Agenda — Rohnert Park City Council, June 4, 2024

"We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to
Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow."

SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY

COUNCIL AND THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION
will be held on Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

MEETING LOCATION: COMMUNITY CENTER MULTI-USE ROOM
5401 Snyder Lane, Rohnert Park, CA
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The Rohnert Park City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission welcomes your attendance, interest and participation at its joint special meeting scheduled on Tuesday, Tuesday, June 4, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: Provides an opportunity for public comment on items related to this agenda only (limited to three minutes per appearance with a maximum allowance of 30 minutes allotted per comment period, with time limits subject to modification by the City Council in accordance with the adopted City Council Protocols). Please fill out a speaker card prior to speaking.

Members of the public may also provide advanced comments related to closed session by email at [email protected] Comments are requested by 1:00 p.m. on the before the meeting, but can be emailed until the close of the Agenda Item for which the comment is submitted. The emails will not be read for the record but will be provided to Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Please note that all e-mails sent to the City of Rohnert Park are considered public records and subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.

City Council agendas and minutes may be viewed at the City’s website: www.rpcity.org.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda. If you challenge decisions of the City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Rohnert Park in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rohnert Park at, or prior to the public hearing(s).

RIGHT TO APPEAL: Judicial review of any city administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be had only if a petition is filed with the court no later than the deadlines specified in Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits the time within which the decision may be challenged to the 90th day following the date that the decision becomes final.

CITY COUNCIL GOALS: On May 14, 2024, the Rohnert Park City Council adopted the following multi-year broad goals (listed below in no particular order):

1. Long Term Financial Sustainability 3. Planning and Infrastructure

2. Community Quality of Life 4. Organization Well Being

1. JOINT SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL
City Council:
(Elward Giudice Sanborn Hollingsworth-Adams Rodriguez ) Parks and Recreation Commission
(Borr_____Vacant_____ Thompson_____ Jordan____Barrios_____)

2. CITY COUNCIL FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM & WORK SESSION • Public Comments
• Workshop Discussions.
• Closing, thoughts, comments, questions.

3. ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Time shown for any particular matter on the agenda is an estimate only. Matters may be considered earlier or later than the time indicated depending on the pace at which the meeting proceeds. If you wish to speak on an item under discussion by the Council which appears on this agenda, please refer to page 1 for more details on submitting a public comment. Any item raised by a member of the public which is not on the agenda and may require Council action shall be automatically referred to staff for investigation and disposition which may include placing on a future agenda. If the item is deemed to be an emergency or the need to take action arose after posting of the agenda within the meaning of Government Code Section 54954.2(b), Council is entitled to discuss the matter to determine if it is an emergency item under said Government Code and may take action thereon.

AGENDA REPORTS & DOCUMENTS: A paper copy of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection at City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. Electronic copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection on
https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/city_council/meeting_central. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will be made available for inspection at City Hall and on our website at the same time. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to the City Council during the meeting will be made available for public inspection during meeting and on our website following the meeting.

AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT ACCOMMODATION: Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email the ADA Coordinator at [email protected] or by calling 707-588- 2221. Notification at least 72 hours prior to the meeting will enable the ADA Coordinator to use her best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. Information about reasonable accommodations is available on the City website at
https://www.rpcity.org/city_hall/departments/human_resources/a_d_a_and_accessibility_resources

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
I, Sylvia Lopez Cuevas, City Clerk for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the foregoing agenda was posted and available for review on May 31, 2024 at Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rpcity.org.

Executed this 31 day of May, 2024 at Rohnert Park, California.

Sylvia Lopez Cuevas
Office of the City Clerk
City Council Financial Sustainability
Program & Work Session
Welcome & Introductions
Then & now
Common language & understanding
Ethics, economics, & equity
Growth & stability
Investment, value & return
Designing strategy
Closing, thoughts, comments, questions
NOTES:
8:30-9:00 AM: Arrival & continental breakfast
9:00 AM-Noon: Program delivery
Noon-12:30 PM: Lunch break
12:30-3:30 PM: Program delivery
The day’s schedule
The agenda
Item 2
The Hard
Truths of
Youth Sports
A look at the
economics,
ethics, and
equity
By: Jamie Sabbach
Human nature makes it difficult to acknowledge deficiencies or inadequacies about what we like or love when it conflicts with what we want to believe. Such is the case with me and youth sports.

The harsh reality is that, while youth sports are celebrated and considered a must-have in most communities, youth sports also have their downsides. We simply need to keep our eyes and hearts open to the realities, as well as the possibilities and disadvantages.

Among the most consequential issues associated with youth sports today are economic assumptions involving taxpayer investments (subsidies). This is not to suggest that youth sports should not receive any taxpayer support. To the contrary. What is at question is the degree to which investments are made based upon incomplete or inaccurate claims or based upon social pressure. This has led to youth-sports facility development and program-planning decisions which have, in certain cases, had significant consequences for communities across the country. These include:
· Subsidy (taxpayer) investment in youth-sports facility-development projects, presupposing a return on investment that is based on economic-development interests.
· High subsidies gifted to youth sports in comparison to other types of activities/services that may serve a greater common good. · Divisions that have resulted from economic disparities in many communities in terms of who participates in youth sports and who does not.

