City of Richmond
Community Services – Recreation Department
Cost of Service Analysis
Final Draft
Submitted by:
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
2211 Congress Street, Portland, ME 04102
207.541.2200
Chad Snow, Principal
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
[email protected]
Jesse Myott, Project Manager
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
[email protected]
Submitted On:
Final Draft: April 14, 2025
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) i
Report Version History
Report Version Date Completed
Draft v1.0 November 20, 2024
Draft v2.0 December 4, 2024
Draft v3.0 January 29, 2025
Draft v4.0 February 12, 2025
Final Draft April 14, 2025
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) ii
Table of Contents
Report Version History ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. i Table of Contents ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ ii
1.0 Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 1
1.1 Project Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1
1.2 Summary of Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................... 1
1.3 Acronyms and Terms ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5
2.0 Approach and Work Performed ................................ ................................ ............................ 6
2.1 Work Performed ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 6
3.0 CoS Analysis Technical Findings ................................ ................................ ......................... 8
3.1 Department Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8
3.2 Recreation Environment CoS Analysis ................................ ................................ ......... 9
4.0 Recreation Cost Recovery Range Recommendations ................................ .........................13
4.1 Cost Recovery Range Recommendations ................................ ................................ ..14
4.1.1 Community Centers Programs and Services ................................ .........................15
4.1.2 General Recreation Services (Includes DPRC Programs and Services) ................16
4.1.3 Aquatics Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ..18
4.1.4 Convention Center Services ................................ ................................ ..................19
4.2 Non-Resident Pricing Premium ................................ ................................ ...................22
4.3 Strategic Financial Recommendations and Considerations ................................ .........22
5.0 Additional Recommendations and Considerations ................................ .............................. 24
5.1 Policy Considerations for Recreation User Fees and Charges ................................ ....25
5.2 Formal Fee Updates ................................ ................................ ................................ ...28
5.3 Setting Fee Levels ................................ ................................ ................................ ......28
5.4 Pricing Strategies ................................ ................................ ................................ ........29
6.0 Engagement Feedback Summary ................................ ................................ .......................30
6.1 Online Survey Responses ................................ ................................ ...........................31 Key Themes From Open-Ended Responses ................................ ................................ ......42
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) iii
6.2 Budget Exercise Summary – “Fund It” Activity ................................ ............................46
6.3 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ ................................ ..47
7.0 Peer Comparisons ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............49
7.1 San Pablo, CA ................................ ................................ ................................ ............49
7.2 Concord, CA ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............50
7.3 San Leandro, CA ................................ ................................ ................................ ........51
7.4 El Cerrito, CA ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............51
7.5 Vallejo, CA (Greater Vallejo Recreation District [GVRD]) ................................ ............52 Appendix A: CoS Model ................................ ................................ ................................ ............54 Appendix B: Peer Comparison Matrix ................................ ................................ .......................55 Appendix C: Engagement Summary Metrics ................................ ................................ .............56
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 1
1.0 Executive Summary
This section provides a background of the project, high-level findings and recommendations, as well as key terms and their definitions.
1.1 Project Background
The City of Richmond (City) retained Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC (BerryDunn) to prepare a Community Services – Recreation Department (Department) Cost of Service (CoS) Analysis.
The focus of the project is reviewing all revenue generated from user fees and charges for recreation activities, programs, and services the Department currently provides—and the identified expenses associated with providing all recreation activities, programs, and services.
The project included a review of Department service delivery for fiscal year (FY) 2022 – FY 2025 and projections for FY 2026 through FY 2028. The service review included an examination of revenue and expense projections as well as expected activity, program, and service delivery offerings. Based on the expense projections and expected service offerings, BerryDunn prepared revenue and expense projections, cost recovery targets, and recommended cost recovery ranges for core recreation service categories. These reviews and analyses will allow the Department to make informed policy decisions at the aggregate level, as well as on each activity, program, service, and permit, regarding fee levels and cost recovery in the future.
Until now, the Department has not undertaken a formal CoS analysis related to recreation programs and services in the last few years. Nonetheless, the Department reviews the majority of fees and charges annually, making strategic adjustments where needed; however, the Department has become increasingly aware that the cost of providing fee-applicable services might be outpacing the revenue generated by providing those services in certain core service categories. For these reasons, the Department is interested in understanding the full cost of providing fee-related recreation services and considering recommendations that might better align fee levels to reflect current and future costs as well as applicable policy elements.
This report provides the City with an overview of current recreation cost recovery levels and associated revenues and expenses for each core service category. Additionally, this report provides the City with an overview of recreation revenue and expense projections for FYs 2026 – 2028. The report also documents the estimated percentage of full direct costs recovered by delivering specific services at current fee levels, which will allow City officials to make informed policy decisions regarding future adjustments to fees and charges, if so desired. Finally, this report describes BerryDunn’s approach to analyzing and understanding the Department’s organizational structure and services provided, findings, and recommendations.
1.2 Summary of Recommendations
Cost recovery level ranges for activities, programs, and services across the core recreation services categories outlined below were developed for consideration. Cost recovery ranges were based on known, estimated direct facility operational costs, personnel costs, and program and supply costs. Additionally, cost recovery ranges for consideration include the Department’s past performance metrics, historical cost recovery levels, and cost recovery philosophy outlined
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 2
in current policy. Average FY 2022 – FY 2024 (unaudited) overall cost recovery for Department recreation services offerings was 31.5% (exclusive of administration expense and applicable portions of parks maintenance expenses accounted for in the public works operating budget) and is projected to decrease to 26.6% by the close of FY 2025. This is mainly due to the projected increase of non-personnel expenditures and the projected decrease in fees and charges revenue; therefore, should additional revenue generation be prioritized to meet cost recovery targets and increase overall cost recovery rates to historical levels, fees may need to be adjusted to meet the overall cost recovery target ranges presented in Table 1.1 below. Cost recovery levels also reflect an intentional effort to provide recreation programming and services at affordable levels, helping ensure financial barriers to entry are eliminated.
In order to arrive at accurate and realistic cost recovery growth targets for the Department, BerryDunn, based on the objective analysis performed and known assumptions, developed the following three scenarios for consideration to align cost recovery target development. These scenarios provided an additional framework to be considered when assessing how resources should be allocated and other budgetary development efforts. In developing these scenarios, BerryDunn has provided the Department a foundation to discuss uncertainty, align strategic efforts, and make informed decisions that will support the Department’s long-term service preference trajectory.
Table 1.1: Department Aggerate Cost Recovery Range and Revenue Growth Scenarios Scenario FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 CR/Rev Growth
Current 26.4% 26.3% 25.8% -
Least Aggressive 27.0% 27.4% 28.0% 2% – 3%/$100k
Middle 28.2% 29.9% 30.0% 5% – 6%/$175k
Most Aggressive 29.4% 30.1% 31%+ 7% – 9%/$250k
The table below outlines activity, program, and service offerings expected to be delivered across core recreation service categories through FY 2028 and revenue and expense ranges estimated to achieve desired cost recovery target ranges. It is estimated the Department could realize an additional $100,000 to $190,000 in revenue generation annually by the close of FY 2028 should the cost recovery ranges depicted below be realized.1 This would return the Department to an overall recreation cost recovery of around 30% – 31% through FY 2028.
1 Though future activity, program, and service demands and trends throughout the City and region cannot be known for certain, the proposed cost recovery ranges are projected to allow for revenue to be generated each FY based on known core expense assumptions and current demand trends to meet desired cost recovery levels. Should demand for activities, programs, and services decrease or level of services provided change, additional fee and charges adjustments may need to be made if cost recovery targets are to be met. BerryDunn estimates that if the Department maintains fees for activities, programs, and services to achieve the ranges depicted above, parks and recreation programming offered through the Department will fall within an aggregate cost recovery range of 30% – 31% for all activities, programs, and services through FY 2028.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 3
Table 1.2: Summary of Cost Recovery Range Recommendations Community Centers Recommended Ranges (General Fund)
Core Service
Category Revenue Expense Cost Recovery Target
Community
Centers $279,000 – $294,000 $1,689,000 – $1,766,000 16% – 17% General Recreation Services* Recommended Ranges (General Fund) Core Service
Category Revenue Expense Cost Recovery Target
General Recreation
Services* $47,000 – $49,000 $956,000 – $999,000 5% – 6% *Includes Developing Personal Resources Center (DPRC) Programs and Services Aquatics Recommended Ranges (General Fund)
Core Service
Category Revenue Expense Cost Recovery Target
Richmond Swim
Center $210,000 – $244,000 $599,000 – $626,000 35% – 39% Plunge $247,000 – $284,000 $418,000 – $437,000 59% – 65% Convention Center Recommended Ranges (General Fund)
Core Service
Category Revenue Expense Cost Recovery Target
Convention Center $371,000 – $420,000 $773,000 – $808,000 48% – 52% Additionally, leadership expressed a desire to utilize the developed cost recovery framework to establish Department-wide guidance related to fee increases for activities, programs, and services within the core service areas. Leadership also expressed a desire to link cost recovery targets to philosophy and policy to reflect the fiscal reality of the Department as well as its continued mission for serving the community. Continuing this approach will provide guidance to staff when prioritizing the development of core program areas, setting fees and charges, identifying tax subsidy/other support sources, and allocating resources efficiently and effectively.
Linking cost recovery targets and financial forecasting efforts to policy will help staff calculate and determine program fees that will help reach overall cost recovery targets. Cost recovery criteria are not absolute in every instance but rather are designed to further assist with pricing adjustment decisions and stimulate conversations around service delivery cost recovery.
While it remains the mission of the Department to provide some core recreation programs and services free of charge or at reduced rates for some users, the cost of providing supplemental services must be partially offset by charges to the participants who are the primary beneficiaries of these services. Therefore, a periodic review of cost recovery targets, once outlined, should be undertaken to assess whether revenue generation is sufficient at current target levels or if
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 4
adjustments are needed. By having a dynamic cost recovery policy that is continuously adjusted to align with fiscal reality, the Department will increase its chances of being financially resilient in the long term.
Though future activity, program, and service demands and trends throughout the City and region cannot be known for certain, the proposed cost recovery ranges are projected to allow for revenue to be generated each FY based on known core expense assumptions and current demand trends to meet desired cost recovery levels. Should demand for activities, programs, and services decrease or level of services provided change, additional fee and charges adjustments may need to be made if cost recovery targets are to be met. BerryDunn estimates that if the Department maintains fees for activities, programs, and services to achieve the ranges depicted above, recreation programming offered through the Department will fall within an aggregate cost recovery range of 30% – 31% for all recreation activities, programs, and services through FY 2028.
While overall cost recovery baselines might seem low, it is not indicative of poor financial management. In fact, when compared to similar park and recreation agencies across the country, which recovered an average of 25.2% of the total cost to provide parks and recreation programming and services in 2024,2 the Department is clearly projected to remain above that benchmark and desires to move toward the 30%+ overall cost recovery level in future FYs.
The above cost recovery ranges represent general, activity, program, and service types. Actual fee levels may need to be adjusted according to specific activity, program, and service type offered; schedule of offerings (number of classes); season of offerings; maximum participant allowance; personnel and non-personnel support required; and other applicable criteria.
The Department should continue to track, in detail, the number of resident and non-resident participants registered, memberships/passes issued, and rentals booked for the most common services provided, assessing fee adjustments for those specific services each FY to determine the level of impact any adjustments might have on revenue generation to offset applicable costs and satisfy cost recovery goals. To that end, though the objective financial analyses performed have provided a financial baseline for analyses and forecasting related to Department recreation core service categories and cost recovery target ranges, non-financial criteria should also be considered.
