RTC 06-290 — Sunnyvale City Council, August 9, 2022

Issued by the City Manager

REPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

NO: 06-290
Revised 04-12-2004
September 19, 2006

SUBJECT:

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program – Study Issue

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to the complexity of this Study Issue and the length of this report to Council, an executive summ
ary of the key issues is provided, as well as, an
index of the report. (Please refer to Attachment A: Index for Report to Council.)

The Recreation Fee Waiver Program provides a safety net to ensure that eligible economically disadvantaged Sunnyvale residents have access to the City’s recreation programs and services. Over time the program has grown from one targeted to meet the needs of low-income youth involved in City-provided recreational activities, to one which encompasses all ages, reimburses third parties providing recreational activities, and which has overspent its budget on a number of occasions. It is also significantly more expansive than any of the

fee waiver or scholarship programs offered by Sunnyvale’s neighboring cities.

Use of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program has escalated at a pace that the Community Recreation Fund is unable to support. On April 5, 2005, City Council reviewed Report to Council 05-090: Fee Waiver Program – Budge t
Issue. The report considered options to address a shortfall in the Recreation Fee Waiver program budget in FY2004/2005. At that time, Council asked if the criteria for the program could be modified so that fee waivers could be directed to specific customer groups. Staff indicated that a Study Issue paper was being developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

Council approved this Study Issue for study in 2006. (Please see Attachment B:
2006 Study Issue Paper: Consider Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.)

Because it is necessary to balance the needs of the community against finite resources, this study provides City Co
uncil with the opportunity to consider
who may benefit most from the program and to restructure the program to provide the service where it will have the strongest impact and benefit to the community. The outcome of this study will be a long term vision for the program and the development of a comprehensive policy for the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program that may be applied consistently to benefit Sunnyvale residents.

Attachment 2

Page 1 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 2 of 63 ends

The purpose of this report is to provide City Council with the results of this study, provide a variety of alternatives for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program and to seek Council direction regarding changes to the existing criteria and eligibility requirements for the program. Because of the number of issues to be considered as part of the study and the numerous variables and criteria that could be applied to the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, the report is quite lengthy. In an effort to organize the information as clearly as possible the Discussion, Fiscal Impact and Alternatives are broken into five key areas:

1. Who should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serve? (Refer to

page 20 for discussion of the various segments of the population that may be served, e.g., youth, disabled adults, seniors.)

2. What programs should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program cover? (Refer to page 23 for discussion of what types of programs and activities may be in
cluded in the program, e.g., City-provided programs
only, youth sports organizations, third party providers.)

3. How should income eligibility requirements be established? (Refer to page 27 for discussion of the various alternatives that may b e
considered as the criteria for determining income eligibility, e.g., modified Community Block Grant (CDBG) guidelines, Federal Free Lunch Program, Food Bank guidelines.)

4. How much should be available to each participant, and how shoul d
that be structured? (Refer to page 31 for discussion of various strategies for determining the maximum allocation per eligible participant, e.g., a fixed amount, a fixed amount adjusted by the CPI each year, a fixed amount plus a co-payment.)

5. How should the fee waiver program budget be managed and ho w
should it be administered? (Refer to page 38 for discussion on the options for administration of the program and for managing the Recreation Fee Waiver Program budget in the future, e.g., qualify individuals until budget is expended or encumber full amount at the time an individual qualifies.)

Fiscal Impact
All of the options included in this report are discussed within the context of the existing Council-approved budget for fee waivers. No additional funding is being sought.

Page 2 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 3 of 63 ends

costs in the City have increased at an average rate of 6% over the past three years although CPI for the past three years was 3%. In future years, if personnel costs were to increase beyond the rate of inflation and new revenue could not be generated to offset this increase, service levels within the Recreation Division would be decreased at a corresponding level. Alternatively, the General Fund subsidy would need to be increased resulting in increased pressure within the General Fund, which is exactly what Council was attempting to prevent when it adopted the policy of fixing the General Fund subsidy to the Community Recreation Fund. Accordingly, the Recreation Fee Waiver Program allocation has been fixed at a set amount plus the annual inflation factor, barring a need in the future to use part of this allocation to offset other increases in expenses or decreases in revenues within the rest of the Community Recreation Fund.

If use of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program were to continue to increase at the average rate of the past thr
ee years (5%), and if the Recreation Fee Waiver
Program were to be funded at the increased level, the cost over twenty years could be as much as $4,440,775 as compared to as much as $3,587,088 at 3% in the first ten years and 4% in the back ten years, which is the standard inflation used in the City’s financial plans. This works out to be roughly $42,000 annually. This impact would be significantly reduced or eliminated if the Recreation Fee Waiver Program is managed so as not to exceed budgeted resources each year and if only City recreation programs and those conducted by City licensees and contractors are eligible for the fee waivers. It is extremely unlikely that the Community Recreation Fund would be able to absorb $853,687 without significantly reducing service levels and costs in other areas of Recreation. The service levels that would most likely be targeted for reduction would be those receiving the greatest subsidy (such as youth and seniors), and these reductions would therefore also be apt to hurt the same populations targeted by the Fee Waiver Program.

Three primary exceptions apply to the net zero impact of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. T
he first is when fee waivers are granted for participation in one of the youth sports leagues that have agreements with the City. In that case, the amount of the fee waiver is debited from the Recreation Fee Waiver budget but then is paid out of the City and to the youth sports group. There is no corresponding credit on the revenue side – it is only a cost. The second exception is the $10,000 paid under contract to Sunnyvale Community Attachment 2

Page 3 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 4 of 63 ends

Services to offset their costs in administering the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. Here, too, the cost is debited from the Fee Waiver budget with no corresponding credit on the revenue side. The third exception is in the case of co-payments, where any co-pays received would have a positive net impact to the Community Recreation Fund offset by an unknown amount of increased administrative costs associated with collecting the co-payments.

Many of the options discussed would affect distribution of existing funding within the Recreation Fee Waiver Program but would not have a positive or negative net impact on the Community Recreation Fund. Other options would impact the number of indivi
duals who might be served but also would not
require additional funding. Each option presented in this report can be paired with other options in what can seem like a limitless number of combinations, each with its own implications, fiscal or otherwise. This Fiscal Impact section therefore looks at the impact within primarily the expense side of the budget of various combinations of modifications with which Council may choose to amend the Fee Waiver Policy. It follows the order of questions addressed in the body of this report and begins on page 44.

Public Contact
Information regarding public outreach and notification may be found on page 56 of the report.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommends Alternatives 1, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 18, and recommends that the Recreation Fee Waiver Program:

1. Serve only youth 17 years of age and younger;

6. Include only City r
ecreation programs and activities. This includes all City licensees and contractors who provide services directly to the public on behalf of the City. All youth sports organizations with special use agreements with the City will be notified that fee waivers will no longer be accepted for programs that are not directly provided by the City;

8. Income eligibility requirements should be based on the Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185% of poverty) to establish eligibility for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program;

11. Use a “bundle of services” approach to establish the annual maximum per person amount of recreation fees waived, equivalent to fou r representative
activities a year or one camp, with the specific amount to be established and reviewed administratively;

14. Do not require co-payments from Recreation Fee Waiver Program

participants.

16. Budget should be managed by encumbering the maximum per eligible person amount at the time a person is qualified for the program; that new participants will stop being qualified when the fee waiver budget is fully encumbered; and roll over unspent funds to the next year; and, Attachment 2

Page 4 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 5 of 63 ends

18. Continue the contract with Sunnyvale Community Services for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program until such time as the City is in the position to assume partial or full responsibility for administering the program. Staff believes that it will be possible for the City to assume responsibility for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program sometime within the next two years.

Discussion of Staff Recommendations

The staff recommendation is based on a desire to re-establish the main purpose of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program as a safety net for low-income youth and to bring it more in line with the practices of neighboring cities. T he
City has long placed an emphasis on the importance of serving youth, recognizing that the ability to engage youth in healthy, constructive activities may well serve as a deterrent to negative and more costly behaviors. By continuing the recreation fee waiver program at a level that will allow low- income youth to participate in recreational activities all year long, the City will be making a strong commitment to assisting these at-risk youth to participate in their community.

Staff recommends establishing a policy in which youth sports groups are responsible for ensuring the participation of low-income individu als without
reimbursement from the City, in effect discontinuing the cash subsidy it has been providing. While participants experience fee waivers in the same way regardless of whether they are for services provided by the City or by a third party, there are no City fees being waived. Instead, it is the youth sports groups’ own fees that are waived. By reimbursing youth sports groups through the Recreation Fee Waiver Program the City is providing a direct cash subsidy to the youth sports groups to offset the groups’ own costs of waiving fees.

Youth sports groups, through their agreements with the City, are already receiving substantial in-kind subsidies for their programs in terms of very lo w
fees for the use of fields and other facilities and have the ability to pursue fundraising to cover these and other costs. In addition, their special use agreements do not include reimbursement for fee waivers and state that the groups will provide their services at no additional cost to the City. The majority of the youth sports groups have already found a way to absorb the costs associated with allowing low-income youth to participate, and most, in fact, are mandated to do so by their parent organizations.

Page 5 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 6 of 63 ends

on the Community Recreation Fund and the City as the amount reimbursed to the youth groups has averaged $31,856 annually over the past three years. The three organizations that most recently have requested reimbursements represent only 25% of the groups with whom the City has special use agreements in FY2005/2006. If the other 75% were to request comparable support the financial exposure to the Community Recreation Fund would be extensive. Unlike waiving fees for City-run programs, where the effect is a transfer of funds within the Community Recreation Fund from the Fee Waiver budget to the revenue account associated with the City program and a net zero impact to the Community Recreation Fund, this represents an additional net expense to the City as monies leave the City, and results in a cash subsidy to the youth sports group. Reimbursement of these fee waivers to non-City agencies takes resources away from the Community Recreation Fund.

The City has a long history of supporting the needs of its older adults. While staff recognizes that some low-income seniors would want City assistance i n
taking recreational trips, enjoying the Senior Lunch Program and participating in other recreational activities, many of these activities are already subsidized.

Even were a senior only able to afford the yearly membership fee, that person would have access to a wide variety of free and low cost recreation and social services throughout the year. At only $1.50 a month for Sunnyvale residents, the value of the Senior Center membership is substantial in terms of the free and reduced price programs and services it includes. (Please refer to Attachment C: Summary of Benefits of Senior Center Membership.) Additionally, there are numerous services and discount programs available in the community for seniors that are not available to other age groups. Examples include access to low cost health care programs, case management services, and restaurant and store discount programs.

Philosophically, staff supports the concept of requiring co-pays as a means of communicating value and helping to offset the co
sts of the recreation fee waiver
program. However, the administrative costs of implementing such a program outweigh the benefits, particularly if recreation fee waivers are limited to youth.

The increase in administrative costs would be due to the need to individually calculate the amount of the required co-pay for each registration (for those options where the co-pay is variable); a need for additional communication with each participant about the co-pay requirement; and increased tracking (record- keeping) requirements, particularly in the event of refunds or changes to registrations. Staff projects that an additional five minutes of staff time per transaction would be required resulting in additional administrative costs.

Page 6 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 7 of 63 ends

defensible standard and is regularly reviewed and updated. It would also bring consistency to the eligibility screening criteria used by Sunnyvale Community Services and is comparable to income standards used by the County assistance programs. The Food Bank guidelines would have the immediate effect of making some smaller families (1, 2 and 3 persons) ineligible, because the maximum income is lower. Conversely, larger families (4 people or more) would have a lower threshold to meet in qualifying, with an anticipated end result of an equal number of families qualifying as with the current modified CDBG guidelines.

Staff recommends encumbering the maximum per person amount at the time the person qualifie
s and then to stop qualifying new participants when the budgeted allocation is fully encumbered. It is critical for staff to have some means of controlling the Recreation Fee Waiver budget. Given the relative unpredictability of use over past years, with periods of high and low usage, there needs to be a way to stay within budgeted resources while also providing clear usage guidelines for participants so that they may plan their activities over the course of an entire year without the threat of resources being cut off mid-year and/or maximum per person amounts being reduced. Encumbering the maximum per person amount at the time an individual qualifies ensures that the person will be able to use all of his/her allotment, even if they use it in the last months of the fiscal year. Such a practice would also encourage people to enroll at the beginning of the year, in order to ensure their ability to participate. Finally, rolling over unspent funds to subsequent years will help to even out funding for a program whose size is notably difficult to predict.

The City’s Recreation Division is not yet at a point where it can assume responsibility for ad
ministering the Recreation Fee Waiver program; however, staff anticipates that administration for the program could shift to the City sometime in the next one to two years. At this time, it is much more cost effective to continue the contractual arrangement with Sunnyvale Community Services for administration services. The contract can be revisited at such time as the City’s capabilities change. Additional information regarding this subject may be found on page 42.

Commission Recommendations

The Parks and Recreation Commission and Arts Commission considered the matter in a joint meeting on August 29, 2006. The
Parks and Recreation
Commission voted 4-1, with Commissioner Kinder dissenting, and the Arts Commission voted 3 – 2 with Commissioners Carney and Obrey dissenting, to recommend Council direct staff to utilize 80% of the allocated Recreation Fee Waiver budget to serve youth 17 and under; 10% of the Recreation Fee Waiver budget to serve adults age 18-49; and 10% of the Recreation Fee Waiver budget to serve seniors age 50 and older, with Recreation Fee Waivers to be used for City-provided programs only. Dissenting votes were cast because a Attachment 2

Page 7 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 8 of 63 ends

Commissioner estimated up to 250 youth would no longer be served if reimbursement of Recreation Fee Waivers to youth sports groups were discontinued; because it did not limit the program to youth only; and because the alternative was felt to be too confusing.

The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Arts Commission further unanimously recommended that Council approve alternatives number 8, 11, 14, 16 and 18 in accordance with staff recommendations:

8. Income eligibility requirements should be based on the Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185% of poverty) to establish eligibility for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program;

14. Do not require co-payments from Recreation Fee Waiver Program

participants.

18. Continue the contract with Sunnyvale Community Services for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program until such time as the City is in the position t
o assume partial or full responsibility for
administering the program. Staff believes that it will be possible for the City to assume responsibility for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program sometime within the next two years.

Attachments
• Index for Report to Council
• 2006 Study Issue Paper: Consider Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program
• Summary of Benefits of Senior Center Membership
• T hree Year Summary of Participation in Recreation Fee Waiver Program by Age Group
• Four-Year Historical Use of Fee Waivers by Program
• Council Policy 7.2.4 - Relationship With Outside Groups

BACKGROUND
The City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program was originally created to provide children from economically disadvantaged families with access to City-operated after school recreation programs. With the establishment of the Community Recreation Fund in FY 1991/1992 and development of a market based pricing

Attachment 2

Page 8 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 9 of 63 ends

strategy for recreation programs and services, the value of the fee waiver program as a safety net for low-income families increased. The program was expanded to provide recreation fee waivers to eligible adults and seniors, and a broad array of recreation programs and services were qualified under the program.

A. Recent City Council Actions Related to the Recreation Fee Waiver Program
The Recreation Fee Waiver Program has come before City Council several times over the past two years. T
he following information provides an overview of
Council’s recent actions on this topic:

April 2005
A report was presented to Council on April 5, 2005, projecting that the fee waiver budget for FY 2004/2005 would be exceeded at year-end if use continued at its current pace. (Report to Council 05-090: Fee Waiver Program – Budget Issue.) At that time, Council directed staff to use the proceeds or interest income from the Dorolou Swirsky Youth Opportunity Fund of approximately $10,000 - $12,000 towards the fee waiver program and that these resources were to be used for anyone age 17 and for the remainder of that fiscal year. Additionally, Council directed staff to reduce the maximum amount of fee waiver allowed per individual from $250 to $180 and to limit the eligibility income criteria to “very low” income for the remainder of the fiscal year. Any remaining deficit balance for the fee waiver program for all other age groups was to be funded from the General Fund Non-recurring Events Reserve.