January 2023
Item 2
Economically, we now live in a vastly different day and age than we did just two years ago.

Inflation is at a 40-year high with no signs of slowing, and its effects are not limited to individuals and families. Organizations are likely already feeling the effects of inflation, including diminished purchasing power and elevated supply, equipment, and labor costs.

That means basic expenses of youth sports, like turf maintenance and trash removal, are or soon will be more costly. In addition, interest rates are increasing, so for every debt assumed, it will cost more to repay. Simply put, if we are not paying cash for that brandspanking new facility, we should prepare for the debt load and total payment to be higher.

It is time that we ask these fundamental questions regarding youth sports and answer them with both our hearts and our minds.
· Are economic-development interests clouding sound judgment? · When is enough, enough?
· Who is really benefiting from investments made in youth sports today? In The Name of Economic Development
The often-used phrase made popular by the movie Field of Dreams suggests, “If you build it, they will come.” It has become synonymous with the idea that if we invest resources into making a vision a reality, people will flock to it.

There are communities today that see investment in new youth-sports facilities and complexes as a panacea to economic-development interests. Seeking ways to generate more revenue by way of youth sports is a phenomenon that has gained significant traction and support.

The tried-and-true playbook used to pressure towns, cities, counties, and special districts to pony up money for new youth-sports facilities has become the standard—and one needing re-assessment. Economists have warned and continue to warn that paying for youth sports-facilities—especially with public money—has long been a boondoggle.

To camouflage the ultimate liabilities a community assumes on behalf of taxpayers when choosing to build these facilities, youth-sports groups are known to step up to the plate and donate money and/or time to offset the costs of a project. Regardless of whether donations are made in the name of goodwill or are used as a way for a facility to come to life sooner than later, these contributions are often insufficient in relation to the total investment a community will make in constructing and maintaining the asset over its useful life, the infrastructure needed to support these facilities, and the environmental costs (e.g., water). This includes not only the debt current citizens will face, but also the debt the citizens of 2050 will assume as well.
“Decades of academic studies consistently find no discernible positive relationship between sports facilities and local economic development, income growth, or job creation,” authors of a Brookings Institution report wrote in 2016. If local communities were to do the math based upon the total investments made to build and maintain these properties, as well as the adjacent infrastructure required (water, roads, etc.), they would find that these facilities earned nothing close to a reasonable return on the investment of taxpayer dollars.

While examples of park and recreation systems that have chosen to construct youth sports facilities exist, what is important to note is the regularity with which there is an absence of complete analyses before breaking ground. Further, in cases where economicdevelopment studies are conducted that suggest new youth-sports facilities will generate millions of dollars in return, common missteps include: the analysis is commonly commissioned by those expected to be the greatest beneficiaries of the project, and the calculated costs of these assets are not representative of all costs; therefore, the comparison of real cost to perceived economic benefit is misrepresented.

Considered one of the most prolific activities in the history of the leisure profession, the Olympic Games provides a provocative case study relative to critical errors made based upon perceived economic impact and return on investment.

According to the article, “Are the Olympic Games a Bad Deal for Host Cities?” in the July 2021 edition of The Economist, calculating the economic impact of mega-events like the Olympics can be tricky. Organizers and critics argue over which costs are actually incurred by the Games, and which are investments that cities would have undertaken anyway. But one near certainty is that the Olympics blow the budget. Alexander Budzier, Bent Flyvbjerg, and Daniel Lunn of Oxford University found that every Olympics since 1960 has overspent by an average of 172 percent in real terms. In 2013, the price-tag for the games was $7.5 billion. By late 2019, the official budget had risen to $12.6 billion, and Japan’s audit board reckoned that the actual cost was twice that for the Tokyo 2021 games.

Rather than tourism and prestige, the Olympic Games have left the citizens of the host cities not much more than high debt, wasteful infrastructure, and onerous maintenance obligations. The financial stressors the Games place on communities are an excellent example of the conflicts that exist between short-term satisfaction and long-term consequences.

Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social-media outlets have become the platform for park and recreation professionals to participate in a game of show-and-tell, as they celebrate new builds such as youth-sports facilities and complexes. On occasion, construction costs are mentioned, but what gets little airtime is where the money will come from to maintain these assets. What we are seeing is a dangerous “arms race” with a hint of, “If they are building, we should, too!” or “If they have one, why can’t we?” When Is Enough, Enough?
The economic factor does not stop there. Local youth sports organizations (e.g., Little League, youth soccer associations) that facilitate play in communities across the country, in the majority of cases, do not own the facilities (other properties) required for practice and game play. The local communities do.

These organizations find themselves dependent upon their town, city, county, or special district to provide and maintain the facilities so the activities can exist. All too often, however, there is an expectation that these governmental entities will not only provide the spaces but also maintain them at low or no cost to the youth-sports organization and its participants, while taxpayers assume the burden of cost.

What is almost certainly forgotten is that governmental entities are choosing to subsidize these organizations and the children and families who benefit. While some may suggest these subsidy (taxpayer) investments are good for the community as a whole, it is important to understand what this means in monetary terms in order to either rationalize these investment choices or challenge them. It is not only a matter of whether or not to subsidize, but also the degree to which to subsidize in order to ensure equitable and just investment for the users and the greater community.

