SPECIAL FOCUS
That is a good question. Read on for a debate among park and recreation professionals, plus tips for enacting new fees or raising old ones
|
What follows here is an excerpt from the chapter "Should You Have To Pay To Play" from Local Parks, Local Financing, a handbook published by the Trust for Public Land, which takes a close look at the revenue-generating options granted by states to local governments, and at the variety of ways in which communities are using these tools to support parks, open space, and recreational facilities. The handbook is designed to share what's working with park and open space advocates and spur new and innovative thinking about municipal park financing mechanisms and methods. Founded in 1972, the Trust for Public Land (TPL) is the only national nonprofit working exclusively to protect land for human enjoyment and well-being. TPL helps conserve land for recreation and spiritual nourishment and to improve the health and quality of life of American communities. |
The demand for community parks and open space is greater than ever. Yet federal and state aid often falls short. Just how are county and municipal governments responding to this challenge? For many communities, local financing options—new and old—are providing the answer.
The most common method of raising non-tax revenue is through the imposition of fees.
Virtually all city park agencies charge fees for certain activities, but there is a spectrum of opinion as to the proper role of fees in agency budgets.
On one extreme is Leon Younger, former director of parks in Indianapolis and Lake County, Ohio, and now a parks consultant who outspokenly advocates for market-oriented public recreation.
"There is nothing wrong with placing a value on a recreation experience," says Younger, "but the managers of most urban park systems set their prices for the 20 percent who can't pay rather than for the 80 percent who can. By not tying price to value, they undervalue what they've got and put a damper on the ability to reform themselves."
At the other end of the spectrum is David L. Fisher, superintendent of the Minneapolis Park System.
30/ Illinois Parks and Recreation
"I think we have to be real careful," Fisher replies. "We serve all people. The imposition of a fee is as bad as the imposition of a tax. We shouldn't just look around for something that's popular and then charge for it. If we charged $10 each time a policeman or fireman showed up at your door, there might be a lot fewer emergency calls, but is that what we want? Park users have already paid for the parks once, why should we make them pay again? We're not talking about wealthy communities where virtually 100 percent of the people can afford to pay. We're talking about cities. Do we really want to say to these people, 'Only those who can afford to pay can play?'"
Younger responds: "After pricing certain services at a market rate, agencies should then find ways of getting the other 20 percent—those who don't have the ability to pay—to utilize the facility through credits, scholarships, etc. For example, they might consider starting a "workreation" program where kids work in exchange for the use of facilities, such as pools or ballfields. This program would give 'play dough' dollars that are work credits."
Tom Forman is representative of the park professional caught in the middle of this debate. A manager in Baltimore's Bureau of Recreation, he said, "It's a catch-22. If you raise the fees the community people ask, 'What am I going to get in addition to what I've gotten in the past?' It's a public relations battle. On the other hand, at these prices the fields are pretty much booked solid. They're so heavily used that we have to play on them even during what should be a dormant period. It's bad for the fields. We're looking at additional land opportunities that we have control over, but you can't just use every piece of vacant land out there. There are conservation issues, community issues—some communities don't want ballfields in their open space."
Todays politics being what it is, market-based recreation is gaining credence throughout the country, most notably in suburban, higher-income jurisdictions but gradually also in inner-city locations—although the idealistic "workreation" programs have been difficult to design and implement and often seem to have gotten lost in the shuffle.
"The mayor of Cleveland, Michael White, is very sensitive to the politics of charging for parks and recreation," noted Oliver Spellman, former parks and recreation director for the city. "That 80 percent number" (Leon Younger's number) "may not hold in Cleveland. Politically the mayor is very sensitive to that."
White, according to Spellman, is deeply committed to parks and recreation, and rather than forcing the parks agency to raise money privately, the mayor has worked to keep the agency sufficiently funded through the city budget.
(Cleveland has another reason to avoid fees. Under Ohio's Recreational Use Statute, all agencies which offer recreation for more than a nominal fee are held to a much stricter standard of care, thus opening themselves up to tort lawsuits, higher legal fees and increased insurance premiums. "To be blunt," said one official, "if an incident happens, we are protected, even if our staff is at fault." All states have recreational use statutes, but Ohio's appears to be tougher on fees than most.)
Many other cities, however, have been willing (or forced by circumstances) to put more eggs into the fee basket. Portland, Oregon, for instance, receives only 57 percent of its $47-million budget from the city and must generate more than $20 million in other ways. San Francisco Recreation and Park Department gets $30.3 million from fees—38 percent of its $78.9-million budget. And then there's Wheeling, the city that's proud to have a park system that's not taxpayer funded. The Wheeling Parks Commission, far and away the most self-supporting urban park system in the country, gets only $190,000 of its $20-million budget from the city.
