notmymayor

Missouri’s open records law is a decent resource for anyone who wants to improve transparency and accountability in government. In the course of my first ever “Sunshine Law” request to the City of St. Louis, however, I discovered that the law is not only decent but absolutely necessary. Needless to say, the Department of Parks, Recreation and Forestry did not react with any enthusiasm to my request to review public records related to the Carondelet Park Recreation Center. Good thing that I had the force of law behind my very simple request.

As we all recall, the Carondelet Park Recreation Center is a boon for the YMCA of Greater St. Louis and boondoggle for residents of our City. Unfortunately, all of our Aldermen are culpable in this fiscally disastrous project, because none of the Board of Aldermen’s 28 members bothered to vote against the bill (BB 111) mandating that the City “cooperate” with the YMCA to operate the new facility. Rather than revisit the flawed actions that led to approval of this idiotic agreement that makes access to the City’s first newly constructed recreation facility in decades prohibitively expensive, I think that our efforts are better spent trying to interpret the following 82 pages of legalese:

YMCA Cooperative Agreement for the Carondelet Park Rec Plex

The above link opens the “Facility Operating and Cooperative Agreement Between The City of St. Louis, Missouri and Young Men’s Christian Association of Greater St. Louis,” which I obtained through an open records request to the Parks Department.

Here are a few gems from this grotesque document:

• Page 6: “target date for completion and opening of the facility, except for the Outdoor Pool, of Labor Day, 2009 [(September 7, 2009)].”
• Page 7: “Using funds made available by the City from the proceeds of the Project Bonds, the City, at its sole cost and expense will be responsible for any furniture, fixtures and equipment of the type and quantity found at similar facilities operated by the YMCA in the St. Louis Metropolitan area…”
• Page 8: “All such Additional Equipment ["paid for by the YMCA first using any funds, to the extent that they are available, from Facility Revenues, and then from the Capital Improvements Account, if applicable, to the extent that there are insufficient funds from Facility Revenues and the Operational Reserve Account"] shall be the property of the YMCA.”
• Page 10: “The City recognizes and agrees that because of economic conditions and/or population levels and/or demographics, it may be necessary for the City to subsidize Facility operations through an ‘Operating Subsidy’ during at least the early years of operation if an ‘Operational Loss’ rather than an ‘Operational Surplus’ results from operations. The YMCA will use its reasonable best efforts to operate the facility in a fiscally sound manner to achieve a ‘Facility Break-Even’ or ‘Operational Surplus’ during each full calendar year of operation.”
• Page 11: “For its services in operating the Facilities as required hereunder, the YMCA will be paid an “Administrative Services Fee” equal to ten percent (10%) of Facility Revenues as calculated on Exhibit E…”
• Page 17: “Metro Memberships: ‘The YMCA will transfer to the credit of the Facility an amount equal to $2.00 multiplied by the number of visits to the Facility (excluding the Outdoor Pool) of Metro members with Metro memberships originating from other facilities of the YMCA of Greater St. Louis and any such amounts so transferred will by [sic] included in Facility Revenues as defined in Exhibit E. In addition, an amount equal to $2.00 multiplied by the number of visits to other facilities of the YMCA of Greater St. Louis by Metro members with Metro memberships originating from the Carondelet Park Community Center will be paid to the YMCA from Facility Revenues and any such payment will be considered a Facility Expenditure per Exhibit E.’”
• Page 17: “To the extent consistent with the goal of Facility Break-Even, and consistent with such programs at other facilities in the St. Louis metropolitan area operated by the YMCA, the YMCA will use its reasonable best efforts to provide financial aid and assistance based on need to members who might not otherwise be able to afford the YMCA’s services at the Facility.”
• Page 25: “…the City, at its sole cost and expense and not out of Facility Revenues, shall at all times during the term of this Agreement, maintain the Premises, the Facility, all improvements located thereon, including mowing and tree trimming adjacent to the Facility…”
• Page 26: “…the YMCA shall be responsible, from Facility Reserves or Capital Improvements Account, as applicable, for the cost of any repairs up to an aggregate annual amount in any Fiscal Year of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), so long as any repair is not related to defective materials or workmanship…”
• Page 27: “The City, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain and maintain, and not out of Facility Revenues, or cause SLMFC to obtain and maintain, throughout the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of insurance to keep the Premises, its improvements and equipment constantly insured against loss or damage by fire, lightning and all other risks covered by the extended coverage insurance endorsement then in use in the State of Missouri, in an amount equal to the replacement cost thereof as determined by the issuing insurance company.”
• Page 31: “Any signs of any kind that are displayed in or upon any part of the exterior or interior of the Facility shall be reasonably determined by the City as to placement, content and design. Such signage shall reasonably reference the YMCA so long as such signs comply with all Laws. All such signage shall be erected, maintained and repaired by the City at its sole cost and expense.“
• Page 34: “No Competing Community Facility by City. Unless otherwise agreed by the YMCA in its sole discretion, during the term of this agreement, the City agrees not to be involved with a Community Facility located within 2 miles of any existing YMCA facility, including the Facility, except as authorized hereby.”
• Page 37: “Subject to scheduling and availability, the City shall have the right to use the Facility, the Outdoor Pool, or both, for events conducted by the City on twelve (12) days per year, after reasonable prior notice to the YMCA. The YMCA shall be reimbursed for any incremental costs and expenses related to use by the City under this section…”
• Page 40: “Annual Appropriation. The City is obligated only to make any payments, or to retain or allow retention of funds, under this Agreement as may lawfully be made from funds budgeted and appropriated for that purpose or authorized by the budget ordinance for the City’s then fiscal year.”