For example, a local park and recreation department finds itself subsidizing a local youthsports organization to more than $250,000 per year—charging just $25 per field rental. This same department may suggest it needs more funding to do a better job of addressing community needs and is having a tough time taking care of its existing infrastructure (a common plight today). Is this $250,000 investment in one youth-sports organization justifiable given the other responsibilities the department has? What if the department chooses to continue to subsidize, if warranted, but to a lesser degree? Imagine what might be accomplished if the department halved the subsidy to $125,000—still a sizeable investment but one that might allow the department to have a greater impact with a different investment choice.

The Economic Divide—
Who Is Really Benefiting?
Driving by a youth-sports
complex in middle-America
usually looks like this…manicured
grass that is lush and green, a
large scoreboard laced with
corporate-sponsor names, and
players in color-coded uniforms.

Along the fences are team bags
with the same color coding. And
all of this grandeur can cost a lot
of money. The question is, “Who’s
paying?”
Data show that the rising cost of
organized youth sports has created an economic divide in which children from lowerincome homes are increasingly priced out of any game. “Kids from homes earning more than $100,000 are now twice as likely to play a team sport at least once a day as kids from families earning less than $25,000,” says Tom Farrey, the executive director of the Aspen Institute’s Sports and Society Program.

To compound the issues of economic and racial/ethnic divisions nationwide, sports participation rates for white children exceed those of children of color (Aspen Institute) as the barriers to participation, including registration fees, transportation, equipment costs, and access to play spaces, continue to exist.

A common defense used by some towns, cities, counties, and special districts to support the decision to invest taxpayer dollars in youth-sports facility development assumes these facilities are open play spaces accessible to all who may want to use them. However, when a youth-sports facility is groomed early in the day in preparation for formalized team and tournament play or is restricted for a particular use or user group, this naturally does not afford just anyone the opportunity to use the facilities at any time. What results is the select few benefiting while those with little or no access are relegated to the sidelines.

Most sports facilities tend to be spaces designed for a particular purpose, with rules of specific games and activities in mind. For example, a baseball diamond has a skinned (dirt) infield and base paths, an elevated pitcher’s mound, and an outfield fence. Apply this example to other sports facilities, and we find that specialized play spaces serve a unique Item 2
purpose, foster exclusive use, and can sit idle for weeks or months at a time, inhibiting their capacity to be of benefit to a broader community.

This helps explain what is happening in various communities across the country. By subsidizing youth-sports programs and facilities to the degree certain park and recreation organizations have, large subsidies are directed to those benefiting from specialized activities serving specialized interests. In the case of today’s youth-sports programs, the beneficiaries are predominantly those who are white and whose families have an ability to pay (Aspen Institute).

In his 2017 book Dream
Hoarders, the economist
Richard Reeves wrote that
economic mobility in the U.S.
has been declining in the past
few decades in part because of
“opportunity hoarding.” For
example, rich parents may pull
special levers to get their kids
into hyper-select schools, or
elite internships, or exclusive
entry-level jobs. In so doing,
they—in effect— snatch
precious opportunities away
from those who may need
them most. Those who can pay
have advantages over those
who cannot.

Making The Greatest
Impact
When we choose to forgo the
daily Starbucks run in order to
invest that money in our
children’s education savings
account, we have made the
choice to invest where we
believe we will have the
greatest impact.

Gaping inequality, an aging
population, and the enormous
maintenance backlogs many
park and recreation
organizations face due to
building when times are good,
with little concern for how to
pay for maintenance, should be
enough for park and recreation
professionals to re-think their
choices when it comes to
investing precious subsidy
dollars. In our work at 110%,
working alongside strategic
partner Amilia, we analyze,
among other things, how local
park and recreation
organizations are choosing to
spend and invest taxpayer
dollars, and whether these
subsidy investments are
justified. This includes, among
other things, the amount of the
subsidy that park and
recreation organizations are
investing in maintaining youthsports fields, how these investments compare and
contrast to other services
afforded a broader community,
like parks and trails, and how
organizations may re-think
their choices to better serve the common good. While leading financial-sustainability efforts for U.S. park and recreation organizations, we compared the investments made by 30 organizations with whom we worked in 2020-21. Table 1 contrasts subsidy investments made in open-access services such as parks, trails, and open spaces, with those made in sports fields and all other services. As noted, the first four organizations listed invest more taxpayer money in youth-sports fields than in parks, trails, and open spaces.

In Table 2, the contrast between the cost-recovery performances for sports fields with all other services paints a more graphic picture of the subsidy-investment choices being made by some park and recreation organizations today.

While both Table 1 and Table 2 provide compelling data and information, what only matters are the actions taken in response to what is learned.

When we consider the value that society places on sports over other types of endeavors in the U.S., perceived social values seem to be enough to justify and rationalize the significant investments we make.

