7 Dwarf Proposals[]
Notes for proposed school district policy 707 changes.
Option 1 is the original proposal.[]
Under the current policies, groups with at least 75% district members use the facilities at cost. Groups with less than 75% residents pay a fee according to the above chart.
Option 2:[]
* 
This reads as if an activity allows 100% of the kids to participate in the activity, then the group doesn't have to pay for the use of facilities. There appears to be no limit on the percent of out of district members. Thus, the entire team does not need to be in-district (to the extreme, the team could have no district members - as long as 100% of the kids participate in the activity).
Option 3:[]
This is similar to the current policy but resembles a “tiered” policy with increasing fee scale for lower district membership. However, the proposal is self-contradictory. 3a defines Individual/group as “an organization where less than 100% of its members are residents of the Carlynton School District” – then shows no charges for this group! 3b shows fees if 90% or less of its members are residents and 3c shows fees for 75% or less district members. This does not make any sense. What was the likely intent is as follows:
-If a group has 100% district members, then the use of the facility is free for practice and meets.
-75-90% district members, charges as on the chart for practice and meets
- <75% members, charges as on the chart for practice and meets
What the intent was for 90-100% district membership is unknown.
Option 4:[]
Same as option 3 but the lower bound is 80% district membership. Notes on the bottom have to be wrong.
Option 5:[]
Reads as if at any time that a group uses the district facilities, they must pay a $100 fee for each non-resident participating in that activity. This appears to include practice and meets. So, for example, a home foot ball game would cost about $2500. Baseball would cost about $1200. Soccer would cost about that, too.
Option 6:[]
RReads as if at any time that a group uses the district facilities, they must pay a $100 fee for each non-resident participating in that activity, up to a maximum of what is on the chart. This appears to include practice and meets just like option 5.
Option 7:[]
Reads as if at any time that a group uses the district facilities, they must pay a $100 fee for each non-resident participating in that activity or as determined on the chart, whichever is higher. This appears to include practice and meets, just like options 5 and 6.
Proposed Alternative Open and Inclusive Policy[]
Residents already pay for the facilities through their taxes and charging groups a fee above cost to use facilities would be a form of additional taxation. Instead of excluding non-residents or charging a fee to groups that include non-residents, charge a facilities usage fee to non-residents, much the way many municipal swim pools do. Detailed copies this alternative proposal and procedures to implement it were provided to the district directors
Proposed alternative proposal highlights :
1. Resident groups with a majority of district residents use district facilities at cost;
2. Resident groups give priority in membership to residents; and
3. Non-resident participants pay a small facility usage fee. Sure, non-residents do not contribute to the tax base that supports the facilities. The sum of $60 per year, (or pro-rated at $5 per month) represents 50% of the per capita cost of Carlynton facilities operation and management. This is more than fair compensation to the district because no group uses Carlynton’s facilities 50% of the time they are available.
In follow up meetings, the board heard more details about process :
1. Team are ensuring maximum participation of Carlynton youths in clubs using district properties;
2. Youth sports and other groups aim to create the best possible environments for members, thus insuring a fertile training ground for future Carlynton Jr/Sr high school athletes;
3. Teams aim for fairness in the relationship with tax payers. Non-residents charges are equivalent to what tax payers are paying to maintain facilities. The additional monies would offset the cost of running the facilities, thereby decreasing the facilities costs to all Carlynton residents; and
4. Carlynton parents benefit by avoiding additional “facilities tax” for after school programs.
In this way, Carlynton youths win, the taxpayers win and Carlynton maintains positive relationships with its neighbors.
Links and Resources[]
- The new Carlynton facilities policy along with video of the meeting at which it was passed.
- A brief introduction to the history behind this issue
- A detailed accounting of the history behind this issue
- http://Carlynton.blogspot.com is an open forum for discussion of this issue.
- Video clips of some directors expressing their viewpoints about this issue at previous meetings. Entire meeting discussions are also here.
- Comments to the Carlynton school board on April 17, 2008 and May 1, 2008 urging the school board to adopt a more open policy and to seek input from the community prior to adopting any new policies.
- A letter to school administrators and board about facilities use policies in other districts in response to misinformation presented by some school board members at the May 27, 2008 school board meeting.
- Proposed modifications to the existing policy that would address the concerns raised about the current policy while at the same time ensure that resident groups can create the best possible environment for citizens, especially youth.