Council’s direction regarding additional funding for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program applied to FY 2004/2005 only. Beginning July 1, 2005, the program returned to the original criteria and funding source in the Community Recreation Fund.

June 2005
On June 21, 2005, Council considered RTC 05-198: Evaluate Options for Administration of Fee Waiver Program, and approved an amended agreement with Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) to pay SCS on a monthly basis, up to a maximum of $10,000 per year, to administer the Recreation Fee Waiver Program for FY 2005/2006. Staff was to continue to monit or and evaluate the
program, and to provide recommendations on an annual basis via the City Manager’s recommended budget.

February 2006
Currently, eligible Sunnyvale residents are granted a waiver for recreation fees up to $180 per eligible family member. This amount is based on Council action taken February 28, 2006, in response to Report to Council 06-063: Fee Waiver Program – FY 2005/2006 Budget Issue, which advised City Council that at the current rate of use, the budget for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program would Attachment 2

Page 9 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 10 of 63 ends

again be exceeded before the end of the fiscal year. Action taken by Council at that time included:
• Reduced the maximum amount of fee waiver allowed per eligible individual from $250 to $180;
• Limited income criteria to “Very Low” or below and left this change in place until completion of the 2006 Study Issue;
• Initiated a $1 per pe
rson meal co-payment for those using fee waivers to
participate in the Senior Lunch Program;
• Approved a Budget Modification not to exceed $76,000 in FY2005/2006 for any over-expenditure in the Recreation Fee Waiver Program; and • Approved a Budget Modification in the amount of $57,000 for FY 2006/2007 to take the Fee Waiver Program through September 2006 and completion of the Study Issue to consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

Council directed staff to continue with these cost containment measures until completion of this Study Issue, which is to take a broad look at t he overall
effectiveness and efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

Council Actions Affecting Per Person Amount

As established by City Council action in October 1990, (Report to Council 90- 535: Analysis of Parks and Recreation Fee Waiver Program – Legislat ive Issue)
the maximum fee waiver amount per eligible individual was to be determined using a base figure of $180 in 1990, adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). For several years, however, the maximum per person amount stayed at $180 and was not adjusted by CPI. This changed in January 2004, when the amount was increased to $250. Budgetary constraints, however, again came into play and the $250 was never further adjusted upward by the CPI. In fact, due to Council’s action in February 2006, the maximum per person amount has been reduced from $250 to $180 until completion of this Study Issue. If the 1990 formula were to be followed, the maximum per person amount would be $280 per family member in FY 2006-2007. Therefore, for the purposes of this Study Issue, $280 is used when discussing the option of continuing the 1990 policy with a base amount of $180 plus CPI for establishing the maximum per person amount

B. Overview of Recreation Fee Waiver Program
The Parks and Recreation Department provides a wide range of recreation programs and activities to the community. T
he majority of these services have
some sort of fee attached to them. Participant fees range from no cost (programs such as the mobile recreation program for children), to $5 for drop- in activities, to several hundred dollars for summer youth camps. To ensure Attachment 2

Page 10 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 11 of 63 ends

that economically disadvantaged Sunnyvale residents have access to recreation programs, the City of Sunnyvale has offered a recreation fee waiver program since 1981.

C. The Existing Recreation Fee Waiver Program

1. Administration
Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) qualifies eligible Sunnyvale residents based on the income guidelines in place each year and there are no limitations currently placed on the number of individuals that SCS may qualify for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program annually. Anyone who is identified as being eligible for the fee waiver program is provided with information about City recreation programs and services. Qualified individuals may request fee waiver authorizations for any amount up to the maximum established for that year.

Currently the maximum is $180.

2. Eligibility

Eligibility for the Recreation Fee Waiver program is determined using income guidelines and a definition of low income derived from a modified version of the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). Eligibility for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program is currently met by any in dividual or family in
the “Very Low Income” or below category as indicated in the following chart:

Modified CDBG Income Guideline

HOUSEHOLD SIZE VERY LOW INCOME LOW INCOME
1 Person $23,600 $29,100
2 Person $26,950 $33,300
3 Person $30,350 $37,450
4 Person $33,700 $41,600
5 Person $36,400 $44,950
6 Person $39,100 $48,250
7 Person $41,800 $51,600
8 or more $44,500 $54,900

3. Requirements for Establishing Eligibility as a Sunnyvale Resident

In October 2005, staff implemented a new Sunnyvale resident verification policy in order to ensure that the Recreation Fee Waiver P rogram was serving
only Sunnyvale residents. This action was prompted by substantial abuse by individuals not residing in Sunnyvale. Under the current process in order to qualify for fee waiver benefits, two forms of identification with the same name and Sunnyvale address are required, both to qualify and then to register. One form of identification must be a picture ID. If a participant’s picture ID does not have a Sunnyvale address, then two forms of other documentation must also be submitted. If fee waiver participants do not have two forms of Sunnyvale resident identification when registering, their fee waiver will not be honored Attachment 2

Page 11 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 12 of 63 ends

until proof is submitted. If mail is returned from a Sunnyvale address, re- verification of residency may be required.

The following is a list of acceptable forms of identification for those 18 years of age and older. Parents and guardians of minors must provide their own documentation before their child(ren) may be registered as a Sunnyvale resident.

Acceptable Forms of Identification
Photo Identification Other Documentation
• Driver’s License
• California Identification Card
• Passport
• Payroll Stub
• Rental Agreement
• Utility Bill
• Vehicle Registration
• Credit Card Bill
• Pre-Printed Check

D. Historical Expenditures for Recreation Fee Waiver Program

1. Ten-Year History of Expenditures

The following chart shows how demand for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program has varied since FY 1996/1997:

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 $105,699 $87,427 $62,541 $95,669 $99,305 $56,405 $80,541 $118,103 $148,861 $125,474 Change
from prior
year
-17.29% -28.46% +52.97% +3.08% -43.20% +42.79% +46.64% +26.04% -15.71%

The initial budget for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program in FY 1980/1981 was $1,000. This budget has been periodically increased to the current level o f
$172,748 in FY 2006/2007 (including a $57,000 Budget Modification approved by Council in February 2006 to cover the first three months of the Fiscal Year) and $117,191 in FY2007/2008. Over the past four years, beginning in FY2002/2003, there has been a trend towards increased demand for recreation fee waivers.

It should be noted that year-end expenditures for fee waivers in FY2005/2006 were not as high as staff originally projected in February 2006. Staff attributes the lower than anticipated usage, as well as the percentage drop in the last

quarter of the fiscal year, to the implementation beginning in October 2006 of a new requirement that each adult participant or the parent/guardian of a minor participant, show two forms of identification, at least one of which is a photo ID. This documentation is required when establishing eligibility for the fee waiver program and at the time the individual uses a Recreation Fee Waiver.

Attachment 2

Page 12 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 13 of 63 ends

The new requirement was imposed to ensure that only Sunnyvale residents received the fee waiver benefit. This action was prompted by substantial abuse by individuals not residing in Sunnyvale.

2. Three-Year Analysis of Fee Waiver Use by Age Group

Analysis of fee waiver recipients over the past three years indicates that the majority o
f individuals benefiting from the Recreation Fee Waiver Program are youth age 17 and under. In FY 2003/2004, 84% of total fee waiver recipients were youth, compared to 66% in FY 2004/2005 and 76% in FY 2005/2006.

The decrease in percentage of youth fee waiver recipients is tied to an increase in senior fee waiver recipients, primarily due to a surge in use of fee waivers for the Senior Lunch Program.

The actual number of youth recipients (as compared to percentage) was the same in FY 2003/2004 and FY 2004/2005, decreasing by 150 individuals i n
FY 2005/2006. Staff believes the decrease is also due to tightening of the rules for establishing residency. Only 6% of total recipients were seniors in FY 2003/2004 compared to 22% in FY 2004/2005 and 23% in FY 2005/2006. (For a more detailed summary of participation broken down by age group, please refer to Attachment D: Three Year Summary of Participation in Recreation Fee Waiver Program by Age Group.)

Currently, there is no distinction made between the level of fee waiver support available to adults, children or seniors. Records are not available to s how how
many eligible individuals use the full value of their fee waiver in any given year and how many people use only a portion of what they are eligible for.

3. Four-Year Historical Analysis of Fee Waiver Use by Program

Currently, fee waivers may be used for any City-provided recreation program or service. In addition, fee waivers have been provided to participants in som e
youth sports leagues that have special use agreements with the City.

A look at use of the program over the past four years shows that peak use of the fee waiver program occurs during the Pop Warner fall football season and the last t
wo to three months of each fiscal year as families use their fee waivers to register for summer camps and spring youth sports activities. In FY2005/2006, 26% of fee waiver expenditures were reported during the last three months of the year when summer registrations were accepted. In FY 2004/2005, 30% of fee waiver expenditures were reported during this same time period, 44% in FY 2003/2004 and 38% of expenditures were reported during the last three months of FY 2002/2003. (For more details on combined annual program use of fee waivers, please refer to Attachment E: Four-Year Historical Analysis of Fee Waiver Use by Program.)

Attachment 2

Page 13 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 14 of 63 ends

EXISTING POLICY

2.2 Open Space and Recreation Sub-Element
Policy 2.2B.10: Develop such fiscal practices as pricing, fee structures and cost recovery targets for open space and recreation programs and services consistent with the City’s Fiscal Management Sub-Element policies.

Policy 2.2C.3: Give priority to services, facilities and amenities that fulfill a basic need or teach basic skills (e.g., non-competitive, developmental sports instruction such a
s learn to swim given priority over competitive sports
programming).

Policy 2.2E.3: Provide recreation and enrichment programs, services, facilities and amenities to underserved areas and/or populations of the City.

Underserved areas and/or populations could be due to geography, gender, economics or ethnicity, etc.

Socio-Economic Element

Policy 5.1A.2: Strive to assure that all residents have equal access to City services.

DISCUSSION

A. Study Issue to Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program
In April 2005, Council took action to address a shortfall in the Recreation Fee Waiver Program budget for FY 2004/2005. At that time, Council asked if the criteria for the program could be modified so that fee waivers could be directed to specific customer groups. A Study Issue was developed to co nsider the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program and was approved by Council for study in 2006. (Please refer to Attachment A: 2006 Study Issue Paper: Consider Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.) The key elements of this study include the following:
• Examine the purpose and cost benefit of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.
• Consider limiting the Recreation Fee Waiver Program to specific segments of the Sunnyvale population, rather than the population at large. For example ,
the program could be limited to youth, developmentally disabled persons, seniors and/or other groups or combinations of groups.
• Review existing family income criteria used to establish eligibility for th e Recreation Fee Waiver Program and consider additional eligibility criteria that may be more efficiently managed.
• Review the annual maximum fee waiver amount given to eligible Sunnyvale residents and discuss whether or not the amount should be adjusted.

Attachment 2

Page 14 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 15 of 63 ends

• Consider whether or not the annual amount should be adjusted yearly for inflation or to address years of positive or negative economy of Sunnyvale. • Consider Sunnyvale residency requirements and appropriate documents used to ensure that only residents are served by the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.
• Consider types of programs and activities eligible for fee waivers. • Consider whether this program can be administered more efficiently and

effectively.

B. Purpose and Cost Benefit of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program

1. Benefits of Recreation
In discussions about the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, sometimes the philosophical underpinnings of the program get l
ost in details of fiscal matters
surrounding the issue. The philosophical grounds for having a fee waiver program, however, are important.

Overall, recreation has been found to provide many health benefits to all ages, including youth, seniors, disabled and adults. Physical health benefits of activ e
recreation include:
• Reducing obesity;
• Diminishing the risk of chronic disease; and
• Contributing to overall physical health.

The mental health benefits of recreation have been found to include:
• Reducing depression;
• Relieving stress;
• Improving quality of life;
• Improving self-esteem; and
• Contributing to positive personal growth and life satisfaction.

Benefits also accrue to the community when its citizens are involved in positive recreational activities. Participation helps to promote cultural diversity and understanding, supports seniors and individuals with disabilities and promotes social bonds.

Recent survey findings released in June 2006 by “Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California” found that students who are left unsupervised after school for three

or more days per week are three times more likely to engage in criminal behavior than teens who are only left unsupervised between zero to two days per week. Minimally supervised young people are also:
• More than twice as likely to hang out with gang members; • More than three times as likely to smoke marijuana; and • More than five times as likely to use drugs other than marijuana.

Attachment 2

Page 15 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 16 of 63 ends

Studies show that after school is the peak time for teens to commit a crime, be a victim of crime, be in or cause a c
ar crash, smoke, drink or use drugs.

Quality, constructive and highly supervised programs can have an immediate impact on these issues and help to develop positive skills and behaviors, and deter negative behaviors, thus reducing a dependency on more costly health and social services in the future.

2. Challenge for the Economically Disadvantaged

The economically disadvantaged, particularly youth and teens, are often the most vulnerable to negative influences and are most in need of the types of positive opportunities and experiences recreation programs and s ervices can
provide. They are also the least likely to be able to afford market-based participant fees.

The City’s FY 1999/2000 comprehensive youth services needs assessment and study, identified the priority needs of Sunnyvale residents by zone (RT C 00-
230: Youth Services Study). The primary needs reported in the study included the need for increased programs for children after school, weekends and during school vacations. The zones that reported the highest need for these types of services were those located in the parts of the City with the lowest reported household incomes.

3. Original Purpose of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program

The Recreation Fee Waiver Program was initiated in 1981 to meet the needs of low-income youth involved in City-provided after school recreational activities.

The progr
am was developed in an effort to ensure that all Sunnyvale children had access to City recreation classes and programs that they would otherwise not be able to afford. Over time the program expanded and is no longer limited to children or to after school recreation programs directly provided by the City.

Instead, eligible adults and seniors may apply for fee waivers and some outside youth sports organizations that have special use agreements with the City.

It should be noted that it is not local government’s role to provide social services. T
hat responsibility (and the corresponding funding sources, such that they are,) falls to counties and states. While the City does facilitate, and in some cases provides, some social services at the Senior Center, Columbia Neighborhood Center and through the Outside Group Funding Program, additional funding would be required if the Council wished to expand its social service role.

The size and scope of the Recreation Fee Waiver program are now in question; however, its importance in enabling low-income individuals to enjoy the many benefits of participation in recreation is undisputed.

Attachment 2

Page 16 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 17 of 63 ends

C. Sunnyvale’s Fee Waiver Program Compared to Surrounding Cities As a first step in studying the effectiveness of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, staff compared Sunnyvale’s fee waiver program to the fee waiver or scholarship programs offered by neighboring cities to see what could be learned from them. It is difficult to do a detailed comparison of fee waiver programs due to the large number of variables affecting each jurisdiction’s situation.

However, it is clear that Sunnyvale’s Recreation Fee Waiver program is significantly more extensive than those in neighboring cities. The following table illustrates the differences in size and scope between Sunnyvale and its neighbors.

No money
budgeted by
City; privately
funded (staff;
Kiwanis;
Chamber) up
to approx.
$2,000
annually.

20 - 30 5¢
Youth only -
qualified
through
Cupertino
Community
Services.
1 request per
participant
per year for
50% of fees
waived with a
maximum
value up to
$75.

City budgets
$1,500
annually, but
can increase
budget by
$1,000 at
Director’s
discretion.

15 Cupertino
(pop.
50,546;
source US
Census
2000)
Seniors only -
residents and
non-residents;
qualified by
Case Manager
Membership
of $22 or
some portion
of activity
fees.

Approx.
$2,500 funded
by annual
senior
volunteer-led
fundraiser.

