs from the budget, and unrestricted net position of cash and investments should increase to about$1.3 million. 16 ibid, RRRPD Financial Statements FY18,Statement of Net Position, pg. 9. 17 RRRPD Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report for the Year Ended June 30,2018, Statement of Net Position, pg.9, Fechter&Company CPAs, Dec. 15,2018. 18 District Reserve Allocation. www.berksonassociates.com Page 56 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 3 . GOVERNANCE OPTIONS This report evaluates governance options for RRRPD. Each option presents a different set of legal and policy choices with implications for finances, management, governance and services. TABLE 3 summarizes and compares key features of governance options: • Option 1: Maintain RRRPD's Current Governance(Status Quo)—RRRPD remains intact as an independent recreation and park district, and continues to operate and improve its programs,facilities and planning. • Option 2: Merger of RRRPD with the City of Cupertino —RRRPD would be dissolved and its functions, services, assets, and liabilities transferred to the City of Cupertino.The City would integrate RRRPD programs and facility into current City operations and recreation planning. This option assumes that RRRPD`s current property tax allocation would be entirely transferred to the City, and that all RRRPD services would be maintained by the City at current levels(or better). To meet the requirement for a merger all RRRPD territory's must be contained within the City of Cupertino.The two RRRPD parcels outside the City would need to be detached from RRRPD.Alternatively, the two parcels would need to be detached from San Jose and annexed to the City of Cupertino. Option 3: Reorganize RRRPD as a Subsidiary District to the City of Cupertino — RRRPD would remain a special district, but the Cupertino City Council would function as its board. All subsidiary district accounts would be held and reported separately from City funds. Legal and financial responsibility would be limited to the subsidiary district. The subsidiary district would continue to receive its current share of property tax and the tax would be restricted to subsidiary district purposes. To meet the requirement20 for reorganizing as a subsidiary district, at least 70%of the RRRPD territory must be located within the City of Cupertino or 70% of the RRRPD registered voters must be within the City of Cupertino. The LAFCO processes for Options 2 and 3 could be initiated by voter petition, RRRPD (or City) resolution, or by LAFCO. The process is described in CHAPrER4 and summarized on TABLE 5. 19 Gov. Code Sec. 57104 2°Gov. Code Sec.57105 www.berksonassociates.com Page 57 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 TABLE 3 COMPARISON OF GOVERNANCE OPTIONS OptionGovernance OPTION OPTION .• RRRPD Merger with RRRPD becomes a Subsidiary Governance Status Quo i.., CityofCupertino District to Cupertino Reorganization No reorganization. RRRPD is dissolved and merged RRRPD is reorganized as a with the City of Cupertino,which subsidiary district of Cupertino. assumes responsibility for RRRPD property tax is allocated functions,services,assets, to the subsidiary district.All liabilities.RRRPD property tax is assets&liabilities remain with included in City General Fund. subsidiary district,accounted separately from City. Governance& No change.RRRPD remains an Cupertino City Council Cupertino City Council serves as Representation independent district governed by responsible for facilities& board of subsidiary district&is a 5-member elected/appointed programs of former RRRPD,in responsible for facilities and Board of Directors comprised of addition to all other City programs.The Council is elected District residents. recreation services.The Council by all City voters. is elected by all City voters. Management& No change to management of City staff manage and operate Same as Option 2. Operation programs and facilities by former RRRPD programs& RRRPD staff. facilities at similar(or improved) levels. Recreation No changes currently planned to No changes currently planned to No changes currently planned to Programs,Facilities ;programs. programs. programs. and Plans District management plans to Facility and programs integrated Planning changes same as prepare a Strategic/Master Plan into City operations,budget, Option 2. to guide facilities upgrades. Recreation Master Plan,&CIP. Costs and Revenues District's typical budget shows a City-run programs project a Likelyto be similar to Option 2. surplus of$124,000/yr(before $131,000/yr surplus from higher Subsidiary district accounting, depreciation&election costs). participation offset by staff reporting,etc.may add minimal Fund balances total$1 mill. costs.Fund balances of admin.costs.Fund balance $1 mill.transfer from RRRPD. remains w/subsidiary dirt. Rates and Charges No changes currently planned to No changes currently planned to Rates and charges same as rate schedules. rate schedules;uniform rate for Option 1 unless otherwise all City residents. changed. Capital Costs District policy budgets Preliminary City budget for Capital costs same as Option 2. depreciation($73,000/yr)and Rancho Rinconada includes builds capital reserves for capital depreciation.City has identified repair,replacement&upgrades. capital requirements and Capital priorities,costs&timing expects to budget annually not determined,pending Plan. towards capital needs. January29,2020 www.berksonassociates.com Page 58 of 198 Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 OPTION 1: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF STATUS QUO Option 1 maintains RRRPD's current governance (Status Quo). RRRPD remains an independent recreation and park district with an elected/appointed Board of Directors, and continues to operate its programs and facility. Advantages • Property taxes collected within the District continue to be spent for recreation services and facilities of the District. • RRRPD continues to be governed by board of locally-elected and/or appointed District residents. Disadvantages • The District could potentially revert to contentious and inefficient board practices. • Potential future, ongoing election costs, and/or difficulty filling board vacancies. • Property tax revenues levied within the District continue to be allocated to two recreation service providers within City boundaries (RRRPD and the City) and perpetuates the duplication and inefficiencies of aquatic recreation services and related administration within the Rancho Rinconada area of the City of Cupertino. This option requires no further action by LAFCO,the City or RRRPD. OPTION 2: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF MERGER OF RRRPD WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO Option 2 involves the dissolution of RRRPD and merger with the City of Cupertino. RRRPD would be dissolved and its functions, services, assets, liabilities and property tax transferred to the City of Cupertino.This option assumes that RRRPD's current property tax allocation would be entirely transferred to the City, and that all RRRPD services would be maintained at current levels (or better) by the City.The City would integrate RRRPD programs and facilities into current City operations and recreation planning. The City does not anticipate significant www.be rksonassociates.com Page 59 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 transition costs;21 hiring of current RRRPD staff, which has not yet been decided by the City, could assist with a smooth transition. Cupertino's FY19 General Fund budget allocates about$8.6 million to Park and Recreation, or about 11 percent of the total General Fund budget;this is about$136 per City resident, and funds a broad range of parks and recreation programs. By comparison, RRRPD provides aquatic programs and facility and the total budget for its aquatics program and facility is approximately $243 per RRRPD resident; as part of the City,the RRRPD budget would add about$15 per City resident, an increase of about eleven percent per City resident for parks and recreation. The City of Cupertino's aquatics program currently operates at Black Berry Farm but is restricted to operating 100 days each year. Use of the RRRPD would allow for year-round programming. The swim lesson programs at RRRPD are very similar to the current City programs, although RRRPD focuses more on individual rather than group lessons.The City charges fees similar to RRRPD.zz Capital improvements to the facilities will be required for all options, utilizing current RRRPD reserves and future additional reserves. It is unknown whether and to what extent the City would contribute additional City funds. Programming, staff needs, capital planning, and other issues influencing City operations of RRRPD programs and facilities would be delineated as part of a Plan for Services that would be required by LAFCO as part of a City application for RRRPD merger. Advantages • Eliminates the duplication of aquatic recreation services and administration by two separate agencies within the Rancho Rinconada area of the City boundaries.This would dissolve one layer of government and reduce public confusion about governance responsibility for aquatic recreation services. • No board member election costs (other than current and ongoing City council election costs) or potential difficulty filling board positions. 21 City of Cupertino response to 2019-09-06 Data Request. 22 City of Cupertino response to 2019-09-06 Data Request. www.be rksonassociates.com Page 60 of 198 BA Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance ❑ptions January 29, 2020 • Reduces the possibility of the current District reverting to contentious and inefficient board practices. ■ Programs and facilities of the former RRRPD would be publicized and available to all residents citywide at the same cost. • The higher rates currently paid by non-residents of RRRPD would be revised and replaced by a uniform rate structure for all City residents (higher non-City resident rates may still apply). ■ ❑ne entity,the City, would be responsible for planning,financing, and providing park and recreation services within the City of Cupertino. • The City could expand its current seasonal swim program to a year-round program. • Long-term planning for programs and facilities, including the former RRRPD facility, would be coordinated and integrated into current ongoing Citywide budget, CIP and recreation master planning. • The management of recreation service delivery to the residents of the ❑istrict would benefit from the more extensive management and supervisory structure of the City's Council, Parks and Recreation ❑epartment and other City departments (e.g., finance, public works). Disadvantages • Governance by the City Council would reduce representation of RRRPD voters regarding current RRRPD recreation affairs proportionate to all current City governance, facilities and services provided to RRRPD residents. • Property tax revenue the City receives as a result of the dissolution and merger with the City would go into the City's general fund and could possibly divert current funding from programs and facilities of the former RRRPD. • City operation currently is estimated to result in positive surpluses similar to a typical RRRPD budget,as shown in TABLE 4.The difference is not deemed to be significant in the context of the budget forecasts and future policy and operational decisions that will be made by the City and RRRPD. This option could be initiated by petition, resolution by an affected agency, or resolution by LAFCG.The process is further described in CHAPTER 4 and summarized on TABLE 5. www.berksonassociates.com Page 61 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 TABLE 4 RRRPD BUDGET VS.CITY OPTIONS 2 AND 3 STATUS • • OPTIONS RRRPDItem city REVENUES Program Revenues(1) $438,500 $460,400 Property Tax(2) 530,000 530,000 Total Revenues $968,500 $990,400 EXPENDITURES Administration and Office Expenses(3) $77,957 $31,957 Facilities(4) Building/Yard,Pool,Utilities 113,000 99,000 Facility Depreciation(5) 73,000 73,000 Subtotal, Facilities 186,000 172,000 Program Expenses(exc.staff)(6) 26,200 26,200 Personnel(7) 626,982 702,657 Total Expenditures $917,139 $932,814 ANNUALSURPLUS OR(SHORTFALL) $51,361 $57,586 Surplus or(shortfall)excluding depreciation $124,361 $130,586 (1)Includes aquatics,rentals,and activities(snack bar,swim camp). City estimates a 5%potential program revenue increase due to increased publicity Citywide. (2)Property tax is the District's share of the basic 1%. Options 2 and 3 assume the same amount is transferred to City(or subsidiary dist.) (3)RRRPD"Administration"includes Board&office expenses,insurance and professional services. Status Quo adds$20,000 for general election costs instead of RRRPD budget for special election. RRRPD legal costs reduced vs. FY20 to represent a more typical year. City admin. costs exclude board expense,and accounting/legal(handled by existing City staff). (4)Facilities include building&yard,pool,and utilities. RRRPD"Outside Services"assumed handled by additional City cost equal to 50%of RRRPD cost. (5) Depreciation is a non-cash accounting expense. (6) Program expenses include advertising,program supplies,&snack bar. (7) Personnel costs include payroll,taxes&benefits,and related expenses. 1129120 www.berksonassociates.com Page 62 of 198 Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 OPTION 3: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A SUBSIDIARY DISTRICT Option 3 would reorganize RRRPD as a subsidiary district to the City of Cupertino. RRRPD would become a City-dependent subsidiary district, and the City Council would serve as its board. As required by law, "...The district shall continue in existence with all of the powers, rights, duties, obligations, and functions provided for by the principal act, except for any provisions relating to the selection or removal of the members of the board of directors of the district."23 All subsidiary district accounts would be held and reported separately from City funds. Legal and financial responsibility would be limited to the subsidiary district.The subsidiary district would continue to receive its current share of property tax to be used for district purposes. Programming, staff needs, capital planning, and other issues influencing City operations of RRRPD programs and facilities would be delineated as part of a Plan for Services that would be required by LAFCO as part of a City application for reorganization of RRRPD as a subsidiary district to the City. Advantages • RRRPD's current property tax revenue would continue to be allocated to the subsidiary district for programs and facilities of the former RRRPD, unlike the potential for a reduction or City re-allocation that could occur with Option 2.The City could contribute additional funding if desired. • Eliminates the duplication of aquatic recreation services and administration by two separate agencies within the Rancho Rinconada area of the City boundaries.This would eliminate one elected board and reduce public confusion about governance responsibility for aquatic recreation services. • No board member election costs (other than current and ongoing City council election costs) or potential difficulty filling board positions. • Reduces the possibility of the current District reverting to contentious and inefficient board practices. • Programs and facilities of the former RRRPD would be publicized and available to all residents citywide; it is assumed that the current RRRPD rate structure would continue z3 Gov. Code Sec. 57534. www.berksonassoci ate s.com Page 63 of 198 Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 to apply higher rates for non-RRRPD residents, however,the schedule could be changed by the subsidiary district. • One entity, the City,would be responsible for planning for,financing, and providing park and recreation services within the City of Cupertino. • The City could expand its current seasonal swim program to a year-round program. • Long-term planning for programs and facilities, including the former RRRPD facility, would be coordinated and integrated into current ongoing Citywide budget, CIP and recreation master planning. • The management of recreation service delivery to the residents of the District would benefit from the more extensive management and supervisory structure of the City's Council, Parks and Recreation Department and other City departments (e.g.,finance, public works). Disadvantages • Restricting RRRPD's property tax revenue to the subsidiary district could reduce the City's flexibility in managing and funding its programs for all City residents. • Governance by the City Council would reduce representation of RRRPD voters regarding current RRRPD recreation affairs proportionate to all current City governance,facilities and services provided to RRRPD residents. • City operation currently is estimated to result in positive surpluses similar to a typical RRRPD budget, as shown in TABLE 4.The difference is not deemed to be significant in the context of the budget forecasts and future policy and operational decisions that will be made by the City and RRRPD. This option could be initiated by petition, resolution by an affected agency, or resolution by LAFCO. The process is further described in CHAPTER 4 and summarized on TABLE S. www.be rksonassociates.com Page 64 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 4. LAFCO PROCESS Option 1,the Status Quo, requires no further action by LAFCO,the City or RRRPD. The LAFCO processes for Options 2 and 3 are similar and could be initiated by voter petition, RRRPD (or City) resolution, or by LAFCO.TABLE 5 summarizes the process for the two reorganization options. In the event of a City resolution, LAFCO will require preparation of a Plan for Services that will describe in detail the City's proposed plans, programs, capital improvements, staffing, costs and revenues for management of RRRPD programs and facilities. FINDINGS REQUIRED FOR LAFCO-INITIATED REORGANIZATION Following are determinations required if LAFCO is to initiate a reorganization.14 (1) Public service costs of the proposal are likely to be less than or substantially similar to the costs of alternative means of providing the service. The surplus estimated for Option 2 and Option 3 is substantially similar to the Status Quo surplus, and the difference is less than one percent of total revenues.The minimal difference is not significant due to policy and program differences and future uncertainty in the context of budget forecasts.Therefore LAFCO could meet this determination in order to initiate a reorganization. (2)The proposal promotes public access and accountability for community services needs and financial resources. RRRPD holds regular, noticed meetings and periodic open houses and provides a website with comprehensive information about the District, its financial documents, and other public information; however, RRRPD has faced criticism for a lack of public outreach and public awareness of the District, board dysfunction, and lack of a quorum during a portion of 2019. Currently the District has adequate liquidity and fund balances; however, as noted above,the District lacks a facilities master plan/strategic plan to guide future capital improvements. 24 Gov. Code Sec. 56375(a)(2)(C/D)and 56881(b) www.be rksonassociates.com Page 65 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 Option 2 and Option 3 would increase public access by expanding oversight, management, publicity and program coordination Citywide; plans and programs would be integrated into Citywide planning. A change in oversight from RRRPD to the City council would reduce current RRRPD representation from the point of view of RRRPD residents to the level of all other City services, and would increase representation of all City residents. Currently about 20 percent of RRRPD use is attributable to RRRPD residents, although this overall average varies by program and reaches 50 percent or more for certain programs. A reorganization would reduce the possibility of future RRRPD board conflict similar to what the District experienced in recent years. LAFCO TERMS AND CONDITIONS Any reorganization may be made subject to one or more terms and conditions in LAFCO's resolution of approval.Zs Potential terms may include one or more of the following;the terms are likely to evolve as reorganization proposals are better defined and reviewed by LAFCO. • Property—This study assumes that all property owned by RRRPD would be transferred to the City in the case of an RRRPD dissolution/merger with City, or retained by the subsidiary district in Option 3. Further review is required to clarify rights and obligations of RRRPD with respect to use of private streets fronting the RRRPD facility, and an access easement for a walkway across from the RRRPD facility(access is currently blocked by a property owner). • Funds—Option 2 includes the transfer of all RRRPD liabilities and assets, including fund balances and cash assets to the City following dissolution of RRRPD. The government code indicates that "...So far as may be practicable, as determined by the city council, any of these funds, money, or property shall be used for the benefit of the lands, inhabitants, and taxpayers within the territory of the merged district."26 In the case of Option 3, all assets and liabilities would remain with the subsidiary district, pursuant to State law, which states "...The district shall continue in existence with all of the powers, rights, duties, obligations, and functions provided for by the principal act, 25 Gov.Code Sec. 56886. 26 Gov.Code Sec. 57533. www.berksonassociates.com Page 66 of 198 BAL Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 except for any provisions relating to the selection or removal of the members of the board of directors of the district."27 • Employee benefits and rights—A reorganization proposal will need to recognize and address any RRRPD employee contracts, civil service rights, seniority rights, retirement rights, and other employee benefits and rights;for example, accrued but unpaid vacation and holiday time would need to be paid to terminated employees. Current full- time employees benefit from a defined Sec.457 contribution plan; employees do not belong to a defined benefit retirement system managed by CalPERS (or other entity) and therefore RRRPD has no unfunded pension liabilities. • Effective date—LAFCO will need to specify an "effective date" at which time any and all changes will be effective. • Service continuation—LAFCO may require, in the event of a reorganization,that the City must continue to provide programs and facilities substantially comparable to current RRRPD programs. The City may choose to employ former RRRPD staff,which would also facilitate transition from the District to the City and continue programs without interruption. • RRRPD parcels outside City boundary--Currently two parcels that are within RRRPD are outside the City's boundary; the City is negotiating with the County to purchase the parcels and then could detach from San Jose and annex them to the City, or the parcels must be detached from RRRPD for Option 2 since all merged RRRPD territory must be within City boundaries. Creation of a subsidiary district per Option 3 allows a portion of the subsidiary district to exist outside City boundaries.28 27 Gov.Code Sec. 57534. 28 Gov.Code Sec. 57105. www.be rksonassociates.com Page 67 of 198 EA Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF LAFCO PROCEEDINGS FOR REORGANIZATION PROCESS OptionsGovernance OPTION RRRPDItem Merger with OPTION RRRPDCity of Cupertino 1.Initiation of Proposal Proposal shall contain a description of changes,proposed terms and conditions,boundaries Same as Option 2. and map of affected territory,and other items(Sec.56700). Petition Signed by 5%of registered voters of RRRPD OR 5%of City voters outside the district(GC Same as Option 2. §56866). Resolution by Affected RRRPD or the City may adopt a resolution to initiate the proposal,and provide notice to Same as Option 2. Agency LAFCO and each interested and subject agency 21 days before adoption.Must contain a Sec.56654 plan for services per§56653. Resolution by LAFCO LAFCO may initiate only if consistent with a LAFCO study/service review/sphere of Same as Option 2. Sec.56375(a)(2)&§56881 influence review and LAFCO finds: 1)Costs are substantially similar or less than alternatives; 2)The change promotes public access and accountability for services and financial resources. 2.Processing of the Upon receipt of application,LAFCO provides mailed notice to each affected agency,and Within 10 days of proposal receipt,LAFCO notifies affected Application(non-LAFCO within 30 days determines if application is complete(Sec.56658). district.Within 35 days of receiving notice district may adopt initiated) and file with LAFCO 1)resolution consenting;OR 2) resolution of intent to file an alternative proposal(Sec. 56861). ----------------- Property Tax Transfer City Council and Boy adopt resolutions of property tax transfer per Rev.&Tax Code Sec. N/A §99(b). Certificate of Filing A certificate of filing is issued when application is deemed complete,and no sooner than If district files intention to adopt an alternative proposal, Sec.56658 20 days after mailing notice. LAFCO takes no action for 70 days to allow district to submit a complete alternative proposal(Sec.56862). Hearing&Notification LAFCO sets hearing within 90 days after Certificate issued,or application accepted.Notice Same as Option 2.LAFCO analyzes and reports on original Sec.56658 and 56660 and posted at least 21 days prior,and report distributed 5 days prior to hearing. proposal and alternative at the same hearing. 56665 v CD m rn 00 0 m 00 www.berksonassociates.com 26 EA Public Review Draft Report Special Study: RRRPD Governance Options January 29, 2020 TABLE 5 SUMMARY OF LAFCO PROCEEDINGS FOR REORGANIZATION PROCESS (cont'd) Governance Options Item OPTION RRRPD Merger with OPTION City of Cupertino RRRPD becomes Adoption of Resolution No later than 35 days after hearing,LAFCO adopts resolution to approve/disapprove, No later than 35 days after hearing,LAFCO adopts resolution Sec.56880 et seq. including any terms and conditions(Sec.56886)or alternatives.Note:LAFCO may not order denying both proposals,or approving one(Sec.56863).Note: a merger without City consent(Sec.57107c). LAFCO may not order establishment of subsidiary district without City consent(Sec.57107c). Protest Hearing Within 35 days of resolution,LAFCO sets date and provides notice for protest hearing that Upon request of district,the protest hearing shall be at least Sec.57002 must be held between 21 and 60 days after notice is given. 