We know youth sports contribute to the social, emotional, and physical development of those who participate. But are there other things that do as well? Where does that leave those who appreciate and value activities outside the lines of sport? Is it fair and just to invest millions of dollars in youth sports at the expense of strengthening the arts, community gardens, parks, and open spaces that are more accessible and serve a greater good? What if we simply expected youth-sports beneficiaries who have the ability to pay to cover more of their costs, freeing up subsidies to be invested differently in order to have a greater impact on today’s communities?
These types of provocative questions are exactly why this complicated issue continues to fly under the radar in communities today. Questioning taxpayer investment in youth sports or any special-interest area presents an opportunity for park and recreation professionals to raise the bar and level of intellectual analysis. Being smart and responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars is paramount.

What is trendy or popular seems to fascinate us and consume our precious time. As humans, we tend to put energy and resources into things that excite us—but, ultimately these fads, trends, and whatever he/she said was important fast become flavors of the day where impacts are likely not that great. All fun stuff but with a dated shelf life. Concerning ourselves with issues like intelligent and considerate investment of taxpayer dollars is where we have the greatest opportunity to make the greatest difference.

While youth sports will always be near and dear to me, I am at a crossroads in terms of what it has become, who benefits, and how we need to think differently about how best to see that they continue. I am hopeful we will keep our eye on the ball so we do what’s right on behalf of those who get to play but all who trust us to do what is just.

Jamie Sabbach has served the public park and recreation industry for more than 30 years as a practitioner, educator, advocate, and consultant. Her current work with 110% focuses on helping park and recreation professionals cultivate financially responsible and sustainable organizations. Reach her at [email protected].

Ice Would be Nice
but what about the common good?
By:Jamie Sabbach
JANUARY 2024
I live in a small town
reeling like many places.

Lots of conflicting
interests. Increasing
demand for more
services with little
appetite to pay. A desire
to live here but a lack of
affordable housing. A
preference for green
grass in the midst of a
water shortage. The need
for a fair shake in what
can feel like a rather
unfair reality. And then
there are those who want
an indoor ice rink.

Yes, in spite of the many social, environmental, and economic challenges we are experiencing in our little corner of the world, the flavor of the day that consumes the editorial section of our newspaper and council agendas month after month is the “need” for an indoor ice rink.

So, I figured I would choose to write to my local city council and provide what would likely be a different perspective than what they were hearing from others about the “need” for a rink.

Below I share excerpts from that very letter.

As you read on, feel free to consider the ice rink as a metaphor. Could be a recreation center, more sports fields, a pickleball complex, etc. And while each of these may be considered as nice to have, the questions really come down to what can be afforded, should investments in these amenities trump the imposing interests and issues that affect the greater good, and ultimately, where should government’s reach end.

Photo: Wally Dever Arena, Belleville, Ontario
Distinguished Members of City Council…
The abstraction of community has become increasingly problematic when it comes to rationalizing and justifying special interest expectations and resulting investments. When a small but vocal group of individuals suggest the “community” will benefit from whatever it is that represents their interest (in this case, an ice rink), it bears deeper analysis including understanding that this abstraction can lead to poor decisions on behalf of the real and broader community who are eventually expected to foot the bill. It’s funny how a small contingent of vocal people can wield influence under the mantle of “community.”
Let’s start with the ice rink and basic economics. A continuing song is being sung by local special interests suggesting our town needs an indoor rink that this community, frankly, cannot afford. Indoor ice rinks are among the biggest infrastructure liabilities any public entity can assume; therefore, would not be a sensical investment choice for our fair city. And this is only half of it.

When facility construction and other human habitat costs such as roads/access, parking lots, and water and sewer, and the ongoing operational and maintenance costs for the life of a physical asset are calculated, this would be an unsustainable investment. Across the country, limiting perspective only to construction estimates leads to unrealistic and dangerous investments that have stretched public systems beyond what they can afford - particularly when made to satisfy small portions of today’s residents yet paid for on the backs of 2050’s citizens. Assuming longterm liabilities that overextend capacity are now being called out more than ever as irresponsible, damaging, and unethical, and have ultimately left some communities once prosperous and focused on having something for everyone on the brink of bankruptcy. Of course, these would be moot points if the City Council expected an indoor ice rink to recover all of its costs so as not to pass on these expenses to all taxpayers and compromise community investment in more pressing needs.

It has been said that politicians cannot have the pleasure of spending without the pain of taxation. It is easy to dig holes and cut ribbons – and, while less popular to do the math and understand and accept limitations, telling people “no” may ultimately be the responsible and smart choice. All who represent governments at any level have the pleasure and burden of being a steward of taxpayer dollars. Each and everyday employees and the City Council consider and make decisions to spend taxpayer dollars. The expectation is that these investment choices are thoughtful, intelligent, and consider immediate as well as long term impacts on the financial sustainability and livability of the community.

Should the city be in the business of providing “everything for everyone”? In what types of services should the city invest and what is it that should be left to the non-profit and private sectors? A common rationale we’ve heard throughout ongoing discussion and debate is that the city should build the ice rink as it would not be a smart business decision for other sectors. Well, isn’t that interesting.