75 -
100
10¢
Attachment 2

Page 17 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 18 of 63 ends

Comparison of Sunnyvale’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program to Similar Fee Waiver/Scholarship Programs in Neighboring Jurisdictions City Eligibility Amounts Estimated
Annual Amount
of Fees Waived
Approx.
# Served
Annually
Per
Capita
Cost
Mountain
View
(pop.
70,708;
source US
Census
2000)
Youth only –
based on
eligibility for
Federal
free/reduced
lunch
program or
qualified
through
Mountain
View
Community
Services.
$800/family if
eligible for
Federal Free
Lunch
Program
(100% of fees
waived) or
$400/family if
eligible
through
Federal
Program for
reduced lunch
(50% of fees
waived).

City does not
budget a set
amount for fee
waivers.

Actual
expenditures
are covered by
increased
General Fund
subsidy
averaging
$20,000 each
year.
150 –
200
28¢
Youth only -
qualified by
Recreation
staff using
State poverty
guidelines.
$200 per
individual
City does not
budget any
funds for fee
waivers. Fee
waivers
(scholarships)
funded
through
Friends of
Parks and
Recreation up
to approx.
$20-30,000
annually.
150 29¢
Santa
Clara
(pop.
102,361;
source US
Census
2000)
Santa Clara provides up to $500 per non-profit youth group (e.g., Little League) out of a non-city source of funds to offset the cost of the groups waiving fees.

Attachment 2

Page 18 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 19 of 63 ends

Comparison of Sunnyvale’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program to Similar Fee Waiver/Scholarship Programs in Neighboring Jurisdictions City Eligibility Amounts Estimated
Annual Amount
of Fees Waived
Approx.
# Served
Annually
Per
Capita
Cost
Sunnyvale
(pop.
133,544;
8/06)
No age
restrictions;
qualified
through
Sunnyvale
Community
Services using
modified
CDBG
guidelines.

$250/person *
(*reduced to
$180 until
9/06)
Actual
expenditures
in FY 05/06
were
$125,474

(Note: does not
include $10,000
paid to
Sunnyvale
Community
Services)

1,284 $0.94

The following chart compares the fees charged by each of the neighboring cities surveyed above for a sampling of recreational activities in an effort to determine if the difference in the extent of Sun
nyvale’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program
can be explained by the fees the City charges for participation in recreational programs and activities. However, as depicted in the chart, Sunnyvale’s recreation fees are not noticeably higher than the fees charged in surrounding cities, certainly not so much as to explain the greater use of recreation fee waivers within Sunnyvale.

Comparison of Fees Charged by Neighboring Jurisdictions for a Representative Sampling of Recreational Activities
ACTIVITY EXAMPLES OF FEES CHARGED July 2006
Sunnyvale
Mountain
View
Santa
Cla
ra Cupertino Campbell
YOUTH
Youth Dance $64 $44 $49 $52 $73
Youth Swim $42 $30 $44 $59 $48
Youth Soccer $68 $63 $84 $89 $80
Wiggle Worms $55 $120 $41 $35
Gymnastics $77 $75 $76 $70 $72
Intro to Clay $53 $70 $84
Youth Cartooning $42 $40 $61 $135 $42
Summer Camp $160 -449 $63 - 245 $118 - 750 $129 - 369 $120 - 270 Tiny Tots (Tu/Th) $190 $180 $243 $200
Tiny Tots (M,W,F) $272 $260 $338 $300

Attachment 2

Page 19 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 20 of 63 ends

SENIORS (50 and OLDER)
Senior Fitness $38 $36 - 45 $32 - 56
Special Interest $20 $30 - 45 $24 - 32
Ceramics $34
Line Dancing $24
Free classes
w/
vol
unteer
instructors
Thru Adult
Ed. $32 $25
Membership Fee $18 None None* $22 $20**
* No membership required, but $30/month fee for use of fitness room ** $20 w/newsletter; $12 for second member in household or for membership w/out ne
wsletter

ADULTS
Taijiquan $55 -- $80 $48 - $60
Yoga for Fitness $60 $60 $65 $60 - $72
Salsa Dancing $63 $66 $48 $45
Watercolor $67
Only
T
ennis,
Aquatics
and Golf $117 -- $55

Based on these findings, it appears that neighboring cities do not provide good comparators upon which the City might revise its own program, other than to suggest perhaps that the City is being proportionately more generous in it s
approach to serving economically disadvantaged residents compared to surrounding cities and that the local comparative data suggests scaling back the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. The data from the neighboring cities is consistent with a policy of local governments not being responsible for providing social services. Two of the four cities surveyed have programs funded through donations only. A third budgets only $1,500 for youth, with its senior program also privately funded.

D. Key Questions to be Addressed in this Report
The questions addressed in the Discussion Section of this report can be roughly broken down into four areas:

1. Who should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serve?

2. What programs should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program cover?

3. How should income eligibility requirements be established?

4. How much should be available to each participant and how should that be structured?

5. How should the Recreation Fee Waiver Program budget be managed and how should it be administered?

1. Who Should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program Serve?

Philosophically, limiting access to the Recreation Fee Waiver program is a way to target limited funds to the group or groups deemed most critical to be served
and to help those for whom participation in recreation programs may be most beneficial. Sunnyvale’s fee waiver program for recreation activities and services Attachment 2

Page 20 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 21 of 63 ends

is by far the most generous of the four neighboring cities that were surveyed.

For example, several neighboring cities limit fee waiver assistance only to children, whereas Sunnyvale currently places no limitations on who is eligible.

There are a number of different options that may be considered that could focus the City’s limited resources on specific populations as identified by Council.

Options for Which Populations Residing in Sunnyvale Should be Eligible for Recreation Fee Waiver Benefits and Pros and Cons for Each Option
Options Pros Cons
Limit to youth
age 17 and
under only.
• Returns the fee waiver
program to its original
purpose to provide
recreational opportunities
for economically
disadvantaged youth.
• Consistent with
neighboring cities.
• Would help to contain the
City’s fiscal liability for fee
waivers by excluding
seniors and adults.

• Would not address the
recreation needs of low-
income seniors, disabled
adults or the general adult
population.
• Many of the youth programs
are already offered at a
discount or less than full cost
recovery.
• T
here would likely be
backlash from some seniors
and some adults who no
longer would be eligible.

Limit to
disabled
adults only.
• Disabled adults make up a
very small percentage of
the City’s participants
(even fewer are also in
economically
disadvantaged
households), so including
them would have limited
fiscal impact.
• Would dramatically help to
contain the City’s fiscal
liability for fee waivers by
excluding reimbursement
to youth, adults and
seniors.

• Would not address recreation
needs of youth, low-income
seniors or the general adult
population.
• Would result in virtual
elimination of the Fee Waiver
Program as only one to two
disabled adults apply for fee
waivers each year.
• T
here would likely be
backlash from youth or
parents of youth, some adults
and seniors who would no
longer be eligible.

Attachment 2

Page 21 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 22 of 63 ends

Options for Which Populations Residing in Sunnyvale Should be Eligible for Recreation Fee Waiver Benefits and Pros and Cons for Each Option
Options Pros Cons
Limit it to
seniors age 50
and older.
• Consistent with the age
used for participation at
Sunnyvale Senior Center
• Economically
disadvantaged individuals
ages 50 and older would be
able to participate in and
accrue the benefits from
recreational activities.
• Would help to contain the
City’s fiscal liability for fee
waivers by excluding
reimbursement to youth
and adults.

• Would not address recreation
needs of the low-income
youth, disabled adults or the
general adult population.
• Seniors may have similar
restricted incomes as
compared to other groups;
however, there are more
options for support. Many
available recreation programs
for seniors, including those
offered by the City, are
already offered at a discount
or at less than full cost
recovery. Additionally, seniors
have access to health care
services, case management
services, restaurant
discounts, store discounts
etc. that are not available to
other age groups.
• T
here would likely be
backlash from youth or
parents of youth and some
adults who would no longer
be eligible.

No limitation
other than
income as is
currently in
place.
• Economically
disadvantaged youth,
disabled adults, seniors
and adults would be able
to participate in and accrue
the benefits from
recreational activities.
• Would continue existing
practice and would be
readily accepted.
• The gener
al adult population
is the one most likely to be
able to work and to have
other recreational options
available to them.
• T
he cost of providing fee
waivers to all economically
disadvantaged, regardless of
age, would be significant.

There would be continuing
demand on resources without
any limitations.

Attachment 2

Page 22 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 23 of 63 ends

2. What Programs Should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program Cover?
a. Current Practice
The City has not traditionally excluded any City recreation programs from eligibility for fee wai
vers and with unlimited resources, staff would not propose doing so. However, in addition to recreation programs offered by the City or on behalf of the City by licensees or contractors, Recreation Fee Waivers have been used to support participation in some youth sports organizations with formal relationships with the City There may be some benefit in looking more closely at whether certain types of programs should be excluded from the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

b. Youth Sports Organizations

The City has twelve formal agreements in place with youth sports organizations such as Little Leagues, Pop Warner Football and Sunnyvale Alliance Soccer

Club. These groups formerly operated under the City’s Co-Sponsorship program and were transitioned to special use agreements after City Council eliminated the Co-Sponsorship Policy and adopted the Relationships with Outside Groups Policy in 2003. (Please refer to Attachment F: Relationships with Outside Groups Policy.) Although many of these groups charge a fee for participation, membership is not generally denied for lack of ability to pay.

Several years ago, formerly co-sponsored arts, sports and other special interest organizations, including the Sunnyvale Community Players, were weaned away from dependence on the City to provide recreation opportunities for economically disadvantaged Sunnyvale residents. Some of the youth sports groups continue to absorb the impact of waiving fees for the economically disadvantaged. Others, however, have continued to request and receive fee waiver reimbursements from the City based on past practice.

The use of fee waivers in this instance is relatively seamless, from a participant standpoint – it is irrelevant to them whether the fees a re City fees or fees
charged by an outside organization. From the City’s standpoint, it is not a matter of waiving fees the City charges. Instead it is the youth sports groups that are waiving their own fees. By reimbursing youth sports groups through the Recreation Fee Waiver program, the City is providing a direct cash subsidy to the youth sports groups to offset the groups’ own costs of waiving fees.

Despite the fact that no City fees are waived, such reimbursements are handled the same as all other fee waivers and charged to the budget for fee waivers.

It is important to note that in exchange for heavily reduced field rental fees ($1 per hour rather than the $25 per hour that is charged other user groups) ther e
is a clause in each of the youth sports special use agreements with the City that states that the groups “shall provide all activities and programs associated with the planning, organizing, scheduling and hosting of league games, practices and associated activities at no cost to the City.” The City has not Attachment 2

Page 23 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 24 of 63 ends

enforced this clause to date as it pertains to fee waivers. The full market value of the field usage that the combined youth sports groups get is estimated at more than $500,000 annually, for which they pay a combined $21,000 annually. It is unlikely that were the fields rented out at full market value that the City would be able to have the same high level of field utilization that exists with the current youth sports groups. However, demand for athletic fields is high, and the City would be able to generate significant revenue if the fields were no longer promised through agreements to youth sports groups at the below market rate. These special use agreements do provide a mechanism to address on a negotiated basis any unique needs of the youth sports groups.

It should be further noted that Sunnyvale is the only known local jurisdiction to provide any cash subsidy f
rom city funds to support to youth sports groups
to offset their costs in waiving fees for participation in their organizations. (The City of Santa Clara provides up to $500 per group from a non-city funding source.) This means that youth sports groups based in Sunnyvale that serve youth from outside the City must find a means of allowing low-income youth to participate without government assistance. Similarly, youth sports groups based outside of Sunnyvale but serving Sunnyvale residents also must find a way to provide access without government assistance. In fact, according to many groups’ charters with their parent organizations (such as Little League), groups are mandated to accept all interested participants, regardless of their ability to pay.

The cost of reimbursing these youth groups has had a significant fiscal impact on the Ci
ty, and represents a cash subsidy to these youth groups (three in FY2005/06; nine in FY2004/05; and eight in FY2003/04) of an average of $31,856 annually over the past three years. Unlike waiving fees for City-run programs, where the effect is a transfer of funds within the Community Recreation Fund from the Fee Waiver budget to the revenue account associated with the City program, this is money leaving the Community Recreation Fund.

In other words, a cash subsidy is being given to a handful of community organizations without a basis in City policy and without consistency among organizations, and the reimbursement of these fee waivers to non-City agencies negatively impacts the Community Recreation Fund by creating an additional expense the City would otherwise not have.

There is no question of the value that the youth sports organizations provide within the community. T
he majority of the activities and programs that they
conduct occur through the efforts of literally hundreds of dedicated volunteers, including adult coordinators, coaches and teachers, as well as parents, board members and others. Their contributions of both time and money leverage community resources to provide increased recreational opportunities and activities that the City is not in a financial position to provide.

Attachment 2

Page 24 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 25 of 63 ends

However, youth sports groups establish their own participant fees without input from the City, so there is no way to limit potential costs to the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. Additionally, these groups have the advantage of being able to raise funds on their own and if the City continues to reimburse the sports groups for fee waivers, the groups have less motivation to initiate fundraising efforts to provide “scholarships” on their own and instead will continue to rely on the City to subsidize their funding.

Without changes to the practice of reimbursing youth sports organizations, the future fiscal liability of reimbursing youth sports organizations for fee waivers has the potential to grow. Other youth groups are beginning to seek agreements with the City, in part, in order to receive this benefit. T here are
agreements with two more such groups that will be brought to Council in the near future. It is also possible that the arts groups, such as the Sunnyvale Community Players, may question why this benefit is provided only to sports groups when the arts also provide many documented benefits to youth and others.

c. Options for Determining which Programs and Activities Qualify for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

The chart below, outlining options for determining what recreation programs and/or services should qualify for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, begins with an option which limits fee waivers to most City-p
rovided recreational
programs or activities with some limited exceptions such as for merchandise, facility rentals and drop-in activities costing less than $5. Additional alternatives are proposed in which types of programs or categories of services could be included. Council could then determine that none, one or several of the identified services should be included in the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

Various Options for Which Programs and Activities, Recreation Fee Waivers Can Be Used and Pros and Cons for Each Option
Options Pros Cons
Include only City
recreation
programs,
activities or
services (some
limited exceptions
such as
merchandise,
facility rental fees
and drop-in
activities costing
less that $5). This
includes those
activities provided
• Provides a wide range
of choices to
participants.
• Fee Waiver dollars stay
within the Community
Recreation Fund.
• Because the practice of
reimbursing some youth
sports organizations has
been in place for so long
there is the potential for
significant backlash from the
community.
• Some youth sports
organizations could suffer
hardship by having to cover
the costs of participation of
economically disadvantaged.

Attachment 2

Page 25 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 26 of 63 ends

Various Options for Which Programs and Activities, Recreation Fee Waivers Can Be Used and Pros and Cons for Each Option
Options Pros Cons
by City licensees
and contractors
directly providing
recreation services
on behalf of the
City.

Adopt a policy to
allow City fee
waiver
reimbursement for
participation in
youth sports
leagues.
• Youth sports groups
provide significant
recreational
opportunities for
Sunnyvale youth.
• Fees to participate can
be prohibitive to some
youth.
• Some youth groups
may have difficulty in
absorbing the costs of
waiving their fees.
• T
here has been a long
tradition of reimbursing
some of these groups
for accepting City fee
waivers. Some youth
sports organizations
have grown to be
dependent on the
program to supplement
their income.

• The cost of providing fee
waivers to youth is
significant and could be even
more significant if more of
the youth sports groups
chose to pursue
reimbursement through the
City’s fee waiver program.

This would have a negative
impact on the Community
Recreation Fund.