The Department’s inherent mission is to develop and deliver high-quality recreation and community resource services regardless of a service recipient’s ability to pay. Although cost recovery targets have been developed based on objective analytical findings, careful consideration should still be given when pricing specific services within core service categories.
Generally, municipal recreation and community services are relatively inelastic when it comes to price increase absorption. Whether it is the ability to pay or a desire to obtain a service elsewhere, even a slight price increase for services may have a larger-than-intended impact on
2 National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). 2024. Agency Performance Review 2024. Ashburn: VA.
Accessed March 2025. www.nrpa.org/siteassets/research/2024-agency-performance-review.pdf.
This is a self-reported national metric and includes parks maintenance expenditures and other agency nuanced expenditures which may not be applicable to Department operations and service delivery.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 5
service demand. Potential service recipients will generally not absorb price increases, whether it presents a financial barrier or by choice, and will opt out of the service or find an alternate service provider should prices be perceived as too high.
BerryDunn recommends the Department continue performing a basic CoS analysis annually and preparing a formal cost recovery study every three to five years—or when the Department experiences a significant change in demand for services, organizational structure, or key business processes, or when it identifies budgetary issues. The Department is encouraged to adjust and update all fees and charges on an annual or ongoing basis, using detailed data and information as it becomes available, especially detailed data collected via the Department’s electronic registration and permitting system (Active). User fees and charges should be set at levels intended to reasonably recover a portion of the activity, program, or service cost—as outlined in the Department’s cost recovery philosophy, policies—and to support its mission.
1.3 Acronyms and Terms
Table 1.3: Project Acronyms/Terms and Definitions
Acronym/Term Definition
BerryDunn Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
CoS Cost of Service
City City of Richmond
CPI Consumer Price Index
Department Community Services – Recreation Department
DPRC Developing Personal Resources Center
FY Fiscal Year
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s
IRS Internal Revenue Service
MS Microsoft
P&R Parks and Recreation
SME Subject Matter Expert
SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs
State State of California
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 6
2.0 Approach and Work Performed
This section outlines how BerryDunn approached the project, summarizes the major tasks performed within each phase, provides an overview of how the CoS analysis was performed, and provides a high-level synopsis of the project deliverables.
2.1 Work Performed
BerryDunn’s approach to completing this study involved five phases: Phase 1 – Project Initial Planning and Management; Phase 2 – CoS Analysis and Cost Modeling; Phase 3 – Engagement, Cost Recovery Range Development, and Policy Considerations; Phase 4 – Draft Report and Recommendations; and Phase 5 – Final Report and Recommendations. Central to the approach was using BerryDunn’s Microsoft (MS) Excel-based CoS model to calculate the City’s cost of providing each activity, program, permit, and service, by core service category.
These costs were identified in the Department’s general fund operating budget. Applicable portions of capital costs were excluded from total cost calculation and cost recovery calculations. Furthermore, BerryDunn used the cost model to perform forecasting scenarios to assess the fiscal impact of Department programs and services between FY 2026 and FY 2028, based on known assumptions and historical performance.
After an initial project-planning call with the City Project Management Team (PMT) to clarify goals and objectives, identify known project constraints, and refine dates and/or tasks as appropriate, BerryDunn requested and reviewed documentation and data to gain a better understanding of the Department’s current fiscal and services environment.
BerryDunn conducted a project kickoff meeting and scheduled a series of follow-up meetings with City subject matter experts (SMEs) involved in the CoS study. BerryDunn also followed up with City staff on multiple occasions throughout the course of the project to confirm BerryDunn’s understanding of the data and information provided. The aim of these meetings and conversations was to discuss the types of Department services provided, the revenue generated, and the associated expenses incurred to provide those services.
BerryDunn reviewed the Department’s current revenue and expense environment and guided City staff through discussions to consider adjustments in core service areas that might better reflect the CoS the City commonly provides through the Department. This included discussions related to the current fees and charges environment and projected fees and charges environment related to revenue generation and elevated levels of service in the future.
BerryDunn worked with City staff to develop specific revenue and expense forecasts related to the Department’s current recreation services fees and charges environment and what could reasonably be expected from its future fees and charges environment, for which cost recovery ranges were calculated and their subsequent fiscal impact projected. BerryDunn reviewed all recreation services the Department provides, and is expected to provide in the future, which were analyzed on a core service category, service type, and in some cases, by specific activity, program, permit, or service basis by which known costs were assigned accordingly. Other
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 7
charges, such as penalties, fines, and State of California (State)-mandated fees, were excluded from the analysis.
BerryDunn employed an activity-based costing methodology that analyzes the major components required to provide services (e.g., activity and program development and review, contractor/vendor oversight, facility rental management, etc.) and the staff and resources required to develop, manage, and provide each component and deliver the service. This methodology relies on financial and program data City SMEs provided, which was then validated through checkpoints built into the CoS model developed.
BerryDunn also employed a standard cost-accounting methodology to identify and assign expected costs to all recreation services the Department provides, which utilizes identified expected expenses, mainly from the Department’s FY 2022 – FY 2025 operating budget segments to determine historical and current full cost allocation. Additionally, applicable operational expense projections were utilized in conjunction with current operating budget segments from FY 2024 and FY 2025 to determine full cost allocations for future FYs.
Finally, where detailed and/or accurate data was nonexistent, BerryDunn used institutional knowledge from City SMEs to develop cost assignment assumptions and used proportional assignment of expenses based on weighted averages and other standard analytical techniques.
Also included in the analysis are the identified and assigned revenues from FY 2022, 2023, and FY 2024 (actual, unaudited) associated with providing all recreation services reflective of the Department’s current fees and charges environment, and projected revenue associated with service delivery in the future, which City SMEs also verified.
BerryDunn prepared a CoS model that reflects the current and future fees and charges environment for this project based on the following: the Department’s FY 2024 (actual, unaudited) and FY 2025 (budget), reported actual revenue, future revenue and expense projections related to service delivery, key staff input and institutional knowledge, City financial document reviews, and data discussed and reviewed during project status meetings. BerryDunn reviewed study findings with the City on multiple occasions, identifying any needed revisions and allowing the City to give feedback and request additions and deletions before approving final deliverables.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 8
3.0 CoS Analysis Technical Findings
This section provides a general overview of the Department’s organizational structure, BerryDunn’s major technical findings, and BerryDunn’s projections based on those findings.
3.1 Department Overview
The Department provides a wide range of recreational activities, programs, and amenities to residents and visitors of various ages and skill levels with varying interests.
The Department strives to serve, educate and enhance the quality of life for the residents of Richmond. Professional staff plans and provides a variety of enjoyable and cost effective recreational, community, and cultural arts programs and services.
Table 3.1: Departmental Overview
Function Function Description
Community Services –
Recreation
The Department has broad responsibilities, including planning and support for quality service development and delivery, and maintaining a healthy and effective workforce. The Department performs these responsibilities through sound executive direction and leadership with a strong dedication to providing quality recreational and community services and facilities for City residents. The Department strives to be responsive to the community and provide outstanding customer service. The Department also provides support for two lending libraries and neighborhood councils.
Recreation Services
The Department offers a wide range of recreation programs and recreational services, including special interest classes and senior programming, serving thousands of participants annually. Services in this category also include programs and services related to the DPRC.
Aquatics Services The Department operates two aquatics facilities that offer year-round aquatic programming for all ages and abilities.
Community Centers and
Convention Center
The Department offers a variety of indoor and outdoor facilities and spaces that are available to rent for birthdays, business meetings, family gatherings, special events, etc.
Technology
The Department uses Active for online activity registration, facility reservations, permits, memberships, waitlist management, and additional attendance tracking. The Department also accepts in-person and phone registrations.
Funding Structure
The Department uses the general fund to account for the revenues and expenses associated with recreation and community services operations, maintenance, and service delivery.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 9
3.2 Recreation Environment CoS Analysis3
BerryDunn accounted for the revenue generated from the Department’s current fees and charges structure in five unique core service categories and 17 sub-core services categories.
BerryDunn reviewed all recreation activities, programs, and services delivered in FY 2022 and determined the full direct cost to provide all Department recreation and community services was $2,972,281. The identified and assigned revenue to specific recreation and community service delivery was $871,651. BerryDunn calculated the percentage of costs recovered by way of current fees and charges, finding that the Department recovered an estimated 29.3% of the direct cost to provide Department services in FY 2022.
BerryDunn reviewed all recreation activities, programs, and services delivered in FY 2023 and determined the full direct cost to provide all services was $3,228,128. The identified and assigned revenue to service delivery was $1,136,938. BerryDunn calculated the percentage of costs recovered by way of current fees and charges, finding that the Department recovered an estimated 35.2% of the direct cost to provide services in FY 2023.
BerryDunn reviewed all revenues and expenses associated with recreation activities, programs, and services delivered in FY 2024 (unaudited) and estimates total expected direct expense for recreation service provision to be $4,123,812. Projected revenue is expected to be an estimated $1,241,237. The projected cost recovery level for recreation service provision is estimated to be
30.1%. Additionally, revenue and expense forecasts were developed for FY 2025 – FY 2028.
The forecasts developed reflect the Department’s current revenue and expense environment and current levels of service, but also include additional revenue and expense projections associated with known service delivery assumptions as well as historical performance. The following table highlights the core program and service areas, and associated revenue and expense for FY 2022 – FY 2028, for recreation activities, programs, and services.
Table 3.2: FY 2022 – FY 2028 Recreation Programs and Services Revenue-Generating Core Service Areas
Fiscal Year Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2022 $871,651 $2,972,281 29.3%
FY 2023 $1,136,938 $3,228,128 35.2%
FY 2024 (unaudited) $1,241,237 $4,123,812 30.1%
FY 2025 (estimated) $1,073,200 $4,031,781 26.6%
FY 2026 (estimated) $1,119,424 $4,233,370 26.4%
FY 2027 (estimated) $1,168,453 $4,445,039 26.3%
3 All revenue and expense values and/or totals presented in Section 3.0 are exclusive of administration and non-fees and charges revenue and expense. Additionally, all expense values are exclusive of applicable portions of parks maintenance expenses accounted for in the public works operating budget. Applicable recreation department cost pool and/or facilities maintenance expenses are included. See Section 4.0 for allocation of administrative expense.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 10
Revenue-Generating Core Service Areas
Fiscal Year Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2028 (estimated) $1,207,864 $4,675,035 25.8%
While overall cost recovery baselines might seem low, it is not indicative of poor financial management. Agencies that generally set cost recovery targets and operate within the 25% to 50% cost recovery range are of the type that prioritize community benefit and treat recreation services as a vital community service to be delivered rather than solely a revenue-generating service delivery segment. Furthermore, it is the intent and mission of the Department to provide recreation programming and services at steeply discounted rates. That is not to say that revenue generation for these agencies is not a priority in some instances, but rather service delivery comes first, and fiscal priorities are not utilized to create barriers to entry and limit access to activities, programs, and services. The Department’s current cost recovery framework incorporates both criteria related to revenue generation and perceived benefit received assumptions. Furthermore, the Department’s mission incorporates core values that prioritize recreation and community resources service delivery regardless of participant and/or service delivery recipient’s ability to pay. Therefore, consideration should also be given to the idea that recreation and community programs and services provide overall community benefit, above and beyond the direct financial benefit, by way of offering access and providing services that promote health, safety, and life skills for participants.
To that end, several factors should be considered when assessing the current cost recovery level and estimated future cost recovery level targets. The Department has experienced increased expenditures for some activities, programs, and services related to both personnel and non-personnel segments over the past two fiscal years, a trend that is likely to continue.
Furthermore, revenue growth across all core service segments has not kept pace with expenditures increases with revenue in some core service categories actually declining year- over-year.