90 days but no more that 135 days from date notice is given Protest Thresholds LAFCO approves reorganization subject to confirmation of voters in an election(§57107)if Same as Option 2. proposal was initiated by petition or resolution and(1)RRRPD has not objected to proposal by resolution and at least 25%of#of landowners within affected territory who own at least 25%of assessed value of land within the territory OR at least 25%of voters within the affected territory submit written protest or(2)RRRPD has objected to proposal by resolution and at least 25%of#of landowners within any subject agency within the affected territory who own at least 25%of the assessed value of land within the territory OR at least 25%of voters within any subject agency within the affected territory submit written protest. If proposal was initiated by LAFCO,order a merger or establishment of subsidiary district subject to confirmation of voters in an election if written protest is submitted by at least 10%of#of landowners within the affected territory who own 10%assessed value of land within the territory OR at least 10%of the voters within the territory.Otherwise no election is required. Election Prior to conclusion of protest hearing,a petition to request election signed by at least 10% Same as Option 2. of registered voters in RRRPD may be filed with LAFCO(§57108).LAFCO will review for sufficiency and forward to City and City must call,hold and conduct election on question of a merger or establishment of subsidiary district only within RRRPD. Certificate of Completion LAFCO files Certificate of Completion within one year after resolution.of approval(or Same as Option 2. Sec.57001&57200 et seq. within 90 days after election if required as a result of Protest Hearing). Note:this table summarizes key provisions to provide general overview only;the reader should consult codes for specific language and requirements which may not be detailed in this table.Code Sections refer to the Government Code unless otherwise indicated. January 29,2020 N CD (D 0) O 00 00 www.berksonassociates.com 27 APPENDIX A DETAILED BUDGET ESTIMATES www.berksonassociates.com Page 70 of 198 Table A-1 RRRPD Budget vs.City Option-Detail with Comments RRRPD City Options Item Estimated FY19-20 Comments REVENUES Aquatics Public Swim Pool Passes 7,000 Punch Passes 6,000 Day Passes 26,000 Subtotal, Public Swim Revenues 39,000 Swim Lessons 222,000 SwimTeam 71,000 Subtotal,Other Aquatics Revenues 293,000 Subtotal,Aquatics Revenues 332,000 Rentals Pool Rental 27,500 BBQ Rental 3,000 Hall Rental 33,000 Subtotal,Rentals Revenues 63,500 Activities Snack Bar 3,000 Swim Camp 40,000 Subtotal,Activities Revenues 43,000 Subtotal,Operating Revenues 438,500 460,400 City estimates 5%revenue increase from Citywide publicity. Property Taxes Subtotal,Property Taxes 530,000 530,000 TOTAL REVENUES 968,500 990,400 m m J_ co O co 1/29/20 Page A-1 of 5 Table A-1 RRRPD Budget vs.City Option-Detail with Comments RRRPD City Options Item Estimated FY19-20 Comments EXPENDITURES Administration Board Expense Stipends 6,000 Other Board Expenses 1,500 Elections 20,000 0 RRRPD adopted budget included$150,000 but there will be no special election;est'd Subtotal,Board Expense 27,500 0 City option assumes no Board expenses(BA est.) Office Expense Liability Insurance 15,000 15,000 City may be able to obtain lower cost by including in current policies. Directors&Officers Insurance inc.above 0 Bank Service Charges 375 375 Computer Expenses 3,500 3,500 Dues, Fees and Subscriptions 7,000 0 City already subscribes(or not req'd). Postage and Delivery 250 250 Security System 132 132 Supplies 1,000 1,000 Telephone/Internet 1,700 1,700 Subtotal,Office Expense 28,957 21,957 Professional Fees County Administrative Fees 5,000 5,000 City will still pay County for tax collection charges(BA est.) Audit 10,000 5,000 City will integrate accounting into existing CAM(50%savings, BA est.) Accounting 3,500 0 City will use existing City accounting(after setup&transition)(BA est.) Legal Fees(BA adjusted for typical yr) 3,000 0 City will use current City attorney(City est.) Consulting/Outside Services 0 0 Subtotal,Professional Fees 21,500 10,000 Subtotal,Administration 77,957 31,957 m CD m J co O co 1/29/20 Page A-2 of 5 Table A-1 RRRPD Budget vs.City Option-Detail with Comments RRRPD City Options Item Estimated FY19-20 Comments Facility Capital costs separate;City estimates$50,000/yr. Building and Yard See"Personnel"for building and grounds maintenance staff costs. Maintenance&Repair 2,500 2,500 Supplies 2,500 2,500 Outside Services 28,000 14,000 Includes parts.City staff provides portion of this item?(see"personnel-maintenance"). Subtotal,Building and Yard 33,000 19,000 Pool City"Pool"costs assumed comparable to RRRPD costs. Pool Chlorine&CO2 12,000 12,000 Pool Maintenance&Supplies 15,000 15,000 Subtotal,Pool 27,000 27,000 Utilities City"Utility"costs assumed comparable to RRRPD costs. Gas and Electric 36,500 36,500 Water 13,500 13,500 Garbage 3,000 3,000 Subtotal,Utilities 53,000 53,000 Depreciation "Depreciation"is a non-cash accounting expense. Subtotal,Depreciation 73,000 73,000 Subtotal,Facility 186,000 172,000 Subtotal,Facility(net of depreciation 113,000 99,000 Programs Advertising 10,000 10,000 Correspondence with City 1/9/20. Program Supplies&Related 14,500 14,500 Snack Bar Expenses 1,700 1,700 Subtotal,Programs 26,200 26,200 Correspondence with City 1/9/20. m CD m J W O co co 1/29/20 Page A-3 of 5 Table A-1 RRRPD Budget vs.City Option-Detail with Comments RRRPD City Options Item Estimated FY19-20 Comments Personnel Full-time Personnel General Manager 104,700 172,362 City Costs include full-time General Manager(no program manager). Accounting&Records Manager 66,200 City's costs included in payroll services below. Not a separate full time position. Program Manager 57,800 City Costs include full-time General Manager(no program manager). Building Maintenance 117,109 City Costs include-Full-time building maintenance position with benefits. Includes health benefits, retirement cost, FICA,and Workers Comp),assumed similar ratio for RRRPD(from RRRPD response)and City.City benefits and costs may be Full-time,Taxes and Benefits 37,800 0 16.5% greater than RRRPD.City Positions costs include benefits. Subtotal, Full-Time 266,500 289,471 Part-time Personnel Maintenance RRRPD cost estimate assumes 1/2 time,$25/hour;City cost included under"Full-time Building Maintenance 26,000 Personnel" RRRPD Grounds Maint.cost in "Outside Services"($30,000);City Cost includes part- Grounds Maintenance 23,422 time grounds maintenance with benefits RRRPD estimates assumes 22.4%taxes and benefits(approximate ratio shown in response to data request). City benefits and costs may be greater than RRRPD.City Maintenance Staff,Taxes and Benefits 5,824 positions costs include benefits. Subtotal, Maint.(inc.taxes/benefits) 31,824 23,422 m CD m co A O co 1/29/20 Page A-4 of 5 Table A-1 RRRPD Budget vs.City Option-Detail with Comments RRRPD City Options Item Estimated FY19-20 Comments Program Staff RRRPD Regular pay(RRRPD response to data request);City cost Includes salary only. Program Staff Pay 257,400 340,453 Benefits included below. Includes OT, health benefits, FICA,and Workers Comp),assumed similar ratio for Program Staff,Taxes and Benefits 57,658 20,711 22.4% RRRPD and City. No retirement benefits are included in total. Subtotal, Program Staff 315,058 361,164 Other Personnel Costs Payroll Tax Expense see staff categories above for est'd allocations of taxes&benefits. Health Benefits see above see above Retirement Benefits see above see above Insurance-Worker's Comp see above see above Mileage Reimbursement 600 600 Staff Development 5,000 5,000 Education and Seminars 3,000 3,000 City's Accounting and Records management is part of the City's Cost Allocation Plan. Payroll Service 5,000 20,000 This is not a separate full-time City position. Subtotal,Other Personnel Costs 13,600 28,600 Subtotal,Personnel 626,982 702,657 TOTAL EXPENDITURES(before CIP or resi 917,139 932,814 (less) Depreciation(non-cash expense) (73,000) (73,000) TOTAL EXPENDITURES(net of deprecia 844,139 859,814 ANNUAL SURPLUS 51,361 57,586 Annual Surplus(excluding depreciation) 124,361 130,586 1129120 m CD m J 00 00 1/29/20 Page A-5 of 5 APPENDIX B RRRPD PROGRAMS AND PRICING www.berksonassociates.com Page 76 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District 6) Programs Description, participants, hours, etc. Swim Lessons Program Summary The most popular program at Rancho Rinconada is private swim lessons. The 1:1 instructor to student ratio is an effective teaching method which allows for the best progress for a wide variety of students. The downside is that private lessons are both labor and administratively intensive when compared to group lessons. Each lesson is 25 minutes long and consists of a brief warm-up, lesson time, brief playtime (where appropriate), and a check-in with parents after the lesson ends. In some cases, advanced students take back to back lessons effectively creating a 50-minute lesson. The lessons come in two-week blocks called sessions. The number of lessons per session varies between two to eight depending on the season. During the summer,the weekday sessions have eight lessons while the weekend sessions have four lessons. The off-season lessons are more flexible with as little as two lessons per session. Typically, the off-season patrons opt for one,two, or three lessons per week (2, 4, or 6 lessons per session respectively). There are roughly 8,450 lessons delivered annually with the majority clustered in the summer months. The typical age for students is between 3 and 13 years old, however, adults and students with special needs are not uncommon. Program ❑etaHs The swim lesson program has three distinct seasons(spring, summer,and fall) and one sub-program (precomp). Spring and fall are functionally identical but with lower demand in the spring. The pricing per lesson is identical but the hours, lesson time, participant demographics, and number of lessons are different. Lessons per Total Lesson Time Price per Session Season Lesson format week Lessons (#) (minutes) lesson ($) Price ($) Off-season once per week 1 2 25 30/25 60/50 Off-season twice per week 2 4 25 30/25 120/100 Off-season Ithree per week 3 6 25 30/25 180/150 Summer Weekday 4 8 25 30/25 240/200 Summer Weekend 2 4 25 30/25 120/100 Summer Precomp 4 8 J 50 30/25 240/200 *Pricing is shown as non-resident/resident The availability of lessons is based almost exclusively on the number of instructor with available hours. Demand is nearly limitless with the exception of early spring, late fall, and summer morning hours. Page 77 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Off-season Swim Lessons Spring- Mid-March through early June Fall - Mid to late August through October 3:30 pm to 7:00 pm on weekdays 10:00 am to 12:00 pm on weekends In the off-season, swimmers can select the day, instructor, and time of their choice. In addition, the minimum number of lessons per session is reduced to two (one lesson per week). This allows for flexibility for busy schedules. Typically, swimmers will select between one to three days per week. The minimum age is 5 years old and there is no maximum. There are between 0 and 11 instructors available at any one time and lessons begin every half hour. A deck supervisor will generally be assigned when there are more than 5 instructors in the water. In 2018, 1174 spring lessons and 1366 fall lessons were delivered. Summer hours Early June through mid-August 9:00 am to 12:00 pm Monday through Thursday 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm Monday through Thursday 9:00 am to 12:00 pm Saturday & Sunday (most but not all weekends) In the summer, swimmers do not directly select their instructors as it would be administratively burdensome to do so. Instead, the scheduler matches students and instructors based on their profiles and requests. The minimum age is 3 years old and there is no maximum. There are typically between 9 to 12 instructors on weekends, 10 to 12 on weekday evenings, and roughly 4 to 9 on weekday mornings. As a result, a deck supervisor is always assigned. In 2018, there were 5918 summer lessons delivered. Precompetitive Swim Training Aligned with summer weekday sessions and created on an as-needed basis in the off-season 7 to 8 pm Monday through Thursday Precompetitive Swim Training (precomp) bridges the gap between a 25-minute private lesson and the endurance heavy 1-hour competitive swim team practices. Precomp is 50 minutes long and uses a small group format with a ratio of between 2 and 4 students per instructor. Roughly half the time is used for advanced racing techniques and terminology that is unnecessary for recreational swimmers (pulldowns, backstroke flip turns, finger drags, racing dives, IM order, introduction to swim sets, etc.). The other half of the time is used for endurance training that will be essential for competitive swim practice. Page 78 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Youth Swim Team Program Summary The Rancho Youth Swim Team provides a competitive outlet for swim lesson students looking to go to the next level. Training is 1 hour long and is run by two swim team coaches. Certain swimmers push their limits and swim for 2 hours. The participants are grouped into lanes with similar swim ability. The minimum requirements to join the youth swim team are as follows: swim 50 yards of freestyle, backstroke, breaststroke, butterfly, a dive, a flip turn, and be under 18. Completing at least one session of precomp is recommended. Due to the high requirements, the swimmers are mostly between 8 to 14 years of age. The Swim Team serves as an important source of new qualified employees for the District. More recently, the Rancho Swim Team has begun to move beyond the cabana club leagues to participate in the national organization USA Swimming. Within the last year, several members of the swim team have qualified for, and competed in, the Junior Olympics and the more prestigious Far Western Championships. Program Details As with many of the programs at Rancho, the Swim Team is year-round. The program swells in the summer and fall before dropping to an all-time low in the spring. Pricing $100 per month, $90 for the second sibling, $80 for the third sibling $75 annual registration fee Off-season Hours 4 pm to 7 pm Monday through Friday Summer Hours 9 am to 11 am Monday through Thursday 4 pm to 8 pm Monday through Friday Page 79 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Public Swim Program Summary Public Swim is the second most popular program at Rancho Rinconada. This program is notable as most pools require a membership for entry. In Cupertino, BlackBerry Farm is the only one available and it is only open for 100 days per year. There are at least 8,781 public swim entries annually and could be significantly higher. An exact count is made difficult by the prepaid passes and folks who swim twice per day in the summer. The public swim program is remarkably popular but is also very heavily subsidized by other programs. Program Details Public Swim May through mid-June, mid-August through September Saturday & Sunday 12 to 3 pm Mid-June through Mid-August Weekdays 12 to 3 pm Weekends 12 to 6 pm Type of Entry Non-Resident Special Day pass (4+years old) 6 4 10 passes 54 36 Family pass (up to 4) 250 200 Add 1 to family pass 25 25 Group rate (10+) 4 4 The main public swim program has single lap lane open for exercise swimming, a 9.5 ft deep end for diving, and a shallow end appropriate for weak or non-swimmers. The visitor demographics is families with young children and children attending with summer camps. The program is split between recreational swim where all swimmers are welcome and adult swim where only adults and adults with infants are allowed. The recreational swimming portion is the first 45 minutes of every hour while adult swim is the last 15 minutes of every hour. The ratio of swimmers to lifeguards is as follows: On-Duty Lifeguards Total Lifeguards Maximum Swimmers 1 2 20 2 3 50 3 4 75 4 5 100 Page 80 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District One lifeguard is always kept on reserve in order to treat any injuries (usually bee stings, nose bleeds, or a minor scrape), answer questions, or to assist on-duty lifeguards (typically to bring water if needed). The main program is supplemented by two dependent programs (snack bar and BBQ rentals) and a separate sub-program (lap swim). These will be discussed in more detail in the following section. BBQ pool party rental The hours are concurrent to public swim $75 for 3-hour rental $120 for 6-hour rental $4 per swimmer up to 25 swimmers The BBQ rental is a space adjacent to the pool. It has its own private gate to both the parking lot and to the pool. It is suitable for parties between 15 and 40 people. The rental is allowed to have as many as 25 swimmers. It comes with a canopy, a BBQ grill, and three picnic tables. Snack Bar Open during adult swim (excludes first and last hour) $1 per item During adult swim, typically only one lifeguard is needed. This frees up the other lifeguards to operate the snack bar. The snack bar is meant to be a convenience hence all snacks are priced at $1. The food is prepackaged which eliminates handling and preparation. This is one of the amenities that is mentioned often by patrons. Adult Lap Swim Weekdays 7:00 am to 9:00 am year-round Type of Entry Non-Resident Special Day pass (4+years old) 6 4 10 passes 54 36 3 month pass 125 100 Lap swim is a year-round program dedicated to exercise swimming for individuals 15 and up. This program is particularly important for adults with health issues that prevent non-aquatic exercise (arthritis, back issues, etc.). Lap swimmers tend to skew older than the public swimmers. These swimmers tend to be working professionals between the late 30s to early seventies. Page 81 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Swim Camp Program Summary The swim camp is the newest program at Rancho Rinconada. The idea was first presented to the Board of Directors in late 2017 and was rolled out in 2018. As with many new programs, the camp struggled to break even in its first year. At the end of the season, the Board of Directors approved a host of recommended program improvements. The camp, now in its second year, is operating at full capacity with a wait list and has a positive net revenue. In terms of search results, the swim camp is the third most popular program at Rancho Rinconada. The swim camp is a full day program with extended care option. Parents can register children from kindergarten through 5t" grade on a weekly basis. The swim camp focuses much more on recreation, cooperation, swimming, and fun! As the name suggests, swimming is a big part of the camp. Each week of camp includes four group swim lessons (maximum of 1:3 instructor to student ratio) and supervised recreational swim times every day. When the campers aren't swimming, there is a variety of daily activities. For example, art projects, making slime, or balloon racing. There is also a field trip to Sterling-Barnhart Park on Fridays. Program Details Pricing $300 camp fee $100 deposit (refundable) $12 shirt fee $50 optional extended care Hours 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Monday through Friday 4:30 pm to 6:00 pm extended care Page 82 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Rentals Pool Rental Summary The pool can be rented for private events but is not a particularly popular.The pool is too large and the cost is too high for most parties. In addition, the best pool times are already reserved for public swim or other programs.The BBQ rental seems to fit the cost,time, and party size requirements instead. The hourly cost is divided into the rental cost and lifeguard cost. There is also a refundable$500 security deposit. Hourly Rental Lifeguard Total Hourly Maximum 5wirnmers Fee($) Fee ($) Cost($) 40 100/80 60 160/140 75 100/80 90 190/170 100 100/80 120 22-01200 Recreation Partners Recreation partners offer services to the community that the District does not have the ability or desire to. Currently,this is limited to two different scuba outfits and a separate swim school. In the past,several other swim teams rented the pool.The pricing is $18 per lane and insurance is required. Hall rental The recreation hall can be rented for private events. This is a fairly popular option for residents as the recreation hall is very affordable and is close to home. It is ideal for entertaining a large gathering when the home is not quite big enough. There are roughly 100 chairs,ten 2.5 x 6 tables,ten round 4-foot tables, and a full kitchen. The pricing is divided between peak and off-peak times. Peak hours are Friday evenings and Saturday&Sunday afternoons. Off-peak is everything else.The hall is rarely if ever rented out during weekday days. There is a refundable$500 security deposit. Rental Time Rental Fee ($/hr) Peak 80/60 Off-Peak 60/40 Recreation Partners Recreation partners offer services to the community that the District does not or cannot.This can include yoga classes, after school care, religious and/or cultural gatherings, or music events.The recreation partners pay the special fee and generally rent on a regular basis. Page 83 of 198 APPENDIX C RRRPD STAFF INFORMATION www.berksonassociates.com Page 84 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District 1) Salaried Staff (GM, PM, A&R) 1a. Written job descriptions (other than the 2019 Salary Review descriptions) if available The Board has not approved of any job descriptions for any of the salaried employees. This issue will be addressed once a 3rd Board Member is seated. 1b. Contracts and/or other agreements Please see the attached General Manager Employment Contract (item 1b) approved at the Regular October 2018 Board Meeting.The contract expires in 2020 and is the first and only employment contract. 1c. Current salary See table in section 1e. 1d. Summary of benefits 50% ER contribution towards the following health benefits: • Kaiser Silver 70 HDHP HMO 2000/20% health insurance plan (see attached 1d 1) • Delta Dental Premiere 1500 Plan (See attached 1d 2) • MES Vision (see attached 1d 3) 4% employer match to defined contribution 401a/457b plan Worker's Compensation Unemployment 120 hours PTO 1e. Tax and benefit costs per position Position Annual Health Retirement Tax costs Estimated Worker's Unemployment Total Salary Cost Cost (FICA) Compensation*(3.11%) Cost General Manager 104,737 2,181 4,036 8,291 3,257 pay per claim 122,503 Accounting&Records Manager 66,150 533 2,646 5,021 2,057 pay per claim 76,408 Program Manager 1 57,750 1,670 1 2,310 1 4,049 1 1,796 1 pay per claim I 67,575 Page 85 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District 2) Part-time/seasonal positions 2a. Written job descriptions The job descriptions exist as part of the staff policy and training manuals. 1. General Policy (item 2a 1) 2. Accounting Policies (item 2a 2) 3. Lesson Manager(item 2a 3) 4. Deck Supervisor(item 2a 4) 5. Instructor (item 2a 5) 6. Pre-comp (item 2a 6) 7. Swim Team Manager(item 2a 7) 8. Swim Team Coach (item 2a 8) 9. Lifeguard Manager(item 2a 9) 10. Senior Lifeguard (item 2a 10) 11. Lifeguard (item 2a 11) 12. Camp Manager *New Position 2018* (item 2a 12) 13. Camp Staff *New Position 2018* (item 2a 13) 14. Office Manager Draft *New Position 2019* (item 2a 14) 15. Events & Marketing Draft *New Position 2018* (item 2a 15) 16. Scheduler(item 2a 16) 17. Office staff (item 2a 17) 18. Maintenance &Janitorial— No job description or training manual 2b. Number of staff by position, hours/week and annual There were 14,759 part-time hours worked in 2018. The hours are skewed heavily towards the summer months as shown in the following graph. 2018 Seasonal Variation in Part-time Hours 2000 N L a 1500 x a 1000 m a 500 0 oti� oti� oti� o�� oti� oti$ oti� &00 o100 oti� oti� �1yN\ti �`ti �1� �1y��ti �'ytiti yo1�ti � ��ti Winter Spring/Fall Ramp Up/Down Summer Page 86 of 198 Initial Data Request 2019-07-25 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District There are distinct seasons which are outlined in the graph: winter, transition, ramp up/down, and summer. The type of part-time work available in each season is very different. The table below shows the number of scheduled weekly part-time hours by position. It does not include setup and cleanup which can add between 4 to 50%to the shift length. In addition, a single staff member may be counted in multiple positions due to extensive cross-training. Irregular or unscheduled work hours were either combined/averaged with other similar positions when possible or excluded. These types of shifts include occasional off-season swim meets, program planning, special projects (scanning, painting, shredding, etc.), rental supervision, or tabling. Department Position Winter Spring/Fall Ramp Summer #of staff Public Swim Lifeguard Manager 3 20 2 Public Swim Senior Guard 6 27 10 Public Swim Lap Swim Guard 20 20 20 20 7 Public Swim Lifeguard 18 108 35 Swim Team Swim Team Manager 3 20 1 Swim Team Coach 30 30 30 81 9 Lessons Lesson Manager 4 21 2 Lessons Deck Supervisor 4 4 38 7 Lessons Instructor 72.5 94 346 62 Lessons Precomp Instructor 8 2 Swim Camp Camp Manager 3 4 50 1 Swim Camp Camp Staff 127.5 8 Office Office Manager 6 1 Office Events& Marketing 6 1 Office Scheduler 6 20 1 Off i ce Office Staff 8 12 20 82 17 Maintenance janitorial 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 1 Maintenance Maintenance 8 8 8 8 1 Totals 79.5 157 230.5 999 2c. Hourly rate by position and/or staff person Maintenance $25 Managers $20 Training & Lifeguarding $15-16 All else $17-18 2d. Other taxes and benefits by position and/or total part-time Regular OT Other Tax Costs Benefits Estimated Worker's Compensation* Total Pay excess Pay FICA Sick Pay (3.11%, 12.38%) Unemployment Cost Part-time staff 257,413 13,762 111,534 1 20,886 1 167 21,217 pay per claim 314,979 *Not including surcharges or year-end refund $314,979/$257,413=122.4 Page 87 of 198 May 14, 2013 Honorable Mike Wasserman Chaiiperson, L.AFCO of Santa Clara County 70 West Hedding Street I I th Floor, East Wing San lose, C.A.951.10 RE: ImpAementation of the Recommenda:tions of LAFCO's Special Districts Service Review. Phase I Dear Chairman Wasseralan and Membcrs of the.LAFC(') of Santa Clara County- The Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Palk District Board of Directors reviewed the recommendations of LAFCO's Special.Disti,icL5 Service Revim and approved this letter in rcspo ['L5e. We apprecUitt-, the m6dance given to 1�,ancho and will Gontinue to strive for the h.Lgj-iost standards in good govemance. Rancho Rincomida Boa'rd of Directors ar.id the District Manager have been working to iinplemen,t LAFCO's recommendations ffiroq_OF i.[lie folio wing,aodons� 1, Addressed through strategic plan Prepare business plan for next 3 to 5 years We expect the Strategic plan to be prepared by the end of June 20 14, Adopt a multi-year capital improvement program -I"he groundwork for a capital inij,.)roveni:ei'it plan is in July's manager's report, The capital irriproverricrit plan will he fle,4ied out as part ofthe strategic plan. Define and designate reserves.for contingencies and capital needs.separate fi-oln the operating cash balance This item will be addressed as part of the capital improycmentsection of die strategic plan.. Thoroughly track use(if the pool (public swim, lap swim, lessons.. and swim tear?