• Creates a disincentive for
youth sports groups to
fundraise to offset their costs
or provide “scholarships” to
economically disadvantaged
youth and negates any need
for youth sports groups to
demonstrate a commitment
to serving all Sunnyvale
youth, including those that
are economically
disadvantaged.
• The City has no control over
the fees charged by the
youth sports groups and
increases in league fees
place increased demand on
the Recreation Fee Waiver
Program beyond budgeted
resources.

• The practice of fee waiver
reimbursement has not been
universally applied and most
of the youth sports groups
already absorb the impact of
Attachment 2

Page 26 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 27 of 63 ends

Various Options for Which Programs and Activities, Recreation Fee Waivers Can Be Used and Pros and Cons for Each Option
Options Pros Cons
waiving fees for the
economically disadvantaged.

3. How Should Income Eligibility Requirements Be Established?

Regardless of what economic threshold is used to determine eligibility for Recreation Fee Waivers, it is important to clarify how the thresholds ar e
applied.

Eligibility is based on total family income
. For example, seniors who are living
with their adult child(ren) where the adult child(ren) are paying the bills are screened based on the adult child(ren)’s income plus the individual’s income.

Similarly, for adult children residing in the same household as their parent(s) and who are dependent on their parents, a combined household income for all household members including the adult child and the parent(s) is used to establish eligibility for the fee waiver program.

With this clarification in mind, Council may consider a number of different standards or guidelines for determining the maximum fa
mily income
participants may have to qualify for fee waivers.

a. Utilize (Modified) Community Development Block Grant Definitions (CDBG)

The current eligibility guidelines are derived from the CDBG program’s definition of “low income” and below, as described in the background of this report and have not been updated for several years. Created in 1974, the CDBG program is one of the longest continuously run programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program provides annual grants on a formula basis to e
ntitled cities and counties to develop
viable urban communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and by expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- income and moderate-income persons. The Federal Government provides income guidelines for participants in the CDBG rehabilitation housing program. Current income guidelines for 2005-2006 are significantly higher than the modified guidelines being used by Sunnyvale Community Services to screen applicants for the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

These
“unmodified” CDBG guidelines are not considered by staff or Sunnyvale Community Services to be a good indicator of need, and are therefore not proposed for use in the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

Attachment 2

Page 27 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 28 of 63 ends

Current Modified CDBG Guidelines

HOUSEHOLD SIZE VERY LOW
INCOME
LOW
INCOME
1 Person $23,600 $29,100
2 Person $26,950 $33,300
3 Person $30,350 $37,450
4 Person $33,700 $41,600
5 Person $36,400 $44,950
6 Person $39,100 $48,250
7 Person $41,800 $51,600
8 or more $44,500 $54,900

Option of Utilizing Modified CDBG Guidelines to Determine Eligibility for Recreation Fee Waiver Program and Pros and Cons of That Option
Pros Cons
• Consistent with current
process, so no need to
educate public.

• No longer connected to any State or Federal
income guidelines, so there is no basis with
which to update the guidelines.
• Over time, the number of families eligible for
the Recreation Fee Waiver Program would be
continually decreasing as guidelines not
adjusted to account for inflation or cost of
living.
• If modified CDGB guidelines were updated
with actual CDBG Guidelines (e.g., Federal
HOME Program income guidelines) number
of families eligible for Fee Waiver services
would balloon.

b. Utilize Participation in Federal School Lunch as Qualifier for Recreation Fee Waiver Program
Another option is to use participation in the federal school lunch program (free or reduced price m
eals) as qualifier for the fee waiver program. Children from families with incomes at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for free meals. Those with incomes between 130 percent and 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for reduced-price meals, through this federally funded program. Applications are submitted to the school district in which the child resides. Per Federal rules, school districts accept applicants’ self-declarations of income and spot check only 3% of applications, only then requiring documentation of income. Those applying for free or reduced lunches through this program are then provided a letter confirming or denying their eligibility. Based on how the Recreation Fee Waiver Program is currently Attachment 2

Page 28 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 29 of 63 ends

administered, those who have a letter confirming eligibility in the school lunch program could then provide it to Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) to automatically qualify for the fee waiver program without undergoing further screening. SCS would then issue the fee waiver authorization form, as described in the background of this report and track each individual’s usage.

At such time as the City becomes able to track fee waiver use using the new recreation registration software, individuals could completely forgo the need to work through SCS. Applicants could present their letter confirming eligibility in the school lunch program directly to City recreation registration staff.

It should be noted that statewide reports have just come out indicating that for the first time more than half of California’s K-12 public education students were enrolled in the free or reduced lunch program this past year. Researchers point out, however, that this does not mean that half the state’s families are poor. Statewide, the child poverty rate is around 20%. Research conducted as part of the recent update to the Op
en Space and Recreation Sub-Element
showed that within Sunnyvale there is a wide range of participation in the Federal School Lunch Program, from a low of 2% at West Valley Elementary School in 2004, to 66% of the student body at Bishop Elementary School. If Council were to adopt the Federal School Lunch eligibility standards, it is likely that there would be a corresponding increase in those requesting and using fee waivers.

Option of Utilizing Participa tion in Federal School Lunch Program as Qualifier for Recreation Fee Waiver Program and Pros and Cons of That Option Pros Cons
• Families have only
one application
process for both
free/reduced lunch
and access to the
Recreation Fee
Waiver Program.
• Neither Sunnyvale
Community Services
nor the City would
screen applicants for
qualifying for the
School Lunch
Program.

• Families who might be eligible for free or reduced
lunch but who have not applied for that program
for whatever reason would be required to do that
first, before they could apply for a recreation fee
waiver.
• T
here could be a delay as families wait for
approval of their application for free/reduced
lunch from their school district.
• It would not determine eligibility for those
families with children not enrolled in school. T
his
includes children younger than five, students
attending private schools and youth who are
home schooled.
• T his option would not determine eligibility for
adults and seniors, necessitating a parallel
screening process through SCS.

Attachment 2

Page 29 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 30 of 63 ends

Option of Utilizing Participation in Federal School Lunch Program as Qualifier for Recreation Fee Waiver Program and Pros and Cons of That Option Pros Cons
• Since eligibility for
free or reduced lunch
is based on a lower
standard than the
modified CDBG
guidelines, fewer
individuals would
likely qualify which
could have a positive
impact on the budget.
• Eligibility is based on self-declaration of income
and only 3% of applications are verified. T
here is
the potential that the Recreation Fee Waiver
Program could be significantly abused.
• Eligibility for free or reduced lunch is based on a
lower standard than the modified CDBG
guidelines; thus more individuals would be
screened out than under the current guidelines.
• Potentially more children would be qualified than
are now, thus placing increasing demand on the
Recreation Fee Waiver Program rather than
controlling costs because participants self-
declare their income and because the Federal
Free/Reduced Lunch Program is well publicized.

c. Utilize Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185% of Poverty) SCS utilizes income guidelines provided by Second Harvest Food Bank when screening clients for eligibility for emergency food assistance. T he guidelines
are issued by the Food Bank to determine eligibility for their direct services and are based upon 185% of Federal poverty guidelines. This is the same standard used to qualify individuals for reduced-price meals under the Federal Free Lunch Program. (130% of poverty level is required for free lunch; the threshold to qualify for the reduced price lunch is between 130% and 185% of poverty level.) The poverty guidelines are reviewed at least annually by the Federal Government and updated as needed. The guidelines are listed below and shown in comparison with the modified CDBG standard currently being used to screen for eligibility in the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

Comparison of Modified CDBG Income Guidelines with Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185% of Poverty)
Current Modified CDBG Guideli nes Food Bank Guidelines 2006

HOUSEHOLD SIZE VERY LOW
INCOME

LOW INCOME MAXIMUM INCOME
1 Person $23,600 $29,100 $17,705
2 Person $26,950 $33,300 $23,736
3 Person $30,350 $37,450 $29,767
4 Person $33,700 $41,600 $35,798
5 Person $36,400 $44,950 $41,829
6 Person $39,100 $48,250 $47,860
7 Person $41,800 $51,600 $53,891
8 or more $44,500 $54,900 $59,922

Attachment 2

Page 30 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 31 of 63 ends

As compared to the modified CDBG guidelines currently being used to screen for eligibility in the fee waiver program, the Food Bank guidelines would make some smaller families (1, 2 and 3 persons) ineligible, because the maximum income is lower. Conversely, larger families (4 people or more) would have a lower threshold to meet in qualifying, with an anticipated end result of having an equal number of families qualifying as with the currently used modified CDBG guidelines.

Option of Utilizing Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185 % of Poverty) to Determine Eligibility for Recreation Fee Waiver Program and Pros and Cons of That Option
Pros Cons
• Consistent with criteria already used by SCS
to screen clients for other services.
• Tied to a defendable standard.
• Standard/guidelines are updated on an
annual basis by the State of California to
account for inflation and cost of living, and
would allow for a relatively constant number
of families to be eligible over time.
• More larger families would be eligible than
under the modified CDBG guidelines,
offsetting the reduction in eligibility of some
smaller households.
• Some smaller households
currently eligible under the
modified CDBG income
guidelines would no longer
be eligible for Fee Waivers.

4. How Much Should Be Available to Each Participant and How Should That Be Structured?
a. Amount Per Participant
The City has any number of options for establishing the maximum amount of fees waived for any individual. If the Cit
y were to fund fee waivers according to
the formula set up in 1990, each eligible individual would be allocated up to $280 for FY 2006/2007 and this amount would increase each year with inflation. The base figure of $180 stems from a formula allocating approximately $45 per quarter per individual. It is not clear why that amount was chosen or how much value or service level that equated to. This approach then would provide an amount equivalent to historical practice. Drawbacks of this approach are the City’s increasing inability to support this amount, as evidenced by the Council’s actions to reduce the amount to $180 in the past two fiscal years.

Another approach would be to set an amount equivalent to a defined purchasing value, s
uch as the ability to participate in a typical class each quarter or one basic camp (for youth). The amount could be adjusted as the costs for that mix of representative classes changed. This could allow different amounts per age group, as appropriate. For example, bundling youth dance, Attachment 2

Page 31 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 32 of 63 ends

swim, soccer and cartooning, valued at $234, would allow a youth to participate in a range of different activities at approximately one per quarter (although they could be used in any combination) or would enable a youth to instead select from among a wide array of one-week, intensive summer camp experiences. The amount could be reviewed annually and adjusted administratively as appropriate.

Similarly, bundling senior fitness, special interest and ceramics, along with the membership fee, valued at $125, would allow a senior to select up to four typical class offerings, one a quarter, each year. This is a significant reduction from the originally budgeted $250 per person allocation and even the currently
budgeted amount of $180 per person. If implemented, this alternative would reduce the amount needed to fund senior recreation fee waivers. Along those lines, allocating the amount of the annual membership fee alone would provide a further reduction in liability for the Fee Waiver budget while still providing a significant range of year-long services and activities. (See Attachment C:

Summary of Benefits of Senior Center Membership.)

Example of How a Youth “Bundle” of Recreational Activities Could Be Determined to Establish a Maximum Per Youth Amount for Fee Waivers
Sampling of Typical Youth
Activities
Cost for Multi-Session
Cla
ss

Youth Dance $64
Youth Swim $42
Youth Soccer $68
Wiggle Worms $55
Gymnastics $77
Intro to Clay $53
Youth Cartooning $42
Average cost of $57
per youth class or
$234 for one per
quarter OR one camp.

Summer Camp $160 - $449 (most below $240)
Tiny Tots (Pre-School-like
parent/child experience)
$190 (Tu/Th) - $272 (MWF)

Attachment 2

Page 32 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 33 of 63 ends

Example of How a Senior “Bundle” of Recreational Activities Could Be Determined to Establish a Maximum Per Senior Amount for Fee Waivers
Cost for Multi-Session Class
Note: Does not include classes
offer
ed through Fremont Adult
Education or Foothill/DeAnza
College.

Senior Fitness $20 - $30
Special Interest $20
Ceramics $34
Membership Fee $18 annually
Total for four
representative senior
classes (one per
quarter) plus required
membership fee:
$125.

Example of How an Adult “Bundle” of Recreational Activities Could Be Determined to Establish a Maximum Per Adult Amount for Fee Waivers
Cost for Multi-Session Class
Taijiquan $55
Yoga for Fitness $60
Salsa Dancing $63
Watercolor $67
Average cost of $61
per adult class or
$244 for one per
quarter.

The following chart contrasts the options presented for establishing a maximum amount of fees waived and includes pros and cons for each option.

Various Options for Establishing a Maximum Per Person Amount for Recreation Fee Waivers and Pros and Cons for Each Option
Options Pros Cons
$180 • Consistent with current
amount.
• Objective way of
determining maximum per
person amount.

• Not tied to any standard or
level of service.
• Diminishing value over time
to the participant unless
adjusted for inflation.

Attachment 2

Page 33 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 34 of 63 ends

Various Options for Establishing a Maximum Per Person Amount for Recreation Fee Waivers and Pros and Cons for Each Option
Options Pros Cons
$280, indexed
annually for
inflation ($280
is 1990 level at
FY 2006/07
value).
• Objective way of
determining maximum per
person amount.
• Most generous option for
the participant.
• Not tied to any standard or
level of service.
• City’s fiscal liability would
increase each year without
necessarily being tied to
proportionately equal
increases in fees for
recreational activities.
• Would exert ever-increasing
pressure on the Community
Recreation Fund.

Amount
equivalent to
representative
package of
services, e.g.,
1 class per
quarter or 1
camp (for
youth) or 1
class per
quarter for
adults/seniors
.
• Rational approach that is
tied to a meaningful
standard of service.
• Could be set
administratively, which
would allow staff to
manage the fee waiver
budget within the
Community Recreation
Fund more effectively.
• “Bundle” could be
adjusted to match actual
increases (or decreases) in
fees.
• Would require some regular
analysis of how much each
package of services is worth.
• Requires some subjective
determination of what
services to include when
calculating the annual
amount.

b. Require “Co-Payment” for Some or All Services

Per Council direction in March 2006, a co-pay of $1 has been required for each senior lunch purchased with fee waivers. It is interesting to note that sin ce
Council instituted the $1 co-pay for the Senior Lunch Program, use of fee waivers for the lunch program fell off significantly; however, participation in the Senior Lunch Program overall has remained the same. Only sixteen individuals requested fee waivers for lunches between April and June 30, (one quarter of the year) as compared to one hundred sixty-seven individuals requesting fee waivers for lunch in the preceding nine months (an average of fifty-six people a quarter).

Council directed staff to consider whether co-payments should be considered in all cases of fee waiver usage. Options for determining the appropriate amount of co-pay include charging a percentage of the activity’s total fee or charging a flat rate. Of the two, charging a flat rate is significantly easier to administer Attachment 2

Page 34 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 35 of 63 ends

and to communicate. A flat rate, however, poses a greater burden for lower cost activities than higher cost activities. This could be somewhat mitigated by creating a tiered system in which those activities with fees in the lowest group might pay $1 rising to $5 for activities with fees in a middle range, to $10 for fees in the next range and $20 for fees in the top range.

At one time, Sunnyvale’s fee waiver program required participants to pay 25%, 50% or 75% of the charged fee depending on what the family income was. Thi s
structure was eliminated due to the high administrative overhead required to implement the co-pay and due to a philosophical belief that the individuals applying for fee waivers were so economi cally disadvantaged as to merit the City waiving the entire fee for participation. However, this illustrates one of the many ways a co-pay requirement could be implemented. Other variations are possible. For example, Council could consider establishing a maximum amount to reimburse each sports group for fee waivers from participants whose family meets the income eligibility requirement to qualify for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. This would in essence, require a co-pay for a portion of each fee waiver the sports organization accepted. Another variation would be to require co-pays for only some programs and activities. The following chart compares these different approaches, illustrating what a participant would pay depending on the co-pay option determined.