Every municipality also accounts for the CoS differently. Municipalities may have dedicated personnel from areas within similar facilities but may account for those personnel expenses in different departmental budgets (i.e., some municipalities are organized to account for parks operations and maintenance expenses in a public works operating budget rather than a traditional parks and recreation operating budget.)
Finally, because of the unique nature of services provided by the Department, revenues are cyclical, tend to fluctuate on an annual basis, and are dependent on macroeconomic activity, making forecasting increased revenue generation difficult for certain service segments.
Nonetheless, it is useful for leadership and staff to understand at a greater level of detail which core service categories are expected to be major revenue and expense drivers. The figure below depicts average annual revenue and expense for core service categories and estimated cost recovery levels for FY 2026 – FY 2028 (est.).
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 11
Figure 3.1: Average Core Service Area Cost Recovery FY 2026 – FY 2028 (est.)
BerryDunn estimates the Department will have an overall cost recovery ceiling in the range of
30.0% – 31.0% specific to fees and charges revenue in future FYs, related to the current services environment. Without major operational adjustments altering the service delivery structure, sustained expenditure reductions, sustained funding increases, major fee increases, or without the addition of significant revenue-generating programming, the current fees and charges environment is not currently expansive enough to generate revenue levels sufficient to consistently sustain Department operations at cost recovery levels greater than 31.0%. This is not a negative outcome; rather, this allows for policy decisions to be made regarding increased revenue generation for core service segments in the future, if so desired.
BerryDunn does not recommend a complete fee schedule adjustment encompassing all activities, programs, and services in the near term. The Department should, however, focus on the core revenue-generating segments of its service delivery and consider adjustments to select services’ fees and charges to help ensure Department cost recovery targets are being met, if desired/required. Figure 3.2, below, depicts the Department’s core service areas and corresponding estimated revenue contributions FY 2026 – FY 2028 (est.).
14.5% 4.3%
49.1%
48.5%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
Community Centers General Recreation
(includes DPRC)
Aquatics Convention Center
Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 12
Figure 3.2: Core Service Area Percentage of Total Revenue Generated FY 2026 – FY 2028 (est.)
It will be helpful for the Department to focus on core revenue-generating activities to help meet cost recovery goals and targets. Department staff should also carefully monitor local indicators related to activity, program, and service demand and trends. To help ensure Department services continue at current levels and that increased service levels can be achieved to accommodate increased customer demand, select fees will most likely need to be systematically increased to help offset increased expenditures. For these reasons, BerryDunn recommends the Department—when considering adjustments to select fees and charges—give initial consideration to programs and services in the high revenue-generating categories. This would result in additional revenue gains to help recover a portion of the costs incurred from Department operations and service delivery and to accommodate the Department’s growth trajectory.
19.3%
3.2%
39.3%
29.6%
8.7%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
Community
Centers
General
Recreation
(includes DPRC)
Aquatics Convention
Center
Park / Facilities
Rentals
Revenue Percent of Total Revenue
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 13
4.0 Recreation Cost Recovery Range Recommendations
This section outlines core service types expected to be delivered through FY 2028. This section also depicts BerryDunn’s recommended cost recovery level ranges for specific activities, programs, and services within those categories, for consideration.
CoS is an identification and calculation of what is required financially to produce or operate a service. Cost recovery is a complex calculation, often inclusive of subjective elements; thus, ranges are usually established based on perceived benefit received by the participant as well as fiscal requirements. Cost recovery philosophy represents a decision to generate revenues by charging fees or other types of revenue for some, or all, activities, programs, and services relative to the total operational costs to provide them. Cost recovery does not imply that the target is total recovery of the cost; however, a cost recovery range is established according to a variety of considerations and may range from 0% to more than 100% of identified costs. As cost recovery is defined differently in nearly every organization, this section outlines approaches to revenue generation and cost recovery target setting specific to the Department’s organizational goals and mission to deliver services to the community.
The benefit categories defined below illustrate a pricing philosophy based on establishing fees commensurate with the benefit received as well as other financial needs. Descriptions regarding each benefit category are provided; however, definitions are intended as discussion points and heavily depend on agency philosophies to determine what specific programs and services belong in each category. Cultural, regional, geographical, and resource differences play a large role in this determination. Ultimately, the Department will make the final determination of which benefit category an activity, program, and/or service will fall within.
Table 4.0: Benefit Category General Definitions
Benefit Category Benefit Description
Community Benefit –
High
This benefit category encompasses services, including programs and facilities, that mostly benefit the community as a whole. These services may increase property values, provide safety, address social needs, and enhance residents’ quality of life. The community generally supports these services via non-fee support. These services are generally offered to residents at a minimal charge or with no fee. A larger percentage of the City’s non-fee support would fund activities and programs in this category.
Community Benefit –
Medium
This benefit category represents services that promote individual physical and mental well-being, and may begin to provide skill development. They are generally expected services and/or beginner instructional levels. These services are typically assigned fees based upon a specified percentage of direct (and in certain instances may also include indirect) costs. These costs are partially offset by both non-fee funding sources to account for considerable community benefit and participant fees to account for the individual benefit received from the service.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 14
Benefit Category Benefit Description
Community/Individual
Benefit – Balanced
This benefit category represents services promoting individual physical and mental well-being, and provides an intermediate level of skill development.
The category represents balanced individual and community benefit and should be priced accordingly. The individual fee is set to recover a higher percentage of cost than those services falling within the strictly community benefit categories.
Individual Benefit –
Medium
This benefit category represents specialized services generally for specific groups, and those that may have a competitive focus. Services in this category may be priced to recover full cost, including all direct expenses.
Individual Benefit – High
This benefit category represents services that have potential to generate revenues above costs, may be in the same market space as the private sector, or may fall outside the core mission of the agency. In this level, services should be priced to recover full cost in addition to a designated profit percentage.
Narrowing facilities, activities, programs, and services and placing them in categories that best fit their perceived benefit expectations allows a reasonable road map to be followed when determining the placement of current, new, and future service offerings and their pricing.
The Department’s mission incorporates core values that prioritize recreation and community service delivery regardless of participant and/or service delivery recipient’s ability to pay. The Department should set its cost recovery goals based upon values, vision, mission, stakeholder input, funding needs, and/or other criteria, and position itself to illustrate and articulate where it has been and where it is heading, from a fiscal perspective.
4.1 Cost Recovery Range Recommendations
Cost recovery level ranges for specific activities, programs, and services across the core service categories were developed for consideration. Subsequently, cost recovery level ranges developed for guidance were based on known, estimated direct operational costs, personnel costs, program and supply costs, and other applicable costs. Additionally, cost recovery level ranges developed for guidance take into consideration, where applicable, industry-standard cost recovery targets for offerings of similar activities, programs, and services as well as the Department’s historical cost recovery levels and those cost recovery levels outlined in the Department’s financial projections. The Department’s current cost recovery framework incorporates both criteria related to revenue generation and perceived benefit received assumptions, some examples of which have been outlined above.
Nonetheless, a sufficient level of revenue generation is critical to help ensure business and service delivery continuity. As has been demonstrated by the CoS findings outlined in Section
3.0 above, across the four core service categories identified for the recreation environment, the overall recreation services cost recovery level estimated for FY 2025 is 26.6%. However, service offerings and participation levels fluctuate, and costs associated with service delivery
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 15
rise and fall continuously and therefore fee levels may need to be periodically adjusted to not only reflect adopted policy, but also to meet cost recovery targets.
4.1.1 Community Centers Programs and Services
BerryDunn reviewed all revenue generated and direct expenses incurred related to core recreation activities, programs, and services delivered at/through community centers FY 2022 – FY 2024. The projected full direct cost to provide all community center services in FY 2025 is estimated to be $1,535,580. The identified and assigned revenue to community centers service delivery in FY 2025 is estimated to be $240,950. BerryDunn calculated the percentage of costs recovered by way of current fees and charges, finding that the community centers core service area is projected to recover an estimated 15.7% of the direct cost to provide services in FY 2025. This is about 4.2% lower than the average cost recovery for services delivered in FY 2022 – FY 2024. Table 4.1 outlines community centers services revenue and direct expense for the FYs analyzed.
Table 4.1: FY2022 – FY 2028 Community Centers
Community Centers Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2022 $274,122 $1,246,822 22.0%
FY 2023 $284,466 $1,284,868 22.1%
FY 2024 (unaudited) $282,410 $1,797,929 15.7%
FY 2025* $240,950 $1,535,580 15.7%
FY 2026* $243,360 $1,612,359 15.1%
FY 2027* $245,793 $1,692,977 14.5%
FY 2028* $248,251 $1,777,626 14.0%
Total $1,819,352 $10,948,161 16.6%
*estimated
BerryDunn also estimated applicable indirect revenue and expense associated with community centers service delivery in FY 2025, finding that an estimated $25,217 of additional revenue and $1,924,252 of additional expense was associated with recreation administration and other activities. Table 4.2 highlights the estimated impact to the FY 2025 cost recovery level inclusive of these revenues and expenses.
Table 4.2: FY 2025: Community Centers (With Recreation Administration Revenue and Expense) Community Centers Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2025 (estimated) $240,950 $1,535,580 15.7%
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 16
Community Centers Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
Recreation Administration:
FY 2025 $25,217 $1,428,470
Other: FY 2025 $0 $179,385
Grand Total $265,667 $3,143,435 8.5%
BerryDunn also reviewed revenue and expense projections associated with community center service delivery for FY 2025 – FY 2028 to establish recommended cost recovery ranges for centers. Table 4.3 highlights the recommended revenue, expense, and cost recovery ranges for the community centers analyzed.
Table 4.3: FY2025 – FY 2028 Community Centers Recommended Ranges Community Centers Core Services Recommended Ranges (General Fund) Service Category Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
Target
Community Centers $279,000 – $294,000 $1,689,000 – $1,766,000 16% – 17% BerryDunn recommends the Department set a targeted cost recovery range for all community centers activities, programs, and services of 16% – 17%. Based on the CoS analysis performed for FY 2025, a targeted range of 16% – 17% cost recovery would require the community centers fees and charges environment to be adjusted to generate an additional $31,000 – $46,000 of revenue annually, a 19.2% average increase. Additional revenue generation requirements could also be offset with targeted expenditure reductions and/or service delivery efficiencies reducing the burden on facility users and service recipients.
4.1.2 General Recreation Services (Includes DPRC Programs and Services) BerryDunn reviewed all revenue generated and direct expenses incurred related to core general recreation activities, programs, and services delivered in FY 2022 – FY 2024. The projected full direct cost to provide all general recreation services in FY 2025 is estimated to be $869,104.
The identified and assigned revenue to general recreation service delivery in FY 2025 is estimated to be $40,100. BerryDunn calculated the percentage of costs recovered by way of current fees and charges, finding that the general recreation core service area is projected to recover an estimated 4.6% of the direct cost to provide services in FY 2025. This is about 1.2% lower than the average cost recovery for services delivered in FY 2022 – FY 2024. Table 4.4 outlines general recreation services revenue and direct expense for the FYs analyzed.
Table 4.4: FY2022 – FY 2028 General Recreation
General Recreation Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2022 $42,348 $661,378 6.4%
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 17
General Recreation Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2023 $47,741 $713,536 6.7%
FY 2024 (unaudited) $41,035 $984,821 4.2%
FY 2025* $40,100 $869,104 4.6%
FY 2026* $40,501 $912,559 4.4%
FY 2027* $40,906 $958,187 4.3%
FY 2028* $41,315 $1,006,097 4.1%
Total $293,946 $6,105,682 4.8%
*estimated
BerryDunn also estimated applicable indirect revenue and expense associated with general recreation service delivery in FY 2025, finding that an estimated $4,206 of additional revenue and $1,089,084 of additional expense was associated with recreation administration and other activities. Table 4.5 highlights the estimated impact to the FY 2025 cost recovery level inclusive of these revenues and expenses.