There is a great model and Venn Diagram known as
“Pick Two” used in contemporary livable community
planning. Simply, one circle represents density or
quantity. A second circle represents high levels of
service or quality while the third represents stable taxes and fees. Only two of these circles can be chosen as it is not possible to have all three. For example, if someone wants high quality of service and stable taxes and fees, they will have to accept that the quantity offered needs to be less. Alternatively, if they want more while keeping taxes and fees stable, quality of service will suffer. And, if their desire is to have more and a high quality of
service, they will have to pay more.

So, if an ice rink is to be added to the city’s menu of services, which of the two remaining circles will be compromised? Will overall service levels be impacted due to fragmentation of resources now that a new facility has been added? Or, will fees/taxes be increased to pay for this rink (either ice rink users will pay for the construction, maintenance, and operations of the facility for as long as it stands or these costs will need to be passed along to all who live in our community for the life of the rink)? You have to choose.

If the past 15 years taught us nothing else, we should know by now that the economy is volatile and unpredictable – and is dependent upon and influenced by human behavior. When intelligent decisions are made, rewards tend to follow. When poor choices are made, there is often a price to pay. How much is paid depends on how poor and shortsighted the decision happened to be.

Photo: Northern Nevada Ice
It’s hard not to appreciate where we live. The first creative arts district in the state, small business centric with few chains, ground-breaking public health initiatives, a beautiful downtown steeped in a rich history, an outdoor playground surrounded by 680,000 acres of public lands and an iconic river that runs through town that is the most commercially rafted in the US, 300+ days of sunshine, and a year-round tourism scene. These characteristics and others speak to the uniqueness of this place.

And while these qualities sound wonderful on the surface, what makes this town special has also contributed to its most daunting economic, environmental, and social challenges. More remote workers, an older population with fewer and fewer young families, an influx of cash buyers from other states that has led to out of reach housing prices that have left many unable to keep a roof over their heads, business owners struggling to find and/or retain employees, a semi-arid and ever changing climate that continues to contribute to wildfire threats, and liabilities which exceed revenues speak to a complex reality.

So, what should our investment priorities be? As you contemplate whether an indoor ice rink is the most responsible and ethical investment choice for the city and its taxpayers in light of all that is happening, I respectfully request that each of you ponder the following. Are you as a City Council member willing to stand up and step away from agendas that are self-interest driven and set a standard for our community that begins and ends with focusing on what is best for our collective “common good” and not just those who think that ice would be nice? Jamie Sabbach is President & Principal with 110% Inc., a consulting firm which focuses on ethical decision making, adaptive leadership, and the financial sustainability of public parks and recreation. She can be reached at [email protected]
Financial
Sustainability
in public parks & recreation
Supplemental Item
Welcome
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Parks & Reconomics
How we manage finite resources.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . “A collective understanding of
financial and business concepts
intends to foster intelligent
decision making and help us
better consider the
consequences of our actions.

This is essential if we are to have
a financially sustainable future
for parks and recreation.” economic environmental
social
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

When was it
we started to
pay attention?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

The Great Recession’s Profound Impact
on Parks & Recreation
By: Nicholas Pitas, Ph.D., Austin Barrett, Ph.D., Andrew Mowen, Ph.D. 50%
100%
1989 2003 2008 2013
*Dollar figures are adjusted to 2014 values to control for the impact of inflation Parks &
Recreation
Spending
1989 - 2013
Source:

The Great Recessions’ Profound Impact on
Parks & Recreation 2018
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Operating &
Capital
Expenditures
2000 - 2013
2000 2008 2013
Capital
$12B
(33.8%)
Operating
$23.5B
(66.2%)
Operating
$28.9B
(71.7%)
Total Expense
$40.7B
Capital
$6.6B
(20.3%)
Operating
$25.9B
(79.7%)
Total
Expense
$32.5B
Total Expense
$35.5B
Capital
$11.8B
(28.9%)
2023
Source:

The Great Recessions’ Profound Impact on
Parks & Recreation 2018
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . 2013
– 2018 balance sheet
A lack of financial discipline
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . ➢ Then & now
➢ Common language & understanding
➢ Ethics, economics, & equity
➢ Growth & stability
➢ Investment, value & return
➢ Designing strategy
➢ Closing, thoughts, comments, questions
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Then & now
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

The Birth of Public Spaces
Boston Common was the first public space or
“commons” in the United States allowing for
self directed leisure.

Mission creep?
As the profession matured and diversified,
the guiding philosophy shifted away from a
social welfare model to services for all model.
✓ Public health crisis
✓ Community disparities
✓ Housing insecurities
✓ Lack of revenue diversification
✓ Growth & development
✓ Increasing infrastructure maintenance demands
✓ Conflicts b/w community demands and needs
✓ Staffing deficiencies
✓ Environmental impacts incl: climate threats
✓ Economic volatility…
Conditions affecting parks & recreation today…and tomorrow? S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Common language & understanding
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Common language and
improved understanding
leads to a more informed
and better prepared
community of
professionals, advocates,
and policy makers.

Build knowledge & row together
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Financial Alphabet Soup
in Parks & Recreation
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . ccounting
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

If I Gave You One
Hundred Dollars How
Much Money Would
You Have?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Cash accounting
✓ $100 in the bank
✓ Ignore the $25K credit card debt
You have
$100
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Accrual accounting
✓ $100 in the bank
✓ Include the $25K credit card debt
You have
-$24900
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . osts
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Direct costs can be traced directly to the provision of a service.