Comparison of Various Approaches to Requiring Co-Pays, Noting How Much and the Percentage Equivalency of What Participants Would Pay
Range of
Activity
Fees
Tiered
Co-Pay
Required
% Equivalent
for Tiered Co-
Pay
Flat
Rate
Co-P
ay
of $10
% Equivalent
fo
r Flat Rate
Co-Pay
25% Co-Pay
$5 - $14 $1 20% - 7% $10 100% – 71% $1.25 – $3.50
$15 - $49 $5 33% - 10% $10 67% - 20% $3.75 – $12.25
$50 - $74 $10 30% - 14% $10 20% - 14% $12.50 - $18.50
$75 - $124 $15 20% - 12% $10 13% - 8% $18.75 – $31.00
$125+ $20 16% < $10 8% < $31.25 +
Note: Activities costing less than $5 in this example would not be eligible for fee waivers and would therefore not be subject to co-pays.

Various Options for Requiring Co-Pays of Participants in Recreation Fee Waiver Program and Pros and Cons of Each Option
Options Pros Cons
Require
no
co-pay.
• Traditional approach; what
most fee waiver participants
are familiar with.
• No added administrative
costs.
• Provides no revenue stream to
the Community Recreation Fund.
• Does not contribute to creating a
sense of buy-in or value on the
part of the participant.

Attachment 2

Page 35 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 36 of 63 ends

Various Options for Requiring Co-Pays of Participants in Recreation Fee Waiver Program and Pros and Cons of Each Option
Options Pros Cons
Require
co-pay %
of activity
• Can help to create a sense
of “value.”
• Would increase revenue to
the Community Recreation
Fund and help offset cost of
fee waiver program.
• Would be a fair way to
assess co-pay, since
percentage charged would
be the same regardless of
the cost of the activity.
• Would be fairly easy to
communicate to
participants.
• Any kind of co-pay requirement
would create a barrier to
participation for extremely low
income individuals and families.
• Would increase administrative
costs for tracking fee waiver use
and if refunds needed to be
processed.
• Would be the most difficult to
administer, in that the actual
amount of required co-pay would
need to be calculated on an
individual basis and would vary
from case to case.
• Was done in the past but was
eliminated due to high
administrative overhead and
belief that individuals were so low
income as to merit their full fees
being waived.

Require
flat
co-pay
• Can help to create a sense
of “value.”
• Would increase revenue to
Community Recreation
Fund and help offset costs
of fee waiver program.
• Would be easy to
communicate
• Would be relatively easy to
administer.
• Any kind of co-pay requirement
would create a barrier to
participation for extremely low
income individuals and families.
• Would have the greatest
inequities in that those seeking
fee waivers for lower cost
activities would pay
proportionately more than those
seeking fee waivers for higher
cost activities.
• Would increase administrative
costs for tracking fee waiver use
and if refunds needed to be
processed, but would be the
easiest of the co-pay options to
implement.

Attachment 2

Page 36 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 37 of 63 ends

Various Options for Requiring Co-Pays of Participants in Recreation Fee Waiver Program and Pros and Cons of Each Option
Options Pros Cons
Require
tiered
system of
flat rate
co-pay
• Can help to create a sense
of “value.”
• Would increase revenue to
Community Recreation
Fund and help offset some
portion of the cost to
support the fee waiver
program.
• Would be fairer than the
single tiered co-pay
approach.
• Any kind of co-pay requirement
would create a barrier to
participation for extremely low
income individuals and families.
• Would have some modest
inequities within the tiers.
• Would increase administrative
costs for tracking and if refunds
needed to be processed – more so
than the single tiered approach
but less than the percentage
approach.

c. Create a “Family Pool” of Recreation Fee Waiver Funds

In the scenarios posed above, each allocation discussed is on a per person basis, meaning that each eligible individual in a family has a set allocation to use as he or she pleases, but the allocation cannot be shared with another

eligible family member. This requirement could be changed so that a family would have a pool of money equivalent to the number of eligible individuals, times the maximum allocation. For example, under current policy using the base year amount of $180 increasing annually by CPI, the maximum per person amount in FY 2006/2007 would be $280 and with all ages eligible, this would be equal to $280 times the number of family members. If Council were to limit the availability of fee waivers to youth and the maximum was $280, this pool of money would be equivalent to $280 times the number of youth in the family. In either case, the pool of money in this alternative could be spent all on one person’s activities or spent equally by each family member at the family’s discretion.

This could provide families with greater flexibility. It is unknown what the fiscal impact would be; however, this alternative could have the effect of

increasing demand on the Recreation Fee Waiver Program budget. For example a family with three youth would previously have been required to use their fee waiver allocations by child and all three children may not have actually participated in the Fee Waiver Program. In this scenario, the family could pool the full fee waiver allocation to increase recreational opportunities for one when the other two would not have participated in recreation programs anyway.

Attachment 2

Page 37 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 38 of 63 ends

Option to Allow Families to Pool Recreation Fee Waiver Funds and Pros and Cons of That Option
Pros Cons
• Families
provided
maximum
flexibility in
determining
how to meet
family’s
recreational
needs.
• Individuals within larger families could have a larger benefit than individuals in smaller families if the benefit was pooled and directed to one individual.
• If all ages were eligible for fee waivers, it would be possible for families to direct all of the resources to one or more adults in the family and none to any children.
• T
racking is more complicated, particularly if family
members have different last names.
• T he purpose of the Fee Waiver program has been to
provide benefits to the maximum number of individuals.

Pooling funds could actually limit or reduce the number of individuals served.

5. How Should the Recreation Fee Waiver Program Budget Be Managed and How Should the Program Be Administered?

a. Options for Managing the Fee Waiver Budget

Fee waiver usage has varied widely over the years and is difficult to predict, although recent years have seen an upswing in use and therefore in the dollar amount of fees waived. As currently structured, there is no way to know how

much demand there will be for fee waivers in any given year. Indeed, there is potential for a significant financial cost to the City if the City were to honor fee waivers for every economically disadvantaged individual in the City and if those individuals were all to seek to utilize the program. In other words, the demand for fee waivers could be ever growing. The City currently does little to recruit participants in the program other than noting the availability of the program on all printed and web-based materials.

There are two basic approaches that could be used to control costs and manage the fee waiver budget from year to year. One is to set a budget and

when that budget has been fully expended, no more fee waivers would be honored until the next budget year. Depending on usage, the budget allocation could be reached halfway through the fiscal year, three quarters of the way through, in the last month of the year or not at all.

The second approach is to encumber the maximum per person amount at the time the individual first qua
lifies for a fee waiver. When the full budgeted
amount for fee waivers is encumbered the City could then direct Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) to stop qualifying individuals until the start of the next fiscal year.

Attachment 2

Page 38 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 39 of 63 ends

Currently, when an individual qualifies for a fee waiver it is only for the amount of the activity they plan to participate in at that time. SCS then debits that amount against the individual’s pool of possible funding. When the City receives a fee waiver from a participant, the City sees only the dollar amount of the current activity – not how much the participant may have used in the preceding months of the fiscal year nor how much the participant may have remaining in his/her pool of funding (i.e., what the City’s remaining liability for fee waivers is for that individual). If the City encumbered the full amount at the onset, the City would be protected against its full liability for fee waivers for that individual.

Three charts illustrate how many people might be qualified under these two basic approaches to managing the Re
creation Fee Waiver budget with different
assumptions for how much of a participant’s fee waiver allotment is used.

Scenario A: Stop qualifying participants when budget is fully expended.

Budget
# Participants
assumi
ng
average of $98
fees waived
(actual average
spent in FY
2005/06)
# of Participants
assumi
ng $234
each of fees waived
(based on value of
youth “Bundle” of
services)
# of Participants
assumi
ng $280
each of fees waived
(based on 1990
base year amount
plus CPI)
FY 2006/07 $162,748* ** 1661 696 581
FY 2007/08 $107,191** 1094 458 383
FY 2008/09 $108,656** 1109 464 388

*Budget for FY 2006/2007 includes Budget Modification in the amount of $57,000, equivalent to an additional $19,000 for each of the first three months of the Fiscal Year, per Council action in February 2006.
**Budgeted amount reflects amount available for fee waivers and does not include the $1
0,000 budgeted for payment to Sunnyvale Community Services for administration of the program.

Note: Money may run out before the end of the year such that those who have already been qua
lified for fee waivers but who are planning to apply their fee waivers in the last quarter of the year are unable to do so. As individuals use more of the maximum amount allowed to them, the total number of participants decreases.

Attachment 2

Page 39 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 40 of 63 ends

Scenario B: Encumber full amount of possible waived fees at time participant is qualified for recreation fee waiver program and stop qualifying when full budgeted amount for fee waivers is encumbered. Assume that participants use an average of $98 of their fee waiver allotment.

Budget (plus
carr
yovers)
# Participants
qualified @
$234/person
(based on
value
of youth
“Bundle” of
services)
Annual
ex
penditures,
assuming average
$98 fees waived
(based on actual
average spent in
FY 2005/06)
Amount to Carry
Over
FY 2006/07 $162,748* ** 696 $68,208 $94,540
FY 2007/08 $107,191** 458 $44,884 $62,307
FY 2008/09 $108,656** 464 $45,472 $63,184

Note: Lower number of participants in first year, since maximum amount of fee waiver encum
bered even if participants use a lower amount on average. However, number of participants may potentially increase in subsequent years if unspent monies are carried forward and applied to Fee Waiver Program. As the average amount of actual fees increase, the amount of budget that is carried forward to the subsequent year decreases.

Scenario C: Encumber full amount of possible waived fees at time participant is qualified for recreation fee waiver program and stop qualifying when full budgeted amount for fee waivers is encumbered. Assume that participants use their full fee waiver allotment.

Budget (plus
carr
yovers)
# Participants
qualified @
$234/person
(based on
value
of youth
“Bundle” of
services)
Annual
Ex
penditures,
assuming full
allotment ($234)
is used
Amount to Carry
Over
FY 2006/07 $162,748* ** 696 $162,748 $00.00
FY 2007/08 $107,191** 458 $107,191 $00.00
FY 2008/09 $108,656** 464 $108,656 $00.00

Attachment 2

Page 40 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 41 of 63 ends

Pros and Cons of these options for managing the Recreation Fee Waiver budget are listed below, along with pros and cons of returning to Council for direction each time staff projects that the Fee Waiver budget may be insufficient under current usage patterns.

Various Approaches to Managing the Recreation Fee Waiver Budget and Pros and Cons of Each Option
Options Pros Cons
Limit
Amount of
Fee Waivers
Available;
e.g., when
the funding
is used up,
no more fee
waivers are
provided.
• Would provide clear direction to
staff by having definitive
budgeted amount.
• Council could determine upfront
what the City’s financial liability
would be each year.
• Some economically
disadvantaged persons
could be denied
assistance at the end of
the fiscal year, because
of lack of funds.
• Would be a disincentive
for people to plan and
budget their allocation
to allow them to attend
summer camps, since
summer camp payments
are due at the end of the
City’s fiscal year (June)
for camps occurring
during the summer.

Highest use of fee
waivers traditionally has
come in the last three
months of the fiscal
year.

Encumber
full amount
when
individuals
first enroll
and stop
enrolling
when budget
has been
encumbered.
• City would be able to manage fee
waiver budget and would be able
to fulfill all requests for fee
waivers within budget of those
who had been qualified or
enrolled.
• Participants could be encouraged
to qualify in the beginning
months of the fiscal year, which
could help SCS to manage their
staff and volunteer resources.
• Would give everyone a more even
playing field for being able to
utilize the fee waiver program
since those who qualified early
would be guaranteed the full
amount that they could use at
• Likely that fewer
individuals than
currently planned will
be served because some
participants may not
use their full fee waiver
allocation, since this
has occurred in the
past.

Attachment 2

Page 41 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 42 of 63 ends

Various Approaches to Managing the Recreation Fee Waiver Budget and Pros and Cons of Each Option
Options Pros Cons
any time during the fiscal year;
e.g., they could budget its use
throughout the year.

• T
he “surplus” created when
qualified participants did not use
the full fee waiver allocation
could be rolled into the
Community Recreation Fund
balance and carried over to the
following year. This would
increase flexibility within the
Fund for activities including
development of new programs,
absorbing increased staff costs
without reducing service levels or
increasing the Recreation Fee
Waiver budget depending on the
fiscal requirements of the
Community Recreation Fund in
any given year.

Return to
Council to
request
additional
funds
when/if
budget is
expected to
be exceeded
• Council could decide on a case-
by-case basis whether or not to
allocate additional funds, to
reduce per person amount,
reduce who is eligible or other
means of addressing the expected
budget imbalance.
• T
ime consuming process
• Provides uncertainty for
staff and participants
about how much may be
available and what the
rules are.
• May lead to inequities in
how participants are
treated under the Fee
Waiver Program if
Council changes the
rules for eligibility or the
amounts available mid-
year.

b. Options for Administration of Recreation Fee Waiver Program As discussed in RTC 05-198: Evaluate Options for Administration of Fee Waiver Program, two basic op
tions existed for administration of the Recreation
Fee Waiver Program. The first option, adopted by Council, continued the existing process utilizing SCS to screen fee waiver applicants for eligibility and to provide administrative support for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, since Attachment 2

Page 42 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 43 of 63 ends

SCS has the organizational resources and structure to screen applicants. SCS receives $10,000 annually to offset a portion of their operating costs.

The other option that was considered was for City staff to perform these administrative tasks themselves, but staff estimated that it would cost more than $46,000 annually to assume this role and to support the program in it s
current form, including working with applicants who do not speak English or who speak English as a second language. Adjusted by 6%, the average rate of inflation over the past three years for labor costs, the estimate increases to almost $51,700.

The Recreation Division is in the process of implementing a new registration/reservation software system. T
his system has components that
should allow City staff to efficiently assume the majority of administrative tasks that are presently completed by Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) caseworkers. Implementation of the new registration software system has not proceeded as smoothly as originally hoped, and it is premature to know how easily the new system will enable staff to complete such tasks as:

• Maintaining records of each eligible Sunnyvale resident’s fee waiver account by fiscal year and the amount(s) spent during the year. • Monitoring and tracking eligible residents’ use of fee waivers for various recreation programs in which they chose to participate. This could be done by issuing an identification card once eligibility has been confirmed. • Eliminating the need for participants to return to SCS for a new fee waiver authorization form each time they register for a new activity once they have already been screened and qualified for the program.

The new registration and reservations system will not assist City staff in screening the eligibility of fee waiver applicants and this can be a time- intensive process particularly if the applicant does not speak English or i f
English is their second language. There is a service contract that has been established for the Department of Public Safety that provides interpreting assistance. The account could be expanded to include service to the Parks and Recreation Department if necessary. The cost is approximately $1.65 per minute. Use of interpreting assistance is at present an unknown cost and if paid for from the existing fee waiver budget, this would result in fewer individuals being served by the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

Assuming responsibility for screening applicants to the Recreation Fee Waiver Program would be a major
new program initiative, requiring additional
resources even if translation requirements are addressed fully or partially through other means. Other local Parks and Recreation agencies that handle the eligibility screening for their fee waiver or scholarship programs in-house have reported that often times, individuals will bring their own interpreters Attachment 2

Page 43 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 44 of 63 ends

with them, which can reduce the need for translation services. However, the scale of their programs (as shown in the chart beginning on pages 17, 18 and 19) is dramatically smaller than Sunnyvale’s. Additionally, the Volunteer Office may be able to assist in recruiting interpreters to supplement staff’s capabilities; however, this too would require significant ongoing organization and staff coordination.

