Click this link to optimize Open Arlington for screen readers Skip to Content
An official website of Arlington County government
Open Arlington Logo
Aquatics and Gymnastics Teams Work Group Survey

Is the fee structure for Arlington’s gymnastics and aquatics teams appropriate?

This topic is closed

76 responses on forum


Are you an Arlington County resident?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes 72.4% 55
No 27.6% 21

If not Arlington, Virginia, of what city/ state are you a resident?

Answered
21
Skipped
55

Which of the following describes your personal experience and familiarity with Arlington County's DPR gymnastics and aquatics teams and classes? Please check all that apply.

Response Percent Response Count
None 10.5% 8
I have at least one child who takes or has taken Arlington County's gymnastics or aquatics classes. 59.2% 45
I have at least one child who participates or has participated in the AAC, the Aerials, or the Tigers. 61.8% 47
I have at least one child who has been waitlisted for Arlington County's gymnastics or aquatics classes without getting into a class for one or more sessions. 39.5% 30
Other 6.6% 5

Do you support modifying the budgeting process so that gymnastics and aquatics team participation fees are based on the expected number of participants and direct costs with the goal of recovering no more than 100 percent of those costs?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes 81.6% 62
No 9.2% 7
Don't Know/No Opinion 2.6% 2
Other 6.6% 5

Do you support DPR assessing a surcharge for non-residents who belong to Arlington County's aquatics and gymnastics teams?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes 85.5% 65
No 6.6% 5
Don't know/No opinion 2.6% 2
Other 5.3% 4

If you answered yes to the previous question, what level of surcharge would you support?

Response Percent Response Count
5% 13.0% 9
10% 44.9% 31
15% 7.2% 5
20% 20.3% 14
Other 14.5% 10

Would you support DPR setting an annual cap on the surcharge?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes 64.5% 49
No 21.1% 16
Don't know/No opinion 10.5% 8
Other 3.9% 3

If you answered yes to the previous question, what annual cap level would you support?

Response Percent Response Count
$100 22.6% 12
$200 52.8% 28
$300 3.8% 2
$500 9.4% 5
Other 11.3% 6

Would you support DPR reviewing and adjusting this cap as needed to correct for inflation and other economic factors every five years?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes 83.3% 60
No 4.2% 3
Don't know/No opinion 5.6% 4
Other 6.9% 5

Is there anything else you'd like to say about the fees and surcharges associated with Arlington County's gymnastics and aquatics teams?

Answered
42
Skipped
34

Beginning in January, the work group will take stock of the operating model for these teams. Do you have any input you would like to provide on this topic at this time?

Answered
30
Skipped
46

Is there anything else you would like to add?

Answered
35
Skipped
41

Survey Feedback: How clear and understandable were the questions asked and options provided in this survey?

Response Percent Response Count
Extremely clear and understandable 19.7% 14
Very clear and understandable 35.2% 25
Moderately clear and understandable 38.0% 27
Slightly clear and understandable 5.6% 4
Not at all clear and understandable 1.4% 1
Name not shown 1 to 2 miles
December 1, 2014, 10:27 PM
  • Are you an Arlington County resident?
    • Yes
  • If not Arlington, Virginia, of what city/ state are you a resident?
    No response.
  • Which of the following describes your personal experience and familiarity with Arlington County's DPR gymnastics and aquatics teams and classes? Please check all that apply.
    • I have at least one child who takes or has taken Arlington County's gymnastics or aquatics classes.
    • I have at least one child who participates or has participated in the AAC, the Aerials, or the Tigers.
    • I have at least one child who has been waitlisted for Arlington County's gymnastics or aquatics classes without getting into a class for one or more sessions.
  • Do you support modifying the budgeting process so that gymnastics and aquatics team participation fees are based on the expected number of participants and direct costs with the goal of recovering no more than 100 percent of those costs?
    • Yes
  • Do you support DPR assessing a surcharge for non-residents who belong to Arlington County's aquatics and gymnastics teams?
    • Yes
  • If you answered yes to the previous question, what level of surcharge would you support?
    • 10%
  • Would you support DPR setting an annual cap on the surcharge?
    • Yes
  • If you answered yes to the previous question, what annual cap level would you support?
    • $200
  • Would you support DPR reviewing and adjusting this cap as needed to correct for inflation and other economic factors every five years?
    • Yes
  • Is there anything else you'd like to say about the fees and surcharges associated with Arlington County's gymnastics and aquatics teams?