} We have been going through a thoroug1j,ovorhaul of our-filing and recording systarns. Finding, troubleshooting, and implementing a sW(able and inexpensive system will recittire mom tirno, We expect to have a good system up and rtming within,the next year. Page 88 of 198 Conduct recreation needs assessment and assess eurrent use 01'fileilzty Our current tracking cyst€nis are inadequate; to easily, cheaply, arid. accurately, assess our current use. As mentionod in the previously, we are txaoving to a system where we can easily collect and analyze -usagc data. `INs will likely roll out of the next year and a balfafi:er we,have cci.tripleted modernizing otw systems ;develop and adopt goals, objectives, and pq/ortnance measures 1-he strategic plan will have specific short and long teraaa objectives wit.h.performance based on how saac?cessfially and-quickly the plan is implenierated. Z< Already Addressed Adopt a policy on expense reimbursements Policy 4025, which.covers expense reiraabursomerat, was passed on Ray 91,11... File copy of annual budget with County Auditor, as legxally required This item was already filed with John.Cruz Rona the county on.Jutie loth. We will continue: to do so. Advertise in newspapers and snail info nt.ration to residents re: ,Board vacancies and District's services The next board election is one aaac:i a half years away and will be advertised thoroughly when the t:irne cotnes. Consider conducting a fies,survey of'simil'ar service provirlea,s and elarargi.ndr higher rates for anon-residents Fee survey was Conducted if) the Spring and we began charging higher gates N—non-residents and residents alike starting June l st. The in rease:s ranged Ii°otxa�5�'la to 375%. As such, another increase would cat:se widespread discontent with our patrons, We would ideally like to wait Gat.least.l or 2 years to implement another increase. Thu f�e increases will.be reviewed aaat wdly and will,be added to the st:rawgic flan. We appreciate the recorna-riendations outlined in the 2013 l_AI-'(.".C) Special Districts Scn&O I�evie;w, and will do our paal to emw-e drat they are carried out with transparency, accountability, and efficiency. Sincerely> Miriam Salo, President Rancho .Rinc:ona.da R.e;creation and lark .District: Page 89 of 198 From: sandra yeaton Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 2:20 PM To: goaalkumar(@gmail.com <goaalkumar(@gmail.com> Subject: Re: meeting on thursday Hi Gopal We never got back in touch after my email. If you have a block of time, I feel it's very important at this juncture to meet and discuss the way forward with the Rancho district. Both Sophia and i have a plethora of information to back up our case for making that facility part of the Cupertino Parks and rec. Dept. and we need to impart that to the commission. we did meet with Randy Schwatz a week ago, and we gave him about 20 pages of info. At the meeting last night, however, when asked if he had received any info from the public he said no. it's possible he didn't consider us the public, or maybe he thought we didn't make it known publicly. in any case, we did show him a lot of paperwork which he had copied. sophia and i spent over a year amassing info. There is so much evidence to what went on at this district, and i feel it needs to get some light. We have fought hard for this community. I was on that board 30 years and over the years averted some of the unbelievable practices that were going on. In feb. of 2019, i went to lafco as a last resort. Something needed to be done. In doing that, i made a lot of people angry at the t District and from then on, I was a target for all kinds of antics ,lies, push-back and stonewalling when i asked for information, which should have been my right to receive as a board member. Sophia got the same treatment. It was almost as if I was in a 7th grade class trying to get the attention of twelve-years old children who decided to push back. Both Sophia and i suffered illnesses because of this and she ended up in the hospital. There was no let up on her. The last resort was the signs trying to shame us that went up on one of the board member's lawn and at the facility. this was another example of their juvenile antics that was hurtful and untrue. These signs are available to show as part of our proof We finally had had enough and decide we had accumulated enough verification to just let the two entities- Lafco and the city- make it right. We are now at a critical stage where I hope everyone decides to do what is best for the community based on facts and not the defense based on "nothing to see here folks." i am 78 years old and have no skin in this games other than the wanting what is best for the community. I don"t feel the opposition has demonstrated that to be their intentions based on their agenda which in my opinion, based on what i know for a fact, has not been the interest of the community, but rather to operate for their own enrichment. Sandra yeaton Page 90 of 198 Randy's Notes from Meeting with Sandy & Sophia re Rancho Rinconada Monday, February 10, 2020 Sg dy • City needs to completely take over RRRPD because: o GM is making over$100,000 o New board member might be getting paid (was going to get$20k for policy development) o We think there are kickbacks (ex. Dragon School and Heritage Leadership Academy) o The Lawn signs about Sandy & Sophia being M.I.A. o There is corruption with no oversight Sophia • There are not many public hours of use available • The private rentals schedule and 20 hours of lap swim take all of the pool time • 2 board members do not live in the District • The board does not allow anyone to record the meetings • Sophia was on the board for 5 or 6 months and not allowed to see the budget or audit report • Bank account balances do not match • All cash business—no credit cards are allowed Sandy • Swim coach is renting office space for $80 per hour • Asst. coaches are District employees • Interstate fence company charged $30,000 for the enclosure Sophia • There was $30k not entered but paid • City needs to take over RRRPD because the board didn't listen to their ideas • Nancy Clark(County Counsel)was in closed session and has something going on with Kevin • City needs to lay off Kevin • Sonny is the one who does all of the work there • There was only one bid for creating by-laws or policy • The fence is very low,there are no security cameras and there was almost a drowning there once Page 91 of 198 From:Sophia Badillo Rancho Pool Board Reform<ranchopool board reform @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2020 8:25 AM To: lafco@ceo.sccgov.org; Randy Schwartz<RandyS@cupertino.org> Subject: Public comment for Lafco special study on Rancho Rinconada- Rancho Rinconada status quo allowed Jordan Eldridge to have access to multiple district bank accounts for at least 4 years after his 2013 resignation. Meanwhile his replacement, Rancho Rinconada board member Pat Bustamante, was not listed on the Rancho Rinconada Wells Fargo and Heritage Bank accounts for the district but still signed checks for the district and was nominated as a check signer during board meetings. Summary of Bank Account Access: Rancho Rancho Bank Notes: Bank Account Account Heritage Bank Wells Money Market and Fargo Checking Access Access Jordan Until Feb Until April 2019 bank access removed more Eldridge resigned Dec 2018 than 4 years or 48 months 2013 after resignation Julie Jervis - resigned Until April Until April 2019 bank access removed less Jan 2019 2019 than 6 months after resignation Pat Bustamante March No access No access 2014 - Dec 2018 Cupertino Parks and Recs Commission or LAFCO may want to do an investigation on why access was still granted to former board members(one for numerous years after resignation)while a current member did not have access to these accounts during her tenure. This could be seen as an example of the Rancho management and its board lacking oversight when it comes to district finances. Instead of the status quo, a new direction like new district management and board members could help the district with better oversight and protect access to the Rancho district financial assets to only those who are currently qualified to see them. The paying residents of the district deserve better financial oversight of the district they are funding every year with their hard earned property tax dollars. Please let me know if you would like to meet or have any questions as I have hard copies of supporting financial documents regarding who had access and for what time frame. Sincerely, Sophia Badillo Page 92 of 198 2/28/2020 Dear Lafco and Cupertino Parks and Recreation, There may be an issue with seeing the images associated with the email i sent this morning regarding Rancho Rinconada. The deferred revenue listed in the last audit was $122,999 yet the balance sheet had no amount posted. Both the audit and balance sheet were unanimously passed by the board despite the inconsistencies in the deferred revenue amounts. I have copied and pasted the images from the email into this word document. Please see below. Thank you, Sophia Badillo Page 93 of 198 The City Council of Cupertino, the Parks and Recs Commission or LAFCO may want to do an investigation on why an email from the Rancho District Manager and the audit state the 2019 deferred revenue was $122,999 yet the balance sheet had no amount posted. Deferred Revenue and Pfeliminary Audit Report =�x Kevin Davis to rrle 11J27{201 B Yew details HI Sophie, I hope you had a great Thanksgiving holiday. I understand that you are looking for the deferred revenue values and a ccW of the preliminary audit repart_The amount deferred to FY 2019 is $122,999.The buI](of this number Rs from swim lessons with a smaller amount oom ng from swim Camp. lLt\L IN]ilYl Iri.iQ41iL -41 1 1 H.tYb rkkk uL*I xLL L �1 till;iltil I A Yt I lwJik},* JI F Ji_26115 S\II IFn CU 3619 :nil 4%*IM Ci S IG9,34R S M141 CNA r lurch 11mmin LXIMT 112,1" ammyAlin tkyw 1,1:4 14AP.&AtPM LWd4.P—iu ti71L Ia&" 11"I'm.M•t+Frh I IOW 101.4*1 C4P1Wx.ae.r 9sae!# 9,g1E,M. 1sFTt1 %F 11% ;9YI 3 L4tr,46) IJAWLITIEN L'1v11Iws I,Ahun., +4 P+ F-d F Wd.OmN 3k* 1.117 IId,11: Wrhrd 1.•e Ny kT—t` L550 3,l99 Nrlrmldrnl+ue taq" 124,"p T4TAIAK1Ht47I9:F 1RF 4 14rFj5Q MET FSIT1014 hnv*dmropmt 4F4.IiS# 1A3E,122 UN- I,W .I4+ 473741 %WT IhEW1134% S :iKn.wL ti The Balance Sheet From The August 2018 Meeting Had No Deferred Revenue Listed. It Was Left Blank. Yet This Financial Statement Was Unanimously Approved By The Board Members Serving at the Time. Page 94 of 198 ►ubhon CUtFWA IM694an AcrmwMs PWOPW ACMAMPMV M+ 1i 011 1 kin % R.A51 314% haven,?"card 11.2#+r,] 2 W 3 13A91 -1"&% TOW CrOM Ca^*+ $ 11.MQ i 'T392 13.a01 ML4M Other(WWW"ITOMM" hm hW"b"MR I'M no nod M00'r4 09bMW OPMMMA Ar_UUlQMhd S 1! " S."s >1I�1Sx 3# PVpvl Tsm Pavo bw S land 03 f >LLIM S% TOM OPW eURWI LM69 m SAM* j 874 $ 1S W ".9% Tow CUFFWdI rj $ 51'"s S 41"S % ilft 19 5% The previous June balance sheets of 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014 had deferred revenues listed. However, 2018 did not. Below is a summary of deferred revenue amounts on audits vs. Deferred revenue amounts on board approved Rancho District financial statements. Once again, both the audit and the balance sheets were unanimously passed by the board despite discrepancies. FY FY FY FY FY 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Deferred 122999 12464 140678 119558 110872 Revenue 0 from Audit Deferred 0 12460 140678 111303 110872 Revenue 0 from Balance Sheet (from board meetings) DISCREPANCY 122,999 40 0 8,255 0 Page 95 of 198 66. 8/8/171150 Register 3 ra.nch orinc-onado Manager SALE Pub lie Swim 0 Cash 1318/17 1112 Register 3 ra nchGrinc-ona da Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 818/1711 9 Register 3 ranc ho rincona do Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash -- 818/1712:38 Register 3 ranchorinfiionada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 918/17 17:12 Register 3 ra nc ho rin{on a da M anage r SALE Pub lie Swim 0 Cash /17 13;19 Register 3 ra nc ho rin-c on a da Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 817/17 13:03 Register-4 ra nc ha rincon a da M anage r SALE Public Swim 0 Cash _ 817/1712;44 Register 3 ranchworin-c-ortado Manager SALE Pub lie Swim 0 Cash B)7117 12,36 Register 3 rancho- nzo"da Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 817/1712;72 Register 3 ronch5o, gconada [tanager SALE Public Swim 0 C35h R,f7117 1Z:70 Register 3 rancho- nciortada Manager SAALE Public Swim 0 Cash - 8J7/1712 19 Register 3 rancho, nnDnada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash Bt7117 Register 3 ranchkor xorLada Manager SALE Pub lie Swim 0 Cash 8 /17 12.01 Register 3 ra nc ho�,ncona da M anage r SALJ Public Swim D Cash 8/E/171712 Register 3 ranc ho rincon a do Manager SALE Pub lie Swim 0 Cash 816/17 15:54 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SAALE Public Swim- 0 Cash 8/6/17 i S;38 Register 3 ro rwc ho rinc-on o do M anage r SALE Walk-1 n 0 Check 8/fi/17 15:09 Register 3 ranchio, niimada Manager SALE Walk,in 0 Check 816/1715;09 Register 3 rancho- nionada Manager SALE Walk-in 0 Cheek 8/E/1715.02 Register 3 ranchior.n-conado Manager SALE WalkJin D Check B16/17 14-56 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 8#E/17 14;40 Register 3 ronchofinc-onado Manager SALE +Talk-ire 0 Check B/15/1714,13 Register,3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 815/17 11;59 Register 3 rn nc hwincoruda M.Dnager SALE NWrc Swim Page 90fClyshti �F PROGRAM REVENUE AMOUNT AFTER DEFERRED REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS $ 447 ,356 . 50 - program revenue amount from shopkeep $416, 673 - program revenue amount from FY 2018 Audit - page 6 $ 30, 684 discrepancy from program revenue amount from 2018 FY Audit and the Shopkeep cash register software RANCHO POOL AUDIT FY ENDING JUNE 30 ** 2018 Sophia Badillo Pool board member DOES THIS DISCREPANCY CONCERN EACH BOARD MEMBER OR MANAGEMENT ? Craig Fechter - Auditing Firm for FY Ending June 30 , 2018 / Shopkeep - Cash Register software kV SHOPKEEP BUSINESS TYPES- • :i i GEi ST,4RTED # ml = ED I D CASH REGISTER SYSTEM FUT PA ShopKeep, the Wad cash register designed by a - Business Owner for Business Owners GET STARTED up- so we was a tpSHOPKEEP Page 101 of 198 WHY IS THERE A $ 30, 684 PROGRAM REVENUE DISCREPANCY ? $447,356.50 - program revenue amount from shopkeep $416, 673 - program revenue amount from FY 2018 Audit - page 6/ SHOPKEEP REVENUE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 3012018 Total revenuefrom ■ • - + • FY 2018 4ji • collected to 1 i 7/1/17 12.25 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Valk-in, 16 Cash 7/1/17 12.03 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Walk-in 10 Cash 7/1/17 12,01 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash tote I from sho k 445 715.5 $445,715.50 total Page 103 of 198 REVENUE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 3012018 ► Need to make adjustments ► We need to subtract income collected in FY 2018 for the services that wont be performed until during the next Fiscal Year ► This is deferred income ► Next Fiscal Year starts July 1 REVENUE FISCAL YEAR ENDING - 122,999 (subtract income collected in FY 2018 for the services that wont be performed until during the next Fiscal Year) o. + 124,640 for income collected in FY 2017 for the services that were done in FY 2018 $447,356.50 after adjustments RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION A.;1D PARK DISTRICT STATEMEW OF NET POSITION dUYE 30,2018 AND 2017 Note: Deferred income listed on page 9 of 201 2019 2017 ASSETS Audit ■ draft ■ Current Assets: Cash S ]00,249 5 226,681 Cash in County Treasury 1,081,$97 81&,199 Receivables 16,596 2,127 Prepaid expenses and deposits 15,418 14,074 Total Current Assets 1,214,650 1,061,081 Capital assets,nct � 98D,634 1,016,322 TOTAL A55ET5 S 2 195,294 S 2,077,4D3 LIABILITIES / Correa[Liabilities: Accounts and warrants payable 4,337 18,112 Refundable security deposits 5,554 3,25D Deferred revenue ]22,994 124,648 Rccrucd compensation 53,41D 41,348 Pa a 105 of 198 REVENUE FISCAL YEAR ENDING $447,356.50 - program revenue amount from shopkeep after Deferred Revenue adjustments $416,673 - program revenue amount from FY 2018 Audit - page 6 Rancho Rinconacla hecreation and Park I]istrict �L�araagement's Discussion grad�inal�sis Fear Ended June 3Q, 1D18 Tahle�—Change in 1\et Assets (I}ollars� UUllar 1'erc�ent 201$ 201'� Change Change Rer+�enues Property taxes $ �97,7SS S �65,191 5 32,564 7°�fl 1'rr�gram I�e�enue �1G,673 �28,3Z5 (11,�i52) -3°�� Investment Income and other 9,253 ?,745 1,548 19°�0 Total Re;+enues 9Z3,b$1 941,2 �.�,4�4 2% Page 106 of 198 PROGRAM REVENUE AMOUNT AFTER DEFERRED REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS $447,356.50 - program revenue amount from shopkeep $416, 673 - program revenue amount from FY 2018 Audit - page b/ $ 30, 684 discrepancy from program revenue amount from t 2018 FY Audit and the Shopkeep cash register software � - s s s - s • - - s s ' - � - F a I LVAI V, s - - Qqr 8/8/17 13:50 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 8/8/17 13:12 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8/:E/17 13:09 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8/8/17 1238 Register 3 rarlchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8/8/17 12:12 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8 /17 13:19 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8 /17 13:03 Register 3 rarlchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 8p/17 12:44 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash _ 80/17 12:36 Register 3 rarlchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 8p/17 12:22 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 80/17 12:20 Register 3 rarlchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 8p/17 12:19 Register 3 i rarlchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 80/17 12:12 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 8P/17 12.01 Register 3 rarlchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Cash 8/6/17 17:12 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8/6/17 15:54 Register 3 rarlchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8/6/17 15:38 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Valk-in 0 Check 8/6/17 15:09 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Walk-in 0 Check 8/6/17 15:09 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Walk-in 0 Check 8/6/17 15:02 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Valk-in 0 Check 8/6/17 14:56 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8/6/17 14,,40 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Valk-in 0 Check 8/6/17 14:13 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim 0 Ca sh 8/6/17 11,59 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Public Swim Page 168e W S S � . y ,�.-i '-�- ye.µ�.:�� _ _t,�__•`t — y`��.. a•x r _F t `""° ,�,` � ''`# �F r�� '� , it t 7� � r ji �"�'�....- ."�",Wg '�-•may, �r �s �.L'� ,,�,Y"�, 4 '�`i . 777. it 3 z J ... ..n.. • • •• • •• • `w •�• • -1 • oil • • ••.••.. . • • . . have pieced together as nearly as possible a coherent summary of this boondoggle that has coat the district 27000.00 to date. After three years this project is unfinished. I have tried in earnest since Nov. 2018 to get answers as to why. i have received some in-complete ininformation, I have been stonewalled with hub and spokes games from management and other board members. All of this to replace a shed to store lifeguard equipment. I lobbied for a shed to replace the existing shed, but got a lot of pushback from board majority and management at the time. My latest attempt in April to contact those invloved (architect, and contractor) have been met with threats by contractor, and architect hung up on me when I tried to contact her. I hope this issue will be made part of the study by independent firm. The documents and emails that I am submitting here are what I have managed to gather over time. Sandra Yeaton 1 Page 110 of 198 City Manager of Cupertino Timm Borden_ 1 have lived in the "Rancho" neighborhood for 40 years. It has recently been brought to my attention some issues regarding the local swimming pool: A) It is my understanding that a requirement for a pool manager is that the individual(s) must be from the neighborhood. Steve Wosnewski(sp?) does own the house across the street from me , however, has not resided there for well over 20 years . B) € have been informed that more than $100,000 of taxpayer dollars are used to financially reward the pool managers for what is , at most, a minor part time job. C) One of the managers (name unknown ) is payed a salary and, in addition,operates a private swimming team (school )for personal profit . I can easily confirm the vakidity of A above, but am uncertain of 8 and C issues which is why[am contacting you. €n addition, I would like to use the poo[ for exercise purposes in the morning when children are not present. Could you please shed some light on the above topics? Respectfully Dennis Lynch h� Cu pe rti no,Ca----95014 3/14/19 Page 111 of 198 Sari Jose Inside( t ps: sanjoseinside.com/) NEWS Taxpayers Demand Sunshine in Little-Known Special District By Jennifer Wadsworth L. nnwadsworth(February 21,2019 6 Y 2 V117 , r. ,r t, x t3F� low ,are` Sophia Badillo and Sandy Yeaton(from left)are trying to bring greater accountability to a little-known Cupertino special district where they serve as elected board members. (Illustration by Kathy Manlapaz) The agenda promised talks about hall drapes and management contracts,check signings and wages—the kind of mundane orders of business that grease and grind the gears of local(littps://www.sanjoseinside.com/tag/cupertino/)government.Nothing on the docket (https://drive.google.com/file/d/lK9XchOBlul6FSnFkE4e2tliEYneKwph3/,'iew)hinted at the drama to erupt that night. Four elected board members,a bureaucrat under their charge and an attorney assigned to keep everyone on task sat to one side of a folding- table dais as a small but forceful audience lobbed claims of corruption,secrecy and self-dealing,among other varying degrees of wrongdoing. "Don't be a force of evil!"one woman implored the board. "You're completely racist,"another hissed."Rude and racist." "You're a shrew,"a trustee muttered at one point about a colleague. Nancy Clark,the lawyer on loan for$25o an hour from the Santa Clara County Counsel's Office,tried to enforce parliamentary procedure to no avail.Repeatedly drowned out by crosstalk,she finally let out a heavy sigh,rested her chin on her palm and warted until the invectives gave way to bickering,eye-rolling and occasional lulls of civility. The highs and lows of that the first leg of the first meeting of the year reflect something of a new normal for the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District,a virtually unheard-of public agency struggling to adapt to a constituency-that's generations removed and a world apart from the one that spawned it. "A lot of people had no idea this existed,"says Sophia Badillo,who recently became the newest,youngest and,as someone of Filipino- Chinese descent,only ethnic minority on the board after campaigning as a staunch reformer."And they had no idea how much they were paying for it." Thus,the backlash. Page 112 of 198 https://www.sanjoseinside-com/2019/02/21/taxpayers-demand-more-sunshine-in-under-the-radar-cur)ertino-special-district/ 1 in Much of it flared up last summer once Badillo,40,and septuagenarian board ally Sandy Yeaton began publicly lambasting the parks district —a largely seasonal operation that runs a swimming pool and rec hall with a bare-bones staff—which they said too many residents knew little to nothing about.And much of it centers on 84-year-old general manager Kevin Davis and long-serving trustees Miriam Salo and Steve Wesolowski. Suddenly,everything became suspect. Wesolowski's solo after-hours pool visit on Christmas Eve sparked whispers of him using his public office for personal benefit.Davis' burgeoning take-home pay became a bone of contention,as well as Salo's and Wesolowski's primary homes being outside the district,fellow board member Julie Jarvis'sudden resignation,a staffer renting the facility to run private swim lessons and the pool's insistence on staying an all-cash enterprise. "They're not interested in accountability,"Yeaton says."You have all these people who want to use this public place for their own gain.They want to keep it their little secret." Like many of the 2,000-plus special districts throughout the state and some of the 20 or so in Santa Clara County,Rancho Rinconada faces mounting criticism that it outgrew its usefulness,and that,in the eyes of Badillo and Yeaton,it fails to connect enough with the rapidly changing population that funds it. A vocal group of homeowners within the o.4-square-mile district in Cupertino say they realized only recently that they shelled out a combined$2.5 million in property taxes in the past four years to fund the district or that it went the better part of several decades without an election because few knew enough to run for the five-seat board. Some of the same residents who've been speaking out at recent board meetings say they had no idea that a greater share of their property tax bill went to the pool(about 4.6 percent(https://www.sanjoseinside.com/wp-content/uploads/2oig/o2/Screen-Shot-2019-02-2o-at-i1.11.54- Am.png))than their local library(2.4 percent),or that they bankrolled a$22,00o raise in the past several seasons for Rancho Rinco's general manager,who's potentially due for another$13,00o bump (https://drive.google.com/file/d/iMSongz5Bp_XwRKLuFgloER6ytCjp3B95/view) up to a$1O3,000 annual salary and a gradual hike from that to Cht4)s://drive.google.com/file/d/IM5ongz5Bp_XwRKLuFgloER6ytCjp3B95/view)$123,000 in the next decade.That,per analysis he compiled by board request(https://drive.google.com/file/d/iHw3_LdQzbW11LKXGsaZU28SYiXJdz6pG/view),would bring his pay in line with GMs of comparable special districts.(To be fair,Wesolowski offers,Davis has done a commendable job building up program revenue and professionalizing a previously part-time position). Without more robust outreach from the district,critics like Badillo and Yeaton argue,how else would people know about their tax-paid entitlement to what they figured was just another neighborhood pool?The county assessor began bumping the Rancho Rinco allocation from itemized tax bills sometime in the 198os when the list became too long to fit on a single page.Now,one has to go online to find it. It's a debate revived time and again by good-government advocates:Would services offered by these kinds of small,singular agencies,many 1 of which fall under the public radar,be more effectively managed by overlapping counties and cities? j Special districts proliferated in California as public service delivery systems before cities developed the infrastructure to accommodate the 3 post-WWII suburban boom.The state established Rancho Rinconada in 1955 to provide park services for what was then an unincorporated a community and one of the most affordable places to live in the valley.For decades before its buildout as a neighborhood of 4,00o residents, it mostly comprised low-cost modular ranchos(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Rinconada,_Cupertino_Califomia)designed by architect Cliff May,built by Stern&Price and marketed to predominantly white buyers under the brand"Miracle House." As Santa Clara Valley became Silicon Valley,the blue-collar neighborhood underwent an attendant transformation.Multi-story McMansions supplanted cheaply built ranch homes.Cupertino annexed the ward in 1999,which helped standardize its loosely zoned hodgepodge aesthetic,and set it on course to becoming one of the priciest locales in the nation.The former white working-class community became a predominantly Asian-American enclave with a median home price of$1.1 million—more expensive than 82 percent of 1 neighborhoods in California and 96 percent in the U.S. As a result,Rancho Rinconada's property tax revenue skyrocketed while many of the homeowners who knew about their stake in the district's governance had long since moved away.Wesolowski is one of the holdouts.The second-longest-serving Rancho Rinco board member behind Yeaton,he bought his home for$23,500 on New Year's Day 1973."It was one of only a couple places in the valley I could afford to live,"he says. In 1994,he joined the rec district's board after he began using the pool for a water aerobics routine choreographed to treat a back injury.In his view,the board served the neighborhood to the best of its ability and hired a thoroughly competent manager in Davis,a mild-mannered former lifeguard who worked his way up to helm the agency in 2013."The district's been running so well for so manypyearl tbaot 4gems agehttps://www.sanioseinside.com/2019/02/21/taxpayers-demand-more-sunshine-in-under-the-radar-cupertino-special-district/ 2/4 nobody was interested in challenging us,"Wesolowski says. Granted,the dearth of contenders might owe to a lack of marketing more than a lack of interest;Wesolowski acknowledges as much.So does Davis. "Was there outreach?Yes.Was it enough?No,"Davis offers."But we're working on that." The county's Local Agency Formation Commission—a regulatory body more commonly known as LAFCo that's responsible for streamlining public services—leveled a similar critique about Rancho Rinconada's impuissant outreach efforts when it last reviewed (https://www.santaclaralafco.org/images/pdf files/Phase_i/7aRanchoRin.pdf)the district in 2013.In addition to advising ramped-up communications,LAFCo suggested drafting a long-term business plan to help justify whether it should continue as an independent entity or merge with Cupertino's parks-and-rec division. LAFCo planned to conduct a five-year review(https://www.santaclaralafco.org/images/pdf files/Phase_1/LetterRanchoRRPD.pdf)of Rancho Rinco again last year but has yet to follow up.(Incidentally,LAFCo itself came under the scrutiny (http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2oo6/SpeciaLDistricts.LAF000.pdf)of civil grand jurors some years back for its hands-off approach to regulating special districts.) 1 Davis agrees that there's more work to be done on the kind of long-range planning prescribed all those years ago by LAFCo,and he's confident new blood on the board will help Rancho Rinonada check that off the list. a Meanwhile,for the few people who work at the district office before it staffs up with dozens of temps during the warmer months,the recent controversy expressed in sometimes personal terms on NextDoor has taken a toll. Davis,for his part,would rather not dwell on the negative.Instead,he says he's determined to maintain composure,and that he's committed to working with the board as it tries to regain the public trust."I just want to do my job,"he says,sounding a bit world- weary,"and just take care of things at the district as much as possible." Share this: t P e, g r� ic3� i`•' � s„ r + Qr� �. �, (l�.tps;Pw�v�^r.sanjo„g€r€side.cc,€r;, d:��;,2PZs.,ux€�sy`Gr:��-de��rand-1•'ire-s:ans{h€r��.°-::€der-tl�e-ra4.:u3-cca�s. t:no-s�eesai-dastr€ct;•si�c�re=rl[tter) {ht;las:l;�,��u�.sar�joseinsldr�.corn1201r�'0212't`'rxp:�yers-dartand-more-sunshine-irl-t<ncier-the-rzu€sr-cuj�ertinc:-{�.eciai-cstrict??stare=fz�c�;l�ookj 1 G (h ps:l.'rtr�v.sr:josirside.crsrn12019r't32�'21Cax �zyarse�^€ar�drncre-s !