FISCAL IMPACT

All of the options included in this report are discussed within the context of the existing Council-approved budget for fee waivers. No additional funding is being sought.

When City Council adopted the FY2006/2007 operating budget, Council also adopted a policy that fixed the General Fund subsidy to the Communit y
Recreation Fund at the level adopted by City Council for this year plus an annual inflation factor. Accordingly, the Recreation Fee Waiver Program allocation has been fixed at a set amount plus the annual inflation factor, barring a need in the future to use part of this allocation to offset other increases in expenses or decreases in revenues within the rest of the Community Recreation Fund. Any increases in expenses within the Community Recreation Fund above the annual rate of inflation that cannot be offset by increased revenue will result in a service level reduction somewhere within the Community Recreation Fund. For example, the personnel costs in the City have increased at an average rate of 6% over the past three years. In future years, if personnel costs were to increase beyond the rate of inflation and new revenue could not be generated to offset this increase, service levels within the Recreation Division would be decreased at a corresponding level. Alternatively, the General Fund subsidy would need to be increased resulting in increased pressure within the General Fund, which is exactly what Council was attempting to prevent when it adopted the policy of fixing the General Fund subsidy to the Community Recreation Fund. Therefore, some service level reductions could be expected, with the most likely targets being those service levels that are most highly subsidized, largely youth and current services for seniors.

Page 44 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 45 of 63 ends

unlikely that the Community Recreation Fund would be able to absorb $853,687 without significantly reducing service levels and costs in other areas of Recreation. The service levels that would most likely be targeted for reduction would be those receiving the greatest subsidy (such as youth and seniors), and these reductions would therefore also be apt to hurt the same populations targeted by the Fee Waiver Program.

For the most part, as long as expenditures for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program are at or below the budgeted amount, the net impact of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program is zero. T
his is because when a fee waiver is used to enable
participation in a City program, the amount of the fee waiver is debited from the Recreation Fee Waiver Program but then shows up in equal amount on the revenue side for that activity. Three primary exceptions apply. The first is when fee waivers are granted for participation in one of the youth sports leagues that have agreements with the City. In that case, the amount of the fee waiver is debited from the Recreation Fee Waiver budget but then is paid out of the City and to the youth sports group. There is no corresponding credit on the revenue side – it is only a cost. The second exception is the $10,000 paid under contract to Sunnyvale Community Services to offset their costs in administering the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. Here, too, the cost is debited from the Fee Waiver budget with no corresponding credit on the revenue side.

The third exception is in the case of co-payments, where any co-pays received would have a positive net impact to the Community Recreation Fund offset by an unknown amount of increased administrative costs associated with collecting the co-payments.

Many of the options discussed would affect distribution of existing funding within the Recreation Fee Waiver Program (e.g., who would receive the services) but most of these o
ptions would not have a positive or negative net impact to the Community Recreation Fund. Other options would impact the number of individuals who might be served (e.g., maximum per person allotment) but, again, would not require additional funding. Each option presented in this report can be paired with other options in what can seem like a limitless number of combinations, each with its own implications, fiscal or otherwise.

This Fiscal Impact section therefore looks at the impact within primarily the expense side of the budget of various combinations of modifications with which Council may choose to amend the Fee Waiver Policy. It follows the order and questions addressed in the body of this report. Those options which would affect the net impact to the Community Recreation Fund by the Recreation Fee Waiver Program are noted in bold.

1. Who should the City’s Recreational Fee Waiver Program serve? A chart follows to illustrate the fiscal impact of including various populations in the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. The chart looks at the City’ s potential
fiscal liability for funding fee waivers if no controls were put in place to limit Attachment 2

Page 45 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 46 of 63 ends

expenditures. In other words, it looks at the amount of funding that would be required to support current levels of participation in the fee waiver program for various populations, looking at different maximum per person amounts. Since it is impossible to know how many of the individuals would utilize their entire allotment, two scenarios are provided for each population; one assumes use of the entire allotment and one assumes 50% usage. This information provides a range of potential expenditures or “liability” if no changes are made to eligibility requirements and screening criteria. This is for illustration purposes only.

There is no additional funding being sought and no impact on the Community Recreation Fund of any of these options.

# of people
based on
FY
2005/06
Actuals
Per Person
Ma
ximum of
$180, based
on current
actual
maximum
Per Person
Ma
ximum of
$280 Based on
FY 1990/91
base amount
plus CPI
Per Person
Ma
ximum
Based on
"Bundle"*
Approach
Youth (using 100% of
allotment) $153,000 $238,000 $198,900
Youth (using 50% of
allotment)

850
$76,500 $119,000 $99,450
Disabled (using 100% of
allotment)
$360 $560 $468
Disabled (using 50% of
allotment)

2 $180 $280 $234
Adults 18 – 49 (using
100% of allotment) $25,380 $39,480 $34,404
Adults 18 – 49 (using 50%
of allotment)
141
$12,690 $19,740 $17,202
Seniors 50+ (using 100%
of allotment) $52,380 $81,480 $36,375
Seniors 50+ (using 50% of
allotment)
291
$26,190 $40,470 $18,188

No Age limits (using
100% of allotment) $231,120 $359,520 $270,167
No Age limits (using 50%
of allotment)
1284
$115,560 $179,760 $135,084

Sunnyvale Community
Services $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
*Sample Bundle is $234 for youth and disabled adults; $125 for seniors; or $244 for adults.

Note: For reference, actual expenditures in FY2005/2006 were $125,474.

Note: Shaded areas indicate criteria currently in use.

What is clearly demonstrated by this chart is that if left unchecked, the resources required to support the Recreation Fee Waiver Program would far

exceed what is budgeted.

The next chart projects fee waiver expenditures for each age group based on each group’s share of FY 2005/2006 actual expenditures. The elimination of
Attachment 2

Page 46 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 47 of 63 ends

one or more of the age categories would provide additional resources for other groups and potentially assist staff in managing the budget more efficiently. The percentages in the following chart are drawn from the charts in Attachment D showing participation by age group.

66.2 % of Fee
Waiver
Projected
Expenditures
used by Youth
based on FY
05/06 actual
% of
participation

10.98% of Fee
Waiver
Projected
Expenditures
used by Adults
(18-49) based
on FY 05/06
actual % of
participation

0.16 % of Fee
Waiver
Projected
Expenditures
used by
Disabled Adults
based on FY
05/06 actual %
of participation

22.66% of Fee
Waiver
Projected
Expenditures
used by Seniors
(50+) based on
FY 05/06
actual % of
participation
Planned Budget
FY 06/07
$115,748 plus
$5
7,000
Budget Mod
less $10,000
SCS Admin Fee
$107,739 $17,870 $260 $36,879
Planned
Budget FY
07/08
$117,191 less
$1
0,000 SCS
Admin Fee
$70,960 $11,770 $172 $24,289

2. What programs should the City’s Recreational Fee Waiver Program cover?
The following chart projects the amount of the Council-approved budget for FY 2006/2007 and for FY 2007/2008 that would go to each program area, were Council to allow recreation fee waivers to be used for the same programs as ar e
currently allowed. For the purpose of deriving numbers, FY 2005/2006 actual percentage of participation was used, although staff would anticipate that youth sports groups’ share of the fee waiver budget would increase by an unknown amount if Council formalized a policy of reimbursing youth sports groups for fee waivers and in effect of providing youth sports groups with a direct cash subsidy. In contrast to use of fee waivers for City programs, f ee waiver reimbursements to youth sports groups negatively impact the Community Recreation Fund and continued reimbursement to these groups will create an additional expense the City would otherwise not have. The Community Recreation Fund will not be able to absorb these costs and the increased expenses would have to be offset by new revenue; service level reductions in program areas that are subsidized including City recreation programs for youth, seniors and the disabled; or, an increase in the subsidy from the General Fund.

Attachment 2

Page 47 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 48 of 63 ends

The three-year average dollar amount of cash subsidy to youth sports groups to cover the amount of the groups’ waived fees is $31,856, with payments to as many as nine groups in one year. Subsidies totaling $25,295 were given in FY2005/2006 to only three of the twelve youth sports organizations, or 25% of the groups with whom the City has special use agreements in FY2005/2006 (Note that nine groups sought reimbursement in FY2004/2005 and eight groups sought reimbursement in FY 2003/2004). If all of the groups were to take advantage of the opportunity to have fee waivers reimbursed, requests for what amounts to a cash subsidy could easily top $50,000 annually.

Compounding the potential fiscal liability is the fact that the City is receiving requests from additional youth sports groups wanting special agreements. One of the reasons for their interest is the desire to receive reimbursement for fee waivers too. Additionally, if the City were to adopt a policy of providing cash subsidies to youth sports groups to cover the costs of waiving their own fees, the City could expect a push for equity from non-sports youth non-profit groups (e.g., Sunnyvale Community Players Junior Theatre; Boy Scouts; Girls Scouts) also wanting to receive these subsidies.

Note: De
tails on how percentages for each category were derived can be found in Attachment D: Three-Year Analysis of Fee Waiver Use by Age Group as well as Attachment E: Four-Year Historical Use of Fee Waivers by Program.

20 % of Fee Waiver Projected
E
xpenditures used as cash
subsidy to Youth Sports
Leagues based on FY 05/06
actuals
57% of Fee Waiver Projected
E
xpenditures used for City-
programs for youth, disabled
adults and adults age 18 -
49 based on FY 05/06
actuals
23% of Fee Waiver Projected
E
xpenditures used for City-
Provided Senior Programs
based on FY 05/06 actuals
Planned Budget
FY 06/07
$115,748 plus
$57,000 Budge
t
Mod less $10,000
SCS Admin Fee
$32,550
(Net impact to
Commu
nity
Recreation Fund
is $-32,550)
$92,766
(Net impact to
Commu
nity
Recreation Fund
is $-0-)
$37,432
(Net impact to
Commu
nity
Recreation Fund
is $-0-)
Planned Budget
FY 07/08
$117,191 less
$10,000 SCS
Admin Fee

$21,438
(Net impact to
Commu
nity
Recreation Fund is
$-21,438)
$61,099
(Net impact to
Commu
nity
Recreation Fund
is $-0-)
$24,654
(Net impact to
Commu
nity
Recreation Fund
is $-0-)

3. How should income eligibility requirements be established? The next chart compares the different maximum income guidelines that could be used to determine eligibility in the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. T he
higher the maximum income threshold, the more households and individuals that will be eligible for fee waivers. There is no impact on the Community Recreation Fund of any of these options.

Attachment 2

Page 48 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 49 of 63 ends

FY 2005/06 Modified
CDBG Guid
elines Used
in Sunnyvale’s Fee
Waiver Program
Food Bank
Direct Service
Eligibility
Guidelines
(185% of
Poverty)
2006
Federal Free/Reduced Lunch
Program FY 2005/06
Household
Size
Very Low
Inc
ome
Low
Inc
ome
Maximum
Income
130% Poverty 185% Poverty
1 Person $23,600 $29,100 $17,705 $12,441 $17,705
2 Person $26,950 $33,300 $23,736 $16,679 $23,736
3 Person $30,350 $37,450 $29,767 $20,917 $29,767
4 Person $33,700 $41,600 $35,798 $25,155 $35,798
5 Person $36,400 $44,950 $41,829 $29,393 $41,829
6 Person $39,100 $48,250 $47,860 $33,631 $47,860
7 Person $41,800 $51,600 $53,891 $37,869 $53,891
8 Person $44,500 $54,900 $59,922 $42,107 $59,922

Maintaining the existing, modified CDBG Guidelines would have the effect over time of co
ntinually reducing the number of families eligible for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, since there is no mechanism by which the numbers get adjusted to account for inflation/cost of living increases. As compared to the modified CDBG guidelines currently being used to screen for eligibility in the fee waiver program, the Food Bank guidelines would have the immediate effect of making some smaller families ineligible (1, 2 and 3 persons when compared to “Very Low Income” and below as per Council direction in April 2006); because the maximum income is lower. Conversely, larger families (5 people or more when compared to “Very Low Income”) have a lower threshold to meet in qualifying, with an anticipated end result of approximately the same number of families qualifying as with the current modified CDBG guidelines. However, over time these guidelines would be adjusted upward to account for inflation/cost of living increases, so that generally the same families should continue to be eligible for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. Since the Federal Free Lunch Program guidelines are the same as those used by the Food Bank, these numbers too would be adjusted upward to account for inflation/cost of living, allowing the same families to be eligible for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. However, since the Federal School Lunch Program relies on self- declaration of income in 97% of the cases, it is expected that this would result in a sizable number of people qualifying for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program fraudulently.

4. How much should be available to each participant, and how should that

be structured?
a. Amount Per Participant
The following tables look at each major population group that could be funded for fee waivers and looks at how many individuals within t hat group could be
served under different maximum per person amounts. Past practice has shown Attachment 2

Page 49 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 50 of 63 ends

that many individuals do not use their full maximum allotment, but there are no guarantees that will always be the case. Therefore, the tables show two scenarios. One assumes full usage of each maximum per person amount. The other assumes 50% usage. The reality will likely lie in between. Additionally, the tables use Council’s approved budget amounts for FY 2006/2007 and for FY 2007/2008, less the $10,000 annual payment to Sunnyvale Community Services to offset some of their costs in administering the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. There is therefore no impact to the Community Recreation Fund of any of these options.

Maximum Number of Youth Participants Possible Under Different Per Participant Amounts After Having Set Aside Budget for Contract Administration Maximum Per Person Amounts
FY 2006/07
Budget
Available for
Fee Waivers $180*
$234/
$244/
$125** $280***
FY05/06
Actual
Number of Youth
Recipients (Full Utilization
of Fee Waiver Allocation)
904
youth
696
youth
581
youth $162,748 Number of Youth
Recipients (50% Utilization
of Fee Waiver Allocation)
1808
youth
1391
youth
1162
youth
850

Number of Adult Recipients
(Full Utilization of Fee
Waiver Allocation)
904
adults
667
adults
581
adults
$162,748 Number of Adult Recipients
(50% Utilization of Fee
Waiver Allocation)
1808
adults
1334
adults
1162
adults
143

Number of Senior
Recipients (Full Utilization
of Fee Waiver Allocation)
904
seniors
1302
seniors
581
seniors
$162,748 Number of Senior
Recipients (50% Utilization
of Fee Waiver Allocation)
1808
seniors
1604

seniors
1162
seniors
291

Attachment 2

Page 50 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 51 of 63 ends

Maximum Per Person Amounts
FY 2007/08
Budget
Available for
Youth Fee
Waivers $180*
$234/
$244/
$125** $280***
FY05/06
Actual
Number of Youth
Recipients (Full Utilization
of Fee Waiver Allocation)
595
youth
458
youth
383
youth $107,191 Number of Youth
Recipients (50% Utilization
of Fee Waiver Allocation)
1191
youth
916
youth
766
youth
850

Number of Adult Recipients
(Full Utilization of Fee
Waiver Allocation)
595
adults
439
adults
383
adults
143
$107,191 Number of Adult Recipients
(50% Utilization of Fee
Waiver Allocation)
1191
adults
978
adults
766
adults

Number of Senior Recipients
(Full Utilization of Fee
Waiver Allocation)
595
seniors
858
senior
s
383
seniors
$107,191 Number of Senior Recipients
(50% Utilization of Fee
Waiver Allocation)
1191
seniors
1715
senior
s
766
seniors
291

* $180 is equivalent to maximum per person amount currently being used. ** $234 is the value of the youth “Bundle” of services. $244 is the value of an adult “Bundle” of services. $125 is the value of a senior “Bundle of services.
*** $280 is equivalent to the FY 1990/1991 base year amount of $180 plus CPI.

b. Require “Co-Payment” for Some or All Services

There would be a positive impact to the Community Recreation Fund if co-payments were required for some or all services . In an example where a flat co-pay of $10 was charged for an activity costing $75, only $65 would be

debited from the Recreation Fee Waiver budget, $65 of “fee waiver” along with $10 co-pay revenue would be credited to the activity’s revenue account, for a net improvement to the Community Recreation Fund of the amount of the co- pay collected. There would also be an increase in administrative costs due to the need to individually calculate the amount of the required co-pay for each registration (for those options where the co-pay is variable); a need for additional communication with each participant about the co-pay requirement; Attachment 2

Page 51 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 52 of 63 ends

and increased tracking requirements, particularly in the event of refunds or changes to registrations.