    I understand that the 50 percent surcharge for non-Arlington residents was supposed to help Arlington families get into the oversubscribed gymnastics classes. It is important not to conflate gymnastics classes and the gymnastics team. The classes are extremely difficult to get into and typically only Arlington residents are able to get into a class (they get to register first) so a surcharge would not help more Arlington residents get into classes. On the other hand, team members make a year round commitment to the team and are charged year round on a monthly basis. Some team members have been on the team for ten or more years and have invested hundreds of hours in the sport. Some of these gymnasts are out of county, and continuing a small fee for out of county gymnasts is understandable. The proposal to tack a 50 percent surcharge would likely have forced the non-Arlington gymnasts to leave the team. They would not have been replaced on the team for many years given the work and skill level required to compete at the higher levels.

  • Beginning in January, the work group will take stock of the operating model for these teams. Do you have any input you would like to provide on this topic at this time?

    I fully support reducing gymnastics team fees if we are repeatedly overpaying for the gymnastics program - per county policy of funding things only to 100 percent and not above. This is a huge economic hit every month to families. We are willing to cover the cost of the sport for our children, but shouldn't be subsidizing other activities or unrelated costs.

  • Is there anything else you would like to add?

    Given the popularity of the sport it would make sense to expand the opportunities for gymnastics in Arlington to meet the demand, rather than limiting opportunities and having to field angry parents with kids on wait-lists (trust me, you don't want to be the parent explaining to your 4 year old that she didn't get in this time).

  • Survey Feedback: How clear and understandable were the questions asked and options provided in this survey?
    • Extremely clear and understandable
Open Arlington is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open Arlington is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.

Your answers will NOT be saved

This is the form that was used to collect responses. It's here so you can try it and see how it worked when the topic was open.

The topic is now closed, and anything you enter into this form will not be saved.

Part : 1 Demographic Information
Choose 1 option
* required
Choose at most 4 options

 

Part 2: Participation Fees for Arlington County's Gymnastics and Aquatics Teams

The Arlington County Board adopted a “cost recovery model” in 2010 to set targets for registration and participation fees for programs operated or sponsored by DPR, including these teams. The model stipulates that DPR must recover a higher percentage of costs when a program’s benefits are more individualized.

For Arlington's gymnastics and aquatics teams, DPR seeks to recover at least 85 percent but not more than 100 percent of direct program costs (such as personnel and equipment), including an allocated portion of DPR’s overhead (such as marketing, registration, and scheduling).

DPR currently calculates participation fees (for these teams and for other programs) by determining the minimum enrollment needed to run the program. It determines annual fees by dividing the total costs to be recovered by the minimum level of enrollment.

However, actual enrollment has typically exceeded the minimum level. Thus, revenue from team participation fees has generally exceeded the maximum 100 percent recovery level. DPR returns excess revenue to Arlington County's general fund.

The work group determined that the team participation fees are higher than the average fees charged by comparable facilities in the DC Metro area.

Therefore, the work group is considering recommending that DPR adjust the way it calculates these fees by:  

  1. Determining participation fees based on the expected (versus minimum) number of team participants; and
  2. Establishing a collaborative fee-setting process that involves DPR, team coaches, and representatives from the teams' parent associations.

If adopted, these adjustments would be likely to reduce participation fees, bringing the amount charged for gymnastics team membership closer to levels seen across our region and potentially reducing total fee revenue in the short term.

Choose 1 option
* required

 

Part 3: Surcharges Paid by Families of Non-Resident Members of Arlington County's Gymnastics and Aquatics Teams in Addition to Participation Fees

According to DPR, the non-resident surcharges have no quantitative basis and are not tied to any specific policy objective. Surcharges for non-resident team members are not uniform and currently range from 12 to 46 percent of the individual’s participation fee. This translates into a cost of $135-$865 for gymnastics team members and $135-$908 for the aquatics team members.

The work group supports a more uniform approach for setting non-resident surcharges. After reviewing non-resident surcharges of comparable county- and municipal-run gymnastics and aquatics programs in neighboring jurisdictions, it found that some levied surcharges of between 10 and 20 percent, some cap these surcharges at a specific dollar amount, and some nearby programs do not collect any non-resident surcharge at all.

The work group is considering recommending that DPR:

1. Establish a uniform surcharge for non-resident athletes of 10 percent.
2. Cap surcharge payments on an annual basis at $200.

As a result, individuals’ surcharges would still vary depending on their participation fee but none of them would rise above $200 a year. In contrast, the prior proposal to adopt a uniform 50 percent surcharge beginning in the 2015 fiscal year would have resulted in surcharges as high as $2,530 for some non-resident team members.

The work group is also considering a recommendation that surcharges be reviewed every five years and the cap could be adjusted based on economic factors.

Choose 1 option
* required
Choose at most 1 option
Choose 1 option
* required
Choose at most 1 option
Choose at most 1 option

 

Part 4 – What Else, What's Ahead, and Your Feedback

 

Choose at most 1 option
Check out our guidelines for civility

Fields marked with * are required