Table 4.5: FY 2025: General Recreation (With Recreation Administration Revenue and Expense) General Recreation Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2025 (estimated) $40,100 $869,104 4.6%
Recreation Administration:
FY 2025 $4,206 $808,482
Other: FY 2025 $0 $101,528
Grand Total $44,306 $1,779,114 2.5%
BerryDunn also reviewed revenue and expense projections associated with general recreation service delivery for FY 2025 – FY 2028 to establish recommended cost recovery ranges for services. Table 4.6 highlights the recommended revenue, expense, and cost recovery ranges for the categories analyzed.
Table 4.6: FY2025 – FY 2028 General Recreation Recommended Ranges General Recreation Recommended Ranges (General Fund)
Aquatic Center Revenue Expense Cost Recovery Target
General Recreation
Services $47,000 – $49,000 $956,000 – $999,000 5% – 6%
BerryDunn recommends the Department set a targeted cost recovery range for all general recreation activities, programs, and services of 5% - 6%. Based on the CoS analysis performed
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 18
for FY 2025, a targeted range of 5% – 6% cost recovery would require the general recreation fees and charges environment to be adjusted to generate an additional $6,000 – $9,000 of revenue annually, a 21.7% average increase. Additional revenue generation requirements could also be offset with targeted expenditure reductions and/or service delivery efficiencies reducing the burden on facility users and service recipients.
4.1.3 Aquatics Services
BerryDunn reviewed all revenue generated and direct expenses incurred related to core aquatics activities, programs, and services delivered in FY 2022 – FY 2024. The projected full direct cost to provide all aquatics services in FY 2025 is estimated to be $924,638. The identified and assigned revenue to aquatics service delivery in FY 2025 is estimated to be $436,650. BerryDunn calculated the percentage of costs recovered by way of current fees and charges, finding that the aquatics core service area is projected to recover an estimated 47.2% of the direct cost to provide services in FY 2025. This is about 2.2% lower than the average cost recovery for services delivered in FY 2022 – FY 2024. Table 4.7 outlines aquatics services revenue and direct expense for the FYs analyzed.
Table 4.7 FY2022 – FY 2028 Aquatics Services
Aquatics Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2022 $299,017 $631,103 47.4%
FY 2023 $388,967 $774,679 50.2%
FY 2024 (unaudited) $480,284 $946,592 50.7%
FY 2025* $436,650 $924,638 47.2%
FY 2026* $469,399 $970,870 48.3%
FY 2027* $504,604 $1,019,413 49.5%
FY 2028* $529,834 $1,070,384 49.6%
Total $3,108,754 $6,337,679 49.1%
*estimated
BerryDunn also estimated applicable indirect revenue and expense associated with aquatics service delivery in FY 2025, finding that an estimated $45,794 of additional revenue and $1,158,674 of additional expense was associated with recreation administration and other activities. Table 4.8 highlights the estimated impact to the FY 2025 cost recovery level inclusive of these revenues and expenses.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 19
Table 4.8: FY 2025: Aquatics Services (With Recreation Administration Revenue and Expense) Aquatics Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2025 (estimated) $436,650 $924,638 47.2%
Recreation Administration:
FY 2025 $45,794 $860,142
Other: FY 2025 $0 $108,016
Grand Total $482,444 $2,083,312 25.5%
BerryDunn also reviewed revenue and expense projections associated with aquatics service delivery for FY 2025 – FY 2028 to establish recommended cost recovery ranges for services.
Table 4.9 highlights the recommended revenue, expense, and cost recovery ranges for the categories analyzed.
Table 4.9: FY2025 – FY 2028 Aquatics Core Services Recommended Ranges Aquatics Services Recommended Ranges (General Fund)
Service Category Revenue Expense Cost Recovery Target
Richmond Swim
Center $210,000 – $244,000 $599,000 – $626,000 35% – 39% Plunge $247,000 – $284,000 $418,000 – $437,000 59% – 65% BerryDunn recommends the Department set a targeted cost recovery range for all aquatics activities, programs, permits, and services of 50% - 53%. Based on the CoS analysis performed for FY 2025, a targeted range of 50% – 53% cost recovery would require the aquatics fees and charges environment to be adjusted to generate an additional $90,000 – $100,000 of revenue annually, an 23.4% average increase. Additional revenue generation requirements could also be offset with targeted expenditure reductions and/or service delivery efficiencies reducing the burden on service recipients.
4.1.4 Convention Center Services
BerryDunn reviewed all revenue generated and direct expenses incurred related to core convention center services delivered in FY 2022 – FY 2024. The projected full direct cost to provide all convention center services in FY 2025 is estimated to be $702,459. The identified and assigned revenue to convention center service delivery in FY 2025 is estimated to be $355,500. BerryDunn calculated the percentage of costs recovered by way of current fees and charges, finding that the convention center core service area is projected to recover an estimated 50.6% of the direct cost to provide services in FY 2025. This is about 36.5% lower than the average cost recovery for services delivered in FY 2022 – FY 2024. Table 4.10 outlines senior services revenue and direct expense for the FYs analyzed.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 20
Table 4.10: FY2022 – FY 2028 Convention Center Services Convention Center Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2022 $256,164 $432,978 59.2%
FY 2023 $415,764 $455,045 91.4%
FY 2024 (unaudited) $437,508 $394,470 110.9%
FY 2025* $355,500 $702,459 50.6%
FY 2026* $366,165 $737,582 49.6%
FY 2027* $377,150 $774,461 48.7%
FY 2028* $388,464 $820,929 47.3%
Total $2,596,715 $4,317,924 60.1%
*estimated
BerryDunn also estimated applicable indirect revenue and expense associated with convention center services delivery in FY 2025, finding that an estimated $37,283 of additional revenue and $880,259 of additional expense was associated with recreation administration and other activities. Table 4.11 highlights the estimated impact to the FY 2025 cost recovery level inclusive of these revenues and expenses.
Table 4.11: FY 2025: Convention Center Services (With Recreation Administration Revenue and Expense)
Convention Center Core Service Area (General Fund)
FY Revenue Expense Cost Recovery
FY 2025 (estimated) $355,500 $702,459 50.6%
Recreation Administration:
FY 2025 $37,283 $653,461
Other: FY 2025 $0 $82,061
Grand Total $392,783 $1,437,981 27.3%
BerryDunn also reviewed revenue and expense projections associated with convention center service delivery for FY 2025 – FY 2028 to establish recommended cost recovery ranges for services. Table 4.12 highlights the recommended revenue, expense, and cost recovery ranges for the categories analyzed.
Table 4.12: FY2025 – FY 2028 Convention Center Core Services Recommended Ranges Convention Center Core Services Recommended Ranges (General Fund) Service Category Revenue Expense Cost Recovery Target
Convention Center $371,000 – $420,000 $773,000 – $808,000 48% – 52%
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 21
BerryDunn recommends the Department set a targeted cost recovery range for all convention center services of 48% - 52%. Based on the CoS analysis performed for FY 2025, a targeted range of 48% – 52% cost recovery would require the convention center fees and charges environment to be adjusted to generate an additional $15,000 – $65,000 of revenue annually, a
20.5% average increase. Additional revenue generation requirements could also be offset with targeted expenditure reductions and/or service delivery efficiencies reducing the burden on service recipients.
Over 60% of annual revenue generation attributable to the convention center is not directly related to rental service or facility usage in the traditional sense. Rather, a significant portion of annual revenue generation comes from a lease agreement related to a cellular/radio tower installed on the facility roof. Therefore, should additional revenue generation be prioritized for the facility by way of increased rental fees and charges additional investment in the physical attributes of the facility may be needed. In doing so, the City may realize increased revenue generation through enhanced rental opportunities, but investments in the following categories may be needed.
Increased Capacity and/or Room Versatility: Expanding or upgrading the physical attributes of core rental spaces may allow for the convention center to host larger events across and wider variety of rental needs such as trade shows, industry conferences, and community events.
Upgrades of Amenities and Technology: Increasing and/or expanding high-speed internet access and wireless connection capabilities and installing advanced audio-visual equipment, the convention center can attract a wider variety of rental clientele. Furthermore, rental client are often willing to pay a premium for venues that can meet their advanced technological requirements.
Enhanced Marketing Efforts: Additional investments in marketing may improve the perception of the facility making it a more attractive option for event organizers and potential rental clients.
This may also lead to the facility attracting larger events which not only lead to an increase in direct rental income, but may also generate additional indirect revenue through catering services and local accommodations. More frequent and larger events may also lead to a greater demand for a variety of local services such as restaurants and transportation services leading to scenarios that boosts overall City revenue.
Overall, additional investment in the convention center may not only increase its appeal and functionality to attract a wider variety of clients, but also creates multiple avenues for increased revenue generation through rentals and broader citywide economic stimulation.
As outlined above, the Department’s FY 2025 overall fees and charges cost recovery—the calculated percentage of aggregate recreation applicable costs in relation to the revenues generated—for providing all fee-applicable activities, programs, and services is projected to be
26.6%. For example, the offering of an activity or delivery of a service would achieve 100% cost recovery if the fees generated revenue sufficient to cover all associated costs related to the operation of an activity or program, or to deliver a specific service.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 22
Increased demand for Department activities, programs, and services, and the associated expenses incurred providing services, will continue to materialize in FY 2025, and especially through FY 2028. It is also clear that setting fees at levels sufficient to generate revenue to recover a portion of the costs greater than 26.6% for providing activities, programs, and services will take some time and will most likely not be achieved with a single fee schedule adjustment.
For this reason, BerryDunn recommends setting targeted ranges of cost recovery related to specific activity and service categories and adjusting fees within that service category accordingly. Overall targeted ranges of 30% - 31% cost recovery for recreation services is likely achievable for the Department and is in line with similar agencies of the same size and organization and service delivery framework.
4.2 Non-Resident Pricing Premium
As non-resident fee premiums are considered, which generally fall within 10% to 25% range above base resident fee levels nationally, non-resident premiums should also be used as a mechanism to reduce the City’s support of the program or service being delivered. This also helps to keep residential pricing lower so as not to create a financial barrier to entry or participation for residents. Additional revenue generated through non-resident premiums is helpful in providing additional funding for overall operations and helping ensure additional funding for current program expansion and future program development and offerings.
For these reasons, BerryDunn recommends that the City consider adopting a non-resident pricing premium in the range of 20% - 25% initially, to be applied to applicable base resident activity and program fees. A non-resident premium for facilities and rental services should also be considered and perhaps be set at a level above 25% initially. As mentioned above, this will help the Department generate additional revenue to fund service delivery and help ensure business continuity. Additionally, BerryDunn recommends that the Department offer a resident- only registration period for all activities, programs, and services offered to maintain residential priority access to all services.
4.3 Strategic Financial Recommendations and Considerations BerryDunn also recommends that the Department consider the recommendations and considerations outlined below. (list numbers do not reflect a priority of consideration or action)
1. BerryDunn recommends that the Department continue to review and update fees on a periodic basis, as needed. This may help to increase revenue generation and meet cost recovery targets. Smaller and more frequent fee adjustments may also help to mitigate financial impacts to customers. Fee reviews should also be performed in conjunction with the Department’s ongoing service delivery efficiency and cost reduction review efforts as well.
