Anonymous wrote:The County also runs travel basketball in addition to County rec basketball. As many have stated, privately-run travel soccer and baseball get a sweetheart deal using County and school-owned fields. Tennis and pickleball players get to use courts for free when not in use for programs. If the families in the gymnastics program can get to a better spot with cost recovery, Arlington should keep the program. Otherwise, be prepared for your kids’ favorite sport to be next.

Arlington is continuing to cut things that middle and upper middle class residents enjoy to support more services for affordable housing and supporting the people that brings in. Housing funding has not been cut at all in this cycle. Maybe that’s a good thing, but the County needs to be more transparent about it, and decide if it wants to support all its residents or only its most “vulnerable,” as Matt Di Ferranti stated.

Arlington travel basketball ends after middle school and is volunteer coaches. Sorry there really is no other sport that has the setup AAC and gymnastics have and no one is "coming for" all these other sports. I think stoking paranoia about that is just deflection.

However, I think the bolded is quite right. You've got 5 extremely performative liberals on the County Board. Arlington has been a very wealthy community, so most residents pay zero attention to the funding going to social services and housing supports. People paying a lot of the taxes have previously still gotten all their "stuff", so no one cares. And most people do not want to attach their name to saying the things this poster is saying. It's all a bit of a wake up call.

Anonymous wrote:The County also runs travel basketball in addition to County rec basketball. As many have stated, privately-run travel soccer and baseball get a sweetheart deal using County and school-owned fields. Tennis and pickleball players get to use courts for free when not in use for programs. If the families in the gymnastics program can get to a better spot with cost recovery, Arlington should keep the program. Otherwise, be prepared for your kids’ favorite sport to be next.

Arlington is continuing to cut things that middle and upper middle class residents enjoy to support more services for affordable housing and supporting the people that brings in. Housing funding has not been cut at all in this cycle. Maybe that’s a good thing, but the County needs to be more transparent about it, and decide if it wants to support all its residents or only its most “vulnerable,” as Matt Di Ferranti stated.

I agree with everything you said. The county is more than happy to take away services and amenities that make Arlington so desirable. They don’t care about the damage they do in the process. This is not just about Gymnastics.

The County also runs travel basketball in addition to County rec basketball. As many have stated, privately-run travel soccer and baseball get a sweetheart deal using County and school-owned fields. Tennis and pickleball players get to use courts for free when not in use for programs. If the families in the gymnastics program can get to a better spot with cost recovery, Arlington should keep the program. Otherwise, be prepared for your kids’ favorite sport to be next.

Arlington is continuing to cut things that middle and upper middle class residents enjoy to support more services for affordable housing and supporting the people that brings in. Housing funding has not been cut at all in this cycle. Maybe that’s a good thing, but the County needs to be more transparent about it, and decide if it wants to support all its residents or only its most “vulnerable,” as Matt Di Ferranti stated.

Also the private gyms train their competitive teens to teach their rec classes. We dont do this and when the competitive kids apply they aren't called back!

There are many qualified individuals who have applied for gymnastics instructor positions and DPR isn't calling them in. The shortage is manufactured. This is part of a bigger plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

I imagine you don’t realize that your tax dollars are also subsidizing other competitive sports. ATB, Storm, and ASA (i.e. travel baseball and soccer) get priority field status and discounted field rates. In those instances there is a partnership with a private organization (so that the county doesn’t handle hiring/employing coaches, registration and tryouts, etc.) So it is disingenuous to pretend DPR exists solely for rec level purposes.

Now perhaps there needs to be a spin off nonprofit that pairs with the gymnastics program so that Arlington County isn’t responsible for the oversight and management of the competitive team. Based on what I’ve heard from a friend with a kid on the competitive team (plus what I’ve read here) it sounds like the county isn’t doing a super job. But this type of partnership hasn’t been proposed, the county is jumping straight to elimination. Why? Other sports are supported so why not gymnastics.

There is ample demand for rec gymnastics and they could add ways to meet that demand while pairing with a nonprofit that could help oversee the kids getting funneled to a higher level.