This cost would not be incurred if the service ceased.

DIRECT COST?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Indirect costs are incurred with or without the provision of a service.

These costs are not traceable to any particular service, benefit the system as a whole and do not benefit any one single service.

INDIRECT COST?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . ost recovery
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

COST RECOVERY…
recovering or offsetting the
costs (expense) of delivering
services.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

SUBSIDY…
a benefit given by
the government;
typically to remove
some type of
burden, and often
considered to be in
the overall interest
of the public.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . ssential
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . essential
absolutely necessary; extremely important
synonyms:
crucial · necessary · key · vital · indispensable · needed · required essential services
These services are critical to preserving life, health and basic social function and if interrupted, would endanger life, personal safety, and/or the physical and mental health of our community.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Abraham
Maslow
Public lands - parks, trails,
open spaces
Child care (ASP, camps, etc.)
Others?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . eed
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . need
requirement because it is essential or very important.
synonyms: obligatory · requisite · required · compulsory · mandatory · imperative community need
discrepancies between a present state or condition and a desired state.

These discrepancies inflict undue hardship on member(s) of our community. (poverty, poor health indicators, unemployment, educational attainment, etc.) S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Need = Want
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . pportunity
Cost
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Opportunity cost is the value or potential benefit of what is lost when choosing one option over another.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . artnership
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

PARTNERSHIPS =
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Reciprocal Benefit
If your organization is giving and not receiving something of equal value in return, you are a granting organization (this is not a partnership).

PARTNERSHIPS =
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . rend
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Addition of pickleball courts is not the question. While the fastest growing sport, the question is the degree to which an investment in pickleball is made given its lifespan and current target markets.

NOTE: Each court provides ~10-12 hours of play per day (seasonal) x 7 days = 84 hours of play per court @ 4 users per hour = ~336 players per court per week.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . nfair Competition
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Competition is generally considered a good
thing – it elevates performance resulting in
better services, and fair prices.

This is cooperative competition.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

And then there is destructive or
unfair competition.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . illingness to pay
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Ethics, economics, & equity
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

TRAGEDY of the COMMONS
Individual exploitation of common resources invites overall ruin.

The conflicts between
personal interest and the
common good.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . ✓ benefits all members of a community,
✓ contrasts with things that benefit only specific individuals or sub-communities. ✓ often requires a degree of individual sacrifice.
✓ a “we” or “us” way of thinking and doing.

The Common Good
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

The Abstraction of Community
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

What do you think after reading the article?
Did anything you read resonate with you?
Did anything you read make you uncomfortable?
Your key takeaway?
Growth & stability
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

With the growth and prosperity this
country has experienced, WHY do our
governmental entities struggle to pay for
basic services including maintenance?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Obsession with the race to be the bigger & better
Post WW2, the pursuit of
fast growth with little
consideration for the longterm impacts (fiscal,
environmental, social) came
into fashion.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

The illusion of wealth & the cycle of decline
© 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved.

Deferred maintenance
The cost of work needed to bring a
structure to good condition.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . “The greatest shortcoming
of the human race is its
inability to understand the
exponential function.”
Dr. Albert Bartlett
Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado at Boulder
Arithmetic, Population & Energy
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

$500M backlog
Milwaukee Co. faces $1 billion in deferred maintenance
on high-profile landmarks (tmj4.com)
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . $1B+ backlog
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . “Despite ups and downs in the Pennsylvania
Park system, the Pennsylvania Bureau of
State Parks was recognized; winning the
National Gold Medal Award for Excellence in
Park and Recreation Management by the
American Academy for Park and Recreation
Administration who partners with the
National Recreation and Park Association.”
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . $11.9B
backlog?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . $11.9B backlog?
in 2012?
2014?
2016?
2018?
2020?
2022?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

The Great Insufficiency
of The Great Outdoors Act
“Fully” and permanently fund the Land &
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) @ $900M
per year.

Provide $9.5B over 5 years ($1.9B annually)
to address the maintenance backlog of the
National Park Service.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Capital Renewal Cost Total = $49,676,630
October 2022
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

What do you think after reading the article?
Did anything you read resonate with you?
Did anything you read make you uncomfortable?
Your key takeaway?
Investment, value & return
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

WE JUST NEED MORE MONEY!
If taxpayers can’t or
won’t pay more,
what options exist?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Do residents understand
what they pay?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Do residents understand
what they pay?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . “What is most
important to
you? You can
only have two.”
© 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved.

High
level of
service
(quality)
Stabilize
taxes/fees
Add
more
services
(quantity)
Cannot
exist
What does it cost?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Why do we not
ensure that
development
generates enough
resource so that it
can pay for itself
(ROI)?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

The ROI of Community Development
Downtown multi-use (10.46 acres)
Property/Sales Tax Revenues/Acre = $12,307
New residential service area (17.36 acres)
Property Tax Revenues/Acre = $4,660
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

The ROI of P & R Facility Development
Facility sq ft. = 80,000
Programmable sq ft. = 53,000
Facility sq ft. = 42,000
Programmable sq ft. = 36,000
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . Streets/Roads
Bridges
Dams
Water/Sewer
Schools
Parks
Environmental
Social
Human habitat impacts & costs
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

There is an inherent conflict between the collective goal of the community to endure and the goals of individuals to “win”.