2. BerryDunn recommends setting targeted ranges of cost recovery related to specific activity, program, and service categories and adjusting fees within that service category accordingly. As outlined in Section 4.0 above, the Department’s FY 2025 overall fees and charges cost recovery—the calculated percentage of aggregate costs in relation to
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 23
the revenues generated—for providing all fee-applicable activities, programs, and services is estimated to be 26.6%. For example, the offering of an activity or delivery of a service would achieve 100% cost recovery if the fees generated revenue sufficient to cover all associated costs related to the operation of an activity or program, or to deliver a specific service. Targeted ranges of 30.0% to 31.0% cost recovery for aggregate recreation services is likely achievable for the Department within a few FYs and are in line with Department policy and mission.
3. BerryDunn recommends that the Department review the recreation core service cost recovery baselines provided above in Section 3.0 to assess where additional revenue generation by way of fees and charges increases may be warranted. This review should include an assessment of whether cost recovery targets are being met as outlined in the Department’s current cost recovery policy framework.
4. BerryDunn recommends that the Department review fees for activities, programs, and services in the higher revenue-generating core service categories first when considering fee adjustments as these adjustments are most likely to have the greatest impact on the Department’s fiscal environment. Staff should then perform a secondary review of specific services related to perceived benefit provided as outlined in recommendation 5 below and consider adjustments accordingly.
5. BerryDunn recommends that the Department review select fees for specific activities, programs, and services within the recreation and aquatics categories related to the cost recovery targets outlined in Section 4.0 above and identify those perceived to provide the most individual benefit. (e.g., specialized sports services). Staff should then consider the adjustment of select fees to exceed cost recovery targets for the policy categories in which they exist. This may provide additional revenue generation needed to increase cost recovery levels, but also to subsidize those services that are perceived to provide overall community benefit. (e.g., youth services, swim lessons, and senior services).
6. BerryDunn recommends that the Department identify and consider only costs considered direct costs associated with activity, program, and service development and delivery when assessing and setting fee levels.
7. BerryDunn recommends that the Department consider start-up and/or specific operational costs for select new activities, programs, and services scheduled to be offered and adjust cost recovery targets and set initial fee levels accordingly. A new activity, program, or service may need additional financial support in the beginning until the service matures and becomes more financially self-sustaining.
8. BerryDunn recommends that the Department continue to follow its current cost recovery policy framework and avoid allocating large subsidies to activities, programs, and services that target small portions of the City population and are perceived to provide minimal public benefit.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 24
9. BerryDunn recommends that in conjunction with the financial reviews performed, the Department should also monitor and review demand, trends, and non-municipal competition to help assess and calculate fee levels to reflect actual demand for activities, programs, and services.
10. BerryDunn recommends that the Department utilize some form of consistent non- resident premium pricing. Non-resident pricing can be used to offset activity, program, and service tax dollar support, to manage enrollments or demand, or to allow residential priority. The Department should consider developing a non-resident pricing policy to outline activities and services to which non-resident pricing applies and to establish a consistent methodology for calculating non-resident price levels. BerryDunn recommends that the non-resident pricing surcharge be applied as an additional percentage to the base resident fee level, in the 20% – 25% range. Additional, increased, non-resident pricing surcharges may be necessary for specific types of services such as facility access and rentals, if warranted.
11. BerryDunn recommends that the Department use its electronic registration and permitting system, Active, to the greatest extent possible to allow detailed tracking and analysis of annual participant volumes per activity, program, or service type.
Capturing this detail and incorporating it into fee setting practices will allow for a more nuanced and accurate analysis of cost recovery levels per service type and will allow staff to assess the impact of specific fee adjustments on revenues and expenditures in greater detail.
5.0 Additional Recommendations and Considerations
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 25
This section outlines various recommendations and considerations BerryDunn has provided based on the technical CoS analysis, current fees and charges environment analysis, and meetings with staff and stakeholders to discuss Department and citywide priorities.
5.1 Policy Considerations for Recreation User Fees and Charges Currently, the Department references a variety of stand-alone policies and procedures when deciding the applicability, eligibility, and eventual amount, of discount or support to be applied to an individual participant, partner, nonprofit, or other designated entities eligible for fee discounts and/or waivers. The process has become cumbersome to effectively, consistently, and equitably apply. Staff reported difficulty and confusion when deciding which particular policy applies to a specific individual and/or partner group when assistance is requested.
Department leadership expressed a desire to develop ideas for consistent and comprehensive policies and processes for all recreation user fees and charges. BerryDunn, in conjunction with Department leadership, embarked on a process of developing and example of a single, comprehensive user fees and charges policy specifically for recreation facilities, programs and services to establish a clear, consistent and comprehensive policy and processes for individuals and eligible partners.
The purpose of such policy would be to provide a clear and consistent framework for assessing eligibility and to provide guidance to staff related to the calculation of fee waivers for individual participants and/or eligible partners. To be used as a starting point for further discussion and adjustments BerryDunn has outlined below two example policy frameworks which could be applicable to individuals and eligible partners.
Individual Fee Waiver Policy Elements for Consideration (Example Only) Financial assistance would be granted on a sliding scale that is based on family size and income. The Department’s income guidelines would be based on the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) income guidelines for Contra Costa County. • Individuals who qualify would receive a fee waiver of 50% or 75%. o 50% assistance for households that meet the Low Income Limit category of HUD’s income guidelines.
o 75% assistance for households that meet the Very Low Income Limit category of HUD’s income guidelines.
o Additional assistance may be provided for households that meet the Extremely Low Income Limit category of HUD’s income guidelines pending the approval of the Department director.
• Financial assistance applications must be accompanied by a most recent 1040 Tax Form and last two paycheck stubs of all working adults. In lieu of the 1040 Tax Form, patrons can obtain and submit a Verification of Non-filing form the Internal Revenue Services (IRS). Alternate documents will be accepted if the patron does not file a
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 26
Federal Income Tax return and/or is currently unemployed or receives public assistance (examples only):
o Unemployment Benefits or Proof of Retirement Statement o Social Security Insurance/Social Security Disability Insurance/Pension Report o Section 8 Housing Assistance
o Nutrition Assistance Statement (SNAP)
o Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
o Medicaid Assistance Documentation
o Financial Aid Paperwork/Full-Time Student Verification Procedures (Examples Only)
1. Patron completes a fee waiver application and submits required financial documentation.
2. Staff and/or administrator reviews and verifies application and required financial documentation. All applications are kept confidential.
3. Staff and/or administrator tags patron’s account in Active for appropriate assistance. If the patron has not created an account, they are emailed instructions on how to create one and then the account is tagged.
4. Staff and/or administrator tags notifies patron of application status and award amount. If a balance is due, patron is given instructions on how to pay online or to call the Department to pay over the phone.
5. Staff and/or administrator receives weekly report notifying them of any patron that registered for a program and made a partial payment. Patron is emailed about the fee waiver program and given directions on how to pay their balance in full online.
The Department director or designee(s) shall have the authority to create and modify pricing for programs and services, as needed, due to changes in facilities, City of Richmond residency, market conditions and/or other variables as determined.
Partner Fee Waiver Policy Elements for Consideration (Example Only) While an individual fee waiver policy validates, codifies and structures the Department’s approach to individual user fees and charges in a consistent and efficient manner, an additional “partner” policy could be established and adopted. This would govern the eligibility and applicability of identified partners related to facility/space rental fees and charges in a consistent and efficient manner.
Partner service categories could be linked to a hierarchy of benefit accrual types (see Section
4.0). The community views the benefit of space/facility rental to be tiered by the user type which suggests differential rates:
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 27
General Public Partners – exclusive use of identified spaces and facilities on a one-time or ongoing basis by individuals, families or unaffiliated groups. (Examples include: family gatherings; birthday parties; wedding receptions; etc.) Individual Benefit – Medium: Up to a 25% Fee Waiver
Intergovernmental/City Partners – exclusive use of identified spaces and facilities on a one- time or ongoing basis by groups or organizations that have a documented relationship with the City and/or Department (including but not limited to memoranda of understanding [MOUs], contracts, etc.). These groups/organizations should have a like mission and/or aligned interests, and both should contribute to and benefit from the relationship. (Examples include community- based organizations or groups, applicable league, community support groups; etc.) Community/Individual Benefit – Balanced: Up to a 50% Fee Waiver Nonprofit Partners – exclusive use of identified spaces and facilities on a one-time or ongoing basis by groups or organizations qualifying as a 501(c)3 nonprofit agency under the United States Internal Revenue Code, meaning they are exempt from paying taxes. (Examples include:
charitable organizations such as Salvation Army; Boys and Girls Club; private schools; foundations; etc.)
Community/Individual Benefit – Balanced: Up to a 50% Fee Waiver For Profit Partners – exclusive use of identified spaces and facilities on a one-time or ongoing basis by commercial businesses defined as being organized primarily for profit. (Examples include: private instructors; personal trainers; businesses; etc.) High Individual Benefit – Balanced: Up to a 15% Fee Waiver Overall, fees and charges are necessary to provide financial support to the Department for the operation and maintenance of programs, facilities, and services. Revenue generated by these fees and charges constitutes only a portion of funds required for developing and delivering programs and services and operating and maintaining facilities.
The purpose of these policy examples outlined in Section 5.2 is to provide a baseline to develop a specific framework and guidance for City staff as they develop ideas and suggestions for streamlining fees and charges waivers. This policy ensures decision-makers (Council and City Administration) fee development and implementation will:
1) Be guided by the community’s understanding of benefit for the complete array of Department programs and services
2) Be administered fairly and equitably, pricing programs and services proportionally to where the benefit accrues with respect to the participant and non-participants (e.g., taxpayers who choose to not participate)
3) Safeguard programs and services availability for City residents regardless of financial means
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 28
5.2 Formal Fee Updates
BerryDunn recommends the Department undertake a basic CoS update annually and conduct a formal cost recovery study every two to three years—or when the Department experiences a significant change in demand for services, organizational structure, or key business processes, or when it identifies budgetary issues. In the meantime, the Department is encouraged to adjust and update the cost model on an annual or ongoing basis, using detailed data and information as it becomes available, especially data collected via the Department’s electronic registration system.
5.3 Setting Fee Levels
When setting fee levels the Department should continue to utilize its current cost recovery assessment framework. Additionally, as is standard practice across many similar types of agencies with similar service delivery environments, the Department should continue to identify and rely on municipal market comparisons to assess fee levels. By utilizing municipal market comparisons the Department will be able to consistently set fee levels according to similar market conditions and will also be able to assess fees levels in comparisons to cost recovery targets established for the recreation division. The Department has traditionally maintained a higher cost for non-residents based on a percentage increase versus a flat fee increase.
BerryDunn also recommends that the Department continue this practice and continue to perform specific analyses of resident versus non-resident activity and program information as this data will be useful in determining the most effective percentage to apply each year.
Cost recovery targets should be set based on the recreation fiscal environment only. A further level of refinement should also be explored to set cost recovery targets based on category of service, where applicable, and the perceived benefit to the individual or community. This will provide a framework for calculating and setting fee levels based on the unique activity, program, and/or service elements that need to be considered each time a program is delivered. As is often the case, activity, program, and service delivery frameworks change from season to season or at various times throughout the FY. For example, a winter session of a particular program may run six weeks and the summer session may run 10 weeks. Therefore, the fee for the winter session may be set at a different level than the fee for the summer session in order to meet cost recovery targets. It is essential that the Department retain authority and flexibility in adjusting and setting fee levels throughout the FY to help ensure cost recovery goals are being achieved for the recreation division.
In addition to continuing to utilize the Department’s cost recovery framework, it might be helpful for staff to consider more specific elements of an activity, program, and/or service when determining the appropriate fee level. Core criteria to consider may include:
General Information
• Service Category: this helps staff identify the current cost recovery target for a particular offering.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 29
• Program Area: this is often a layer below Service Category and may help better identify the specific cost recovery target for the offering.