My kid does one of the sports you mentioned. Yes, we all realize it. It's a very different model than AAC and gymnastics. As stated, the County shouldn't be running competitive teams out of the County. Coaches and team administrators shouldn't be employed by the County.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

This. Why can't the county JUST run a rec gymnastics program. If there is a coaching shortage, why not have all the coaches teach rec. If there is interest in competitive gymnastics in the county, then people can start a private gym. It's never been explained why, if there's so much interest in competitive gymnastics, that's not an option.

Note to readers, when you see this comment know that the writer doesn't really have a suggestion b/c it's not the same as you can just start create a new soccer league. Read the letter from another local gym owner about what goes into starting a new gym. The facility alone makes the bar very high and means a long lead time. There is no need to start a new gym when a perfectly good faclity exists. While I will concede that turning the left gym back into basketball is apotible path forward, leaving it empty for a year is beyond idiotic and makes me wonder why anyone would think that's a good idea.

The gymnastics gym is already not in use much of the time. The program regularly cancels classes and refunds fees because it can't find instructors. And it's not the only recreational gymnastics program having this issue -- DC also has a gymnastics facility in NE DC that sits empty and unused much of the time because it can't find instructors. They have tried outsourcing instruction to another group and that didn't work either.

If you have a facility getting very low utilization, it sometimes really is cheaper to simply close it than to keep it open at a low utilization rate. Organizations make this sort of decision about offices, warehouses, retail stores, schools, etc., all the time. Yes it always impacts the group of people who are still using the under-utilized facility, and sometimes that's too bad. But it is bad management to maintain facilities that are not being utilized, to benefit a tiny number of people, at the expense of everyone else.

The purpose built gymnastics space is only a portion of Barcroft though. I am here on the pro-gymnastics side but I understand the financials and I can understand going back to original space, going to only Xcel, even ending team.

But I agree with the board member who said closing for a year at this point is a long time if they intend to utilize the space again. It seems like those ideas could have already been generated. It makes me think back to the discussion we had pages ago about the possibility of selling Barcroft. I initially was on the side of “that’s crazy” but beginning to wonder especially since they called out the interest on the debt in the original proposal. Perhaps they have had some offers. I could see the county manager approaching parks and rec with the idea in the sense of “what are the biggest obstacles in terms of programming” and parks and rec saying “gymnastics.” The year is to move everything else and then say there’s nothing left for Barcroft.

If that’s the plan and the only thing financially viable then I will concede that. Maybe it is. However, if that’s not it and Barcroft will eventually reopen I’m confused about why there could be no viable plan for gymnastics to return to the original space and make some basic changes to operate again as it did for 15ish years. My other thought is that part of returning to 2005-2015 is shedding the full time staff, and it’s much easier to do so this way. They terminate everyone, close for a year, and come back with rec and Xcel teams in the original space at some point after rehiring new staff who are all part time/temp and the gymnastics coordinator is probably within parks and rec. To be fair, I kind of get it. Obviously on a personal note I feel very bad for those people (who I know) who will be affected by it but I can understand the financial aspect too since it seems like current operations are not fiscally viable.

But this explanation doesn’t do a lot for the debt and interest issue. I do not think they’ll be able to run any programs out of Barcroft at this time and generate enough profit while remaining compliant with all laws and equity issues to make a dent in that (cover all operational costs plus the debt). When the county originally decided to build Barcroft, the financial outlook was very different. So maybe it’s become somewhat of an albatross for those trying to manage the budget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

I imagine you don’t realize that your tax dollars are also subsidizing other competitive sports. ATB, Storm, and ASA (i.e. travel baseball and soccer) get priority field status and discounted field rates. In those instances there is a partnership with a private organization (so that the county doesn’t handle hiring/employing coaches, registration and tryouts, etc.) So it is disingenuous to pretend DPR exists solely for rec level purposes.