The following chart looks at the potential fiscal impact of charging various co- pays. Note that the option of requiring a tiered co-pay is not included because of the lack of data regarding itemized usage by cost of the activity. Instead, the chart uses actual total number of participants and total a mount of fees waived
to project the impact of a co-pay. As a means of estimating the additional administrative costs, staff projects that an additional five minutes of staff time per transaction would be required.

Comparison of Two Scenarios Where Co-Pays Are Required, Noting Potential Net Positive Gain to the Community Recreation Fund
Total # of
Participants
based on FY
05/06 Actuals
Flat-Rate Co-
P
ay of $10
Additional Staff
Ti
me Required
at 5 minutes
per Transaction
Cost of Staff
Ti
me Using Part-
Time Office
Assistant (SEIU)
Resulting Net
Positiv
e Income to
the Community
Recreation Fund
1284 $12,840 321 Hours $10,002 $2,838
Total $ of Fees
Waived Based on
FY 05/06
Actuals
Flat-Rate
Pe
rcentage
Co-Pay of
25%
Additional Staff
Ti
me Required
at 5 minutes
per Transaction
Cost of Staff
Ti
me Using Part-
Time Office
Assistant (SEIU)
Resulting Net
Positiv
e Income to
the Community
Recreation Fund
$125,474 $31,369 321 Hours $10,002 $21,367
Note: This assumes each participant has fees waived for only one activity, while it is known that some participants will have fees waived for multiple activities.

c. Create a “Family Pool” of Recreation Fee Waiver Funds

Allowing families to pool all eligible family members’ allocations to be used however the family wishes would not have a n
et impact on the Community
Recreation Fund. The cost of their fee waivers would be offset by corresponding revenue (unless the fee waivers were used for participation with a youth sports group).

5. How should the Recreation Fee Waiver Program budget be managed and how should it be administered?
a. Managing the Recreation Fee Waiver Budget

There are two basic approaches that could be used to control costs and manage the fee waiver budget from year to year. One is to set a budget and

Page 52 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 53 of 63 ends

Community Services (SCS) to stop qualifying individuals until the start of the next fiscal year.

Neither of the options proposed for managing the Recreation Fee Waiver budget would require additional resources over and above what Council has already

approved. Instead, the options would ensure that expenditures for the program would be within approved levels. The main fiscal difference is that in the option where the maximum per person funds are encumbered at the time an individual initially qualifies, staff proposes that unexpended funds be rolled into the Community Recreation Fund balance and carried over to the following year. This would increase flexibility within the Fund for activities including development of new programs, absorbing increased staff costs without reducing service levels or increasing the Recreation Fee Waiver budget, depending on the fiscal requirements of the Community Recreation Fund in any given year.

b. Administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Budget

Of the two basic options for administering the Recreation Fee Waiver Budget, continuing to contract with Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) to screen applicants for eligibility and to provide administrative support for the Fee Waiver Program has no additional fiscal impact on the Community Recreation Fund. Under the te
rms of agreement with SCS, the City pays $10,000 annually to offset their costs. While this is a net negative impact to the Community Recreation Fund as there are no revenues to offset this cost, this is a budgeted expense.

In contrast, if Council were to direct staff to assume full responsibility for administering the Recreation Fee Waiver Program, staff costs for this function are estimated at $51,700 annually. If a co-pay requirement is added to th e
program this cost could potentially increase by approximately $7,000 due to the additional staff time required. Given that only $10,000 is currently budgeted for administration costs, this would necessitate a minimum increase in subsidy from the General Fund of $41,700 annually, or it could be taken from the existing fee waiver budget, which would have a crippling effect on the program. As noted in the body of the report, staff would expect to review its ability to assume administrative functions sometime within the next one to two years when the new registration/facility reservation software system is fully implemented.

CONCLUSION

The Sunnyvale Recreation Fee Waiver Program is a complex program involving many variables. Over time the program has grown from one targeted to meet the needs of low-in
come youth involved in City-provided recreational activities, to one which encompasses all ages, reimburses third parties providing recreational activities, and which has overspent its budget on numerous Attachment 2

Page 53 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 54 of 63 ends

occasions. It is also significantly more expansive than any of the fee waiver or scholarship programs offered by Sunnyvale’s neighboring cities.

The questions addressed by this report can be roughly broken down into five areas:

1. Who should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serve?

2. What programs should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program cover?

3. How should income eligibility requirements be established?

4. How much should be available to each participant and how should that

be structured? And,

5. How should the Recreation Fee Waiver Program budget be managed and how should it be administered?

Within each of these five areas are various options which can be combined in many different ways, depending on Council priorities. T he following information
summarizes the options that are available in each area. Council could then select one or more options from within each area in order to address all of the questions posed in the Study Issue paper.

1. Who Should the Recreation Fee Waiver Program Serve?
Summary of options for which population residing in Sunnyvale could be served by the Recreation Fee Waiver Program:
• Youth.
• Disabled adults.
• Adults aged 18-49.
• Seniors aged 50 and older.
• Any combination of the above populations.
• No limitat
ions on who is eligible other than Sunnyvale residency and income.

2. What Programs should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program Cover?
Summary of options for which programs could be covered by the Recreation Fee Waiver Program:
• Include only City-provided recreation programs, activities or services (some limited exceptions may apply such as merc
handise, facility rental
fees and drop-in activities costing less than $5).
• Adopt a policy to allow City fee waiver reimbursement for participation in youth sports leagues. (T
his is the only option which has a negative net
impact on the Community Recreation Fund.)

3. How Should Income Eligibility Requirements Be Established? Summary of options for which eligibility criteria could be used for eligibility:
• Use modified CDBG Guidelines to determine eligibility (current criteria).

Attachment 2

Page 54 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 55 of 63 ends

• Utilize participation in the Federal Free/Reduced Lunch Program as qualifier for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.
• Utilize Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185% of Poverty) to determine eligibility.

4. How Much Should Be Available to Each Participant and How Should That Be Structured?
Summary of options for setting the maximum per person amount and for co- payment options:

Maximum Allocation Per Person

• $180 (Current allocation).
• $280 – Base year of $180 in 1991 plus annual CPI adjustment (Maximum amount will increase each year according to CPI). • Amount equivalent to representative package of services; e.g., 1 class per quarter or 1 camp (for youth) or 1 class per quarter for adults/seniors. • Create a pool of funds for families to use as they decide.

Co-Payment Options

Requiring co-payment for some or all activities would have a positive net impact on the Community Recreation Fund, although there would be

additional administrative costs that are difficult to quantify at this point. • Do not require a co-pay from Recreation Fee Waiver Program participants. (T
his would result in elimination of the $1 co-pay for those seniors currently using fee waivers for the Senior Lunch Program if seniors are included in the Recreation Fee Waiver program.) • Require a co-pay of a flat percentage of participant fee. • Require a flat co-pay of a set amount per participant fee. • Require a tiered system of flat rate co-pay per participant fee. • Require a co-pay for only some activities.

Create a “Family Pool” of Recreation Fee Waiver Funds

Families could be allowed to pool the fee waiver allocation of all eligible family members to be used at the family’s discretion for some or all of the eligible family members.

5. How Should the Recreation Fee W
aiver Program Budget Be Managed
and How Should the Program Be Administered?
Summary of options for controlling costs/managing budget and for administering the program:

Attachment 2

Page 55 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 56 of 63 ends

Management of the Recreation Fee Waiver Budget
• Encumber maximum per person amount at time person qualifies; stop qualifying when budgeted amount is encumbered; roll unspent funds into the Community Recreation Fund balance and carry over to the following year.
• Stop enrolling and accepting fee waivers at time budget is fully extended. • Return to Council for direction if it is projected that budget will be overspent.

Administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Budget
• Continue existing process utilizing Sunnyvale Community Services (SCS) to screen fee waiver applicants for eligibility and to provide administrative support to the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. Pay SCS $10,000 annually to offset a portion of their operating costs. • City staff screen fee waiver applicants for eligibility and provide all administrative support at an estimated increased cost of $51,700 annually.

PUBLIC CONTACT

Notice of Commission and Council meetings regarding this report were also distributed to the “Friends of Parks and Recreation” mailing list (a list of organizations and individuals who have expressed an interest in Parks and Recreation issues). A copy of this report and notice of the meetings was also

provided to Sunnyvale Community Services; and to the presidents of the youth sports groups with whom the City has special use agreements. This topic was placed on the September 11, 2007 agenda of the Senior Center Advisory Committee, and an informational flyer was also distributed at the Senior Center.

Public contact was made through posting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, Arts C
ommission and Council agendas on the City’s official notice bulletin board, posting of the agendas and report on the City’s web page, publication of the Council agenda in the San Jose Mercury News, and the availability of the report in the City Clerk’s office, Library, Parks and Recreation Administration, Community Center, and Senior Center.

Public comment provided for the joint Parks and Recreation Commission and Arts Commission meeting on August 29, 2006, focused on the impact to youth sports groups if reimbursement of Recreation Fee Waivers is discontinued, with one group supporting the c
hange, one group in opposition and one group
saying it would have no impact on the group. In all three cases a request was made to provide assistance in screening youth sports participants for eligibility, even if reimbursement is no longer provided.

Attachment 2

Page 56 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 57 of 63 ends

ALTERNATIVES

A. Who Should the City Recreation Fee Waiver Program Serve?

1. Direct staff to modify the eligibility crite ria so that the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serves only youth 17 years of age and younger.

2. Direct staff to modify the eligibility crite ria so that the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serves disabled adults.

3. Direct staff to modify the eligibility crite ria so that the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serves seniors aged 50 and older.

4. Direct staff to modify the eligibility crite ria so that the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serves adults aged 18 – 49.

5. Direct staff to modify the eligibility crite ria so that the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serves some or all of the populations listed above.

B. What Programs Should t he City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program Cover?

6. Direct sta ff to authorize use of Recreation Fee Waivers for City-provided recreation programs only. Notify all youth sports organizations with special use agreements with the City that fee waivers will no longer be accepted for programs that are not directly provided by the City.

7. Allow Recreation Fee Waivers to be used for some combination of programs as proposed by City Council.

C. How Should Income Eligibility Requirements Be Established?

8. Direct staff to utilize Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185%

of Poverty) to establish eligibility for Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

9. Direct staff to utilize participation in the Federal School Lunch Program as a Qualifier for Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

10. Direct staff to utilize some ot her form of income guidelines as established by City Council.

D. How Much Should Be Available to Each Participant and How Should That be Structured?

11. Direct staff to utilize “bundle” of services approach to establish annual maximum per person amount of recreational fees waived, equivalent to

four representative activities a year or one camp; amount to be established and reviewed administratively.

12. Direct staff to use $180 as the base maximum amount per eligible person and adjust by CPI annually.

13. Direct staff to use some other approach to establishing the maximum per eligible person amount for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

Attachment 2

Page 57 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 58 of 63 ends

14. Require no form of co-payment for any services provided by the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

15. Require some form of co-payment for some or all services provided by the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

E. How Should the Recreation Fee Waiver Program Budget be Managed and How Should it be Administered?

16. Direct staff to manage the Fee Waiver Program budget by encumbering the maximum per eligible person amount at time person qualifies; stop qualifying new participants when budgeted amount is encumbered; roll unspent funds into the Community Recreation Fund balance and carry over to the following year.

17. Direct staff to manage the Fee Waiver Program by stopping enrollment in

and use of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program at the time the Recreation Fee Waiver Program is fully expended.

18. Direct staff to continue contracting with Sunnyvale Community Services for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver P
rogram. At such time as
the City is in a position to assume partial or full responsibility for administering the program, negotiate with Sunnyvale Community Services to reduce or eliminate contract amount.

19. Direct staff to discontinue contracting with Sunnyvale Community Services for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program and direct staff to prepare a Budget Modification in order to assume responsibility for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends Alternatives: 1, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16 and 18.

1. Direct staff to modify the eligibility criteria so that the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver Program serves only youth 17 years of age and younger.

6. Direct staff to authorize use of Recreation Fee Waivers for City-provided recreation programs only. Notify all youth sports organizations with

special use agreements with the City that fee waivers will no longer be accepted for programs that are not directly provided by the City.

8. Direct staff to utilize Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185% of Poverty) to establish eligibility for Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

11. Direct staff to utilize “bundle” of services approach to establish annual maximum per person amount of recreational fees waived, equivalent to four representative activities a year or one camp, amount t o be established
and reviewed administratively.

Attachment 2

Page 58 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 59 of 63 ends

14. Require no form of co-payment for any services provided by the Recreation Fee Waiver Program.

16. Direct staff to manage the Fee Waiver Program budget by encumbering the maximum per eligible person amount at time person qualifies; stop

qualifying new participants when budgeted amount is encumbered; roll unspent funds into Community Recreation Fund balance.

18. Direct staff to continue contracting with Sunnyvale Community Services for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. At such time as the City is in a position to assume partial or full responsibility fo r
administering the program, negotiate with Sunnyvale Community Services to reduce or eliminate contract amount.

Discussion of Staff Recommendations
The staff recommendation is based on re-establishing the original purpose of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program as a safety net for low-income youth and to

bring the City’s program more in line with the practices of neighboring cities.

The City has long placed an emphasis on the importance of serving youth, recognizing that the ability to engage youth in healthy, constructive activities may well serve as a deterrent to negative and more costly behaviors. By continuing the recreation fee waiver program at a level that will allow low- income youth to participate in recreational activities all year long, the City will be making a strong commitment to assisting these at-risk youth to participate in their community.

Staff recommends establishing a policy in which youth sports groups are responsible for ensuring the participation of low-income individu als without
reimbursement from the City, in effect discontinuing the cash subsidy it has been providing. While participants experience fee waivers in the same way regardless of whether they are for services provided by the City or by a third party, the City is not in point of fact waiving any fees for the youth sports groups when it allows youth sports groups to be reimbursed through the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. Instead, the City is providing a direct cash subsidy to the youth sports groups to offset the groups’ own costs of waiving fees.

Page 59 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 60 of 63 ends

associated with allowing low-income youth to participate, and most, in fact, are mandated to do so by their parent organizations.

While it has certainly been a welcome benefit to the groups who have received reimbursement of fee waivers, continuation of the practice would represent a huge, on-going liability for the City, with the likelihood of increased usage of the program as more groups seek equity and reimbursement themselves. As discussed in the fiscal impact section of the report, the cost of providing a cash subsidy to these youth groups has had a significant negative net fiscal impact on the Co
mmunity Recreation Fund and the City as the amount reimbursed to the youth groups has averaged $31,856 annually over the past three years. The three organizations that most recently have requested reimbursements represent only 25% of the groups with whom the City has special use agreements in FY2005/2006. If the other 75% were to request comparable support the financial exposure to the Community Recreation Fund would be extensive. Unlike waiving fees for City-run programs, where the effect is a transfer of funds within the Community Recreation Fund from the Fee Waiver budget to the revenue account associated with the City program and a net zero impact to the Community Recreation Fund, this represents an additional net expense to the City and a drain on the Community Recreation Fund as monies leave the City, and results in a cash subsidy to the youth sports group.