• Facility and/or Location: this may help staff identify any applicable facility/location expenses that may need to be considered when determine a fee. • Activity, Program, or Service Title: how the offering will show up in registration system and/or marketing materials.
• Start Date/End Date: Length of the service offering. Number of classes/sessions.
Estimating Revenue (recreation activities and programs only) • Program Length: a common way to calculate length is taking the number of hours per week multiplied by the number of weeks the program is scheduled to run. • Participant Estimates: identifying the minimum and maximum number of participants will help to develop revenue projections.
• Fee Estimate: based on program length and number of participants calculate the necessary fee level to meet cost recovery targets.
Estimating Expense (recreation activities and programs only) • Personnel Expense: identify the specific staff and associated expense projected to be needed to run the program for the entire time it is scheduled. • Contractor Expense: identify any personnel that will be utilized outside of the City’s payroll environment.
• Services and Supplies Expense: identify any non-personnel expenses expected to be incurred to run the program for the entire time it is scheduled. • Fee Estimate: based on the revenue projections developed above, calculate the percentage of expense expected to be recovered by way of fee revenue and determine if it is an appropriate level to keep the activity, program, or service within the necessary cost recovery target range.
5.4 Pricing Strategies
The following are common pricing factors the Department could consider when developing fees and charges:
• Cost to offer the program (limited direct costs only) • History of fees charged
• Perceived ability and willingness to pay
• Number of participants per class/activity
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 30
• Affordability for target audience
• Ability to attract participants
Establishing a price for a program can be done through a variety of strategies. Arbitrary pricing is not encouraged as it is difficult to justify and does not articulate use of tax subsidy in a way that ties to the Department’s organizational or community mission. BerryDunn recommends the Department follow a cost recovery pricing approach based on cost recovery goals within cost recovery goal percentage ranges. This method uses cost recovery goals as a primary pricing strategy, followed by either market pricing (for services with low alternative coverage, i.e., few if any alternative providers) or competitive pricing (for services with high alternative coverage, i.e., other alternative providers offer similar services).
Other strategies to consider include:
• Market Pricing: A fee based on demand for a service or facility, or what the Department estimates a participant is willing to pay for a service. Private sector businesses commonly use this strategy. One consideration for establishing a market rate fee is determined by identifying all similar providers (e.g., private sector providers, municipalities, nonprofit providers) and, if it is determined that the service has excellent position in the market, establishing a fee that is higher than that of other similar providers.
• Competitive Pricing: A fee based on what similar service providers are charging. One consideration for establishing a competitive fee is determined by identifying all providers of an identical service (e.g., private sector providers, municipalities, nonprofit providers), and establishing a fee that is at mid-point or lower.
• Differential Pricing: A fee that is grounded in the idea that different prices are charged for the same service when there is no real difference in the cost of providing the service.
The same service might be offered at a more desirable time or location, or have other factors that attract a following, which may drive a higher price point. Alternatively, there might be services offered that are struggling to maintain a minimum and need a boost to stimulate more interest, driving a lower initial cost.
6.0 Engagement Feedback Summary
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 31
As part of the Department’s CoS analysis, BerryDunn conducted an online community engagement effort using the Social Pinpoint platform. This initiative provided residents with several tools to share their perspectives—an online survey, a budget allocation exercise ("Fund It"), and an interactive idea wall. The results offer deep insight into community priorities, satisfaction with services, barriers to access, and aspirations for the future of recreation programming and facilities throughout the City.
The following sections summarize findings from more than 330 responses, presenting findings in a way that can inform future planning, budgeting, and program development efforts through the lens of equity, inclusion, and resident-driven decision-making.
6.1 Online Survey Responses
A total of 339 surveys were completed. The following section provides the questions, answers, and analysis of the responses.
Question 1: How would you rate the overall quality of services provided by the City of Richmond for recreation?
When asked to rate the overall quality of recreation services provided, many respondents held a favorable view. Nearly half (46%) rated services as “good,” and an additional 19% rated them as “excellent,” reflecting a strong overall level of satisfaction. About 27% considered services “fair,” while only 6% rated them “poor.” A small portion of respondents (2%) selected “N/A,” possibly indicating limited personal use or awareness. These results suggest that there is a positive baseline perception of recreation services.
Figure 6.1: Responses to Overall Quality of Services Provided
Question 2: In your opinion, which aspect(s) of the recreation services contribute most to their quality?
Excellent
19%
Good
46%
Fair
27%
Poor
6%
N/A
2%
Excellent Good Fair Poor N/A
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 32
The top response (nearly 200 respondents) was “variety and accessibility of recreational programs and activities,” demonstrating the significant value the community places on program diversity and inclusion. This theme was closely followed by “cleanliness and maintenance of parks and facilities” and “friendliness and helpfulness of staff members,” with each receiving high recognition for their impact on perceived quality.
Although “safety measures and enforcement” and “overall aesthetics and ambiance” received fewer selections (95 and 102 respondents, respectively), they still play a meaningful role. Only a small number (21) selected “other,” suggesting the provided options effectively captured most priorities. These results underscore the importance of maintaining well-kept facilities, delivering diverse and accessible programming, and investing in positive staff interactions as core strategies for enhancing recreation quality in the City.
Figure 6.2: Which Aspects of Recreation Services Contribute Most to Their Quality
Question 3: How satisfied are you with the value you receive in exchange for the fees associated with the City of Richmond's recreation services? When asked about satisfaction with the value received in exchange for fees associated with the City's recreation services, most respondents reported positive experiences. A combined 71% of participants indicated they were either “satisfied” (38%) or “very satisfied” (33%), reflecting strong appreciation for the services provided relative to cost.
On the other end of the spectrum, only 6% of respondents reported being “dissatisfied” and 5% as “very dissatisfied,” suggesting relatively low levels of discontent. Additionally, 14% of 175
200
169
95 102
21 0
50 100
150
200
250
Cleanliness and
maintenance of
parks and
facilities
Variety and
accessibility of
recreational
programs and
activities
Friendliness and
helpfulness of
staff members
Safety measures
and enforcement
in parks and
recreational
areas
Overall
aesthetics and
ambiance of
parks and
facilities
Other
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 33
respondents selected “neutral,” and 4% selected “other,” possibly indicating they were unsure or had limited exposure to fee-based services.
These findings suggest users generally perceive the City's recreation services as of good value, reinforcing support for continued investment in quality programming and equitable access.
Figure 6.3: Satisfaction With the Value of Fees for Richmond Recreation Services
Question 4: Do you feel that the current fees and charges accurately reflect the quality of services provided?
Most respondents (61%) believe the current fees and charges accurately reflect the quality of City-provided services. This data suggests most residents view the value of services as fair and appropriate. However, 16% of respondents disagreed, and 23% were unsure, indicating that although the fee structure is generally supported, there remains room for improvement in transparency or communication about what those fees support.
Figure 6.4: Perception of Fees and Service Quality
Very Satisfied
33%
Satisfied
38%
Dissatisfied
6%
Very Dissatisfied
5%
Neutral
14%
Other
4%
Very Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied Neutral Other Yes
61%No
16%
Unsure
23%
Yes No Unsure
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 34
Question 5: How likely are you to recommend the City of Richmond's recreation services to others based on the quality of your experience?
Respondents indicated high satisfaction with the City's recreation services through their willingness to recommend them to others. Nearly three-quarters of respondents selected either "very likely" or "likely," demonstrating strong trust and positive experiences with the services offered. A smaller number reported being "unlikely" (30) or "very unlikely" (10) to recommend the services, while “neutral” responses (46) highlight an opportunity to enhance program quality or outreach efforts to engage this segment further.
Figure 6.5: Respondents’ Likelihood to Recommend Recreation Services
Question 6: What improvements, programs, or facilities would you like to see in the future?
This open-ended question received 233 responses; there responses are summarized below based on topic modeling. The comments broadly cluster into six key themes:
1. Programs and Activities
2. Swimming Access and Facility Use
3. Community and Youth Services
4. Park and Facility Cleanliness and Maintenance
5. Summer Camps and Youth Programs
6. Pool Time and Lap Swim Access
Programs and Activities
Common words: programs, activities, classes, variety, field, adults, senior There was demonstrated interest in expanding recreational programming, especially for adults and seniors. There is also a desire for a greater variety of offerings (e.g., classes, sports). 126 119
30 10
46 6
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
Very Likely Likely Unlikely Very Unlikely Neutral Other
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 35
Swimming Access and Facility Use
Common words: swim, open, Plunge, hours, classes, facilities There is strong demand for more access to swimming facilities like the Richmond Plunge, with suggestions for extended hours and more class availability.
Community and Youth Services
Common words: community, parks, kids, center, swimming, need Respondents requested more family-friendly and youth-oriented programs, better park spaces, and stronger community-centered services.
Park and Facility Cleanliness and Maintenance
Common words: courts, bathrooms, services, pools, access, open There were concerns regarding cleanliness (especially bathrooms) and a call for better maintenance of public parks and facilities.
Summer Camps and Youth Programs
Common words: summer, camps, youth, staff, better, activities Respondents requested more youth programs, summer camps, and feedback about staff quality and overall program organization.
Pool Time and Lap Swim Access
Common words: swimming, lap, pools, class, available, time Comments focused on scheduling availability, specifically for lap swimming and dedicated pool times.
Question 7: On a scale of 1 to 5, where one means “poor” and five means “excellent,” how would you rate the overall quality of the recreation programs? Most respondents provided positive ratings regarding the overall quality of City-offered recreation programs. The most common rating was a 4 (42%), indicating that two-thirds of respondents rated program quality as either "good" or "excellent." An additional 26% scored program quality at 3, suggesting general satisfaction but with opportunities for improvement.
Only a small proportion of respondents rated programs negatively, with 6% selecting 2 and 3% selecting 1. These findings reflect an overall favorable perception of program quality, signaling opportunities to move more participants from neutral to highly satisfied through targeted programming, communication, or delivery enhancements.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 36
Figure 6.6: Quality Rating of Recreation Programs
Question 8: Do you believe the City of Richmond effectively communicates with the community about updates, events, and opportunities in recreation? Participants rated the City’s effectiveness in recreational communication using a slider scale from 0 to 100. The average score was 64.28, with the most common response range of 80, as selected by nearly 18% of respondents. A small percentage of respondents rated the City below 30, reflecting lower satisfaction. The overall average score of 64.28 suggests the City is generally doing well with communicating recreational information. Many respondents feel positively about City communication efforts, especially those scoring in the 70 – 100 range.
Figure 6.7: Effectiveness of Communication About Recreation Services
1 3%
2 6%
3 26%
4 42%
5 23%
1 2 3 4 5
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 18
20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 37
Question 9: How important is it to you that the City of Richmond recreation services remain accessible to all community members, regardless of socioeconomic status? (1 being "not important" and 5 being "very important.”)
This question had an average score of 4.75 (out of 5). Most respondents selected 5 ("very important"), indicating strong agreement with the importance of equitable access. More than 80% of respondents rated this as a 5. Less than 10% selected a 3 or 4. Only a small percentage (<2%) rated it 1 or 2, suggesting an almost universal consensus on the value of accessibility.
This data shows overwhelming community support for maintaining recreation services that are accessible to all—regardless of income or social status. The high average score of 4.75 and the strong skew toward “very important” suggest that equity is a top priority for Richmond residents.
Figure 6.8: How Important is Equitable Access to Richmond’s Recreation Services?
Question 10: Would you be willing to pay higher fees if it meant significantly improving the quality of recreation services in Richmond?