The nation's two largest fee-generating park agencies are those of New York and Chicago. New York Department of Parks and Recreation (NYDPR) ($167 million annual budget, 22 percent from non-tax revenues) and the Chicago Park District (CPD) ($307 million, 30 percent non-tax) are, in effect, two huge urban empires that are rapidly learning how to generate impressive returns on their assets—which include thousands of acres of landholdings, numerous golf courses, ballfields, recreation centers, mansions, marinas, tennis courts, skating rinks, stadiums, parking lots, beaches and much more.
In both cities, the single biggest source of fee revenue is, ironically, from automobile parking. NYDPR owns Shea Stadium and receives that parking revenue; CPD has Soldier Field plus, under Grant Park, one of the nation's largest parking garages, only minutes from the Loop, from which it grosses a staggering $18 million. Chicago is doing so well on parking that the park district is constructing a garage underneath Lincoln Park, near the Chicago Historical Society. In fact, in the right circumstances, downtown parking can be so lucrative that the city of Boston was able to finance Post Office Square, a brand new $80-million park in the heart of its financial district, solely through revenues generated by the parking garage underneath.
After parking, the largest revenue source for New York is golf, as it is for most park agencies in the country. New York City's 13 golf courses, all of which are run by concessionaires, net about $3 million for the city.
|
|
"Managers of most urban park systems set their prices for the 20 percent who can't pay rather than for the 80 percent who can." — Leon Younger, parks consultant 'The imposition of a fee is as bad as the imposition of a tax. We shouldn't just look around for something that's popular and then charge for it." — David L Fisher, Minneapolis Park System |
November/December 1999 /31
Other profitable ventures for many cities include tennis (particularly indoors), boat marinas, weddings and other special events at noteworthy mansions or gardens, and restaurants. Enterprises which are generally less lucrative include swimming pools, ice skating rinks, ballfields, playgrounds and bike trails. (The really big-ticket items in many city parks—zoos, stadiums, museums and aquariums—are financially too complex to be analyzed in this study.)
Voluntary Fees
A seeming contradiction in terms, the "voluntary fee" (or "mandatory contribution") is the newest twist in recreation revenue enhancement. The concept, which was originated by New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art and has spread to many museums, was recendy adopted by the New York Department of Parks and Recreation in its recreation centers; it's been one of the Department's great financial (and recreational) successes.
In 1995 New York began requesting a donation (suggested to be in the $10-to-$25 range) for the use of recreation centers. The annual donation results in a membership card and entitles members to use all the facilities in the center (except, in some centers, the weight room and nautilus). In those centers which have a state-of-the-art weight room/nautilus, an additional fee (not donation) of $50 per year is charged for those privileges, resulting in a maximum annual expense of about $60-75. The city uses the fee/ contribution money to upgrade the center and restore other rec centers.
Those persons who claim they cannot afford to pay a donation of any amount are asked to fill out a form and are then granted a free membership card. The Parks Department is considering introducing a sweat-equity program so that low-income persons can do some work in or on the centers in return for recreation.
Because of the fees, the centers have improved dramatically, particularly their weight rooms which, Garafola found, are the best mechanisms for bringing people in for the first time. In the most densely populated neighborhoods in Manhattan, the city rec centers are now reaching memberships of 10,000-15,000 each. Of the $12 million the city spends on its 34 rec centers, $2 million comes from fees and gifts.
Enacting new fees or raising old ones
Though higher fees are often justified (or even desirable), the actual moment when fee increases take place is rarely pleasant. "We get very few complaints about fees, but that's when we get them— when new fees are instituted or when old ones increase," said Stuart Strong, division manager for Austin Parks and Recreation Department. What is the best way park managers can raise fees without producing a political firestorm in response? The experts provide some tips:
• Provide high quality. People are willing to pay if they get good value. Best is to upgrade facilities before raising the price.
• Explain the fees. Explain your budgetary and cost realities to the public in every way possible—placards, brochures, pie charts, speeches. Make sure to include your long-term capital expenses as well as your ongoing management costs. If you make a "profit" on a particular program you might want to show what money-losing enterprise it subsidizes.
• Highlight the value. Make the comparison with other public and private activities, such as movies, video arcades, professional sports events, museums, amusement parks. "When someone complains to me about a $350 league fee," says Baltimore's Tom Forman, "I point out that that's for a 10-week season for a 10-person team, so it amounts in reality to only $3.50 per person per game."
• Provide alternatives. Give low-income persons a way of participating, either through a "sweat-equity" program of exchanging work for recreation time, or by providing certain hours where the fee is waived. When Chicago privatized its ice skating program, sharply upgraded the rinks and raised the fee, it also mandated that 40 percent of the hours—the periods of lower demand— would be available free of charge.
• Institute the increases on a rolling basis, at the end of each season, not in the middle. Enacting an across-the-board fee change on January 1 might be great for the baseball program but a real irritant for those playing basketball or indoor tennis.
• Pre-inform the politicians. Your elected officials may catch the brunt of the outcry—and they are the folks who could force you to back off the fee increases if they are sufficiendy upset. Make sure they fully understand the rationale, need for and use of the increased fees. Ideally, give them fact sheets they can use with their angry constituents.
November/December 1999 /35