Now perhaps there needs to be a spin off nonprofit that pairs with the gymnastics program so that Arlington County isn’t responsible for the oversight and management of the competitive team. Based on what I’ve heard from a friend with a kid on the competitive team (plus what I’ve read here) it sounds like the county isn’t doing a super job. But this type of partnership hasn’t been proposed, the county is jumping straight to elimination. Why? Other sports are supported so why not gymnastics.

There is ample demand for rec gymnastics and they could add ways to meet that demand while pairing with a nonprofit that could help oversee the kids getting funneled to a higher level.

It doesn't appear the problem is hiring for the competition team. While yes there is demand for a rec gymnastics team, there does not appear to be enough coaches for the rec level. I've looked at the website for the competition teams and they have a lot of coaches. I'm sure some of them also coach rec but it does not appear all of them do. My guess is that a lot of coaches just prefer to work with older, competitive gymnasts and have less interest in teaching fundamentals to younger kids, many of whom might have little or no skill or talent for the sport. While I understand that as a personal choice, it doesn't make sense for the county to fund a program with such minimal interest in teaching young kids new to the sport.

So even if they did what you suggest, the county would still be struggling to fill instructor spots for the rec program and they'd still be cancelling classes and leaving the gym out of use a lot of the time. If you can't fix that problem, the competition team doesn't actually matter. It's only worthwhile for the county to support the teams (even just by providing the facility, even if the teams are largely run by boosters and self funded) if they are on top of a functioning rec program that fills that facility. Without staffing, you can't have a functioning rec program.

No one has explained how you fix that. Where are the instructors who are going to come make the rec program work? Maybe if the gymnastics boosters could identify a pool of qualified instructors who are ready to take on these jobs, that would be a step in the right direction.

The boosters themselves many who are ex gymnasts have applied for jobs and not called by the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

This. Why can't the county JUST run a rec gymnastics program. If there is a coaching shortage, why not have all the coaches teach rec. If there is interest in competitive gymnastics in the county, then people can start a private gym. It's never been explained why, if there's so much interest in competitive gymnastics, that's not an option.

Note to readers, when you see this comment know that the writer doesn't really have a suggestion b/c it's not the same as you can just start create a new soccer league. Read the letter from another local gym owner about what goes into starting a new gym. The facility alone makes the bar very high and means a long lead time. There is no need to start a new gym when a perfectly good faclity exists. While I will concede that turning the left gym back into basketball is apotible path forward, leaving it empty for a year is beyond idiotic and makes me wonder why anyone would think that's a good idea.

The gymnastics gym is already not in use much of the time. The program regularly cancels classes and refunds fees because it can't find instructors. And it's not the only recreational gymnastics program having this issue -- DC also has a gymnastics facility in NE DC that sits empty and unused much of the time because it can't find instructors. They have tried outsourcing instruction to another group and that didn't work either.

If you have a facility getting very low utilization, it sometimes really is cheaper to simply close it than to keep it open at a low utilization rate. Organizations make this sort of decision about offices, warehouses, retail stores, schools, etc., all the time. Yes it always impacts the group of people who are still using the under-utilized facility, and sometimes that's too bad. But it is bad management to maintain facilities that are not being utilized, to benefit a tiny number of people, at the expense of everyone else.

What is the appropriate number is people to benefit? So gymnastics alone is around 1200 per session. That doesnt count use of the boxing room, wellness room, gym or hallways used for martial arts instruction..just curious what you think the tipping point is.

And it isnt true that the gym isnt in use much of the time. The DPR numbers weren't accurate when looking at the numbers of kids in rec alone. But it also didn't take into account wakefield or GWs use of the gym.

But all that being said, there are plenty of other activities that can happen in the gym during non peak times

1) open gym/play space, large use with toddler families

2) they used to do field trips there

3) senior modified gymnastics classes during the day.

4) any number of additional fitness classes that can happen using the floor, equipment or wellness/ dance studio (because they already offer some). How about a 55+ dance class, they already offer them for toddlers there. I mean they offer one yoga class, why not more ?