Community goal = INFINITE GAME
Long term objectives
Individual goals = FINITE GAME
Short term objectives
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Designing strategy
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Cost recovery philosophy
of yesterday
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Parks & Trails
Seniors
Youth Sports
Adult Sports
Aquatics
Arts
Day Camps
Special Events
Teens
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Financial Sustainability
Three-legged Stool
Service Categories
Beneficiary of Service
Cost of Service
Tax Use/Revenue
Enhancement Philosophy
© 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved.

What is a park & recreation
SERVICE?
Activities, courses, classes, events, rentals,
and other types of leisure experiences.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Where “likeness” of service is the principal
consideration in the coordination and/or
organization of various services.

What is a park & recreation
SERVICE AREA?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Where “like purpose” is the principal
consideration in the cataloging of services.

What is a park & recreation
SERVICE CATEGORY?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . ✓ Eliminates arbitrary goal setting.
✓ Discourages attempts to make cost recovery
decisions based upon special interests or social
values.
✓ Aligns with interests in equity-based decision
making – age, interest, etc. become irrelevant.

It’s all about “purpose”.

Why Service Categories?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Youth Sports
(t-ball)
Cost recovery
goal = 50%?
Seniors
(Intro to Fitness)
Cost recovery
goal = 25%?
Aquatics
(learn to swim)
Cost recovery
goal = 40%?
Service Categories
© 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved.

Service Category:

Learn to Swim
Cost recovery goal
= 75%?
Masters Swim
Cost recovery goal
= 75%?
Service Area:

Service Category:

Beginner Level
Activities
Service Category:

Beneficiary of Service
Activity
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Take 10
with your team
Take 15
with your new team
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

1. Share your ranking with one another

2. Why did you make the placement decisions you did?

3. After hearing other perspectives, would you change any of your rankings? S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Common Good © 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized Requires Subsidy Investment –Low Cost Recovery
Low to No Subsidy Investment –
High Cost Recovery
Beneficiary of Services
Financial Sustainability Continuum
Understanding
Cost of Service
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Direct costs can be traced directly to the provision of a service.

This cost would not be incurred if the service ceased.

DIRECT COST
Indirect costs are incurred with or without the provision of a service.

These costs are not traceable to any particular service, benefit the system as a whole and do not benefit any one single service.

INDIRECT COST
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Sell one thing – ice cream cones
• 50,000 ice cream cones sold
Direct Costs
• Ice cream, cones, napkins
• Costs = $50,000 ($1/cone)
Additional costs
• Utilities, management, landscaping,
equipment
• Costs = $100,000 last year
Calculate cost of service
• Cost of service = $150,000
• To cover all costs, they need to sell cones for
$3/each (100% cost recovery).

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Chain of Shops
Multiple locations
• Varying revenue by store
• Varying costs by store
Some shared resources between
locations
• Senior Managers
• Finance
• HR
• Landscaping contract
• etc.

NOTE: Cost of service at separate
locations becomes a bit more challenging
to calculate
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Quality of Life Services
Hundreds or thousands of services
offered
Many unique direct costs for each
service
Globally shared costs/resources across
the system (indirect costs)
• Senior Managers, Finance, HR,
Landscaping, etc.

Location based shared costs/resources
• Facility maintenance, Utilities,
Custodial, Front desk staff, etc.

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - admin example
Exec Director
$100K
salary
+ bennies
REC = $400K
(40% of total
budget)
$40K of ED’s
salary is
attributed to REC
Parks Mgr.
$60K
salary +
bennies
Sports = $120K (30%
of Rec’s total budget)
$30K of ED & RM’s
salaries attributed to
Aquatics
% of the whole
method
Aquatics = $280K (70%
of Rec’s total budget)
$70K of ED & RM’s
salaries attributed to
Aquatics
Rec Mgr.
$60K
salary +
bennies
Aquatics Coord.
$40K
salary
+ bennies
Sports Coord.

$40K
salary
+ bennies
PARKS = $600K
(60% of total
budget)
$60K of ED’s
salary is
attributed to PARKS
Total
organization
budget = $1M
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Sales
Utilities Maintenance Staff Telecom-Com Security Grounds mtc Custodial Marketing Office Supplies Training & Dev Equipment Fleet $1M budget
Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilities example
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . $1,000,0000 budget
5120 open hrs/yr.
(360 days @ 16 hrs/day)
$195.31/open hour
Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilities example
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilities example
Q: Distribute by total square feet?
$1,000,0000 budget
5120 open hrs/yr.
(360 days @ 16 hrs/day)
$195.31/open hour
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilities example
Q: Distribute by total square feet?
$195.31 per hour
50,000 sq. ft
.004/foot/hour
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilities example
Q: Distribute by total
programmable square feet?
$195.31 per hour
30,000 sq. ft
.007/foot/hour
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . 4 weeks
2 x per week
1 hour class
8 occurrences
8 contact hours
Multi-purpose room = 600 sq. ft.
600 x .007 per sq. ft./hour x 8 hours
= $336 Pilates class
Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilities example
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Attributing INDIRECT COSTS - facilities example
$336 facility cost / min. 20 =
$16.80 per person
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Pilates class
Common Good © 2024 10% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized Requires Subsidy Investment –Low Cost Recovery
Low to No Subsidy Investment –
High Cost Recovery
Financial Sustainability Continuum
Transformation From
Beneficiary of Services
to
Financial Sustainability Strategy
Common Good © 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized High Subsidy –Low Cost Recovery
Low Subsidy –
High Cost Recovery
COST