�si�inein-�rde-the-radar-uu;�€rtir€ s;>eci '-ct;strict;?share==,00g'e-plus-1) Related Op-Ed:Donald Trump Unmasks Himself Mike Honda:Racist Fox News Host Bob Task Force:Hate Crimes a Symptom of as a White Supremacist Beckel Should be Fired San Jose State Campus Climate (https://www.sanjoseinside.com/.2ol�/o8/... (https://wmv.sanjoseinside.com/2014/07/... (https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2014/02/... ed-donald-trump-unmasks-himself-as-a- honda-racist-fox-news-host-needs-to-be- February 24,2014 white-supremacist/) fired/) In"Culture" August 16,201 j July 14,2014 In"Opinion" I.n"lv e%,s" Jennifer Wadsworth is the news editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Malley.Email tips tojennifierw@metronews.com (mailto.jenniferty@metronetvs.com)or follow her on Twitter at @jennwadsworth(https.Iltivitter.comljennwadsworth). Page 114 of 198 https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019102/21/taxpayers-demand-more-sun shine-i n-un der-the-radar-cupertino-special-district/ 1/2812019 Mail-sandra yeaton-Outlook 4C 411] G@ aw U0 10�m �i . . 11 ic 0 t* fil 44"/o, 9 4:31 PIA x a 'GCC V- District Manager << Ra... 1-ittps,//pubIicpay.ca.gov ...................... ....................... ............. Employee Detail [district Manager S i I,pee l al Rancho R*nconada Recreation District: and Park District Department-, Administration Year: 2015 Report: Summary R�ula.r,Pq $81 ,538 er Ovtime Pay ............. $0 �YTP-Surn PAX/................ $0 O.ther.Pav $539 TOTAL WAGES $82,077 ..............--------------- -https://outlook.live.com/maii/AQMkADAwATIwMTAwACOwMABjNyl IN2NhLTAwAiOwMAoALgAAAwPjvhuGGqVJh%2FgnrfHY2fUBAJPP-VAS'dtl%gtlg�... 1/2 To All it may concern: I am resigning from the board of directors at Rancho Rinconada Recreation &Parks Special District to take effect on . I can no longer in good conscience allow my name to be associated with the obstruction of the board members and management whose practices and procedures are in direct opposition to my standards of integrity. My service to the constituency of this community will be better served off this board. Page 116 of 198 511012019 Mail-sandra yeaton-qutlook Re: shopkeep - cash register app for Rancho rinconada pool Kathryn Fri 5/10/2019 4:06 PM To: Sophia Badilla sandra yeaton �i I attachments(384 KB) shopkeep_with_sophia_notes(Kathryn).xisx; Hi Sandy and Sophie, Sending this because Sandy and I!talked about the time sequence of the payments. 4/26/2018 20.52 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Wei Chen Chang 10875 Cash 4/26/2018 20:53 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager RETURN Wei Chen Chang -10975 Cash 4/26/2018 21:05 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Wei Chen Chang 875 Cash 4/26/2018 21:06 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Wei Chen Chang 2800 Cash 4/26/2018 21:07 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Wei Chen Chang 3000 Cash 4/26/2018 21:09 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Wei Chen Chang 2400 Cash 4/27/2018 16:58 Register 3 ranchorinconada Manager SALE Wei Chen Chang 1800 Cash Also, is it possible that the $0's i n the rest of the spreadsheet are from some kind of prepaid pool pass that would explain them? I've added a second sheet to the spreadsheet with the data "sorted by customer name." 0's are highlighted yellow. Best rega rd s, Kathryn From:Sophia Badilla Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 7:39 PM To: Me Subject:shopkeep - cash register app for Rancho rinconada pool I got a copy of the shopkeep data which is what the pool uses for their cash register and receipts. Some things seem like a red flag. Some of the entries say that a payment was made with cash or check but the amount is 0. I also did calculations for adjusting for the Deferred income (see the subtotal in spreadsheet). the amount the pool collected for services on the audit and what's in shopkeep is off by about $30,000. In addition, there was a customer who paid almost 11k entirely in cash one day. Anyone else find this odd? Anyone else find other things that are odd? Page 117 of 198 https:fiou tic ok.live.comlmaillin bc)xlld/AC)M kADAwATIwMTAwACOwMABiN yl iN2N hLTAwAiOwMAoAARgAAAwPivhu GGq,vJh°/o2 F.qnrrHY2fU HAAoWngj,,. 112 To the LAFCO Commission: I am here requesting a review of Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park Special District. The following are my concerns: 1. Lack of oversight from the board regarding management. 2. The board's disregard for public requests for programs that benefit the public,in some cases, responding that we have no resources. 3. Management's contract with inflated salary approved by board majority. 4. Oasis Swimming School is allowed to run a private business while owner is hired at an inflated salary to bring swim programs to our district. 1 feel this is a conflict of interest. Oasis Swimming School used our ad and put their name on it. I believe it has since been removed. 5. Members of the voting public were not aware of the functionality of the special district and whom it serves because of lack of outreach by management. 6. Two of the board members will not allow a seat vacancy to be filled even at the appeal to them by the Cupertino City Councilman who attended the January 10th meeting, observed this obstruction, and stated that the public was distressed by this lack of moving forward with the nomination. 7. Board and management go to conferences at 5 star resorts paid for by district funds. Minority board members are not informed of all decisions. One member is ignored or rudely interrupted on any input regarding spending issues. One former board member has serious dementia and was brought to meetings to second motions which enriched management. One board member makes most of these motions. B. Hours of operation are not in fine with hours actually charged. Le. Winter hours are advertised at 3-7:30 pm, 5 days a week. Salaried employees are paid 120 hours a week collectively. 9. The ultimate answer board minority and the public seem to be getting is that `we are the board majority and we have authority to mare arbitrary decisions.' 10. Friend of management has proposal for$20,000 to write strategic plans. Page 118 of 198 11. There has been what I consider frivolous use of county council by individual board members and management mispresenting to the public the nature or purpose of closed meetings. Opposition to these complaints will be met with a defense of charts and graphs and numbers. These measures do not address the real grievances of the public, who pay$500,000 in annual taxes to support this district to benefit the community it is meant to serve. These are serious issues and need to be addressed by the only entity that has any authority in this matter: l.AFCO. Page 119 of 198 6/15/2019 A Simple,Cost Effective Way to Prevent Fraud I Nonprofit Accounting Basics r'} C- tl � 1 . $ .1co Findtcfal iQC+rc:tmtabftiC Nonprofit Success Y p Home> Search-�Advanced Search Articles a Videos dab°Topic Nonprofit Accounting Basics Nfeyer Foundation lot Audit --__ _--__--__-__..__--------- Accounting and flo <ner pinN i ir1ancW manlgem.' A A Simple, Cost Effective Way to Prevent Fraud 1 ax and Inforrnativ.m Filings Originaiiy Posted:September 10,2012 Governance Topics: Author: Resources, Internal Controls Robert N.Gray _.... Fraud € Rubino Et Company Fundamentals 1 Each year, hundreds of nonprofit organizations are victimized by employee thefts.These frauds are � __ .._ ... frequently perpetrated by highly-trusted individuals holding key positions and often involve substantial Accounting 101 sums of money.There are practical,cost effective,controls which can protect your organization or your Startin�"a- `onjwofi,t_ -1-_ 1A _ employer from similar circumstances. Internal€ontrols Many organizations depend on their auditors to protect them against the acts of disloyal employees. Interval Reporting£t Financial However, an audit of financial statements is not an engagement to investigate fraud.When auditing Management financial statements in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards,an auditor: Nonprofit Operating.Reserves . reviews an organization's internal controls and accounting procedures I r ----- t` -tiver- ---- ------- -------- . makes certain spot checks G v=€nance a polk.ies • systematically tries to confirm the existence and value of the organization's assets ------------------------------------------- defines the extent of its liabilities Other Resources All of this is done for the purpose of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial _..... _.................__.._-..._....__...._...._..__ statements are free of material misstatement.Accordingly,an auditor tends to concentrate on large Videos transactions and major accounts which,if in error,could have a material effect on the organization's upcoming Events financial statements. For this reason,the tampering with a number of small accounts over an extended --------------'------- -------------------- period will likely escape detection in most audits. It must also be remembered that many people holding key financial positions in the organization are former Subscrte TO Our auditors or,through other experience,have gained an understanding of the audit process and its inherent NmIattv limitations.They are,therefore,frequently able to divert the organization's assets by methods not subject to detection by a financial statement audit. Defalcations generally take place over extended periods of time and usually involve a series of minor thefts,typically concealed by false bookkeeping entries.Accordingly,they are more likely to be discovered ttics through appropriate separation of asset handling and recording functions,and through careful observation I=t.rern<1l contr(A",`or�,Awdiwm by management of employees in sensitive positions,rather than through an annual audit. d 1.3r�e h.�t;-Pr'_lfits-pa"t i ........................................ Even where the separation of functions is not feasible due to an organization's small size,governance and .......................................... is rr , management can still protect the organization against embezzlements by taking three simple,cost- efficient measures. 1.The simplest,yet perhaps most effective,step is to have the executive director or other key officer receive bank statements directly from the bank and review them.Examine each check for an zy unrecognized payee, unusual endorsement,or other indications of irregularities.If cancelled checks are not returned by the bank,arrangements can generally be made for online access enabling the key officer to view scanned images. Review wire transfers and the bank accounts to which the transfers were made and question the purpose.After this review,the bank statements and checks can be given to the accounting department for reconciling to the books.The completed reconciliation should then be returned to the key officer for review and approval. 2.Talk to your banker about the risk mitigation services they provide for your disbursement accounts. Look at"debit blocks"for ACH activity so that no one,or only specified payees,can debit your account with ACH transactions. In addition,arrange for"positive pay"services where you can match the checks you have issued with checks presented to your bank to clear:exceptions are referred to you for pay/non-pay instructions. 3.To detect,if not prevent, payroll schemes,occasionally verify the names on your organization's payroll with persons outside the accounting department.Ghost employee schemes can be uncovered by having personnel,other than the payroll department,distribute paychecks an�obta) 8) 't;Iy identification of the payee. If paychecks are either mailed or direct-deposited,a ts�of dup iicate https://www.non pmfitaccou ntin gbas ics.org/internai-controls-fraud/s i m ple-cost-effective-wa y-prevent-frau d 6/15/2019 A Simple,Cost Effective Way to Prevent Fraud I Nonprofit Accounting Basics addresses or deposit account numbers may reveal ghost employees or duplicate payments.Because each employee is required to have a social security number,a Listing of duplicate numbers may r; reveal multiple payments. In addition to the above, exercise the following precautions: • do not allow the controller or bookkeeper to sign checks; • do not sign checks which have not been completely filled in; • inspect original supporting documentation before signing a check; • occasionally verify the names of all,the suppliers with your organization's purchasing and receiving departments; • require employees with accounting functions to take annual vacations and have others perform their duties; • prepare and carefully review monthly financial statements in sufficient detail to disclose significant variances from prior year or budget;and • carry fidelity insurance for employees in sensitive positions. No internal control system can guarantee the absence of fraud. However,the foregoing steps can minimize its likelihood with little additional time and cost. About Us I Contact Us Copyright 2019 Terms a Conditions Greater Washington Society of CPAs Login 1 Site by GJD Educational Foundation Page 121 of 198 https://www.nonprofitaccounfingbasics.org/internal-controls-fraud/simple-cost-effective-way-prevent-fraud 2/2 Summary of documnts I have tried as nearly as possibe to gather information on this boondoggle that has cost the district 27000.00 to date. After three years this project is unfinished. Since my lastest inquiries, there has been movement on the part of the contractor to complete some of the work. I have tried in earnest since Nov. 2018 to get answers fpto why three years. I have received some incomplete ininformation, and I have been stonewalled with hub and spokes games from management and other board members from the onset in july of 2016. All of this to replace a shed to store lifeguard equipment. l lobbied for a shed to replace the existing shed, but got a lot of pushback from board majority and management at the time. My latest attempt in April to contact those involved (architect, and contractor etc) have been met with threats by contractor, and architect hung up on me when I tried to speak to her involvement. The documents and emails that I am submitting here are what have managed to gather over time. I received the permit documents from the city. This report is one example of the waste and mismanagement of public funds at this District. I hope this will become part of the inquiry of the independent 1 Page 122 of 198 - - f TM RIM ry 5 a s -. ^•t�3 r4 .-t}'� 71j e: a i -�-- .x RANCHO RINCONADA FACTS AND CONCERNS INTRODUCTION • The Rancho Rinconada Special District was established in the 1950s, is 0.4 square miles and collects 4.61% of each Rancho property owners property taxes. The Rancho district serves about 4000 people and collected approximately 500k in property taxes in 2018 alone. $497,755 in Fiscal Year End June 2018 $465,191 in Fiscal Year End June 2017 $439,979 in Fiscal Year End June 2016 $411,707 in Fiscal Year End June 2015 $372,424 in Fiscal Year End June 2014 • The pool has collected over 2 million dollars since 2014 from Rancho Rinconada property owners' taxes. • Currently, hours are Monday through Friday from 7am-9am for morning lap swim and from 3:30 p.m to 7:30 p.m. for swim team practice and lessons. • The winter season consists of 2 programs - morning lap swim for 2 hours and swim team lessons from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. during the weekdays. • The summer season programs (June to September) consist of 5 programs - swim lessons, swim team, lap swim, swim camp and open swim. • The Rancho Rinconada Pool collected $417K in FY 2018 for services and programs. Total administrative costs were $775K with the majority going towards salaries, wages and benefits of$525K. 1 Page 124 of 198 3 a • 7 i Rfil 010,R1YCO A1)A.RECREATION AND FARK t)]STRICT GOVERNMENTAL AND BUS NES4J'l'FEFtrNL)s S"fATE°,'tyENT OF REWNUFS,E PECti.DITWIVA AND t'EIANGES N FUND BAIAIN E:S FOR WE IUR FNDFD AMINE 30.2.018 MINI}2017 2018 2017 Rr.-vrnurs Charges for smicim S 416�61-1 S 418,932 'f'roveny Imes 497.755 465,191 Inteml and inve"941me-rt t;nin 12,458 6.319 imta1 RVv nuts I Apren.Oitum .il i ics And heucft 525, 1 495,436 ites�rer s,11 A,bl Ir lin 5 in ,1IQ? 6,535 I rctfe nal f=x 19,237 13,221 l' t;mw ihippitt$ M6 UtTtits 30,820 54,501 �a�g ti s 3b AT11 IS,613 es w(CC5 �eurit° 132 I3 C'*tal asset purchase, 32,543 152A05 1,127 l,ft1 �fisa 11 sn�a5�rs 5-112 1,395 M',D 15 1 32,184 Fund Balances,wsinning orivrim 73. 31941,547 Fund Balances,end or period S 1,0?51�t>4. S 873,7.31 2 Page 125 of 198 ► Nurnbef Of pObl5 b• Acreage {acres) � Size of community servt:�i {fiurnber of residents in 2a1 Tj �- Totol number of prc.�grc�ms by season � Number oaf aquatic programs �y season ► Lap swim hours per week �� ►� Tatal operafing revenue in dollars (for 2a1 T) f , b Number of�entai malls It:�❑c'Li. t _' dll(K, -: ti jfJ y.t.�,io - ). �ar:rtrrga (1 1$9 31,t1t7{r i01}� U U 1i,b�ti3Opq 1tl '�a❑ral►u•a b _'S)7 1'".it1U 1+1ll- 13 i� �'.=BU,l7U0 17 iizr.rmac: d 19-l0 9i1,2t1fr 1U13-- IU 4(i s'.89�'Ut? lti �: Program Re�-enae as listed dn?ti17 rsr�I}-eai aurleY Page 126 . LACK OF OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY/ DISRESPECT TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS • Most Rancho Rinconada residents did not know the pool is funded by 4.61% of their property taxes or that the pool existed to serve the community. One family has lived in the neighborhood since 1960 and did not know they were funding the pool. Most residents thought that the pool was part of the Barrington Bridge development, or it was run by Santa Clara County. • Most community members did not know there are board meetings held on the 2nd Thursday of each month at the Rancho Rinconada Hall until I posted it on Nextdoor and went door to door in the neighborhood to make people aware. • Recording board meetings was discouraged by board majority citing costs and the fact that that district residents lived within a 1 mile or so of the meeting location. I mentioned that most community members cannot make it to the meetings on a Thursday at 6:30 p.m. However, as a concerned citizen, I recorded the meetings with my youtube account and mobile phone at no cost but major benefit to the community. • The pool management and board majority refused to increase lap swim hours to the evenings, or to add an aqua exercise class that multiple community members still want. Laurie Stapleton, Rancho Rinconada• 18. ct Qmg'my-fdlend and 1 were begging there all spring for the water aerobics classes to he reinstated this year. They assured us that trainings were going on, etc and they were trying to work out a schedule. I.called and ernailed every week. Finally in June they admitted they weren't going to have.classes. We were very upset. How hard is it to schedule even one class a week like they did 2 years ago?Now to see What a huge money loss the pool has incurred this year,something has to change! 4 Page 127 of 198 INSTEAD OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVING ACCESS TO THE FACILITIES, PRIORITY GOES TOWARDS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE'S PRIVATE SWIMMING SCHOOL BUSINESS • The Rancho District Manager and current board members Steve Wesolowski and Miriam Salo, and former board member Julie Jervis, have allowed an employee to run his own private swim school on the weekends, oasisswimming_school.com, despite taxpaying residents wanting to use that time for their children's birthday parties and other events. A resident on Nextdoor complained that she could not use the pool for her child's birthday party despite funding the pool with her property tax dollars: Nav Kaur, Rancho Rinconada a 3 Nov As someone who has tried to book the pool for a birthday party in summer, it has never been avallable on.Satutday afternoons. ,Always.hooked months in advance from 1:30 5:30 pm. Now that 1 look at swim school timings, they have a swim session at that time on Saturdays. • Another resident on Nextdoor complained about the employee's private swim school and how the residents do not even have basic access to the pool they fund. So'eaSahni, 1Uvicho Alf1 onada - Jite 31 Oct elation wo iild he that t a 1 resid:ent h l- P4,yi,r0glaxes fbf this pool h fnbac oo I acres s (at the min i�m am),s 1 e p Why shGuld ;l ax paying residents for whom .this whole. [nfrastr"uct r-eVas created; not ha-ve.hasic access? :F 7 �nlian s 5 Page 128 of 198 Residents actually have to pay MORE than the employee to rent the pool. The employee running his own swim school apparently pays $80 per hour to rent the pool for his business according to board member Steve Wesoloski on Nextdoor. Steven Wesolowski, Rancher Rinconada , t Nov Rachel ;and RA, $80/hr is competitive with.current local rates charged by other local similar pools fdr pool rental to aquatic businesses, who rriiust provide their•own certified lifeguards/instructors and insurance at least equal to our district's coverage, with the district As a named Insured. Yes, private pool rentals are higher than because 6f the casts. of district supplied lifeguards. We also rent the pool to several local Scuba schools for training divers and instructor certification at the same $80/hr rate, Which must be comparable to sand competitive with rates charged by other local similar pools. All user fees are compared with local competition, reviewed and adJusted at least yearly, some. years imore often, at monthl i public board meetings, as recorded in the minutes. Residents of.the 400+ district homes. pay discounted user fees, last time based dn, an average of the taxes pale. 6 Page 129 of 198 • Residents, who fund the pool with their property tax, must pay double what the salaried Rancho Rinconada employee pays IF they can even rent the pool. Contrary to what board member Steve Wesolowski stated in the above Nextdoor statement, residents DO NOT GET A DISCOUNT and pay the same rate as everyone else according to the Rancho Pool website - $160 per hour plus a $500 deposit. HOME.FACi LITY RENTAL.POOL RENTAL Pool Rental Private pool rentals are great for parties 60+or for those who require more privacy.During this rental the whole pool is reserved for you and your guests. The pricing includes lifeguards and safety equipment for up to 40 swimmers.Additional lifeguards will be required for every 25 swimmers above the minimum up to 100 swimmers.No glass or alcohol.Availability is extremely limited in the summer'. Check Pool Awitability S160/hour for the pool rental+2 lifeguards(40 swimmers maximum) S30/hour for each additional lifeguard(for each 25 swimmers above 40) Deposit:S500 refundable deposit required for security,cleaning,& reservation • According to Steve Wesoloski on Nextdoor- Oasis/Rancho Program Manager's swimming school teaches in Chinese and does not conflict with Rancho's swim programs (this is not true -the Oasis classes are taught in English - confirmed by students and an email i got from the swim school owner). https:Hnextdoor.com/news_feed/?post=95730093 Steve's response on nextdoor: Oasis teaches.swimming in Chinese, so does. not conflict With any District programs,,which are only offered in English.. The employee and his high-tech professional wife both work Full- T`tnne Monday through Friday, and teach on their own time Saturday. They can Warily rent Rancho pool if it is available,-they rent Other l oots when ours is not available. Oasis existed before he was hired by our district, the Board was informed and found no conflict with any Rancho program.. 7 Page 130 of 198 e My email below from Oasis Swimming School on 11/2/18 states that all the coaches speak English which contradicts what board member Steve Wesolowski stated above. Oasis Swlmmin,q Sc... W2r_2DIB . tome HI There, Thank you for checking in with us.Since it is alraadythe Week 5 forthe currant session,so please let me know your kids ss�vlrrt level-and a rough introduction for their swim background that may go check tf we still have vacant spat for.yiiU, We have 7 m*r levels In'lotal,and there are 3:sub- levels1 f or each mapr level_The l els are various from total ate J SWirrimers to pretty competitive elites. Regrad!ng to the rater ce �`ently w.e only accept drop- in-students viith;f 0 per class.each class is 60 minutes.The studi�nt-cpacr It o deperi�Ys'on the different level';.I'll get back to you later once figure out your kids level.All thetoaches speak Eng'lislg. You are more then weloome to l€t me know if you have any questions or concerns 8 Page 131 of 198 OASIS does not use other locations. Their address on Google and on their website is the same as the Rancho Rinconada Pool on Chelmsford. At the very least, this can misleading. 77.�" _7 --- 06sis Swimming School Oasis Swimming School sM1im",rn©Schad k�cu •, SMrimfm school inC"part€no, Cafifwnla •0.4 m -Closer Calibmia- G.4 ml,Closed OVERVIEW REVIEWS Priuos ABOUT OVERVIEW REVIEWS FgGTOS ABOUT . CAC. izEtvw"s SAVE WEBSITE I CALL f)t ECTWINS SAVE WEESITE a Mi +� Mu 1$0GO Ceelmsfo d Cr, 18000 Chehnsfad Of, 0 Cupertino,CA 95014 M 1 T T Y Cupertino.CA$5i)74 MhITTY 0,4mi 0.4 mi t i • F 9 Page 132 of 198 TWO BOARD MEMBERS ARE NOT CURRENT RANCHO RESIDENTS YET MAKE MAJOR DECISIONS THAT IMPACT THE RANCHO RINCONADA COMMUNITY ® Two board members own property in Rancho Rinconada but do not currently reside in the Rancho Rinconada District. Miriam Salo has property on Tuggle Avenue but lives in Campbell as she takes her homeowner's exemption at her Campbell address and lists her Campbell address on her voter registration information. Assessor's Parcel Number(APN):375-34-002 Situs Address(es):18955 TUGGLE AV CUPERTINO 95014-3658 Mailing Address: 1321 HARRIET AV CAMP[BELL CA 95MB-5808 Current Information Assessed Value PROPERTY INFORMATION Prim Document No'. 23961313Documenl Type: DEED Transfer Date: 6/2112018Tax Default Date: N/A �- e:'Y!•,�^;tr•IAP\S<D3'd CBa = - 1/ Orr ad. ('YI.t]'JIiA4F iT AI C.-V ;L aS]bb SN) ya;.:ry A.'I.Lns r]:O MAFR�Ay fl.WafLLGa'@-i61/ Cu•rrnt I�IvmataI Az.4rsse•J VAlt.e PICK R V MMAT10N •�.e _-. Lti:anerl NC..:f0.`IhAR%-.rravl lf7t GfiAVI[:i l:ll 439i,1@Ftiil t!iifA3l.Zi@1 iL.lLa]f.f1316Y ' Ttn•>..ta.. .:r�-:ur.ra.ur..n Cev NF ��4+�p,r;s�«*�i.Ztk en. ;ai6*s.31' t.#.et�Lx u.e.rm_, to%MTE An EA INFONLtATraN tt'v A16 =:..�-•.. - - "�'•- _ Ryn�a. n•*�•=yv+�n ;I 1 t3 s�.;e- 3 -s auawn mw",t aa]a�aµr;2rr]P.•usa:,. � �u.�.i�' ..... _.._- {an6N,:n t,ibr I IC}ti5 �. st?YP froOf llbrarf smlcs,�:e+r••r.,.`-s YR .. �`�O1d":'1 .»3 __...v_.___..._..___..._... _- mndy:a:,_a: .ea tw o:fo.:f unrcr.• +•S'e�5'.* �'`"-'� .. ,1 4-vr ilvifcn..•e=xl 3�.rr.�,TM ratntr wuc- srncwa,e{+l .. ��.r_ ._,._.._..v_,..� _. .,_._.....__�• :wnc..wan sz,o c+zz wtay-:e-e:c-t o r e.t3rnra.... .._. 11 mny w.,E•r .xna ava wiry.ra A.s �__ Y�'u 9;r +L-3r��ydtx'e c� »-5i.,� nw r.t.. sartb�r.•'a canl+'C•:•'..:.�• • iltau Frtna2YYf13'�Oil�s�afn�v�.iff9Yt 51jTmuwii.tm TRa�F9.q-Rrs l.F..�,w.:...•,:...:�la�e.��va rw.-wa:..�f a..rc',.y.rsaw.+ri:r� VALVE FtFOn6tATlON(As]—d kf r•u[Y. Nrt a:ms�d ro dal ur:a�s:ur�.- �vs• 1 Nwi Pmµ.7 &nxws Esa*Plnm Vehae ! I-L-y�r13'•"1 !`" - -._____._...... rr' 3•� tsL 46fit.lia {:t'.:t- G_ He[,L•a+rrC i7(J00 I •k4iFdderiRL tl AYpe kT:w?rKnF j,.;J,SC: $:v'i.: 5: Ona• Yl ___. �_._ ._.._ ...._..-_...._.__. TOW_ SM.056 Tew Ti: w9= 37.OWfi $879.956 DLScLL,VEn.Trs wu tur tam -u.:k•f y d Caxay nh]m i-A '- l:clAtra sent'tt Dxx.TJdt m PRLVP:<a[aaA'!N 1e saa vc+r}±d,--11-0rs.:ome clarraArn may I t�:q •a•aaw a vay a:th acaxaz TM Ccr:F Ct Se:�Gua fe:urte:n:rr�ony3,f�L•aranq hum tivt at t--..-.�-•,--- .�-.=i cm, nfcrr to,AS=c.CtAi DD DATA APE PROVIDED LY!i•1OUT P.APAA`.TY Ct ANY KIND,wttcer e,pressed� �°O°T�T'��'Y a'rtpline n+c Art;Rt,n'hRR,:_t'n mrlad ax:ars.es d+2�4i^�'vLrf Etrd ear kt n Pd'.<aYat popoM: ..:_. _ ..,..--..T any D�•n,�o-na^sas1,1dan11adn•3 L.4cw,ab3A:ry to.dab IRawn.a and TauDxt Code 2D48AmssedVau It .it.no.ePs sr- ut�a n lu.zst �rD:�� ' �, PAPROPERTYIHFOA4A71ON ,r .._,,,•,,,,._.-..................--.-.—.—"^-.. f�arianwrtlL^;ZIB:s6aiC•ra.rrert irye C;,;aNT DEED Trar:2>B Oi3a 63sh1121i 92a;t DaSt NA 10 Page 133 of 198 Understandin Homeowners' Exemption Proposition 13 ne"nu-:PST a Yalief.Ccd-ff f,210, [wick Links if yow nVer;an�Ocaip;Yaw hnftie-3D Y4)tjo 114Mcool place-af teaidiuncx, I Sanul 13 1 iit a 13�ojuty• V�itubww you may be ehgible Tot ar,exemptswof up tf.,S70,000 alf IN,dwe-11ing,F, imi oe Tax.ond .Ivwe-,C�vaV-�,I Ig!5%A1dnq in e popeitv tax naviriga of�jprywdinivejy S iv 40 00 milue'l(Y Eligibility You Illmat be a ploixody OV114iffr W-JIUVRel VI 3 vindidie,Fumed!it a Mao O'sple Y.CIY.1TIUt4 orcupy YOLJI home wt youl piticipal plact 0 jesidrfl"as 0 Mkce M If-w Ri-:c1aft 4-2:01 b'111-janualy I each peal fIe.An5 wtkefc, dill-w-wS Yu L;i.outli*1 th-end W the riq cdTbl nhl 1-Ow to vute A d Afirig dur.1lai qviallPi fm tfiv c-wmpunn if it i6,ot it intr(Ided tu fay,I lepmd,varaw and tinaccupird,w file vacaltrin ai ar,-roodaq riot I it v Contact Us bI Filing period.a.nd exemption amounts 7"' Fol kbn ypai fn Which you OT;wpy the.dw0f ing on,fie.l dot . ,1, a 4 I, E.Iql WrLg,U11 FLOCR Ole f U[I n emption it,iwad.nbte you ri 14-by t Cal p an ffie M1140 Vying tr ArInA PA 0.51 In 11 11 Page 134 of 198 • Steve Wesolowski takes his homeowner's exemption at his Cupertino Bonny Drive address, yet he gave misleading information where he physically resides. • Despite only having to be a property owner since he has been on the Rancho Rinconada board prior to 2001 (CA law 5784.1), he lists his Johnson Avenue address as his primary residence on Nextdoor and on his candidate registration. • However, residents on Johnson Avenue state that he does not live at his property in Rancho Rinconada and that the house has been vacant for at least 15 years. Pa-om. . t -60..3 ,kL1ll("La:-i it �r1 .tGr ". r' ! '� � �F�'t Qblln� Addrnsi� f ° I j~rs biz MM P3-ret.Numb,-,(APN) 359 la.ryta Alre-ie-sl:t0338 t3COpiY hft tltp_i[Tce{1 p.;rc r.