They could offer classes like this place

https://www.physicalitydc.com/classes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

I imagine you don’t realize that your tax dollars are also subsidizing other competitive sports. ATB, Storm, and ASA (i.e. travel baseball and soccer) get priority field status and discounted field rates. In those instances there is a partnership with a private organization (so that the county doesn’t handle hiring/employing coaches, registration and tryouts, etc.) So it is disingenuous to pretend DPR exists solely for rec level purposes.

Now perhaps there needs to be a spin off nonprofit that pairs with the gymnastics program so that Arlington County isn’t responsible for the oversight and management of the competitive team. Based on what I’ve heard from a friend with a kid on the competitive team (plus what I’ve read here) it sounds like the county isn’t doing a super job. But this type of partnership hasn’t been proposed, the county is jumping straight to elimination. Why? Other sports are supported so why not gymnastics.

There is ample demand for rec gymnastics and they could add ways to meet that demand while pairing with a nonprofit that could help oversee the kids getting funneled to a higher level.

It doesn't appear the problem is hiring for the competition team. While yes there is demand for a rec gymnastics team, there does not appear to be enough coaches for the rec level. I've looked at the website for the competition teams and they have a lot of coaches. I'm sure some of them also coach rec but it does not appear all of them do. My guess is that a lot of coaches just prefer to work with older, competitive gymnasts and have less interest in teaching fundamentals to younger kids, many of whom might have little or no skill or talent for the sport. While I understand that as a personal choice, it doesn't make sense for the county to fund a program with such minimal interest in teaching young kids new to the sport.

So even if they did what you suggest, the county would still be struggling to fill instructor spots for the rec program and they'd still be cancelling classes and leaving the gym out of use a lot of the time. If you can't fix that problem, the competition team doesn't actually matter. It's only worthwhile for the county to support the teams (even just by providing the facility, even if the teams are largely run by boosters and self funded) if they are on top of a functioning rec program that fills that facility. Without staffing, you can't have a functioning rec program.

No one has explained how you fix that. Where are the instructors who are going to come make the rec program work? Maybe if the gymnastics boosters could identify a pool of qualified instructors who are ready to take on these jobs, that would be a step in the right direction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

This. Why can't the county JUST run a rec gymnastics program. If there is a coaching shortage, why not have all the coaches teach rec. If there is interest in competitive gymnastics in the county, then people can start a private gym. It's never been explained why, if there's so much interest in competitive gymnastics, that's not an option.

Note to readers, when you see this comment know that the writer doesn't really have a suggestion b/c it's not the same as you can just start create a new soccer league. Read the letter from another local gym owner about what goes into starting a new gym. The facility alone makes the bar very high and means a long lead time. There is no need to start a new gym when a perfectly good faclity exists. While I will concede that turning the left gym back into basketball is apotible path forward, leaving it empty for a year is beyond idiotic and makes me wonder why anyone would think that's a good idea.

The gymnastics gym is already not in use much of the time. The program regularly cancels classes and refunds fees because it can't find instructors. And it's not the only recreational gymnastics program having this issue -- DC also has a gymnastics facility in NE DC that sits empty and unused much of the time because it can't find instructors. They have tried outsourcing instruction to another group and that didn't work either.

If you have a facility getting very low utilization, it sometimes really is cheaper to simply close it than to keep it open at a low utilization rate. Organizations make this sort of decision about offices, warehouses, retail stores, schools, etc., all the time. Yes it always impacts the group of people who are still using the under-utilized facility, and sometimes that's too bad. But it is bad management to maintain facilities that are not being utilized, to benefit a tiny number of people, at the expense of everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say that I really do not want my tax dollars subsidizing this. My kids do rock climbing that is not subsidized by taxes. I am not sure why gymnastics should be. Sliding fee scales are great, but then charge a premium to the full pay kids. I am taking tennis through parks and rec - I really hope taxpayers are not subsidizing that. I get having the county cover the cost of building the facilities etc - but coaching and any marginal costs should be covered by the fees.