Respondents were asked whether they would be willing to pay more for two categories— programs and facility reservations—if doing so would significantly improve quality. Response options included "yes," "no," and "maybe, with more information." Programs: Yes: 34.23% (114 respondents); no: 14.11% (47 respondents); maybe, with more information: 51.65% (172 respondents)
Facility Reservations: Yes: 27.27% (87 respondents); no: 20.38% (65 respondents); maybe, with more information: 52.35% (167 respondents); average score: 2.25 Most respondents (over 50%) in both categories selected "maybe, with more information," indicating openness to increased fees if the Department justified transparent and compelling improvements, suggesting residents may perceive direct benefits more readily in program enhancements.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
1 2
3 4
5 Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 38
A smaller percentage of respondents oppose fee increases entirely—14% for programs and 20% for reservations—demonstrating a moderate level of resistance.
Figure 6.9: Willingness to Pay Higher Fees
Question 11: How often do you utilize the recreation services provided by the City of Richmond?
For this question, most respondents (26%) selected “once a week” for how often they utilize City-provided recreation services. Other frequently chosen responses included monthly usage (22%) and “other” (19%). “Rarely” was selected by a significant portion of respondents as well (18%). Daily usage was determined by a smaller share (around 13%). “Never” was chosen by the fewest respondents (2%), indicating most community members engage with services at least occasionally.
The strong representation in the monthly and rare categories suggests a significant portion of the population engages periodically but may benefit from improved accessibility, awareness, or program variety. The high percentage of "other" responses indicates diverse or nuanced usage patterns that may not fit standard intervals, possibly seasonal users, event-based attendance, or irregular participation.
Figure 6.10: How Often Residents Use Recreation Services
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Yes No Maybe
Programs Facility Reservations
Total
Daily
13%
Once a week
26%
Monthly
22%
Rarely
18%
Never
2%
Other
19%
Daily Once a week Monthly Rarely Never Other
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 39
Question 12: What programs or services are missing from the Parks and Recreation Department?
The 157 responses to the question had six key themes: Wellness and Adult Learning, Youth and Weekend Recreation, Youth Support and Enrichment, Awareness of Existing Offerings, Cultural and Fitness Activities, and Swimming Programs and Scheduling. Below are thematic summaries of responses.
Wellness and Adult Learning Programs
Top words: classes, self-defense, senior, community, volleyball, basketball Respondents are looking for more adult and senior programs, including physical fitness (like volleyball and basketball), self-defense, and learning opportunities tailored to older adults.
Youth and Weekend Recreation
Top words: kids, swim, weekends, parks, gym
There is demand for more recreational access and structured programs for children, especially on weekends. The responses suggest a potential gap in weekend programming or facility availability.
Youth Support and Enrichment
Top words: youth, children, teens, events, recreation, support Community members emphasize the need for enrichment programs for children and teens, including safe and supportive environments and structured recreation.
Awareness of Existing Offerings
Top words: know, offered, current, services, adult
Many respondents are unsure what programs currently exist, highlighting opportunities for better marketing and communication of available services.
Cultural and Fitness Activities
Top words: Zumba, tai chi, aqua, activities, community
Requests for culturally inclusive and low-impact fitness classes, such as Zumba, aqua fitness, and tai chi, were identified, especially for adults and teens.
Swimming Programs and Scheduling
Top words: swim, hours, lessons, center, Plunge
As in previous feedback within the survey data, pool access and structured swim lessons remain a recurring theme. The responses suggest an ongoing interest in aquatic activities across age groups.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 40
Question 13: Which facilities do you use? Please select all that apply.
The top facilities used were for Plunge (aquatics). The most frequently selected facility (nearly 250 users) is Richmond Swim Center (Aquatics). Fields/parks are among the top three, demonstrating high demand for outdoor spaces. Richmond Recreation Complex significantly dropped from the top three but still had notable use. Richmond Memorial Auditorium, Nevin Center, and Booker T. Anderson Center had modest engagement. Less utilized facilities were senior centers (Richmond, Richmond Annex), neighborhood centers (PT Richmond, May Valley, Parchester), and others like Shields-Reid and DPRC, which received relatively few mentions.
Aquatics and outdoor spaces dominate usage, suggesting they are pillars of the City’s recreation system. Lower usage at community centers and senior centers may reflect limited programming, awareness, accessibility, or relevance to current users’ needs. The data also suggests a possible age or demographic gap in who is accessing certain facilities.
Figure 6.11: Facilities Used by Respondents
0 50 100 150 200 250
Developing Personal Resources Center (DPRC)
Shields-Reid
Parchester Recreation Center
May Valley Center
PT Richmond Center
Richmond Annex Senior Center
Richmond Senior Center
Booker T. Anderson Center
Nevin Center
Richmond Memorial Auditorium
Richmond Recreation Complex
Richmond Swim Center (Aquatics)
Fields/Parks
Plunge (Aquatics)
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 41
Question 14: What time of day do you use the facilities? This survey question was a matrix, allowing respondents to select the time of day they use facilities across the following three categories: Programming, Community Centers, and Fields and Parks. The following is a breakdown of the responses.
Programming (264 respondents)
Most Common Times:
• Morning (9 a.m. – 12 p.m.): 39%
• Early Evening (4 – 7 p.m.): 25%
• Afternoon (12 – 4 p.m.): 20%
• Least Common Times:
• Evening (7 p.m. and beyond): 8%
• Early Morning (6 – 9 a.m.): 9%
Community Centers (187 respondents)
Most Common Times:
• Afternoon (12 – 4 p.m.): 34%
• Morning (9 a.m. – 12 p.m.): 28%
Least Common Times:
• Evening (7 p.m. and beyond): 9%
• Early Morning (6 – 9 a.m.): 7.49%
Fields and Parks (231 respondents)
Most Common Times:
• Afternoon (12 – 4 p.m.): 35.06%
• Early Evening (4 – 7 p.m.): 33.33%
Least Common Times:
• Evening (7 p.m. and beyond): 4.33%
• Early Morning (6 – 9 a.m.): 6.06%
Midday and early evenings are peak usage times for all facilities, with marked differences based on facility type. Programming is most popular in the morning, which is likely due to structured classes or sessions. Community centers peak in the afternoon, possibly serving drop-in users, seniors, or afterschool activities. Fields and parks are busiest in the afternoon and early
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 42
evening, consistent with outdoor recreation patterns and family use. Very few users access any facility during the early morning or late evening hours, which could indicate there are least preferred times or have limited availability
Figure 6.12: Time Respondents Use Facilities
Question 15: Are there things you want to see changed/added to make you want to use a facility/program more?
This open-ended question garnered thoughtful feedback from respondents on the following:
• Improving aquatic services
• Expanding program options and hours
• Upgrading parks and facility cleanliness
• Enhancing community-centered, equitable access.
Key Themes From Open-Ended Responses
• Aquatics Services
o There is a strong demand for expanded swim programs, lessons, and lap swim hours.
o Respondents frequently mention "Plunge" and "Richmond Swim Center." o There were also requests for better maintenance and cleanliness of aquatic facilities.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Early Morning
Morning
Afternoon
Early Evening
Evening
Fields and Parks Community Centers Programming
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 43
• Program Expansion and Diversity
o Respondents desire more recreation classes and activity options. o There is interest in evening and weekend offerings to accommodate working adults and families.
o There were suggestions for more youth, fitness, and family-friendly programs. • Facility Access and Hours
o Respondents call for longer hours and more flexible schedules. o There is some interest in earlier morning and later evening access. o Respondents requested increased access during summer and school breaks. • Parks and Outdoor Spaces
o There is support for cleaner, safer, and better-maintained parks. o Respondents shared suggestions to improve walking paths, bathrooms, and lighting.
o There is interest in more inclusive, family-friendly, and accessible outdoor spaces.
• Cleanliness and Facility Maintenance
o Based on comments, restrooms, showers, and shared spaces might require better upkeep.
o There is an emphasis on maintaining clean, welcoming environments across all sites.
• Staffing and Customer Service
o Respondents requested more visible and helpful staff at centers and parks. o There is a desire for improved communication and responsiveness. • Equity and Community Engagement
o There is a substantial value placed on inclusive, community-centered programming.
o Respondents shared suggestions to incorporate more targeted outreach and support for underserved populations.
Question 16: Which age groups are represented in your household? (Select all that apply).
The most common age groups in households are as follows:
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 44
• 65 years and older: 21%
• 35 – 44 years: 20%
• 45 – 54 years: 15%
• 5 – 12 years: 12%
Other represented age groups are as follows:
• 55 – 64 years: 9%
• Under 5 years: 8%
• 13 – 17 years: 6%
• 25 – 34 years: 6%
• 18 – 24 years: 3%
The age distribution indicates a strong presence of older adults and middle-aged individuals, with the 65+ age group (21%) and 35 – 44 (20%) age group being the most common.
There is also a significant representation of school-aged children (5 – 12 years, 12%), suggesting family-oriented needs and interests in recreation services.
The young adult (18 – 24) and early career (25 – 34) age groups are underrepresented, accounting for just 9%, which may indicate lower engagement or fewer survey responses from these groups.
Households with preschool-aged children (under 5) are notable at 8%, emphasizing the need for early childhood programming and family amenities.
Question 17: What city/county do you reside in?
Of respondents, 264 were from Richmond. These results reinforce that most survey participants are from Richmond and the broader West County area. Other areas of residence were San Pablo (5), Contra Costa County (18), Berkley/Alameda (1), East Bay (1), El Sobrante, and Point Richmond (9).
Question 18: Household Income Range
Respondents were asked to report their annual household income by selecting from predefined income ranges. The results provide insight into the economic diversity of survey participants:
• The most common response was "prefer not to say," at 22%. • Among those who did respond, their responses are as follows:
o Middle- to upper-income brackets (the most represented):
▪ $75,000 – $99,999: 17%
▪ $100,000 – $149,999: 17%
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 45
▪ More than $150,000: 18%
o Lower-income brackets (least represented):
▪ $25,000 – $49,999: 13%
▪ $50,000 – $74,999: 13%
The income distribution suggests a broad economic range, with slightly higher representation among middle- to upper-income households. The 22% who preferred not to disclose their income highlights the need to respect privacy while considering alternative methods (like ZIP code-based income estimates) for future demographic analysis.
Question 19: What is your race/ethnicity? (Select all that apply).
Respondents were asked to identify their race and/or ethnicity by selecting all applied categories. This question helps to better understand the diversity of participants and help ensure inclusive planning across communities. The largest represented group was white, with more than 100 responses, making it the most selected category by a significant margin.
Other represented groups included the following:
• Hispanic or Latino/a (52 responses)
• Black or African American (43 responses)
• Two or more races and prefer not to say (39 and 35 responses, respectively) • Asian (30 responses)
Less commonly selected groups included:
• Other (4 responses)
• American Indian or Alaska Native (3 responses)
• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (3 responses) Most respondents are white but include a broad spectrum of racial and ethnic identities, reflecting meaningful diversity across Richmond and the surrounding community.
A sizable portion of respondents identified as Hispanic/Latino/a or Black/African American, underscoring the importance of helping ensure programs and services are culturally responsive and driven by equity.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 46
Figure 6.13: Race/Ethnicity of Respondents
6.2 Budget Exercise Summary – “Fund It” Activity
Community members participated in the "Fund It" budgeting exercise, distributing a hypothetical $100 across 10 local government service areas as part of the public engagement process. This activity helped identify residents' priorities for future investment.
Figure 6.14: “Fund It” Summary
3 3 4
30 35 39 43
52 107
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
Native
Hawaiian
or Other
Pacific
Islander
American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Other Asian Prefer not
to say
Two or
More
Races
Black or
African
American
Hispanic
or Latino/a
White
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 47
6.3 Summary of Findings
Overall Satisfaction and Service Perception
• Of respondents, 65% rated overall recreation service quality as “good” or “excellent.” • The top contributing factors to perceived quality are as follows:
o Variety and accessibility of programs
o Clean and well-maintained parks and facilities
o Friendly and helpful staff
• Of respondents, 71% were satisfied or very satisfied with the value received for fees.