Now, I have far too many concerns about this document to fully air in any depth today. As a lawyer I know offered, any time that a contract has this many pages, its parties likely want to conceal something. That said, the plain language of the agreement reads an indictment of those who publicly contend that the City of St. Louis did not allocate any funds to operate the facility. On page after page of this agreement, the City assumes enormous fiscal liabilities, including operating subsidies, maintenance costs, catastrophic insurance, and even signage.

I know that defenders of this absurd arrangement often cite the YMCA’s “nonprofit” status to suggest that the YMCA is somehow less of a financial beneficiary from this type of agreement than a for-profit entity would be. While partnerships between the City of St. Louis and nonprofits may yield significant benefits that accrue to all residents of our City, this specific “partnership” does not provide us with anything that we did not already have. In fact, its “noncompete” clause adds an interesting twist that no one at the YMCA or the City seems willing to discuss–unless the City agrees, the Carondelet Family YMCA on Loughborough must cease all operations for the YMCA to be in compliance with the terms of this agreement.

Odd, I thought that the whole reason for the sales tax increase was “for the purpose of providing funding for local parks for the municipality and specifically, funding for the construction and maintenance of new and existing recreation centers and recreation programs in parks” (Proposition P Ballot Language). In practice, the sales tax increase funded construction of a new recreation center facility that simply replaces an extant YMCA. Dumb use of public money, if you ask me.

As for the following 2006 Post-Dispatch editorial contention:

Mayor Francis Slay has proposed a one-eighth-cent increase in sales taxes. It would produce $4.4 million a year. The money would be used to build two new recreation centers, one in Carondelet Park in south city and another in north St. Louis, probably in O’Fallon Park. The centers would be similar to the new community centers in Clayton and Richmond Heights, with gyms, running tracks, exercise equipment, meeting rooms and pools indoors and out. Unlike the current city rec centers, the new centers would charge those who can afford it.

there is no comparison. Consider the following fee schedules for the Center of Clayton, the Heights, and Slay’s vaunted Carondelet Park Community Center:

The Center of Clayton Fee Schedule, 2009

The Heights Fee Schedule, 2009

Carondelet Park Community Center Fee Schedule, 2009

Carondelet Park Outdoor Pool Pricing

I’m sorry for the harsh language that I am about to use to describe the deal that we received as City taxpayers: bullshit.

To Matt Villa, his “colleagues” on the Board of Aldermen, Lewis Reed, and Francis Slay, I simply say that I will do everything in my power to ensure that your failure to protect our interests as taxpayers becomes a political liability. None of you bothered to ask questions about BB111 and none of you voted against it. The last time that I checked, we elected you to represent us, not the YMCA of Greater St. Louis. I think that you all are going to have great difficulty spinning any separate and unequal management scheme for the delayed O’Fallon Park Recreation Center. I assure you that I will be watching.