Of course tax payers are subsidizing your tennis. Every single program in parks and rec is subsidized. That is pretty much the entire point of parks and rec classes.

But I guarantee the tennis program recoups more of its expenses than gymnastics, which is only covering a little over half of their costs. And the tennis program costs less to administer because there is less equipment and it's fairly easy to find qualified tennis instructors. Also, tennis courts in Arlington are open to the public whenever not in use by classes and they get a TON of use, whereas Barcroft just sits unused when the program isn't holding classes, which it often isn't because they can't find instructors to teach them. Same with the pools. If I want to go play tennis or swim laps today, I can easily do so at one of many facilities, which makes those facilities a great investment for the county. If I want to go do some gymnastics, I cannot.

Yes all rec classes are subsidized but some are justifying their costs a lot better than others.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

I imagine you don’t realize that your tax dollars are also subsidizing other competitive sports. ATB, Storm, and ASA (i.e. travel baseball and soccer) get priority field status and discounted field rates. In those instances there is a partnership with a private organization (so that the county doesn’t handle hiring/employing coaches, registration and tryouts, etc.) So it is disingenuous to pretend DPR exists solely for rec level purposes.

Now perhaps there needs to be a spin off nonprofit that pairs with the gymnastics program so that Arlington County isn’t responsible for the oversight and management of the competitive team. Based on what I’ve heard from a friend with a kid on the competitive team (plus what I’ve read here) it sounds like the county isn’t doing a super job. But this type of partnership hasn’t been proposed, the county is jumping straight to elimination. Why? Other sports are supported so why not gymnastics.

There is ample demand for rec gymnastics and they could add ways to meet that demand while pairing with a nonprofit that could help oversee the kids getting funneled to a higher level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

This. Why can't the county JUST run a rec gymnastics program. If there is a coaching shortage, why not have all the coaches teach rec. If there is interest in competitive gymnastics in the county, then people can start a private gym. It's never been explained why, if there's so much interest in competitive gymnastics, that's not an option.

Note to readers, when you see this comment know that the writer doesn't really have a suggestion b/c it's not the same as you can just start create a new soccer league. Read the letter from another local gym owner about what goes into starting a new gym. The facility alone makes the bar very high and means a long lead time. There is no need to start a new gym when a perfectly good faclity exists. While I will concede that turning the left gym back into basketball is apotible path forward, leaving it empty for a year is beyond idiotic and makes me wonder why anyone would think that's a good idea.

The basic argument here is well they already built us our dedicated and specialized facility, might as well keep it.

Not compelling.

The argument why no one wants to start a private gym is it would be hard. Just like it would be hard for a new soccer league to start up. Soccer already plays on may beyond craptastic fields that are nothing more than a patch of grass wedged somewhere and fights over them like dogs. Community sports and recreation assets are not unlimited. That's part of why this is being discussed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$13/class is absolute insanity. DPR could easily increase that and still meet demand. Also, I agree about higher fees for out of county residents.

The same is true of AAC. If youth sports that don't recover fees were looked at holistically, there's a way to spread this out more fairly.

Why should costs for a competitive gymnastics team be spread out more fairly? What's fair about that?

AAC and competitive gymnastics shouldn't be run out of the County at all.

The role of a parks and rec department is in the title. Rec.

This. Why can't the county JUST run a rec gymnastics program. If there is a coaching shortage, why not have all the coaches teach rec. If there is interest in competitive gymnastics in the county, then people can start a private gym. It's never been explained why, if there's so much interest in competitive gymnastics, that's not an option.

Note to readers, when you see this comment know that the writer doesn't really have a suggestion b/c it's not the same as you can just start create a new soccer league. Read the letter from another local gym owner about what goes into starting a new gym. The facility alone makes the bar very high and means a long lead time. There is no need to start a new gym when a perfectly good faclity exists. While I will concede that turning the left gym back into basketball is apotible path forward, leaving it empty for a year is beyond idiotic and makes me wonder why anyone would think that's a good idea.