-r_ r�,:ir�AddrC-8s� iC37A@Q'+'!�Y l7Q ClP£FI>iO T=A>'r:;:"n i / curreh;intormatior.Assn. ,;d Va eu• PROPERTY INFIDMIA•TTON n'Jwmnrt tin tP7Ft-!:1) Ccc,rr::r�' r_'rt'.• _ .t. '+ru-ii�r i7n1� F2.17.^YT;-ira.e CS,Fa: �-per '.i TAX HATE AR%A INFORMA"ON 0/3L03 cite, Wv—U'4 elem. sra10-1 cuparOrn urur high wf,oul rrrn^nt xwr. comn c:-gcgc. N4tNil alr p.u97>mrj'4 ba-;maa At T. 79 33 10.t_'1t 4" FC?Protoctintr Cs-'*t'-t�l oaan has: rptl-Canv:--,�11u regr,—a:ir;r a}a• cAn:L:J W�"'na GYIr:ly.2(Vn.'y" a•ea r,J 1't(ltnrar`j%`yiC_'j. m"ty 5^,Tt_ area rr Qt t6br=ry vs. -- pjur:!V waref nantz data v-a" .q;Vnl}v:cler =-w--a LW •salJey 'r ntn c3sra Va�h?Y Sorr n-t watar rim- -ice data uuclyintx�,;cr. VA►-M iNFOft&IA N(A wa3ed tntom-*Wn as d f. 23?HI titi 0.c:.essed Rea(ProperYif Busiwcs: Esrnpt:ntt5. Val;la f'[ li;rrw•e•�r.; Si.0"t' 1rti1XrlVR C'mC•'—` Far-,Ira!Pr cttp 3[F $T t7at7 $NO,1ch :� Tatai_ Tnlal _z•,p a�ic,ml dl� a r�4tn!:z)tom'.n?.-n.A e Y,33 ht'C+t rav+�^f0 is atCA ga3'S at: -p t•`' DISCI All.l1=H.TtT�3 9cn•:_ o!:c.�.air.�cr�=j "avef'J,21r:s,:L,T•-it'^rfnatlnn r,rsy muxwnaplc u!"xi has Fran -1a to 3t c7 the ? c �res c rr. .ans�ilnJ ars ry l:om u.n at cur, N Sa:•-t Cara b9!Ut ut dsFn a(n ey n!b* a4xa:*a'e fiR y ,w4pwa r OF Al,;(KIND.a;lr�t"Prr._vr,9 than tnlarrnnpar,•ASSOCIATED VATA ARE PRaYGFT"+'•Y�'3U' ni Implied,tndud Put w iimw W.ltte irtt¢�ra`w>.^,a^se=_a'ie-�'�' .a date '.�� iarWl,;TLran r Ctylu i}tt rwt tz abe any tv1 dr+6 Dons:i.d cYt tts c!t�ta Page 135 of 198 Steven Wesutowski _.. Ran tt�i Rin un.+da 2 ttiGv - Rancho District Board Cear NextDoor neigittxzs, rk1}!.-r ri'3' t When I filed to be an Tuesday's ballot I voluntarily took an coin at the Registrar of Voters to only i campaign tnrihfully about the Issues and not to engage In any personal'attacks'.The oath is new this election, but I decided Icall ago life is too short to waste our tune with partial truth or Fact.&without context 1 have ��.. too accuse, respect for us ail to spread rumors n to to acc use,tie about or disparage,others..Not even to win an election. I began serving an the board because I was asked_ a Tiff rctS I've continued because democracy doesn'twork unless all are wifNrtg to serve when needed,honestly. , ..__..._-----—.._..__. _._".___ .,...:."__.:._,._, with integrity,and be wlMni;to Paten to,consider and 0--t 6SS the f+4t `U^ W1ZI1!'Ah4;n9 respect others w6diffegentopinions, Ali board meetings are public.Written minuses of Secommer4atiotks all meetings are posted,as requrred by law,after the .... ... - nextmeeting rdatutes berme official by posting draft Valley Heathtq;;Cobk,g,Elec rical aril Solar minutes 72 hours before the nest meeting;wlh draft E1ticios5 minutes with any corrections are adopted by the board they become official minutes.After adoption,official .. ... _ .. .... minutes are posted an the distri..ct bulletin board. website and in t�offx- t1Cti:•ity This is my last No post before Tuesday.Learn more about me on Voters Edge.LitYr/yptn�rae.ylg[ea/ e _�3{ 5.1?.T +? . 912 StlfS Ek"{ SteYen M.Wesblawsld.:District nes3dertt since 1976, - tiYl'lCfi3�3�;b Bomd 1:km6gr Y1+iF�tii.E�t9>~6s5}Es�u4'E4'T rr 7tti�CAl ,t7t=�]4 M ti a _ tki6fCE♦'�d3li�°.tYY't#.rV',L E+�7iattik 1,�,a! 1�57Ma'E lia[rtts`P�1ilgii6�il�A6"�FM� 1 3t,b.satitmes ;';s•'3. ..ttP:t. aPJ+kk,�,-,.;..d- f"�J ,:YS-= L.zll '�tPQtlrii$w�E�M1rJiBHi• TL—IF;.v.—.} Mfir RFXl €Y,SVS I' -aq �'yam•- ra^iSSefe's y -34eE7�:?t 3 lirsatrasstareaPmr �� 4s.:rS�,fr+t,lPa+lSjr�k�Is lLil lfaafir'i�ta=t$?P il)W.'.�U e1¢linEtia.YI(cgb(ai(rGY' - xlYssy®.�'Re ta.Yis9a Lrn a!$Lv.3m J :e J Ilmax?rtrs,€Lt+:�rJsd 4�aa^,-�"�.srmrre�:+-�+'�+rp�.:'4+P•�^°••53.tti w Salk+:rpJm+Y.;.*•T�,v,taoee6..�.a:tsa tsu�c�7.,✓rExct t..rtn��tts rPra t,tasa 7ti�.a'aM+Wa i nix. 13 Page 136 of 198 A google search also shows that he lives on Bonny Drive. Cn Mr Steven m WesoLowski age 66 Current Address Phone Numbers Show More— Board members Steve Wesolowski and Miriam Salo make decisions about the neighborhood pool which include NOT increasing programs yet increasing spending limits for the General Manager and raises for management and management conferences at 4 star resorts. These board members also refuse to have an open meetings for community members to have their concerns addressed and questions answered. • Miriam Salo, board president, at the December 2018 board meeting made remarks that were construed as racist among Indian-American and other Asian American community members attending the meeting. When asked why the board president should be on the board despite not being a current resident, she responded that she has the right to be on the Rancho Rinconada board because "She's an American and gets representation" even though she is a resident of Campbell and not of the Rancho Rinconada District where she is a board member. As the first member of color in the history of this 60 year old district and as a community member of the Rancho Rinconada area since 2004, 1 found this to be extremely disrespectful. 14 Page 137 of 198 LACK OF SAFETY MEASURES • Board member Steve Wesoloski uses the pool privately without a lifeguard on duty when the pool is closed. When confronted at the January 2019 meeting by the community about this being a major safety issue and liability to the district, this board member denied using the pool despite a community member having taken a picture of him on December 24, 2018 being in the pool alone and his car parked in the handicap space. E. f i • Some young staff members use the pool as their own private swimming pool during closed hours disregarding liability concerns from community members and members of the board Sandra Yeaton, and myself. Sandra Yeaton observed, on two occasions when the pool was closed, lifeguards recreationally swimming unsupervised at the Rancho Rinconada facility. This concerned board member discussed this as a safety and liability issue at a board meeting, yet a few weeks later on a Sunday night when the pool was closed, Sandra observed staff members Chloe and Chris using the pool recreationally again. They told her that District Manager Kevin Davis gave them permission to be there unsupervised despite the safety and liability concerns discussed previously at the board meeting. • I have been told concerns of people hopping the fence and using the pool unattended. This is a major safety concern; management and some board members do not want to put security cameras on the property. Page 138 of 198 • I have witnessed lifeguards on duty looking at their phones and having social conversations with each other. I believe this puts swimmers in the pool at risk especially for the small children in the pool during lessons. I fear I will find someone seriously injured (or worse) at the Rancho facility. 16 Page 139 of 198 LACK OF SAFETY MEASURES WITH CONTRACTED VENDORS ON RANCHO RINCONADA PROPERTY • Last month, contract workers who were installing new windows at the Rancho Hall facility were left with no management present on premises and had complete access to facility.. • In July 2018, landscaper Live Planet and management, were negligent and allowed the property grounds to die away. Sandra Yeaton brought this to the attention of fellow board member Steve Wesolowski and District Manager Kevin Davis. Kevin stated he forgot to turn the water back on after 2 weeks, and Steve Wesolowski stated that "he hoped all the landscaping would die." Sandra Yeaton stated that the grounds had to restored. Live Planet charged the District several thousands of dollars to restore it. Live Planet was not always on the job when they were paid for being at our site. Lack of management supervision was again lacking. • The new landscaper, Pentalon, who replaced Live Planet, was contracted to not use pesticides. However, Sandra Yeaton observed Pentalon spraying RoundUp on the premises. Kevin Davis, the District Manager, was not present. Program Manager Jay Que, who was present, was unaware that landscapers were there. Once again, contractor was working without supervision and incorrectly sprayed RoundUp on the property within hours of community members using the facility. 17 Page 140 of 198 FINANCIAL CONCERNS LACK OF TRANSPARENCY: DEFERRED REVENUE MISSING ON BALANCE SHEET FROM AUGUST 2018 MEETING AND AUDITOR DID NOT KNOW THE RANCHO RINCONADA DISTRICT WAS A CASH ONLY BUSINESS The Rancho pool's July/August 2018 income statement showed a $122,500 net loss versus the July /August 2017 showed a net income of$54,204. 1 asked the district's manager about this large loss over summer the 2018 summer months. He said that the pool didn't lose money over the summer because the income statement didn't reflect prepaid lessons paid in the previous fiscal year. In an email from 11/27/18, Kevin Davis stated the deferred revenue was $122,999. Deferred Revenue and Preliminary kz Audit Report Kevin Davis ' * to Me 11/271 2018 Vevwifcr-.`P,s Hi Sophie, l hope you had a great Thanksgiving holiday. I understand that you are looking for the deferred revenue values and a copy of the preliminary audit report The amoi a?t deferred to FY 2t}7 9 is $122,999.The bulk of this number is from swim lessons with a smaller amount coming from swim camp. 18 Page 141 of 198 However, the balance sheet from the August 2018 meeting HAD NO DEFERRED REVENUE LISTED. IT WAS LEFT BLANK. VIA V-10115&Mil T tun 30.16 VWY 31,18 5 ChAr%t (tar TOW AOMM POO-4% 5 4.U3 S 11,2 qXJAX 0*0 rAf IN Ch~otdit Ced 21591 t*44% -10-4-* TMA!C�161 CAV-4. M044) -344416 t"Ww ADD ow M-4% At*VW W##n $ MM S SAO S Kul USA PA'Aw OWMh kW SAW 05W 4,^ LSM S 453 S u32 7493x U%%Tim rMble S 02 12 Ill 27"4% tqW CA"*ns tabilt*i SMAS S AM% 5 1"W 194% $ SMAS S 4*2ss S VIM 110,40 The previous June balance sheets of 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014 had deferred revenues listed. However, 2018 did not. At present, reports from the accounting software that this district uses, Quickbooks and Shopkeep, have not been provided to verify the individual transactions of the deferred revenue. However, the auditor still listed the deferred revenue amount on 2018 FY Audit report. 19 Page 142 of 198 1 [lIC)ItLk4lltiiiYl ti ilN AYUP.i111►bt JUL I � � �I1ILftISi vi'�k!"f��iTM�� i4'A1 1410 .-O fill, 0 Lill. nix A4s4.i# told rwrzw s4 s I,214 Rya ICITA1.W-10 S t _+7t I 10 ►tU kl,+tBlililT-i � �au�ia l�aia 1:A OF -m-TAU U9"U111"' t#F 1jr y 1 5mc �a ICIS# 831131 ol rum 1-WIN The auditor, Craig Fechter, also was not aware that the district is an all cash business. 20 Page 143 of 198 LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND INCONSISTENCY IN FINANCIAL INFORMATION • On the 2018 Fiscal Year audit draft, the 2017 revenue from services is listed as $438,932. However, on the 2017 Fiscal Year audit, the charges for services for 2017 is listed as $428,395. RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT GOVERNMENTAL AND BUSINESS TYPE FUNDS STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES,AND CHANGES IN FUND BALAINCES FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2018 AND 2017 2018 2017 Revenues Charges for services $ 416,673 S 43$,932 Property taxes 497,755 465,191 Interest and investment earnings 12,458 6,319 Total Revenues 926,886 910,442 Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Statement of Activities As of June 30,2017 (with summarized Comparative Data as of June 30,2016) Program Net revenue(Expense)and Revenues Changes in Net Assets Charges for Governmental Business-type Expenses Services Activities Activities Functions I Programs Governmental Activities General government $471,219 $ - $__ (471,219) $ Total Governmental Activities 471,219 - (471,219) - Business-type Activities Charges for services 298,864 42a,395 - 129,531 Total Business-type Activities 298,864 428,395 - 129,531 21 Page 144 of 198 • Another discrepancy is the July 2018 balance sheet from the September 2018 meeting minutes looks altered. The font on this document does not match the rest of the document and the header does not match either. It looks like information may have been copied and pasted into the report. jut 188 Jui 13 5chants Armud Budget ASSETS Jul 31,18 Jun 30,18 $Change $�,chwpe Cut;ml Assets C 1wC�)iiV5AVwP Clik•Ct3tmC'ASi'il;itil $ 983,322 $ 1,07,618 $ ('104,295) aeg tfttagr€Lank $ 4,667 S 4,667 !{ t3 �,FcXS[s Rtttw AitLi S 15,235 5 15,234 S 1 �1'FI#0 lae ins S 112,449 $ 70,782 $ 41,668 58.9% MY CAsh 5DO $ 590 Cash on 11_un4 1,183 $ 2,183 Tau! 1,117,357 1,179,984 $ (62,627) -5.3' prepaid toszuancr $ 5,785 $ 6,926 5 11,141) -165% pFgwlj 1-',Apdnw 5 244 $ 24.E 1UL6'�'h4-Iawrini $ 1,406 $ IA06 Ubdepasited rutuh S 5,261 $ 7,383 $ Q,.122) -28.7#% Tate]Meet Curfew Asscu S 12,656 $ 15,919 $ (3,263) -20,S% TwatCmentAssets S 1,130,013 $ 1,195,903 $ 165,890) -53% rixW Asseia t $ 286,846 $ 286,846 S�ilains I tptut� rxntt,hei $— 168,552- 169,552 5ttinunmg PUOL-]yet i#+u1 V' due $ 423,710 $ 523,710 C4wprtxM-apt book v4ue $ 74,382 5 74382 TQUI Vixgd AUtU 1,053,489 $ 1,053,489 O er ASWU Dqmsit'e iC htsurame 5 3,g11 5 3,01.1 TO Lat Gtlww Assets. $ 3,011 $ 3.011 IOTA1.AS5Mt, $ 2,186,513 $ 2,252,403 $ (65,890) -2.9 22 Page 145 of 198 • The March 2017 balance sheet from the May 2017 meeting minutes appears to be altered. The fonts do not match and under the column called "% change," the change is listed in decimal points, not percentages. The data format is not consistent with a direct Quickbooks Report. LIAT t€:MI S dt Lourrt Mu 11,17 Feb 28.17 $Otange % -aqf, e a dillo CurTau.E.tbihba Amuid4 PayaW A4N'"ur kJ-ai le 9"4 9512 -18 -O.4a194 f'u#A Azaa Pi"a a 9594 9612 -is -OW184 Oada cwdi t.'»wCnditCaid Mu7 577 210 0139839 MW41 t k"CO& 9u7 577 230 0,39839 Otto Clant1.tAflitxft A.-.mow-.- 20 2612 4403 -031M R,#W rl€WN," 21 rl7 2550 300 0.11765 PIFffi l'E;ti—RI t7 209 -192 -0.91999 ArMbA Y aiiarss 1755P 175SS 5Aka144l"A+ l tl 8 I-oW 06&eummx LnbAftm 20"i 22938 -2295 -{I.11?W7 Tag COMM Lk*R116s 1164) 33127 4083 406289 TmaaI-Wit alaaa 33127 Q083 -0.416284 a"fit) FWkI DaWWE i}1'ea 4 157M 7570M Hikd 6?;9+pai"vt7tr.Ca(rit3a 94457 84457 two tz wm 1 IMI 143017 2750€, 0.19232 Tow Tqj* 191111d 1904.830 27506 0,01444 TOTAL uA11Iuri i&FT,1tny 1%3179 1937757 25922 0,01312 23 Page 146 of 198 • Some financial statement data won't match from previous months when listing comparable data. For example, the January 2019 meeting shows the November 2018 balance sheet assets and liabilities and equity balanced at $2,057,618. UaWfies Current Ltabilitars AfiSE Tj N4ry 10,Is .s AMMMis Pi[ytblc Curren[ASSs1S Accounts Potvabte 5 5,319 Checkirt a�ngs Total A+cCOHttial'ayaMe $ $399 C91A-Cwn;y Act wm 5 1,003,W7 11erluipfixttsBank $ 4,667 C#€iiitCards 11[Yi[a Fuem#k1floryMukrt $ 15,240 111 Tjn3 mks C eheeki»g S 24.i s 1 tsa rf iFt Cr�ri Petty Cash S 506 Total Omit Cards Ca€lt an hand S 1,183 ToW ChtakiaWSaMriSs $ 1,049,292 OfbcrCurrent Liabil ties AccniW Wages 5 3,748 Other Current Asses RICO tt9 Dcj*mits S 2,550 17elwid Fnsufaace 5 6,95+li trrej id t%(eRsc 3 Z46r Payfol TONG Paphig 5 460 Rceeivahle.Iftwest, 3 M Accrued 4 oeat ons 3 t9tit] llndelxnhed tumsts 5 11713 :`:alsi fi"M!E lrayal le S. ToW 00or Current MwisS 11,915 -� .�. Tel }ilser Cmen[l-ijibitifies $ 40, Tool Curren[Assets S 1,069,207 T.la]Current Liabilities 5 46,09 Fixed AvWN Total 14011111,6gs 5 46042 Land S 286,$46 Hurldipgrtei_uywem"ts:-Nd S 143$S7 Equity Swimming Pool- et Book Vahw S MUM runic 1331imce-Net Equipment S Equipment•twt hook value S 51,463_ fiottl Phat nuts 5 Fund adam-C7pe�ting S $-10262 C; W Roplawnwn!Fund 5 168.914 Other Assets NetImcme $ t wig Dqyorl WX Armu-ance $ 3.t111 `fecal Egmdy S 1.01026 Total Other Assets S 3,011 TOTAL 1-lAlllEtT1F5,&E?Q171'fY S. 2:1)"'i7g111$ 7'OTAt.ASSCI S 5 2,07.61 N 1 1 24 Page 147 of 198 R • The February 2019 meeting shows the November 2018 balance sheet liabilities and equity as $2,057,618 and the November 2018 assets are listed as $3,106,910. The comparable information does not balance. UA11I1-1TIFS&LQu-n-' 7 3I,�$ j4,3Q i8 S Chmp %11"ogc Liabilitira Curmt Liabilities ACCCM.Mts Payable Au muMs ityabl S S 5,319 S (2,.89) ,54#,r°-, Total Anaattus PayAle S 2,423 S 5,319 S #2j9%) -s 145 3 Oflue Ctt1il C414 S 336 S. 036) 100 11v Tool l'rz lif Carib S 336 5 {3d) 1f 1 Othff C:uUVM UialrIlil rx Moved Wq6 S COW S 5,74g S til A"; L1 aw O Posil+ S 2.550 S a S," PAyr n Tacos Payable S 492 S 46p $ 23 4.V% Amuet34racabom 5 1.k917 S 32,009 S 113,09r1 40.4% .Saki Tax PAYMbk S 4 S 9 S 1 11913 T4"01ho Curraal l.L N14i S =7,9U S W716 S (11:M7) 313i}a Totn1 Current Liabilities 5 30.411 5 46,431 $ 116,O24) t34.5 Total Wbitities S 30.411 S 46.431 $ (1fi020) -3 l Ski T.quuy Fund 13,ahnev,-Peet Equip wat $ 1,016,321 .S 1,016,322 Cap ia3RepUmmentFund S 168�914 S 16'8,914 1+Setimtiane 5 92418 S 5,690 5 76,7278 1 a4952'56 Tout Aus y S 2,W7,015 S 1,011,188 S 76.?29 IS-IN TOTAL 1.1"ILMES&EQUITY S_2,118,327 S 3,057,41f1 5 60,708 2.95% 25 Page 148 of 198 1304nce Sheet:Prev Month Comparison a1;33t2019 AsdU&-ember tl,241X Ac.Seuwsmols A S1_TS 13e 'r1,lli NCIVIA 1e 5_Umbse ;I%.MR WE l.i,r-rr�aiii(� 66b-Cmmm -Ac nt 5 t;li[s.#,tly S 1,17U, 047 $ 61,1ri? w.;6( "wilm-Tom 114gL S 4,647 S 4,667 11en(gI,TkN;45 ainv4V Marko S 1S,24� S 15,Z4P S 1 %l'HJlu5dwmiuwkims s 11,351 5 34,(51 S 5,firr? 2716'. Pert}Cu h 5 } "k Sib CaA sin iiuu, 1,f4i3. 1;17i Taid3t ut ilt 1;j17,W- 51,1YA292 3 0.900 fiA&% (]6a CurmtAmu I+relrS;i IrsprNn�n 3 '51145 � S.'7.fit� .S 41,1d11 -1f k2'tr 1Repcv3 L►penx S 204 S- _tilt Reer able p Inu sr VVI t0) Luij*o;fc t P"ds S 6,761 S 12.7 W S 0-, 11 S , Told Oth-cf Cml w A lc. 5 MOM S' 19 91 a l -0,04) 45 hl;;, TUIa1CtMCNAssxls 5 6729,415 S 1,061),207 ,S 60,70S SAM 1-,ixcd AsW lmd s nb,846 5 2SA-�e6 $wtmmins Pohl,Na Rook V;ilw 5 IMAM S ;106Z;4 I�juipmc:u-Act bnukvelue $ -5,463 S -51,07 Tout Fusst Ameli. 3 9i1.5_401 S "SAM (kl�eril�,r,1s 1�'i�:is;(1�1?Ctn�r�t.`r S 3,1}11 5 3A11 . I'ut�ltiitiu<rs��Cc 3n11 5 �,(l11 TOTAL ASSETS S.3 235AIN S-3,156,91D S.1}&509 4.I4111i, i i i i 1 i i 26 Page 149 of 198 LACK OF INTERNAL CONTROLS REGARDING RECEIPT OF CASH PAYMENTS • Morning lap swimmers leave cash at the counter and use the "honor system" since there is no one to collect payments. Even though these transactions are supposedly small, they do add up over time and are a substantial amount of the pool's revenue. • The district is an all cash business which currently collects about $500,000 in swim lessons and pool rentals and another $500,000 in annual property tax. The district manager collects, stores, counts and deposits the money collected. There are no checks and balances when handling the money which results in lack of internal controls when handling funds. • Management does not want to talk about the pool being a cash business. Even though it has been requested to be on the board meeting agenda weeks in advance, the Rancho District Manager and the current board president, Miriam Salo, refuse to have the "cash only" topic added to the agenda. Board members Sandra Yeaton and Sophia Badillo have experienced difficulty getting their concerns added to the meeting agendas. • Some residents have experienced difficulty in receiving the return of their rental deposits. 1�1 _ 8_httt)s:llwww.yeip.com/biz/rancho-rinconada7recreation-and-park-district-�cupertino _ Click to go back,hold to see history, Anna S. t f 6/25/2018 Cupertino,CA o friends This place has hidden costs. You need to come in person a s reviews and pay in cash for booking the pool for the private party and,on fog of that,leave a deposit of$500. To get that deposit back is not for the faint of heart. It has been almost a month since we had a party,My e-mail was not answered,on the phone l was told to wait since it is in the mail. So,I had to visit personally. I was told they'll repeat the process. No expedited check mailing is available. The pool is nice. 27 Page 150 of 198 FINANCIAL MISMANAGEMENT o Steve Wesolowski made a motion for the General Manager to spend $3000 per line item, unlimited times in a month without board approval. History The general Runagef spev&q hffdt is khe tttreshWd where board apptrrral is required.This tintit typilly r .uiri att t'4utliy ttire+s prt lS.Ttitt table Iielo4v a histtsry of the gnus, soffloing Limit HEStm "Year r- - rt) h4orilbry tlrnit 2011 $1,�_ _ SIOW 2014 $1,500 SI 2615 $1500. �v 000 2016 51; �S,t 1017- won— Proposed I$3, •$10 0 fi4A �tf�r_ett iat��r3 tr�itt rir�r� a��tapnCy� The total tiiDnthly l P Up tit accoffWnitd ttre fe#t per Km�v*n lirrilt iinctem- 13.The Intention or t enefit of this poky was likely an attempt 0 print bves However'skKethe general mar4er must agtpla re all 4utfianvs,the tYitrettt{5,OM nxatthIV*xmilrng Wat would suUen a molt r±n annP41 total expend lutte of$W3 ,Ut rraW,btud$sted and actual spe ing 4%n+W}s than ten timei that aampit,In adds`co�SM.64 pile-rm irt'Birciom at tr.l aha blien frrt u.W poky should be removed to nutctt the optional realfti s5 of the DistriM The interttAm G1 the per-item spetuling Iirrrlt ks to ensiure that putPtc money is we3 spent.To be more sp.,ealle,tr ertng,a hd4fitsg precess emur€s;the value.tf .ef,this pracess feuAts in delays a Ra"costs with no guatartts*tali atj%at 0,Tha r�is Aftid t her Out @ be let hi h smug t4 >um,o# potential sati igs while mirdtrking Ineflklency,A fimh of S3 tc su3i iCtent tsrr.stta311 tr�grarles and prctjectshletr ire gtenrraeY Hari-containr3€aL This.ntfghf Itlte riecii Chairs WOcha€rs��viruti t0litYings„furrtitiffe;small repairs,and tor horped equipment; ,4 hlgt r miss i#n crtt6tai repaif or t ep laremztnt knut ar$Aow sttnvlai CQUerftt$St errtetW€Ces;$OW1e rumpkas of demt that eateed the ptopmd limt Item,,Ontit but urwier the$10,0W mid Critical few Uniit are:the pump.the pout heater„the AC ronde'ttser unit,the pool rmastk,arrdillte play surface reTialm Lion-urgent.items sucb the Crag carpet repiaeettrenL post cover reptacemenL ard new offke eompdters rani generally"still fall ucder the towerSIA Mib 111ma. 28 Page 151 of 198 Shed project • A$30,000 shed project was proposed and approved in 2016 to store lifeguard equipment. Spending for the shed project to date is at approximately $14,000. After almost 3 years, this project is unfinished and could have been resolved by replacing the existing shed for less than $1000. Shed Project Summary Stied Ap"ittl Cost Consultant Pcnitiis ;S ?140 E:n& ing Cunstntctism(inlsroere S 30,Q6Q:$ 3,450 ftttnGttre 3 Total S 30,000 S 11,196 Shed - Detailed Cost Breakdown C-wsslsasfioo Aoc.jccn�tnstundas.coadostiwtR�l dr,TxN tzril`zatiso �5.1.1NIJ; [d41"uL7;P«aniaj ;iLHA inc.#attpamit6�g - S t.JatF i76.i7B:91 sf;nPa�T�F �C4[aultapl2l'iCY for nslr t,G eq�a;sntshdl 'S '49l1 a'J23 O1rPamaseg !S4dd PT'tFat P � S �1 til9lrralg tc'ufttstciioa :Labs osaahsad#ers to darsdishand dbonsY arrti5zit'slni S f.L41` 'iYr r1t�i$Peroauing PW _.__..._rlticaiat.._--Stna?tnk4n(pssas^ra Ax awrota cmiwaa!thtweteiic ;S 8!a? G8�6�tlI8 Yatgiecesyq -Itet.i'a-sipal ctrortnctpra to slat tM u-ak S:.a%i idE,^.tk^�tS£npaKrny Fwlpxsamtfrsu�ennEdaigttaiicifivoexst�i 2I,tSti t3ixiPot&Cmst�utcnc...l'}arap�vtaae i'us We nw#orneq SM! ..._.,._:..,-:. .. $t.datl :.5baft p1a;Cpisytxtiaa "Additinast rats_ied-it ah#rc tbtrntaipnsts. . i StLtAf- Miscellaneous. f}atfii &awe Merna C" 07i13P�016Schetntties Conversion ofs4rutnt its into a cad{"ilk S 359 0914!201G Schanaics Bhttprin[st�nninS S li3 UI1;1r?017 Storage Alsningboroes 1. 5 li! 94,,30017.Schmn ics Blue pritit and processingfee S 9 03+r.313U17 btacagc Braccd industtialsheh�ingunits 5 1 SOU Otl13F?Oi8Stute Storage late. ._15 . S 2,053 29 Page 152 of 198 Seminar trips • Taxpayers pay for out of town conventions for management and some board members at 4 star hotels. Conferences are held in San Diego, Monterey, Newport Beach, Lake Tahoe, Las Vegas, Denver, Portland and Napa. Residents have expressed their concerns that taxpayer money would be better spent on other things like more programs for the community, more security, and outreach. Salary Raises • In 2017, payroll was $430,925 and each year, more of the property tax goes towards the General Manager's salary instead of programs for the community. The general manager's base salary has gone up from $48,150 in 2013 (total pay with overtime was $67,432) to 2018 a salary of$104,737.50 (salaried)to manage the one pool and rental hall. General Manager District Manager Special Rancho Rinconada Recreation Special Rancho Rir dna�a Recreation 17i�triet [3istricE: and Park Di riot and-Puk District i}e �Ftrr i4: 1 d1dkEF�1S#[ f 'f Deportinent Adn'{ st.raticn Year: 2617 Year., 201.6 5. s , g4!ar Fiat 1,1 't Re 'u9ar P v i,l $ aV ft`rrri 0 RmF�rrrt Ra—y� $0 tpu.i Be i Lrri _ �rt 91 0 TOTALWAGES 91?013 TOTAL -G s $87,827 30 Page 153 of 198 District Manager - District Manager Special Rancho'Rineonada Reereatlar� spe al Rancho Rirnconads Recreation District: 66tr ct and Park Distda and Park Mtrict Department: Administration Depae"ernt' �dtminasixati�rf Year: 2015 year., 014 .met ze ut r $81,53$ $68,943 verti�r�e pz 0 +�V:er#inre.F 7, 1i$�5 k rFr tafn ;� 0 �t -,Sgm Pa 0 t � 539 # pa $1 j953 jgjj l__WAgE $82,077 MAL—A "-Fs 71, 81 Employee Detail District Manager Special Rancho Rlnconada Recreation Ct`tstric and park 01stflet. pcpartnot< Administration YOr: 2L11 4rtime 1 7,v$2 LugR P 0 OttlerF $1,700 zt $67,432 31 f Page 154 of 198 SUMMARY • The board and management have failed to properly provide outreach to the community. When community's needs for programs are requested, they are ignored. Some board members do not want to hear from the community and discourage them from speaking out at board meetings. • Safety needs to be a bigger concern for management so someone does not get seriously injured or worse. • As a separate district, the Rancho pool spends most of its funding on payroll and administrative costs and can be run more effectively if it becomes part of a larger recreation system. • The facility is currently only open Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 3:30 to 7:30 p.m. • The facility brings in hundreds of thousands in revenue but still runs on a cash only basis and lacks transparency. The auditor also did not know the district was a cash business. • Management and some board members have allowed a salaried employee to run his private swim business on the weekends, yet property owners cannot use the pool during this time. If residents did have the opportunity, they would have to pay 160 dollars an hour, twice the rate as the employee pays. • Management keeps requesting larger and larger raises and the board majority approves them. • There is not adequate or even close to an appropriate level of segregation of powers between the board of directors and management. The management proposes his own raises and writes his own job descriptions and submitted a contract that was employee biased. 32 Page 155 of 198 CONCLUSION Finally, I believe that this pool is not running as effectively and efficiently as it could be. Cupertino's Parks and Recreation Department would be a better option for the Rancho Pool to run more efficiently and to properly serve not only the Rancho Community that funds it, but the entire city of Cupertino. The Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Parks District's pool is open all year round (unlike Blackberry Farm's pool) and has great potential to benefit the entire Cupertino community and surrounding areas. Sophia Badillo Rancho Resident since 2004 and Board Director since December 2018 Addendum For further information, Rancho pool meetings from Nov. - March can be accessed at the link below. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjD8B87RxElJgiGYMMPJ6Eg 33 Page 156 of 198 July 19, 2013 VIA EMAIL Kevin Davis District Manager Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District (RRRPD) 18000 Chelmsford Drive Cupertino, CA 95014 Re: Implementation of the Recommendations of LAFCO's Special Districts Service Review: Phase 1 and Sphere of Influence Updates Dear Mr. Davis: As you know,LAFCO recently adopted the Special Districts Service Review: Phase 1 Report for six special districts in Santa Clara County, including the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District (RRRPD). The Report is available on the LAFCO Website (www.santaclara.lafco.ca.gov) under "What's New?" The Report identifies several opportunities and includes several recommendations for improving special district services in the county. Specifically, the Report provides recommendations for improving the accountability and transparency of districts through changes in their operations, management, and administration, and recommendations on potential governance structure alternatives, where applicable. LAFCO also directed its staff to facilitate further discussions between the District and the City of Cupertino relating to the potential governance structure alternatives identified in the Service Review Report. LAFCO staff will be following-up with both agencies on this matter in the months ahead. District's Response is Requested In an effort to follow-up on these recommendations, LAFCO is requesting that RRRPD: 1. Review the chapter of the Service Review Report pertaining to the District and provide a written response to LAFCO on how the District plans to implement the recommendation(s) presented in the Report and summarized in Attachment A, along with a time-frame for that implementation, and Page 157 of 198 2. Provide an explanation if the agency does not plan to implement a recommendation. Response Due No Later Than September 6, 2013 Please provide a written response to LAFCO as soon as possible and no later than September 6, 2013. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to meet to discuss the District's plans,I can be reached at (408) 299-5127/ neelima.palacherla@ceo.sccgov.org or you may contact Dunia Noel,LAFCO Assistant Executive Officer, at (408) 299-5148/ dunia.noel@ceo.sccgov.org. Lastly,I would like to thank you and the District for participating in LAFCO's Special Districts Service Review: Phase 1 and for your consideration and timely response to this request. Sincerely, Neelima Palacherla LAFCO Executive Officer Attachment: A. Recommendations for the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District (RRRPD) Cc: Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Board of Directors Carol Atwood, Acting Director of the Parks & Recreation, City of Cupertino LAFCO Members Page 158 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (RRRPD) The following are recommendations that RRRPD should implement in order to improve the accountability and transparency of the District: 1. Plans/Programs/Policies a. Develop and adopt goals, objectives, and performance measures b. Prepare business plan for next 3 to 5 years C. Adopt a multi-year capital improvement program d. Adopt a policy on expense reimbursements 2. Operational Practices a. Thoroughly track use of the pool (public swim, lap swim, lessons, and swim team) b. Conduct recreation needs assessment and assess current use of facility C. Consider conducting a fees survey of similar service providers and charging higher rates for non-residents d. Define and designate reserves for contingencies and capital needs separate from the operating cash balance e. File copy of annual budget with County Auditor, as legally required f. Advertise in newspapers and mail information to residents re: Board vacancies and District's services Page 159 of 198 Page 160 of 198 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SERVICE REVIEW OCTOBER 2007 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 18.0 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT 18.0 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District(District)is a California Special District that was organized in 1955 and reorganized in 1958 in conformity with Government Code Section 25842.5. The District provides the following services:public swimming and swim lessons,private meeting hall, craft activities,picnic rentals,movies for kids-night-out, facility and barbeque rentals, a snack bar, and a location for community-related activities. User fees are charged. The District is located within the City of Cupertino. The District's boundaries consist of the Rinconada Housing Tract and the Barrington Bridge Housing Tract. Specifically,the District is bound on the north by Barnhart Avenue and Stevens Creek Road; and on the south by Bollinger Road. Lawrence Expressway forms the eastern boundary and Tantau and Stern Avenue form the western boundary. The District serves these two housing tracts within the City of Cupertino;however, residents from other areas can receive services by paying higher fees. 18.1 GOVERNANCE The District is governed by a five-member Board of Directors,which is either elected by District residents or appointed by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in the case that no one is running for Board membership. Currently, all of the Board seats are filled and all of the Board members have been appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The most recent appointments occurred in December of 2006,when three seats were filled by appointment because no one filed a declaration of candidacy. The Board of Directors meets the first Tuesday of each month at 7:15 p.m. at the District facility. Meeting agendas are posted 3 weeks prior to the meeting on the District's bulletin board in its main office. In addition,the District produces a monthly flyer and calendar of events that is posted online and on the main office's bulletin board. The District has no full time employees. The District currently employs approximately 35 part-time employees in the summer and 12 part-time year-round. The District Manager position is a part-time position. 18.2 FINANCE The following table presents the District's revenues and expenses for fiscal years (FY)2004 and 2005, as shown in the District's audited financial statements. Approximately two thirds of the District's revenue is funded through property tax assessments collected by the County of Santa Clara. The remaining revenue is generated via fee for services provided. As shown,revenues have exceeded expenses for these two fiscal years. PASNF530\Northwest Countff inal\18.0 Rancho Rinconada Rec and Park District.doc00/5/07» 1 8-1 Page 161 of 198 zeo Rq LA WIN Q �vi11i1ii1 Is 111: ■�111111 ■�111111 ►� �� 1111r�11111� �� 1111�11111111 � � �J�Illl�lllllllll LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SERVICE REVIEW OCTOBER 2007 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 18.0 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Table 18.A: Revenues and Expenses for FY 2004 and 2005 2005 2004 General Revenue Property Taxes $199,259 $197,053 Interest Income $2,879 $1,447 Miscellaneous $109,700 $98,321 Grants $270,000 $0 Total Revenue $581,838 $296,821 Expenses Payroll $164,973 $146,583 Payroll Taxes $12,509 $11,153 Operating Expenses $101,107 $91,825 Depreciation $17,552 $16,164 Total Expenses $296,141 $265,725 Changes in net assets $285,697 $31,096 Source:Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Audited Financial Statements,June 30,2005. Total revenue in 2005 increased by$285,017, and total expenses increased by $32,545. These changes in revenue from 2004 were primarily caused by the replacement of a new and bigger pool in spring of 2005. The majority of the increases in revenue was due to the receipt of two grants totaling $270,000 from the California State Parks and Recreation Department.Also, some of the increase in revenue was due to an increase in recreation program prices, as a larger pool would use more water and takes more gas to heat. Total expenses increase by$32,545, or 12.2 percent, due to increases in total salaries paid and new pool start-up expenses. The District reviews rates for services every year during the budgeting process. The need to increase rates is based on the previous year's expenditures and income and the next year's projected expenditures. The District will raise rates if during the budget process there appears to be a need to offset increasing operating costs. However,the District has historically chosen not to raise rates whenever possible. The recreation programs and facilities are open to anyone, including residents outside the District boundaries. However,residents living outside of the District pay higher fees than residents within the District. The increased costs vary from$0.50 to $25, depending on the service or program. Investments The District participates in the County investment pool,which is subject to State legal restrictions and additional restrictions prescribed by the County. P:\SNF530\Northwest Countff inal\18.0 Rancho Rinconada Rec and Park District.doc00/5/07» 1 8-3 Page 163 of 198 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SERVICE REVIEW OCTOBER 2007 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 18.0 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Reserves The District has established a reserve fund. The District's policy is to maintain a reserve level equivalent to 30 percent of the annual operating budget. The District's reserve balance as of February 2007 was $174,194.1 18.3 INFRASTRUCTURE The District has one two-acre recreational facility located on Chelmsford Drive in the City of Cupertino. The facility contains a main office, a six-lane,25-yard swimming pool(120,000 gallons), bathhouse (including 2 restrooms and 2 showers), snack bar,kitchen,and recreational hall. With the recent replacement of the swimming pool in 2005,there are currently no major infrastructure deficiencies. However,the District has stated that the current anticipated needs include, but are not limited to: replacing the toddler/child playground equipment,parking lot improvements, replacement fencing and signage, and new roofing. Additionally,the District's main office was built for residential purposes;therefore,many of the electrical fixtures and plumbing requires upgrades to service a commercial-oriented property. The District makes plumbing and electrical upgrades when a specific need arises. However,there are no current plans to upgrade the overall plumbing and electrical infrastructure to commercial standards. The District identifies cost-savings opportunities,which include grant funding and the use of volunteers. The District allows community groups such as Boy Scouts, soccer teams, and homeowners associations to meet in its recreational hall to hold meetings on an as-needed basis. 18.4 SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS FOR RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT The service review guidelines prepared by the State Office of Planning and Research recommend that issues relevant to the jurisdiction be addressed through written determinations called for in the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 (CKH Act). Based on the above information, following are the written determinations for the District. Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies 1. There are currently no major infrastructure deficiencies. However,the District has stated that the current anticipated needs include,but are not limited to: replacing the toddler/child playground equipment,parking lot improvements,replacement fencing and signage, and new roofing. 2. The District's main office was built for residential purposes;therefore,many of the electrical fixtures and plumbing requires upgrades to service a commercial-oriented property. The District makes plumbing and electrical upgrades when a specific need arises.However,there are no current plans to upgrade the overall plumbing and electrical infrastructure to commercial standards. 1 Phone Interview, Levita Weaver,Office Manager,February 28,2007. PASNF530\Northwest Countff inal\18.0 Rancho Rinconada Rec and Park District.doc00/5/07» 1 8-4 Page 164 of 198 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SERVICE REVIEW OCTOBER 2007 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 18.0 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Growth and Population 1. The District encompasses specific housing developments that are fully developed. The maximum service area of the District is defined by its current boundaries.No new development in the District is anticipated. Financing Constraints and Opportunities 1. The District has had revenues exceed expenditures for the past several years and has an adequate reserve fund balance.No financing constraints have been identified. Cost-Avoidance Opportunities 1. The District identifies cost-savings opportunities,which include grant funding and the use of volunteers. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring 1. Service rates are evaluated annually along with preparation of the budget. The District raises rates as operating costs increase. However,the District has historically chosen not to raise rates whenever possible. Opportunities for Shared Facilities 1. Opportunities for shared facilities, equipment, or staff may occur if the District were consolidated with the City of Cupertino. Government Structure Options 1. The District is within the City of Cupertino,which also provides pools and recreation programs. Hence, an overlapping of service provision exists. The following two government structure options have been identified. A. Dissolution of the District and consolidation with the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation Department: The services being provided by the District would be provided by the City's Parks and Recreation Department. Advantages: The existing overlap of service provision by two different agencies would be eliminated;however, services would continue to be provided. The services currently being provided by the District would be provided by the City. Property tax funds used to fund the District could be redistributed to other agencies, including the City. The cost of operating a separate public agency to provide services would be eliminated. PASNF530\Northwest Countff inal\18.0 Rancho Rinconada Rec and Park District.doc00/5/07» 1 S-5 Page 165 of 198 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SERVICE REVIEW OCTOBER 2007 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 18.0 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Disadvantages: A specific share of the property tax funds would not be specifically allocated to the recreational facility located on Chelmsford Drive. Residents of the areas adjacent to the recreational facility may not be governing the use of the facility and the services being offered at the facility. B. No change to the existing government structure: The District would continue to provide one recreational facility within the City of Cupertino and receive a share of the property taxes to fund its services. Advantages: Residents of the areas adjacent to the recreational facility would continue to govern its use and services being provided. The specific allocation of property tax funds provided to the District would ensure that the services currently being provided by the District would receive funding. Disadvantages: The existing overlap of service provision by two different agencies would remain.Property tax funds used to fund the District would not be redistributed. The cost of operating a separate public agency to provide one recreational facility and the associated services would continue. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies 1. The overall management of service provision would appear to be more efficient if the District were consolidated with the City of Cupertino and the District were dissolved. Local Accountability and Governance 1. The District has an elected Board of Directors and notices meetings by typically posting the agenda 3 weeks prior to the meeting date. 18.5 SOI RECOMMENDATION FOR RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Current SOI Boundary The Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District encompasses the Rinconada Housing Tract and the Barrington Bridge Housing that are within the City of Cupertino and within Cupertino's urban service area(USA). LAFCO adopted the existing zero SOI for the District in 1982 to recognize that the area should ultimately be served by the City of Cupertino rather than the District. 18.6 SOI BOUNDARY RECOMMENDATION As LAFCO and County policies regarding service provision have remained the same since adoption of the existing SOI, it is recommended that LAFCO reaffirm the existing zero SOI for the District. PASNF530\Northwest Countff inal\18.0 Rancho Rinconada Rec and Park District.doc00/5/07» 1 8-6 Page 166 of 198 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. SERVICE REVIEW OCTOBER 2007 LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 18.0 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT 18.7 SOI DETERMINATIONS FOR RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT As detailed in Section 1.1, Government Code Section 56425 requires written determinations with respect to the following four factors to update an agency's SOI. Based on the information above,the following determinations are provided to update the District's existing SOI. 1. The Present and Planned Land Uses in the Area,including Agricultural and Open-Space Lands Finding: The District encompasses two fully developed housing tracts. There are no agricultural or open space lands within the District's SOI.As the area is fully developed,planned land uses in the area are consistent with the existing uses. 2. Present and Probable Need for Public Facilities and Services in the Area The District and its facilities were formed and developed to serve the two housing tracts that encompass the District.As the area is fully developed,the need for additional public services that are provided by the District is not expected to change. Finding: No new development in the District is anticipated. Hence,the need for additional public services that are provided by the District is not expected to change. 3. Present Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services that the Agency Provides or is Authorized to Provide Finding: The present level of services provided by the District appears to be adequate. 4. Existence of Any Social or Economic Communities of Interest in the Area if the Commission Determines that they are Relevant to the Agency The District encompasses a specific residential area within the City of Cupertino. Finding: The District is part of the social and economic community of the City of Cupertino. PASNF530\Northwest Countff inal\18.0 Rancho Rinconada Rec and Park District.doc00/5/07» 1 8-7 Page 167 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT T . RANCHO RINCOVITADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT AGENCY OVERVIEW Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District (RRRPD) was established as an independent special district in 1955.The District owns and operates a recreation center in the City of Cupertino. A service review for the District was last conducted in 2007. The principal act that governs the District is the Recreation and Park District Law.6The principal act empowers recreation and park districts to 1] organize, promote, conduct,and advertise programs of community recreation,including, but not limited to,parks and open space, parking, transportation, and other related services that improve the community's quality of life, 2] establish systems of recreation and recreation facilities,including,but not limited to, parks and open space,and 3] acquire, construct, improve, maintain,and operate recreation facilities, including, but not limited to, parks and open space, both inside and beyond the district's boundaries? The principal act also defines the powers and duties of recreation and park districts in cooperating with other local governments! Districts must apply and obtain LAFCO approval to exercise latent powers, that is, those services authorized by the principal act but not provided by the district by the end of 2000.1 There are 108 recreation and park districts in the State.- RRRPD is the only district of its type in Santa Clara County. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boundaries RRRPD is located almost entirely within the City of Cupertino.There are two parcels to the east along Lawrence Expressway,that lie within the City of San Jose,that consists of the Saratoga Creek Trail and associated riparian area. The District is bounded on the north by Stevens Creek Road, on the south by Bollinger Road, on the east by Lawrence Expressway, and on the west by Tantau and Stern Avenues. The District encompasses approximately 0.4 square miles. s California Public Resources Code§6780-5791. 7 California Public Resources Code§S786. a California Public Resources Code§5786.11-S786.13. 9 California Government Code§S6824.10. io California State Controller,Special Districts Annual Report Fiscal Year 2009-2010. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 13 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 168 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Sphere of Influence LAFCO adopted the existing zero SOI for the District in 1982 in recognition that the area should ultimately be served by the City of Cupertino rather than the District. During the most recent SOI update in 2007,LAFCO reaffirmed the existing zero SOI. --------------------------.-----.---------------------------.----- Type and E xt en t of s e r v i c es Services Provided RRRPD provides all services via its single recreation facility. The maintenance and operation of this building and property, including delivery of recreation services at that facility, are the sole services provided by the District. The District offers the following recreation programs directly through district staff: swimming pool activities, Kids Night Out, after-school activities, facility and barbeque rentals, a snack bar, and a location for community-related activities. These recreation services and periods of when they are offered are described in more detail below. Public swim: Public swim is typically offered daily during the summer (generally second week of June until the end of August),and on the weekends in September. ❖ Swim lessons: Swim lessons are typically offered Monday through Thursday during the summer,from mid-May through the end of October. • Lap swim: Lap swim is offered year round,Monday through Friday. Youth swim team: The District provides youth swim team training on a year-round basis,Monday through Friday.The team specifically serves children five to 17 years. Kids Night Out: The District provides an evening recreation program on Friday nights entitled "Kids Night Out".This program is offered year-round. Kids Night Out consists of a movie, dinner, indoor and outdoor games, a drink and a snack. It is open to kids five to 12 years old. 4- After-School Program: The District provides an after-school program for children that offers a snack, recreation activities, basic homework assistance, academic tutoring, guest speakers, workshops, and other activities. The program is provided Monday through Friday for students from J5t through 8th grade, during the school year. •:+ Facility rental: The recreation activity room/hall, the swimming pool, and the barbecue/patio area are available for rent for private functions, classes, meetings, and weekly gatherings. At present,there is one ongoing rental for a yoga class that is open to the public. The barbecue/patio area is available for rent during the summer. The recreation activity room/hall is available for rent from September through May.The pool is available for rent from April through October. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 14 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 169 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Service Area The recreation center itself is located within the District's boundaries; however, services are offered to residents and non-residents alike. Non-residents are charged slightly higher rates than residents of RRRPD for certain services. Service to CtherMencies The District does not have any contracts to provide services to other public agencies. Contracts for Services The District does not have any contracts with public agencies for service delivery at the recreation center. Collaboration RRRPD does not collaborate with other public agencies in the delivery of recreation services; however, the District does collaborate with individuals to offer additional public classes at the recreation facility,such as yoga. averlrrp�ing and Neighboring Service Providers The City of Cupertino almost entirely overlaps RRRPD. The City provides similar, and substantially more, recreation services, including swimming pool facilities and lifeguard instruction, as well as other educational and fitness classes. Notably, the City does not provide youth swim team opportunities like the District, and swim instruction and lap swim services are limited to a two month period in the summer. The City has two swimming pools,which are both located at the Blackberry Farm Park—four miles from the District's swimming facilities. Additionally, the City partners with Cupertino High School to offer swimming opportunities during the summer. The high school is located just over a mile from the District's facility. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 1 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 170 of 198 :lip � • r - ' - �- -- • 1■a111 1 IIIa �• - Il! . mama .■ malMIN ma! lmamai .. ■■■ �, ■■� � '■ ! � � � � 1111111111 IIINt '�' ►,� ;! ■I� 1 11. �r i� 111111111 mill - �! ==a mama .r�C ■ 1�11 1 11 ImIm ma 1Y11 1 .� I miss ma- ! .s ■ R.- �a ■■ maasss�!-.. � -- ■ 111! ima\mama,. : 111 - p 2sa �` ■ ■■■■'u;� Illma - �111111 ■ ■,a ��!- mama .� �� ■m11 -- K ��;� �� • '� �� ,.! mar A r �+fig -- �� _ ■ -- !��! mass .E �� 11 —_ - i i! .. �� mama mama .p ��s �� ■: ■■ CIIII - • __ __ @_____ __ � mama mama . � ti■ C■ ■` f �� _ ME NESE ME on C ■ IN ■■ �IIm11 i i uo' nrnf your mi tinny mr�� R w■ - ■�111 - m � rt ■1 I►� ■11RI11a111m 11 � wii ■ �� ■� �! � �s ;' rrru � nu ■ 11111111111� ■1mRlllmalll loll YfR• ,. Ili: � -- �!�■111 ._ �11� �` �► .� �� `. �� 1111■ I11111 1 11_ _►�m1111 ■� al w. 1111111111t1111111 1 — �► 11111 � .Ii►�s,.0 l„S1 ��Illlll - - '�1 1'��` =1111111 .. 1 ■ �R�lllll ■ 1 sw �� - ■IIm11111 i�11 ■ �� RmlaRl�\ � �� /11111mi1■ ■: R11mIm1 � ��.' ♦ * -� RI�I�Rlaaa111� 1111 1 � zz on �. ice. iiil ■- �►i IN R � ■111■ YAW 1%l%1%lm ■C 111111� �: 1111t� ` r - Ram am psalm�l� .. f ■M l lltltil�� 1 G ■ %sill■ ■1%1l1%� ■ p , ' amla Im11m1 Im11mIm1 • ••. 11■111111 • IIR1111Im11a11 \�mmIm11111am ' • 11i■ta�r.�� . Rancho Rinconada Rancho - Rincon_.� Recreation a ■ District DistrictwFice LoA Agency Fwmdon ComrMsWn of Sawa Clan Comity i RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ACCOUNTABILITY AND GOVERNANCE The District is managed and governed by a five-member Board of directors. Board members are elected to four-year terms of office. There are no term limits. The County Board of Supervisors appoints members to the District's Board, if there is a lack of candidates for election. All five of the current Directors were appointed. For the past ten years, board members have run unopposed. As the four-year term of an incumbent board member expires, existing members have been re-appointed by the Board of Supervisors in lieu of an election. This reflects a lack of candidate and resident interest in the District's activities and governance,perhaps due to a lack of outreach to area residents. Prior to an election (in an election year), the County Registrar of Voters publishes a legal notice in a local newspaper of the District's choice to announce any upcoming board terms that are expiring. Any persons interested in running for the position (incumbent or otherwise), must file with the County Registrar of Voters. If no more than one person is running for each available position, then the Board of Supervisors can consolidate the election and appoint individuals without conducting the election. If no one runs for a position, then the Board of Supervisors is empowered to appoint any person to the office who is qualified on the date when the election would have been held.11 The process for appointment by the Board of Supervisors differs by district. There are no formal policies or standardized procedures on the part of the District nor the Board of Supervisors defining how openings are to be announced, how long the application period should be open, and the manner for interviews, etc. Upon appointment by the Board of Supervisors, it is unclear where the responsibility lies regarding reporting the Board of Supervisor's decision back to the Registrar of Voters, whether it's the District or the Clerk of the Board. However, in the case of RRRPD, the Registrar of Voters has maintained up-to- date information on the board members and their respective term expiration dates, and this information is made available online. The current Board member names, positions, and term expiration dates are presented in Figure 1-2. 