Reimbursement of these fee waivers to non-City agencies takes away much needed resources and control that staff needs to effectively manage from the Community Recreation Fund.

The City has a long history of supporting the needs of its older adults. Even were a senior only able to afford the yearly membership fee, that person would

have access to a wide variety of free and low cost recreation and social services throughout the year. At only $1.50 a month, the value of the Senior Center membership is substantial in terms of the free and reduced price programs and services it includes. (Please refer to Attachment C: Summary of Benefits of Senior Center Membership

In terms of what criteria is used to qualify participants in the Recreation Fee Waiver program, staff recommends a change from the modified CDBG guidelines used currently to th
e Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines
(185% of poverty). This would provide eligibility criteria that is based on a defensible standard and is regularly reviewed and updated. It would also bring consistency to the eligibility screening criteria used by Sunnyvale Community Services.

Attachment 2

Page 60 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 61 of 63 ends

Staff recommends encumbering the maximum per person amount at the time the person qualifie
s and then to stop qualifying new participants when the budgeted allocation is fully encumbered. It is critical for staff to have some means of controlling the Recreation Fee Waiver budget. Given the relative unpredictability of demand on the Recreation Fee Waiver Program over the past years, with periods of high and low usage, there must be a way to stay within budgeted resources while also providing clear usage guidelines for participants so that they may plan their activities over the course of an entire year without the threat of resources being cut off mid-year and/or maximum per person amounts being reduced. Encumbering the maximum per person amount at the time an individual qualifies ensures that the person will be able to use all of his/her allotment, even if they use it in the last months of the fiscal year. Such a practice would also encourage people to enroll at the beginning of the year, in order to ensure their ability to participate. Rolling unspent funds into the Community Recreation Fund balance for use in subsequent years will increase flexibility within the Fund for activities such as development of new recreation programs, absorbing increased staff costs without reducing service levels or increasing the Recreation Fee Waiver budget, depending on the fiscal requirements of the Community Fund in any given year.

Finally, the City is not yet at a point where it can assume responsibility for administering the Recreation Fee Waiver Program. At this time, it is much more cost effective to continue the contr
actual arrangement with Sunnyvale
Community Services for administration services. The contract can be revisited at such time as the City’s capabilities change. Staff anticipates that administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program may be assumed by the City sometime within the next one to two years should City Council wish to do so at that time.

Commission Recommendations
The Parks and Recreation Commission and Arts Commission considered the matter in a joint me
eting with the Arts Commission on August 29, 2006. There was considerable discussion on the merits of continuing reimbursements of Recreation Fee Waivers to youth sports groups under agreement with the City.

Commissioners emphasized that the reimbursements constituted a cash subsidy to the groups and therefore should potentially not be accounted for in the Recreation Fee Waiver budget. While Commissioners expressed strong support for the youth sports groups, the majority felt that youth sports groups already receive significant in-kind subsidy already through reduced fees for field use, and felt that these groups had other mechanisms available to them to offset the costs of allowing low income youth to participate. In opposition to this idea, one Commissioner expressed concern that some groups are disproportionately affected because the geographic areas that they recruit from are lower income. These leagues may not have the means to absorb additional Attachment 2

Page 61 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 62 of 63 ends

costs, also noting that youth sports groups previously had not been charged for field usage, and the obligation to pay $1 an hour placed a new financial burden on local groups beginning in FY2004/2005.

The Parks and Recreation Commission voted 4-1, with Commissioner Kinder dissenting, and the Arts Commission voted 3 – 2 with Commissioners Carney and Obrey dissenting, to rec
ommend Council direct staff to utilize 80% of the
allocated Recreation Fee Waiver budget to serve youth 17 and under; 10% of the Recreation Fee Waiver budget to serve adults age 18-49; and 10% of the Recreation Fee Waiver budget to serve seniors age 50 and older, with Recreation Fee Waivers to be used for City-provided programs only.

Commissioners noted they did not want to exclude age groups that had previously been eligible. Dissenting votes were cast because a Commissioner estimated up to 250 youth would no longer be served if reimbursement of Recreation Fee Waivers to youth sports groups were discontinued; because the alternative did not limit the program to youth only; and because the alternative was felt to be too confusing.

The Parks and Recreation Commission and the Arts Commission further unanimously recommended that Council approve alternatives number 8, 11, 14, 16 and 18 in accordance with staff recommendations:

8. Income eligibility requirements should be based on the Food Bank Direct Service Eligibility Guidelines (185% of poverty) to establish eligibility for the Recreation Fee Waiver Program;

14. Do not require co-payments from Recreation Fee Waiver Program participants.

18. Continue the contract with Sunnyvale Community Services for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program until such time as the City is in the position t
o assume partial or full responsibility for
administering the program. Staff believes that it will be possible for the City to assume responsibility for administration of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program sometime within the next two years.

Attachment 2

Page 62 of 75 ends

Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program September 19, 2006

Page 63 of 63 ends

Reviewed by:

David A. Lewis, Director, Parks and Recreation
Prepared by: Nancy Bolgard Steward, Superintendent of Recreation and Jenny L. Shain, Part-Time Parks and Recreation Manager

Mary Bradley, Director, Finance

Approved by:

Amy Chan
City Manager

Attachments

A. Index for Report to Council
B. 2006 Study Issue Paper: Consider Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program
C. Summary of Benefits of Senior Center Membership
D. T
hree Year Summary of Participation in Recreation Fee Waiver Program by Age Group
E. Four-Year Historical Use of Fee Waivers by Program
F. Council Policy 7.2.4 - Relationship With Outside Groups

Attachment 2

Page 63 of 75 ends

ATTACHMENT A

Index for Report to Council: Consider the Effective ness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program - Study Issue

Page #
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Public Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Staff Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Discussion of Staff Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Commission Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 Attachments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8 A. Recent City Council Actions Rela ted to the Recreation Fee Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 • April 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 • June 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 • February 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 • Council Actions Affecting Per Person Amount . 10

B. Overview of Recreation Fee Waiver Program
. . . . . . . . . 10

C. The Existing Recreation Fee Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . 11

1. Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2. Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. Requirements for Esta blish ing Eligibility as a
Sunnyvale Resident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 D. Historical Expenditures for Recreation Fee Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 1. Ten-Year History of Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2. Three-Year Analysis of Fee Waiver Use by Age
Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 3. Four-Year Historical Analysis of Fee Waiver Use
by Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 Existing Policy
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 2.2 Open Space and Recreati on Sub- Element . . . . . . 14 1 Attachment 2

Page 64 of 75 ends

5.1 Social Economic Sub-Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A. Study Issue to Consider the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Recreation Fee Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 B.

Purpose and Cost Benefit of the Recreation Fee Waiver
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 1. Benefits of Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. Challenge for the Econom ically Disadvantaged . . 16

3. Original Purpose of the Recreation Fee Waiver
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16 C.

Sunnyvale’s Fee Waiver Program Compared to
Surrounding Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 D.

Key Questions to be Addressed in this Repo
rt . . . . . . . . .

20 1. Who Should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver
Program Serve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 2. What Programs Should the City’s Recreation Fee
Waiver Program Serve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23 a. Current Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 b. Youth Sports Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 c. Options for Determining which Pr
ograms
and Activities Qualify for the Recreation
Fee Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 3. How Should Income Eligibility Requirements be
Established? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27 a. Utilize (Modified) Com
munity Development
Block Grant Definitions (CDBG) . . . . . . . . .

27 b. Utilize Participation in Federal Sc
hool
Lunch as Qualifier for Recreation Fee
Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 c. Utilize Fo o
d Bank Direct Service Eligibility
Guidelines (185% of Poverty) . . . . . . . . . . .

30 4. How Much Should Be Available to Each
Participant and How Should That Be Structured? .

31 a. Amount Per Participant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 b. Requir e “Co-Payment” for Some or All
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 c. Create a “Family Pool” of Recreation Fee
Waiver Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37 5. How Should the Recreation Fee Waiver Program
Budget Be Managed and How Should the
Program Be Administ
ered? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38 a. Opti ons for Managing the Fee Waiver
Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38 2
Attachment 2

Page 65 of 75 ends

b. Options for Administering the Recreation
Fee Waiver Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42 Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44 1. Who should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver
Program s
erve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 2. What programs shoul d the City’s Recreation Fee
Waiver Program cover? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 3. How should income eligibility requirements be
established? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48 4. How much should be available to each participant, and how should that be structured? . . . . . . . . . . . .

49 a. Amount Per Participant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 b. Requir e “Co-Payment” for Some or All
Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51 c. Create a “Family Pool” of Recreation Fee
Waiver Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 5. How should the Re creation Fee Waiver Program
budget be managed and how should the program
be administ
ered? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 a. Managi ng t
he Recreation Fee Waiver
Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52 b. Admi nistration of the Recreation Fee
Waiver Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 Conclusion
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53 1. Who should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver
Program s
erve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 2. What programs shoul d the City’s Recreation Fee
Waiver Program cover? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 3. How should income eligibility requirements be
established? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54 4. How much should be available to each participant, and how should that be structured? . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 • Max
imum Allocation Per Person . . . . . . 55
• Co-Payment Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
• Create a “Family Pool” of Recreation
Fee Waiver Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 3
Attachment 2

Page 66 of 75 ends

5. How should the Re creation Fee Waiver Program
budget be managed and how should the program
be administered? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55 •
Management of the Recreation Fee
Waiver Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56 •
Administration of the Recreation Fee
Waiver Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56 Public Contact
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56 Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 A. Who should the City’s Recreation Fee Waiver
Program s
erve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 B. What programs shoul d the City’s Recreation Fee
Waiver Program cover? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 C. How should income eligibility requirements be
established? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 D. How much should be available to each participant, and how should that be structured? . . . . . . . . . . . .

57 E. How should the Re creation Fee Waiver Program
budget be managed and how should the program
be administ
ered? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58 Recommendation
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58 Discussion of Staff Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Commission Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Attachments
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4 Attachment 2

Page 67 of 75 ends

ATTACHMENT B
Attachment 2

Page 68 of 75 ends

Attachment 2

Page 69 of 75 ends

Attachment 2

Page 70 of 75 ends

ATTACHMENT C
Attachment 2

Page 71 of 75 ends

ATTACHMENT D

Three Year Summary of Participation in Recreation Fee Waiver Program by Age Group

FY 2003/2004 Fee Waiver Use Broken Down by Age:

Total Fee
Waiver
Recipients
50+ Years of
Age
18-49 Years
of Age
Under 18
Years of Age Totals
First Quarter 10 39 274 323
Second Quarter 7 18 125 150
Third Quarter 12 16 209 237
Fourth Quarter 37 51 393 481
Totals 66 124 1,001 1,191
By percentage for
the Fiscal Year 5.66% 10.63% 83.71% 100.00%

FY 2004/2005 Fee Waiver Use Broken Down by Age:

Total Fee
Waiver
Recipients
50+ Years of
Age
18-49 Years
of Age
Under 18
Years of Age Totals
First Quarter 78 45 316 439
Second Quarter 37 28 129 194
Third Quarter 87 38 203 328
Fourth Quarter 134 65 362 561
Totals 336 176 1,010 1,522
By percentage for
the Fiscal Year 22.08% 11.56% 66.36% 100.00%

FY 2005/2006 Fee Waiver Use Broken Down by Age:

Total Fee
Waiver
Recipients
50+ Years of
Age
18-49 Years
of Age
Under 18
Years of Age Totals
First Quarter 122 39 291 452
Second Quarter 74 31 116 221
Third Quarter 71 31 202 304
Fourth Quarter 24 42 241 307
Totals 291 143 850 1,284
By percentage for
the Fiscal Year 22.66% 11.14% 66.20% 100.00%

Attachment 2

Page 72 of 75 ends

ATTACHMENT E

Four-Year Historical Analysis of Fee Waiver Use by Program

% of Fee Waiver Actual
Expenditures used by
Youth Sports Leagues
% of Fee Waiver Actual
Expenditures for City
Recreation Programs

Actual Expenditures FY 02/03
$80,541
28%
$22,551
72%
$57,989
Actual Expenditures FY 03/04
$118,103
28%
$33,019
72%
$85,084
Actual Expenditures FY 04/05
$148,861

(Note: Does not include $10,000
payment to Sunnyvale Community
Services)
27%
$39,997
63%
$108,864
Actual Expenditures FY 05/06
$125,474

(Note: Does not include $10,000
payment to Sunnyvale Community
Services)
20%
$25,295
80%
$100,179

Attachment 2

Page 73 of 75 ends

ATTACHMENT F COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL
Policy 7.2.4 Relationships with Outside Groups

POLICY PURPOSE:

The intent of this policy is to identify the various t ypes of support the City will provide to outside groups and/or independent organi zations, as well as the circumstances under which support will be provided.

POLICY STATEMENTS:

Eligibility

Outside groups and/or independent organizations provided sup port under this policy shall provide a community service, or promote an informed interest in the City’s objectives, services, facilities and programs for the benefit of its residents and businesses, and/or have its purpose the raising of funds and provision of financial support for the City’s programs, and comply with the First Amendment, pertinent federal and state laws as well as City ordinances.

Types of Support

1. Financial Sup port

Human Services Groups seeking financial support from the Cit y must comply with the City’s
Human Services Policy (Council Policy 5.1.3) administered by the Department of Community Development. This is true regardless of the type of funding desired by the group (i.e., printing costs, facility rental fees, insurance costs, general operating expenditure support, etc.)

Additional financial support is available onl
y through a Special Agreement (see below).

2. Use of City Facilities

It is the City’s policy to afford use of specific City facilities-during such times the City does not itself have use for said facilities- to outside gr oups and/or independent or ganizations. Outside
groups and independent organizations using City facilities shall do so consistent with City policies on facility use and shall pay all required fees in accordance with established fee schedules.

Additional use of City Facilities is available onl y through a Special Agreement (see below).

Publicity

Groups seeking assistance with publicity shall comply with the following:

1. Council Banner Policy (Council Polic
y 2.5.2) wh ich defines conditions and circumstances
under which outside groups are allowed to hang banners on City property.

2. Ad ministrative policies governing City publicati ons and other forms of media (e.g. KSUN- 15), and the display or distribution of printed materials on City property.

3. Outside groups are prohibited from using the C ity’ s logo for any purpose unless specifically authorized to do so by the City.

7.2.4 – Page 1
Attachment 2

Page 74 of 75 ends

COUNCIL POLICY MANUAL
Other Support (Special Agreements)

Outside Groups or independent organizations seeking higher levels of support or different types of support than are provided for above, shall submit a written request to the appr opriate Department for review.

Examples include, but are not limited to: approva l to put the City’s logo on the independent organization’s printer materials; use of City spaces for special uses not covered by standard facility rental fees (e.g., storage, snack shacks; construction of special structures or fixtures on City property). Following review, staff shall inform the requestor as to:

1. Whether staff supports the provision of the requested support.

2. The required approval process (Does it require City Manager or City Council approval? Does it require a study issue to be ranked by City Council?) Any agreement including the provision of City facilities, goods or services to an outside group for less than the approved fee for those goods or services (or in cases wh ere there is no approved fee where City goods or services are provides at less than the cost incurred by the City to provide them) shall require Council approval. Any Special Agreemen t requiring Council approval shall first be reviewed by the appropriate board or commission. Where no appropriate board or commission exists, the Office of the City Mana ger shall provide its recommendation to City Council.

(Adopted: RTC 84-644(12/4/1984); Amended: RTC 88-238(5/ 17/1988), 92-519(10/27/1992, 03-
361(10/21/2003); (Clerical/clarity update, Policy Update Project 7/2005); Amended: RTC 06-112 (4/11/2006))

Lead Department: Department of Parks and Recreation

7.2.4 – Page 2
Attachment 2

Page 75 of 75 ends

Sunnyvale City CouncilAugust 9, 2022

Sunnyvale City Council
August 9, 2022