Takeaway: Residents view services positively, with strong support for maintaining current standards and enhancing quality through communication, staff presence, and upkeep.
Equity, Access, and Affordability
• A 4.75 out of 5 average rating underscores community consensus on the importance of equitable access for all residents regardless of income. • More than 50% of respondents said they might support higher fees if quality improvements were demonstrated.
• Support was higher for program enhancements than facility rentals.
Takeaway: Fee adjustments may be feasible with clear messaging on reinvestment and commitment to financial accessibility.
Program Gaps and Community Desires
• Aquatic access (e.g., swim lessons, lap swim, and pool hours) was the most frequently cited need.
• Weekend and evening programs are in demand for youth, adults, and families, with desire for the following:
o Culturally relevant and multigenerational programming o Self-defense, dance, and fitness classes for all ages o Family-friendly events and drop-in recreation options • Seniors requested accessible movement programs such as chair exercises and line dancing.
Takeaway: Future programming should emphasize inclusivity, flexibility, and culture, especially aquatics, fitness, and youth engagement.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 48
Facility Usage and Preferences
• The most-used facilities are:
o The Plunge and Richmond Swim Center (aquatics)
o Parks and fields
• Lower usage of neighborhood and senior centers suggests a need for expanded, better- publicized offerings.
• Residents also emphasized:
o A need for clean, safe, and well-maintained parks
o A need for more seating, shade structures, and social spaces o Interest in a community volunteer program for park beautification Takeaway: Parks and aquatic centers are vital community assets. Reprogramming and partnerships could revitalize underused centers.
Communication and Awareness
• The City received a communication score of 64.28/100, with 23% of respondents unsure about existing programs.
• Respondents requested improved visibility and outreach about services.
Takeaway: Enhanced marketing strategies—multilingual, accessible, and multi-channel—could increase engagement and program participation.
Budget Priorities – “Fund It” Exercise
In a simulated budget activity, residents allocated $100 across 10 service areas.
Takeaway: Residents prioritized investments that enhance quality of life—parks, safety, programs, and infrastructure—over administrative or regulatory services.
The community’s feedback paints a clear picture: Richmond residents value inclusive, culturally relevant recreation services that are accessible, well maintained, and community focused.
Investments in aquatics, flexible programming, park improvements, and equitable access will resonate strongly with residents. Strategic communication and responsive program delivery will be critical to building trust and deepening engagement.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 49
7.0 Peer Comparisons
Peer comparisons can provide useful insights into how the Department’s fees and charges environment compares with similar organizations. Although the Department’s operations are unique, the selection of peers for comparison attempts to reflect these unique elements throughout the Richmond community.
To that end, general peer-to-peer fee comparisons should not be the sole criteria considered when assessing the appropriateness of fee levels because there are too many unknowns to make confident, absolute comparisons. Some core unknowns include:
• The intended level of cost recovery desired by each peer • What specific costs are included in fee calculations for each peer • When each peer adjusted the fees
• What the intended level of service targets are for each peer • Mission and vision of the peer organization
• Specific funding/resource levels available to each peer Nonetheless, a simple fee-to-fee comparison can provide useful insight but really should only be used to consider the “municipal market” for similar services and associated fees, and to assess the “reasonableness” of the Department’s fees when compared to the peers selected. Basic peer comparison information can also be used to serve as a benchmark to determine how cost effective the County is delivering its services or assess and determine where additional revenue generation may be being missed because of lower fees for similar services.
Information was derived from publicly facing budget documents and financial reports and are intended to be a reference, not a true analysis of resources. (Greater levels of detail relating to individual fee comparisons can be found in the Peer Comparison Matrix attached in Appendix B.)
The following sections and tables highlight some major socioeconomic and fiscal characteristics of peers identified for select fee comparisons. Information was derived from publicly facing budget documents and financial reports and are intended to be a reference, not a true analysis of resources. (Greater levels of detail relating to individual fee comparisons can be found in the Peer Comparison Matrix attached in Appendix B.)
7.1 San Pablo, CA
San Pablo is located approximately 2 miles north of Richmond. The city is home to more than 31,000 residents situated across approximately 2.6 square miles.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 50
Table 6.1: City Comparison Metrics
Population and Median Household Income
City Population Jurisdiction
(sq. mi.)
Population
Density (sq. mi.)
Median
Household
Income
Richmond1 114,106 52.5 3,874.6 $90,038
San Pablo1 31,249 2.6 11,800.5 $72,552
1) United States Census data 2020 <www.census.gov>
San Pablo provides a variety of park and recreational services and opportunities for residents and visitors including adaptive recreation, aquatics, fitness, dance, ice skating, and summer camps.
Table 6.2: Recreation/Community Services Department Comparison Metrics Department Budget and Personnel Information
City/County Operating
Budget
Budget Per
Capita
Special Revenue/Revolving
Fund
Richmond2 $8,253,326 $72.33 No
San Pablo3 $1,741,312 $56.12 No
2) City of Richmond FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.ci.richmond.ca.us> 3) City of San Pablo FY 2023-24 Adopted Budget, <www.sanpabloca.gov>
7.2 Concord, CA
Concord is located approximately 25 miles northeast of Richmond. The city is home to more than 122,315 residents situated across approximately 30.6 square miles.
Table 6.3: City Comparison Metrics
Population and Median Household Income
City Population Jurisdiction
(sq. mi.)
Population
Density (sq. mi.)
Median
Household
Income
Richmond1 114,106 52.5 3,874.6 $90,038
Concord1 122,315 30.6 4,104.6 $109,195
1) United States Census data 2020 <www.census.gov>
Concord’s extensive park system provides opportunities for people to get outside, exercise, and enjoy nature. Concord provides a variety of park and recreational activities for residents and visitors including adaptive recreation, aquatics, fitness, dance, tennis, and summer camps as well as plenty of family play space, walking tracks, and miles of scenic hiking trails.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 51
Table 6.4: Recreation/Community Services Department Comparison Metrics Department Budget and Personnel Information
City/County Operating
Budget
Budget Per
Capita
Special Revenue/Revolving
Fund
Richmond2 $8,253,326 $72.33 No
Concord3 $9,589,908 $78.40 No
2) City of Richmond FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.ci.richmond.ca.us> 3) City of Concord FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.cityofconcord.org>
7.3 San Leandro, CA
San Leandro is located approximately 22 miles south of Richmond. The city is home to more than 85,784 residents situated across approximately 15.5 square miles.
Table 6.5: City Comparison Metrics
Population and Median Household Income
City Population Jurisdiction
(sq. mi.)
Population
Density (sq. mi.)
Median
Household
Income
Richmond1 114,106 52.5 3,874.6 $90,038
San Leandro1 85,784 15.5 6,843.6 $97,141
1) United States Census data 2020 <www.census.gov>
The recreation and parks department promotes community and quality of life for city residents through programs, services, parks, and events. The department has three divisions: recreation, parks, and urban forestry.
Table 6.6: Recreation/Community Services Department Comparison Metrics Department Budget and Personnel Information
City/County Operating
Budget
Budget Per
Capita
Special Revenue/Revolving
Fund
Richmond2 $8,253,326 $72.33 No
San Leandro3 $4,733,337 $55.18 No
2) City of Richmond FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.ci.richmond.ca.us> 3) City of San Leandro FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.sanleandro.org>
7.4 El Cerrito, CA
El Cerrito is located approximately 2.5 miles southeast of Richmond. The city is home to more than 25,000 residents situated across approximately 3.6 square miles.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 52
Table 6.7: City Comparison Metrics
Population and Median Household Income
City Population Jurisdiction
(sq. mi.)
Population
Density (sq. mi.)
Median
Household
Income
Richmond1 114,106 52.5 3,874.6 $90,038
El Cerrito1 25,552 3.67 7,070.3 $127,475
1) United States Census data 2020 <www.census.gov>
The recreation department provides and wide variety of recreational and open space activities and programs for residents and visitors. The department operates a swim center, various parks and facilities, and provides youth, adult, senior, and community activities and programming.
Table 6.8: Recreation/Community Services Department Comparison Metrics Department Budget and Personnel Information
City/County Operating
Budget
Budget Per
Capita
Special Revenue/Revolving
Fund
Richmond2 $8,253,326 $72.33 No
El Cerrito3 $7,525,570 $294.52 No
2) City of Richmond FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.ci.richmond.ca.us> 3) City of El Cerrito FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.el-cerrito.org>
7.5 Vallejo, CA (Greater Vallejo Recreation District [GVRD]) Vallejo is located approximately 20 miles north of Richmond. The city is home to more than 122,000 residents situated across approximately 49 square miles.
Table 6.9: City Comparison Metrics
Population and Median Household Income
City Population Jurisdiction
(sq. mi.)
Population
Density (sq. mi.)
Median
Household
Income
Richmond1 114,106 52.5 3,874.6 $90,038
Vallejo1 122,807 49.5 4,120.6 $89,496
1) United States Census data 2020 <www.census.gov>
GVRD’s mission is to promote wellness and healthy lifestyles by providing safe parks and innovative and fun recreation programs for all residents. GVRD provides and wide variety of recreational and open space activities and programs for residents and visitors of all ages and abilities. The department operates an aquatic complex, community centers, sports fields and
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 53
courts, various parks and facilities, and provides youth, adult, senior, and community activities and programming.
Table 6.10: Recreation/Community Services Department Comparison Metrics Department Budget and Personnel Information
City/County Operating
Budget
Budget Per
Capita
Special Revenue/Revolving
Fund
Richmond2 $8,253,326 $72.33 No
GVRD3 $12,823,000 $106.86 Yes
2) City of Richmond FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.ci.richmond.ca.us> 3) GRVD FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget, <www.grvd.org>
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 54
Appendix A: CoS Model
The CoS model developed for the Department is attached as a MS Excel file.
BerryDunn developed a CoS model reflective of the Department’s service delivery framework and organization. BerryDunn used this information to understand and assess the Department’s current fees and charges environment and to allocate revenue and expense associate with service delivery accordingly. BerryDunn examined the customer service culture, performed a personnel review, and developed financial baselines. The goal was to identify key direct and indirect resources related to Department service delivery. BerryDunn then projected total cost and calculated cost recovery per core activity, program, permit, and service category, per activity, program, permit, and service type, and where applicable, as the data allowed.
BerryDunn developed recommendations and recommend fee adjustments consistent with identified revenue requirements, cost recovery targets, policy elements, and community feedback.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 55
Appendix B: Peer Comparison Matrix
The Peer Comparison Matrix developed for the Department is attached as an MS Excel file.
Recreation Cost of Service Analysis | April 14, 2025 (Final Draft) 56
Appendix C: Engagement Summary Metrics
Engagement Summary metrics compiled for the Department are attached as a PDF file.
“BerryDunn” is the brand name under which Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC and BDMP Assurance, LLP, independently owned entities, provide professional services in an alternative practice structure in accordance with the AICPA Code of Professional Conduct. BDMP Assurance, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides attest services, and Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC, and its subsidiary entities provide tax, advisory, and consulting services.
Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC leases professional and administrative staff to BDMP Assurance, LLP. These individuals work under the direct control and supervision of BDMP Assurance LLP, which is solely responsible for their performance.
The entities falling under the BerryDunn brand are independently owned and neither entity is liable for the services provided by the other entity. Our use of the terms “our Firm” and “we” and “us” and terms of similar import denote the alternative practice structure of Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC and BDMP Assurance, LLP.
This report is the work of Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC. ©2025 BerryDunn | All rights reserved.