11 Elec.Code,§10515(a). SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 17 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 172 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Figure 1-2: RRRPD Governing Body Rancho R 1 da Recreation and ' District District ContactInformation Contact: Kevin Davis,Interim Assistant Office Manager Address: 18000 Chelmsford Drive,Cupertino,CA 95014 Telephone: 408-252-8429 Email: contactOranchoreccenter_com Website: h www.ranchoreccenter.coin home Board of Directors Began Term Manner of Length of Member Name Position Serving Expires Selection Term Jordan Eldridge Board Member 2010 2014 Appointed 4 years Julie Jervis Board Secretary 2005 2016 Appointed 4 years Miriam Salo Vice President 1996 2016 Appointed 4 years Sandra Yeaton Board President 1 1996 1 2016 1 Appointed 4 years Steve Wesolowski Board Member 1994 2014 A ointed 4 years Meetings Date: Tuesdays at 7:15 prn 1-11 or 2nd Tuesday of every month Location: Rancho Rinconada Recreation Center at 18000 Chelmsford Drive,Cupertino Agenda Posted online and on the bulletin board at the entrance of the recreation center Distribution: Minutes Posted online and on the bulletin board at the entrance of the recreation center Distribution: The Board of Directors meets either on the first or second Tuesday of each month. The meetings are held at the District's recreation center at 18000 Chelmsford Drive in Cupertino. Each Director receives a $100 stipend for the first meeting in a month, and receives $50 for each additional meeting thereafter. Government Code §53235 requires that if a district provides compensation or reimbursement of expenses to its board members, the board members must receive two hours of training in ethics at least once every two years and the district must establish a written policy on reimbursements. The District's Board has completed the training. The District does not have a written policy on expense reimbursements. RRRPD began publishing the Board of Directors' meeting agendas and minutes to the District's website in October 2012. The agenda is posted 72 hours prior to every Board meeting at the entrance of the recreation center, and also on the District's website. The District conducts constituent outreach in addition to legally required agenda posting via its website. The District posts a variety of information to its website, including its recreation services (e.g., aquatics, facility rentals); a calendar depicting the dates and times for delivery of recreation services by the District; the e-mail address for the District; and the agendas and minutes for the Board of Directors meetings. The District's annual financial reports and annual budgets are not available on its website. The Board of Directors have developed and adopted bylaws that provide a framework and direction for district governance by the Board. These bylaws cover the creation of board,meeting agendas, minutes, public inspection of district records, and appointments to the Board. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 18 LAFCO OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 173 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Government Code §87203 requires persons that hold office to disclose their investments, their interests in real property and their income, and file Form 700 with the Fair Political Practices Commission each year. RRRPD hoard members filed the required Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest forms in 2012. MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING The Board of Directors govern the District, while a part-time office manager oversees the day-to-day operations. The office manager supervises the assistant office manager, aquatics director, human resources director and a general office worker, who, in turn, supervise seasonal or temporary staff. All district employees are part-time" or seasonal, work less than 2,080 hours per year,and do not receive any benefits. As shown in Figure 1-3, in 2011, the District had 41 employees who worked hours equivalent to 7.69 full-time positions (based upon 2,080 hours per full-time employee). A majority of these employees were seasonal pool lifeguards. The District's five administrative employees equate to 1.75 full-time equivalent staff. Figure 1-3: Average Number of Hours and Full-Time Equivalent Employees for 2011 Lwowi 1 � . i i &- E�Eiuivalent Administration 5 731 1.75 Custodian 1 1,149 0.55 Pool Lifeguard 28 375 5.05 Recreation Instructors 7 100 0.34 TOTAL 1 41 390 1 7.69 Source:Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District The District retains private firms or individuals for various services related to the maintenance of the recreation center,including a landscape maintenance contractor, and a janitorial contractor for cleaning of the recreation center. Additionally, the District has retained a certified public accountant to prepare the annual financial transaction reports, which are required by the State Controller under Government Code Section §53891. This service is provided without a contract between the accountant and the District. The District's legal counsel is the County Counsel's Office. The District has not adopted a mission statement, goals, objectives, long-range plans or performance measures. However, the District has adopted bylaws, which includes a statement of the District's purpose, which is to provide leisure activities by the development and delivery of supervised recreation programs, construction and maintenance of recreation and park facilities, and cooperation with other agencies in the area that provide like services or can assist in providing said services. 12 while the district manager and assistant manager positions are technically categorized as part-time according to the position descriptions, these two employees regularly work over 40 hours a week, constituting a full-time position, particularly in the summer. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 19 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 174 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Other documents that the District uses to guide efforts and services include the annually adopted budget. The District has adopted a budget for FY 12-13. The District's budget is not available on its website. Government Code §53901 states that within 60 days after the beginning of the fiscal year each local agency must submit its budget to the county auditor. These budgets are to be filed and made available on request by the public at the county auditor's office. The County has reported that in recent years,it has not been the practice for special districts to file their budgets with the County. Special districts must submit a report to the State Controller of all financial transactions of the district during the preceding fiscal year within 90 days after the close of each fiscal year,in the form required by the State Controller,pursuant to {Government Code §53891. If filed in electronic format, the report must he submitted within 110 days after the close of the fiscal year.The District has complied with this requirement. All special districts are required to submit annual audits to the County within 12 months of the completion of the fiscal year, unless the Board of Supervisors has approved a biennial or five-year schedule.13 The District's annual audit is prepared by the same certified public accountant that prepares the District's annual financial transaction reports. The District has filed their annual audits with the County. These audits are prepared annually for the District. As of the drafting of this report, the FY 11-12 audit was in the final drafting stages and was anticipated to be completed within a month. POPULATION AND PROJECTED GROWTH ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Land Uses Land Uses within the District are primarily residential with soII]e public uses [the District's recreation center and two parks]. Current Population As of 2010, the District had approximately 3,983 residents, based on GIS analysis of 2010 Census data. Disadvantaged Unincotlporated Commuiiitics LAFCO is required to evaluate disadvantaged unincorporated communities as part of this service review, including the location and characteristics of any such communities. A disadvantaged unincorporated community is defined as any area with 12 or more 13 Government Code§26909. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 20 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 175 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT registered voters, or as determined by commission policy, where the median household income is less than 80 percent of the statewide annual median." The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a mapping tool to assist in determining which communities meet the disadvantaged communities median household income definition. DWR is not hound by the same law as LAFCD to define communities with a minimum threshold of 12 or more registered voters. However, the DWR data can be used for the purposes of this report as an indicator of any larger communities that may meet the income definition of disadvantaged. Based on mapping information from DWR,there are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or adjacent to RRRPD.is --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Projected Growth Minimal population growth is anticipated within the District's bounds, as the area is entirely built out. While population projections specific to the District are not available, future population may be imputed from the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG) projections for the City of Cupertino. ABAG projects that the City will experience four percent growth over the 25-year period from 2010 to 2035, which is equivalent to 0.2 percent average annual growth.16 Should the territory within RRRPD experience growth similar to that of the entire City, then the District is anticipated to have a population of 4,142 in 2035. FINANCING --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Adequacy The District reported that the current level of financing is adequate to provide services. District revenues have exceeded expenditures for four of the past five fiscal years [2007- 2011],as shown in Figure 1-4. In FY 11,the District experienced a decrease in income from service charges, due to a decline in usage of the facility. Also in FY 11, the District made investments in capital assets in excess of previous years. Consequently, district expenditures exceeded annual revenue, and the District used reserves to cover the excess expenditures in that year. RRRP❑ has undertaken efforts to reduce costs, including low flaw shower heads, reduced phone bills, and a reduction in security; however, as the District's primary expenditure is salaries for staffing essential to the services offered, the District reportedly has more of a focus on increasing revenues by offering more services. 14 Government Code§S6033.6. 15 DWR maps and GIS files are derived from the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey(ACS)and are compiled for the five-year period 2006-2010. 16 ABAG,Projections 2009,2009. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 21 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 176 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Figure 1-4: RRRPD Revenues and Expenditures,FYs 07-11 $600,000 $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $- FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 ■Revenues Expenditures Source:FY 2007—FY 2011 Independent Financial Audits --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Revenue Sources In FY 11, the District received $465,427 in revenue as depicted in Figure 1-5. The primary sources of revenue for the District are property taxes (67 percent) and fees for service (33 percent). Revenue from fees for services decreased in FY 11 by$69,952, due to reductions in use of the center. The District reported that usage of the public swim facilities greatly depends on weather, and mild summers lead to less usage. The beginning of Summer 2011 was particularly cool and wet, leading to less pool patrons. Additionally, RRRPD's revenues are greatly constrained by the facility and staffing capacity. Figure 1-5: RRRPD Revenue Sources, ITY 11 E ' venue ' i of Total Revenue Property Tax $310,177 66.6% Interest and Investment Income $1,372 0.3% Fees for Service $153,878 33.1% Total $465,427 100.0°Io Source:FY 2011 Independent Financial Audit SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 22 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 177 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Rates Figure 1-6 presents a list of the rates and user fees charged by the District for recreation activities. The District most recently increased its rates in 2006. The District charges a slightly higher rate for non-residents for a majority of activities. Certain charges are significantly discounted for seniors over 55 years of age, as shown below, for example lap swim passes. Charges are the same regardless of residency for certain activities, including the After School Program,Kids Night Out, and pre-competitive swim training. Figure 1-6: RRRPD Rates for Residents and Non-Residents Category Public Swim Single En 4-55 s $2.50 $3.00 Single En 55+ s $1.50 $2.00 Group Discount $2.50 $2.50 10 punch card $23.00 $2B.00 20 punch card $45.00 $55.00 Single Summer Pass 4-55 s $60.00 $70.00 Single Summer Pass 55+ s $30.00 $35.00 Family Summer Pass $120.00 $150.00 Add 1 to Summer Pass $25.00 $25.00 Lap Swim Single En 4-55 s $1.50 $2.00 Single Entry[55+yrs] $1.00 $1.25 3 month pass 4-55 s $45.00 $50.00 3 month pass 55+ s $20.00 $25.00 Swim Lessons Single Lesson $20.00 $20.00 8 Lessons-Session $130.00 $150.00 Group Lesson $100.00 $100.00 Swim Team Swim Team Month $80.00 $80.00 Pre-Competitive Swim Training 2 wks $150.00 $150.00 Kids Activities: Kids Night Out $5.00 $5.00 After School Pro am month $350.00 $350.00 After School Program 10 asses $200.00 $200.00 Additionally, the District charges rental fees for rental of the BBQ area, recreation hall and swimming pool. These rates generally depend on day of the week for the rental. The BBQ area may be rented for a three-hour period for $60 or for six hours for $100. The recreation hall may be rented on weekdays for$50 an hour regardless of residency and for $75 residents/$100 non-residents per hour on the weekends. Pool rental is $140 per hour with the required minimum of two lifeguards, and $20 additional per hour for each additional lifeguard. Figure 1-7 presents the rates charged by the District for certain swimming activities in comparison to the Cities of Cupertino and Campbell-two neighboring providers of similar swimming services. The District's rates are the lowest among the three service providers. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 23 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 178 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT It is recommended that the District conduct a rate study to ensure that rates are sufficient to cover operation and capital needs and appropriate compared to those rates charged by other service providers. Additionally, the District should consider charging higher rates for non-residents, given that current rates are substantially lower than other providers, and property tax revenues from residents are in essence subsidizing services to non-residents. Figure 1-7: NeNhboring Provider Rate Com arison Type of Swim Recre�64W Provided Rancho Rinconada Cupertino Campbell Private Swim Lesson-Resident $130 $210 N/A Adult Lap Swim-Drop In- Resident $1.50 $4 $7 Adult Lap Swim-20-day pass- Resident 1 $30 1 $60 1 $80 Sources: City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation staff and City of Campbell Spring 2013 Activity Guide ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Expenditures In FY 11, the District expended a total of$480,071 as depicted in Figure 1-8.A majority (63 percent) of expenditures are attributable to wages and related payments to staff. Expenditures increased in FY 11 by $36,453 compared to FY 10, due to several capital improvements, including replacement of pool covers, new dividers in the bathrooms, and painting of the bathrooms and recreation activity room. Figgre 1-8: RRRPD Expenditures, FY 11 Expense Category"=� Expenditure %of Total Expenditures Payroll and Related $302,788 63.1% Operating Expenses $177,283 36.9% Total $480,071 100.0% Source:FY 11 Independent Financial Audit Caj2ital Outlays The District has not developed or adopted a written capital improvement program. Capital improvements are planned for in the District's annual budget. The District attributes capital repairs in its financial statements to operating expenses. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reserves The District does not have a formal policy regarding the level of reserves to be maintained at any given time; however, given the District aims to maintain its balance as high as possible. The District does not maintain a separate reserve fund, and instead groups roll-over cash balances from year to year in its single general fund. The balance of which may be used for operating needs,contingencies and capital needs. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 24 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 179 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Given that the District does not separate out reserves from its general operating revenue, it is difficult to identify what the District's actual level of savings is. At the end of FY 11, the District maintained a general fund balance of$519,827 or 108 percent of FY 11 expenditures. The District's roll-over fund balance has doubled in the past five years, from $255,957 in FY 07 to $519,827 in FY 11. However,a majority of this fund balance is to be used for operations over the next fiscal year. It is recommended that the District clearly define and designate its reserves for contingencies and capital needs separate from its operating cash balance. ................................................................................................................. Deb t The District does not have any long-term debt. INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES The District owns and operates the recreation center at 18000 Chelmsford Drive in Cupertino, near the corner of Bollinger Road and Lawrence Expressway. This property and facility are the District's sole assets. The recreation center property is 1.992 acres. The center has an outdoor five-lane, 25- yard swimming pool of 2,910 square feet and 120,000 gallons. The pool has a maximum capacity of 140 persons. The recreation center provides approximately 4,933 square feet of indoor space,and includes a bathhouse with restrooms and showers, a snack bar,a kitchen, and a recreational activity roornf hall and office. Administration office hours for the District in the summer are typically 9 am to 8 pm Monday through Friday and 12 pm to 6 pm Saturday and Sunday. During other seasons,the office is open from 9 am to 2 pm and 3 pm to 8 pm Monday through Friday. Similarly, center hours differ based on season. During the summer,the center is typically open 7 am to 8 pm Monday to Thursday, 12 pm to 9:30 pm on Fridays, and 12 pm to 6 pm on the weekends. During the off season, the center is open 7 am to 9 am and 3 pin to 7 pm Monday to Thursday and 6 pm to 9:30 pm on Fridays. In the past five fiscal years, the District has made a number of improvements, including re-roofing the recreation center, painting the fence around the recreation center, replacing two fence gates, upgrading the swimming pool equipment, replacing computers, pool controls,and the television at the recreation center, repainting the exterior of the building, and repairing damages caused by termite infestation. Additionally, new furniture and equipment were purchased within the past five fiscal years, including a freezer, swimming pool pumps, LED swimming pool lights, a probe and monitor saddle for the swimming pool, an air conditioner for the recreation center, an employee time card clock, a large lap clock, pool covers, a storage shed,new drapes for the recreation activity room,and playground equipment. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 25 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 180 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT The District has not made any capital improvements since May 2011. However, the District is in the process of updating its signage for the recreation center. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Infrastructure-Nee ds The recreation center, which was originally built in 1955 and completely renovated between 1989 and 1991, appears to be reasonably maintained. The District reported that there were no critical deferred maintenance issues; however, it is anticipated that sometime over the next five years the pool deck will need to be replaced or covered due to pitting. Other plans for improvements are generally small, such as new towel hooks, etc. The District generally makes these improvements as needed and as financing allows. -.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.---.-.---.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.---.-.-.---.-.---.-.-.---.-.---.- S har e d Facilities The District makes its facility available to the Registrar of Voters for biennial elections. DEMAND FOR SERVICES The District reported that there was a noticeable decline in use of the District's services in FY 11, which is attributable to weather and district capacity constraints. The District reported that it is unable to keep up with demand with regard to swimming lessons, primarily, due to the small size of the pool and limited staffing. Classes are always filled to maximum capacity and potential customers are turned away. The District is reportedly working to address staffing constraints and expanding classes offered. The District uses various means to track use of the facility and recreation programs. Attendance during public swim on any given day may he tracked via receipt of payments for each swim. The District estimated that average daily public swim attendance was between 80 and 90 persons in July and August 2012. The District reported that approximately 45 percent to 55 percent of public swim attendance consists of non-district residents. Attendance at swim lessons is roughly estimated base on the number of instructors and the average class size for each lesson during the summer of 2012." The District estimated that approximately 128 customers attend swim lessons on any given day. Lap swim attendance is tracked via a sign-in sheet that is administered by the lifeguards. Unfortunately, the District's computer tracking system for this information was deleted sometime in late 2012. Based on a memory of this information, there are approximately 25 lap swimmers per day during the summer, and during the off season in the spring there are approximately 12 to 20 swimmers each day. 17 There are generally eight swim instructors in the morning and 12 instructors in the afternoon.Each instructor offers one-on-one training,with instructors training four sessions each in the morning and eight sessions each in the afternoon. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 26 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 181 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Youth swim team attendance is tracked by the swim coaches on written logs. Like the other pool related activities, attendance greatly depends on the season. Based on the logs in 2012, there are between 30 and 60 children that take part in swim team activities on a daily basis—with higher attendance in the summer and lower attendance in the off season. The District tracks attendance at Bids Night Out in a written log; however, these records were lost. While attendance can range from 15 to 30 students in any week, the District estimated that on average there are 21 children that attend Kids Night Out every week Attendance fluctuates based on the kids'school year and vacation schedule. As of February 2013, the After School Program serves between five and eight children on a daily basis. Participation in the After School Program is estimated based on the number of monthly subscribers and adjusted to account for those children who use punch passes. Given the capacity limitations of the facility, and the need for the District to more efficiently make use of the space available,the District should conduct thorough tracking of use of the pool, during public swim,lap swimming,lessons,and swim team. GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OPTIONS Within Cupertino, the City and the District both provide recreation services. The swimming pool provided by the District is located four miles from the two swimming pools provided by the City at Blackberry Farm Park and one mile from the Cupertino High School pool. The District's facility is located in close proximity to other Cupertino park facilities as well, such as Creekside Park, a 13-acre city park located 1.4 miles from the District's facility. The duplication in services delivered within the boundaries of Cupertino creates inherent inefficiencies and fragmented service delivery and impedes long-term planning for the delivery of recreation services to the residents of Cupertino. Additionally, RRRPD's primary revenue source is a portion of the one percent property tax, meaning that residents of the area are paying for recreation services to two separate public entities and that the City receives less property tax revenue from the areas within RRRPD. The City generally uses property tax revenue to fund general services, from which RRRPD residents reap the same benefits as other city residents; however, as a result of RRRPD receiving a portion of the total one percent property tax levied in the area, residents of the District are paying a smaller portion of the total one percent property tax into the City's general services than other city residents. Alternatives exist for the District and the City in operation and governance for a more efficient approach to serve the Cupertino community. There are four governance structure options for RRRPD. The first alternative is maintaining RRRPD as an independent special district,with steps to improve the services provided by the District,its transparency and accountability. Under SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 27 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 182 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT this alternative, the District would continue to operate as an independent special district, but would make improvements,including the following: Long-term business planning for the delivery of services by the District, including conducting a recreation needs assessment, developing a business plan, and developing a mission statement, goals, objectives, and performance measures; 4- Long-term financial planning for services by developing a five-year capital improvement program and jointly reviewing rates to ensure that they are set at sufficient levels to cover all operational and capital needs; and 4- Enhancing accountability and transparency by adopting a policy on expense reimbursements as part of the District's policies and administrative regulations, and developing and implementing a plan to enhance outreach to district residents in an effort to increase interest in board activities. Adopting this alternative would have the following potential advantages and disadvantages,should conditions remain unchanged. Figure i-9:Advantages and Disadvantages of Continuing as a Special District DisadvantagesAdvantages The delivery of services by the District The District could potentially revert to would continue uninterrupted. old practices over time. The long-term business planning of the Property tax revenues levied from District would be enhanced by within the District would continue to be conducting a recreation needs dispersed to two agencies providing assessment recreation services (RRRPD and the city). The variety of recreation services The property tax revenues collected by provided by the District could be RRRPD would continue to be directed enhanced,as a result of the recreation away from the City's general fund used needs assessment. for general city services. District residents would continue to benefit from these city services but contribute less for these services than other city residents. The long-term financial planning of the District could be enhanced by a rate comparison study and development of a five-year capital improvement prognam. The accountability and transparency of the District could be enhanced by adopting a policy on expense reimbursements and by developing and implementing efforts to enhance interest in district activities. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 28 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 183 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Following the release of this document, RRRPD and the City of Cupertino met to discuss options for partnering and sharing of facilities and resources to enhance services to city and district residents. The District proposed this option as a means of reducing the identified fragmentation in recreation services in the area and perhaps pooling available resources between the agencies. The potential partnership is in the early phase of informal discussion, and the exact structure of the proposed partnership has not yet been established. It should be noted that the proposed partnership, while a means to enhance efficiency and cooperation between the two agencies,would not eliminate the duplication of services offered by the two public agencies. Another governance structure option for RRRPD may be merger with the City of Cupertino. A merger is defined as the termination of the existence of a district when the responsibility for the functions, services, assets, and liabilities of that district are assumed by a city." Government Code §57104 requires that all territory of a district must be within the City for which merger is proposed. In the case of RRRPD, there are two parcels with parkland in the east, which are within the City of San Jose. In order for merger of RRRPD with the City of Cupertino to be a possibility,these parcels would need to be detached from the District. Upon merger with the City, the District would cease to exist as a special district and the City would assume all assets,functions and governance along with all debts and liabilities. In order for the City to receive the property tax currently dedicated to the District,negotiations with the County would need to be conducted. Adopting this alternative would have the following potential advantages and disadvantages,should conditions remain unchanged. Figgre 1-10:Advantages and Disadvantages of Mer er with City of Cupertino Advantages Disadvantages The fragmentation in service delivery of Unless negotiated,the District's recreation services in Cupertino would property tax revenue may be disbursed be eliminated by a single entity among other taxing agencies that providing services. receive a portion of the one percent property tax,and the City may have to take on operations and liability of the facility without the additional revenue source. Taking on operations of the pool without supporting revenues may require the City to reduce its costs and service levels to compensate. Long-term planning for the delivery of The delivery of services to area recreation services to the residents of residents could potentially be Cupertino would be enhanced. interrupted during the transition period. The management of recreation service Any additional property tax revenue delivery to the residents of the District received as a result of the merger would is Government Code§56056. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 29 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 184 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT would be enhanced with the substantive go into the City's general fund and management and supervisory structure possibly be divided among the various of the City's Parks and Recreation municipal services offered. Department. Enhanced efficiencies by eliminating an additional level of government. Enhanced ease of use for constituents, with a single provider of services. Another governance option may be establishing the District as a subsidiary district of the City of Cupertino. As a subsidiary district RRRPD would continue to exist as a legal entity, but the City Council is designated as the ex officio board of directors of the District. At least 70 percent of the territory within the District or 70 percent of registered voters of the District must be within the City, in order to meet legal requirements of establishing a subsidiary district." In the case of RRRPD, the territory of the District lies almost entirely within the City of Cupertino, meeting the requirements to be a subsidiary district. The establishment of RRRPD as a subsidiary district would not change the legal status of the District as a special district; however, it would exchange the existing elected district Board of Directors for the City Council as the ex-officio board of directors. Similar to merger, the City would assume all assets, functions and governance along with all debts and liabilities of the subsidiary district. The establishment of the District as a subsidiary district of the City would not change the designation of the share of the ad valorem property tax received by the District. This option may be initiated by the Commission,"the legislative body of the district wishing to establish itself as a subsidiary district,21 the legislative body of a city wishing to establish a subsidiary district," or by petition." Adopting this alternative would have the following potential advantages and disadvantages,should conditions remain unchanged. 19 Government Code§57105. 20 Government Code§56375(a)(2)(D). 21 Government Code§56658(a). 22 Government Code§56658(a). 23 Government Code§56866 SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 0 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 185 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT Figure 1-11:Advanta es and Disadvantages of Establishing a Subsidiary District DisadvantagesAdvantages �w The fragmentation in service delivery of The delivery of services to area recreation services in Cupertino would residents could potentially be be eliminated by a single entity interrupted during the transition providing services. period. Long-term planning for the delivery of The property tax revenues collected by recreation services to the residents of RRRPD would continue to be directed Cupertino would be enhanced. away from the City's general fund used for general city services. District residents would continue to benefit from these city services but contribute less for these services than other city residents. The management of recreation service delivery to the residents of the District would be enhanced with the substantive management and supervisory structure of the City's Parks and Recreation Department. Enhanced efficiencies by eliminating an additional level of government. Enhanced ease of use for constituents, with a single provider of services. The potential advantages to forming RRRPD as a subsidiary of the City of Cupertino would be largely similar to merger of the two agencies as previously reported. The most notable difference to the disadvantages would be that the property tax revenue presently collected by RRRPD would be guaranteed to continue to be dedicated to recreation services in the community. The City would receive the property taxes and would be required to account for the activities associated with the District's functions separately from other city services. In the case of a merger between the two agencies, any additional property tax revenue received would go into the City's general fund and possibly be divided among the various municipal services offered. This alternative should be the subject of additional study to determine the level of benefit in terms of services and anticipated costs and savings. The special study should also describe in more detail the process of a merger or becoming a subsidiary district. Prior to moving forward with this option, the City of Cupertino would need to be approached regarding interest in taking on the associated responsibilities. Dissolution of the District and designating the City of Cupertino as the successor is essentially the same as merger with the City, which was discussed previously. No other suitable or potential successor agencies have been identified to continue services for the District should it be dissolved. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 31 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 186 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT SERVICE REVIEW DETERMINATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Growth and Population Projections ❖ Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District's [RRRPD] population is approximately 3,983 based on GIS analysis of 2010 Census data. •;• Minimal population growth is anticipated within the District's bounds,as the area is entirely built out. Should RRRPD experience growth similar to that anticipated for the City of Cupertino by the Association of Bay Area Governments,then the District is projected to have a population of 4,142 in 2035. Location and Characteristics of any Disadvantaged Unincorporated Communities Within or Contiguous to the Sphere of Influence ❖ There are no disadvantaged unincorporated communities within or adjacent to the District. Present and Planned Capacity of Public Facilities and Adequacy of Public Services, Including Infrastructure Needs and Deficiencies The District has limited facility and staffing capacity to address demand. The pool is small, which hinders the daily program offerings during the summer. Also, programming is greatly reliant on staff availability. Swim lessons are reportedly always filled to maximum capacity and the District must turn potential customers away. The District is working to expand swim lessons offered to meet constituent needs by making more efficient use of space, scheduling enhancements, and expanding staffing levels. �:• Given the capacity limitations of the facility, and the need for the District to more efficiently make use of the space available, the District should conduct thorough tracking of use of the pool, during public swim, lap swimming, lessons, and swim team. ❖ The recreation center appears to be reasonably maintained. The District reports that there are no significant infrastructure needs related to services provided. �:• The District provides a limited array of recreation services, primarily aquatic services. It is recommended that the District conduct a recreation needs assessment in conjunction with an assessment of the current facility use to determine the SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 32 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 187 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT interest of its residents in expanding the array of recreation services provided and availability of space for these services. The District does not conduct long-term planning for the delivery of services. The District has not adopted goals, objectives, or performance measures, and has not prepared a business plan to guide the efforts of the District. It is recommended that the District develop and adopt goals, objectives, and performance measures and prepare a business plan to provide direction for delivery of services by the District over the next three to five years. Financial Ab i-I i-ty of Agency to Provide Services ❖ The District appears to have sufficient financial resources to provide an adequate level of service. The District has been able to generate sufficient revenues to exceed expenditures in four of the past five fiscal years and maintains no long-term debt. However, the District is working to add additional programs to expand revenue sources and ensure sufficient funds in future years. The rates charged by the District for aquatic services appear to be lower than those charged by the neighboring Cities of Campbell and Cupertino for similar services. These low rates enhances the District's reliance on property tax revenue to provide services. It may be appropriate for the District to conduct a survey of fees charged by other similar service providers, and simultaneously develop a capital improvement plan to ensure that charges for services are sufficient to cover all potential capital needs. Additionally, the District should consider charging higher rates for non-residents, given that current rates are substantially lower than other providers, and property tax revenues from residents are in essence subsidizing services to non-residents. •;• RRRPD has not compiled or adopted a capital improvement plan. It is recommended that all agencies have a multi-year capital improvement program, which may be used to identify timing and funding for the projects. 4. It is recommended that the District clearly define and designate its reserves for contingencies and capital needs separate from its operating cash balance. Status and Opportunities for Shared Facilities The District makes its facility available to the Registrar of Voters for biennial elections. No other opportunities for facility sharing with other public agencies were identified. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW �3 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 188 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accountability for Community Services, Including Governmental Structure and operational Efficiencies ❖ The District generally demonstrated accountability and transparency with regard to governance by adopting a mission statement as part of its bylaws, adopting an annual budget prior to the start of the fiscal year, publishing agendas for public meetings as legally required, filing of Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest and completion of ethics training by all board members, and by maintaining a website where information is made available to the public. ❖ Several improvements could be made to the District's operations in order to enhance accountability and transparency. The District should file a copy of its annual budget with the County Auditor as required by Government Code §53901. The Board of Directors should adopt a policy on expense reimbursements as part of the their policies and administrative regulations. In order to enhance constituent interest and participation, the District could make use of advertisements in public newspapers and mail information to residents regarding the Board of Directors and district services. ❖ Possible governance structure alternatives with regard to RRRPD include 1] continued operations as an independent special district with efforts to improve upon long-term business and financial planning and accountability, 2] merger with the City of Cupertino, 3) establishment of the District as a subsidiary district of the City, or 4] dissolution of the District and identify successor agency other than the City of Cupertino. ❖ It is recommended that further analysis be conducted to identify and quantify the benefits of RRRPD becoming a subsidiary district of the City of Cupertino. Prior to moving forward with this option, discussions need to be held with the City of Cupertino to assess interest on the part of the City. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 34 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 189 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE UPDATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Existing Sphere ❑f Influence Boundary RRRPD presently has a zero sphere of influence. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended Sphere of Influence Boundary Given the District's duplication in services with the City of Cupertino, it is recommended that RRRPD continue to maintain a zero sphere of influence, indicating that the District should eventually not exist as an independent special district. In this case, it is recommended that the City of Cupertino and the District consider formation of RRRPD as a subsidiary district of the City. There are several potential advantages to these options as identified in the Governance Structure section of this chapter, but most importantly it minimizes duplication of services by two separate agencies allowing for coordinated recreation service offerings. Proposed Sphere of Influence Determinations The nature. location. extent. functions. and classes of services provided s RRRPD provides all services via its single recreation facility. The maintenance and operation of this building and property, including delivery of recreation services at that facility, are the sole services provided by the District. The District offers the following recreation programs directly through district staff: swimming pool activities, Kids Night Out, after-school activities, facility and barbeque rentals, a snack bar, and a location for community-related activities. Present acid planned land uses in the area, includinq agricultural and open-space lands Land uses within the District are primarily residential with some public uses (the District's recreation center and two parks). There are no agricultural or open space lands within the District's bounds. Present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area There is significant demand for the District's services, and consequently,the District is generally at maximum capacity during the summer months for pool-related activities. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 190 of 198 RANCHO RINCONADA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT ❖ Demand for the District's services is anticipated to continue as residents will likely have the sustained desire to learn how to swim and participate in swimming-related fitness activities. Present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide ❖ The District has limited facility and staffing capacity to address demand. The pool is small, which hinders the daily program offerings during the summer. Also, programming is greatly reliant on staff availability. Swim lessons are reportedly always filled to maximum capacity and the District must turn potential customers away. The District is working to expand its offerings to meet constituent needs. ❖ The recreation center appears to be reasonably maintained. The District reports that there are no significant infrastructure needs related to services provided. ❖ The District provides a limited array of recreation services, primarily aquatic services. It is recommended that the District conduct a recreation needs assessment in conjunction with an assessment of the current facility use to determine the interest of its residents in expanding the array of recreation services provided and availability of space for these services. ❖ The District does not conduct long-term planning for the delivery of services. It is recommended that the District develop and adopt goals, objectives, and performance measures and prepare a business plan to provide direction for delivery of services by the District over the next three to five years. Existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency ❖ The District entirely consists of territory within the City of Cupertino, with the exception of two park parcels that are within the City of San Jose. SPECIAL DISTRICTS SERVICE REVIEW 36 LAFC❑ OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY Page 191 of 198 Survey Questions:Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Call to Action:Let us know what you want for the future of Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District Survey Introduction:Last year,the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO) commissioned a report—at the request of a few Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District(District) residents—to consider the District being dissolved and absorbed by the City of Cupertino(City). If the City were to absorb the District,this action would not impact property taxes on Cupertino homes within the District.More information can be found at cupertino.orglranchorinconada. 1. Are you a Cupertino Resident? • Yes • No 2. Is your household located within the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District(District) limits? • Yes • No 3. Do you currently use the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District facilities and services? • Yes • No 4. If you use the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District,when do you typically use it? (select all that apply) ■ Year-Round • Winter Spring + Summer • Fall 5. If you use the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District,what types of activities do you participate in? (select all that apply) ■ Swim Lessons • Pre-competitive Swim Training ■ Youth Swim Team ■ Public Swim • Summer Camps • Facility Rentals ■ Other: 6. If do not use the Rancho Rinconada Recreation and Park District what types of activities would you be interested in participating in?(select all that apply) ■ Swim Lessons ■ Pre-competitive Swim Training • Youth Swim Team Page 192 of 198 • Public Swim ■ Summer Camps ■ Event Rentals • Other: 7. The Cupertino City Council is asking the Parks&Recreation Commission to consider the two options below as described in the special study. Option 1:Maintain RRRPD's Current Governance(Status Quo)-RRRPD remains intact as an independent recreation and park district,and continues to be governed by an independent Board of Directors. • Do you have any concerns about Option 1? Option 2:Merger of RRRPD with the City of Cupertino-RRRPD would be dissolved and its functions,services,assets, and liabilities transferred.to the City of Cupertino.The City would integrate RRRPD programs and facilities into current City operations and recreation planning. This option assumes that RRRPD's current property tax allocation would be transferred to the City,and that all RRRPD services would be maintained at current levels(or better). • Do you have any concerns about Option 2? 8. Based upon your knowledge of District and the governance options presented in the special study,would you prefer to see Option 1 or Option 2? a. Option 1 b. Option 2 9. Please share any additional comments,your feedback is important to us. 10. Name 11. Address 12. Please provide your email if you would like to receive eNotification updates regarding this issue. Page 193 of 198 CITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 • FAX: (408) 777-1305 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG STAFF REPORT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 5, 2020 Subject Satellite Community Garden Project. Recommended Actions Review the list of potential Satellite Community Garden locations, formed by individual Parks & Recreation Commissioners, for site visits and evaluations during the upcoming month. Discussion The City Council approved the Community Garden at McClellan Ranch at their February 18,2020 meeting. $300,000 of the original funds were set aside last year for use in Satellite Gardens in other locations throughout the community. At the February 2020 Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, the Commissioners were asked to identify a few potential locations in Cupertino for further evaluation by each of the Commissioners. That list of potential locations is attached and has been inputted into the form that will be used to evaluate each proposed site. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact is associated with the receipt of this report, although there may be impacts when a Satellite Community Garden is constructed. Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of this report, although there will be fiscal impacts to the City when a Satellite Community Garden is constructed. Prepared by: Randy Schwartz, Interim Parks&Recreation Director Reviewed bv: Approved for Submission by: Attachments: A-List of potential locations for Satellite Community Gardens Page 194 of 198 Satellite Community Garden Evaluation Sheet Criteria LLocations Parcel Size Water Location Security Drainage Lighting Costs Parking Site Conditions Totals Portal Park 0 Wilson Park 0 Creekside Park 0 Memorial Park 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other information: Criteria Rating S stem Preference Enough Ability to run Separate from Safe location Site that Lighting to Low cost to Users able to Site is level, no space for water to site McClellan;will not for users drains quickly maximize acquire site carry items to tree roots, & plots& for irrigation disrupt neighbors or arriving and hours of and develop plots; visitors off shade from sun storage shed current users leaving park garden use garden street 4 Site can hold Site has New section of City- Users feel No drainage Site has Existing City Vehicles off Site meets all at least 20 water hook- no disturbance to safe in all problems are existing property street& near three conditions plots &shed ups neighbors or current hours of anticipated lighting plots listed above users garden use 3 15 to 20 plots Site has Same section of Users only Drainage only Site has Low cost to All vehicles off Site meets two of & shed water hook- City-no feel safe in an issue in some existing acquire site street but some the three up nearby disturbance to daylight hours the winter lights walking to plots conditions listed neighbors or users required above 2 Less than 15 Getting water Different part of City Users only Drainage will Adding lights Significant Some vehicles Site meets one of plots or no to site will be -disturbs neighbors feel safe in be slow year is possible cast to off street but the three shed expensive &current users daytime with round acquire site some distance conditions listed others from plots above 1 Maximum of Getting water Same neighborhood Users do not Drainage will Adding lights Cost will be No vehicles can Site meets none 10 plots&no to site is not and disturbs feel safe be a constant is not prohibitive park off street of the three shed practical neighbors&current visiting site problem practical conditions listed users above Page 195 of 198 CITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 • FAX: (408) 777-1305 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 5, 2020 Subject Dog Off-Leash Area Update. Recommended Actions Receive the update from staff regarding the status of the Dog Off-Leash Area at Jollyman Park. No other action is recommended at this time. Discussion The trial period for a section of Jollyman Park to be used as an off-leash area for dogs is scheduled to continue until July 31st. At the March 51h Parks & Recreation Commission meeting, staff will give the Commissioners an update regarding any incidences that may have occurred and any public feedback the Department has received. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact is associated with the receipt of this report. Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of this report. Prepared by: Randy Schwartz, Interim Parks&Recreation Director Reviewed bv: Approved for Submission by: Attachments: None Page 196 of 198 CITY OF PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER 10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120 • FAX: (408) 777-1305 CUPERTINO CUPERTINO.ORG PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 5, 2020 Subject Parks and Recreation Master Plan update and appointments to assist with the development of the Specific Plan. Recommended Actions Receive the update from staff regarding the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and appoint one or two Commissioners to assist staff with the development of the Specific Plan. Discussion After four years of research, public meetings and surveys, the Parks&Recreation Master Plan was approved by the City Council on February 18, 2020. The Plan outlines overall goals for the City's parks and recreational facilities, as well as potential projects for each park and indoor facility. Staff from the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Departments are now tasked with the development of a Specific Plan that will categorize the Master Plan projects into "Immediate" (can be completed or constructed within the next two years), "Short-term" (three to seven years), and "Long-term" (eight or more years). Staff is requesting the assistance of one or two Parks&Recreation Commissioners in this process. The appointed Commissioner(s) would then report the progress of the Specific Plan Committee to the full Commission at subsequent meetings. Sustainability Impact No sustainability impact is associated with the receipt of this report. The sustainability impact for each project in this report will be assessed at the time when it may be considered for construction. Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact associated with the receipt of this report, although there will be fiscal impacts to the City when each project in this report is approved for construction. Page 197 of 198 Prel2ared by: Randy Schwartz, Interim Parks&Recreation Director Reviewed bv: Approved for Submission by: Attachments: None Page 198 of 198