RECOVERY

STRATEGY
example*
*heavy reliance upon the GF; no
self reliance; no re-investment in
the organization
Financial Sustainability Continuum
Common Good © 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized High Subsidy
–
Low Cost Recovery
Low Subsidy
–
High Cost Recovery

FINANCIAL

SUSTAINABILITY

STRATEGY
example*
*continue to subsidize the majority of
services; remain largely dependent
upon the GF; some re-investment in
the organization; increasing self
reliance
Financial Sustainability Continuum
High Subsidy
–
Low Cost Recovery
Low Subsidy
–
High Cost Recovery
Common Good © 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized High Subsidy
–
Low Cost Recovery
Low Subsidy
–
High Cost Recovery

COMMUNITY

INVESTMENT

STRATEGY
example*
*reduce reliance on the GF; reinvestment in the organization; increase self reliance; emphasize
how taxpayer dollars are spent
Financial Sustainability Continuum
High Subsidy
–
Low Cost Recovery
Low Subsidy
–
High Cost Recovery
Subsidize
Profit Center
Divest
Tax Use & Revenue
Enhancement
Continuum
for public & non-profit agencies
© 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved.

Financial Sustainability
Napa’s Realities
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

City of Napa CA
Parks & Recreation Services
2013-2021
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . $225M+
backlog
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

NOTE: 1 in 3 Adults in
Napa County are Obese
(based on Public Health
Assessment report)
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Service categories
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Common Good © 2021 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized High Subsidy
–
Low Cost Recovery
Low Subsidy
–
High Cost Recovery
Beneficiary of Service
Model
Why did Napa do a Cost of Service Analysis?
✓ Understand current cost
recovery levels
✓ Understand how taxpayer
dollars are currently being spent
✓ Help support difficult decisions
and provide the data/info to help
tell their story
✓ Help staff, board, and council
understand the current financial
condition of the organization
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . 15 services that are the furthest from their cost recovery target The story…
Hanging flower baskets in downtown Napa, while
contributing to the city’s beautification efforts,
require daily watering in a part of the country
that is bleeding water resources. They also
consume significant staff time.

The Business Improvement District (BID) provides
a $100K contribution annually yet taxpayer
investment is very high and in conflict with
environmental concerns and priorities. Overall
subsidy is also a point of contention given the
prevalence of social equity concerns in Napa and
the investment needed to address equity
interests.

The plan = use public art instead of live flowers
and save more than $160K annually.

The Smart Approach to Cost Recovery

TAKING ACTION SUCCESS STORIES
Common Good © 2021 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized High Subsidy
–
Low Cost Recovery
Low Subsidy
–
High Cost Recovery
Financial Sustainability
Strategy
2023-2025
$842K subsidy
Common Good Individualized
Napa City Council
work sessions
✓ 1:1 and 1:2 sessions
✓ City administrators
part of the
conversation
✓ 2 hours in length
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Katrina Gregory
Recreation Manager
City of Napa, CA
“The cost recovery process is the single
most important thing I have done in my
15+ year career in parks & recreation.

Our organization gained invaluable
insights about our current operations
and now have the tools to create longlasting and impactful change for our department and community.

By taking a deep dive and analyzing how
we are spending taxpayer dollars, we are
fully committed to being the responsible
fiscal stewards of the resources that
have been entrusted to us.”
What’s
happening
today?
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

1. Financial Sustainability Policy

2. Capital Investment Policy

3. Social Equity Policy
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y . $412K subsidy
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Common Good © 2024 110% Inc. All rights reserved. Individualized High Subsidy –Low Cost Recovery
Low Subsidy –
High Cost Recovery
Rohnert Park CA Community Services
Taxpayer Investment
Strategy
Financial Sustainability Continuum
Good work and good intentions are never fully realized. It’s about showing up – rising above the rest and doing important, impactful, and profession altering work.

This topic and its value have nothing to do with a radical change in behavior. This is about aspiring to improve how we do what we do. Its about being better in service to our communities. It’s aspirational work for the profession – it is necessary and given today’s realities, non-negotiable.

There is no finish line
S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

S E R V I N G T H E P A R K S A N D R E C R E A T I O N I N D U S T R Y .

Thoughts, comments, questions…
www.110percent.net
Jamie Sabbach, President & Principal
[email protected]
Thank you

Rohnert Park City CouncilJune 4, 2024

Rohnert Park City Council
June 4, 2024