As the City’s financial crises enters its third month, I continue to receive pleas from residents (and non residents) to save endangered programs – particularly the Richmond Swim Center, community centers and the Library. See today’s West County Times “Budget makes for long summer with nothing to do,” which is copied following this E-Forum. 

One of the things that frustrates me most about the current financial crisis is the continued foot dragging and even refusal by the administration to emulate best practices in other cities that are not sinking in a sea of red ink. By all accounts, Richmond’s Recreation & Parks Department is scheduled to take the biggest hit, and it is also the one with years of mismanagement that has, in my opinion, contributed to its projected demise. 

The Richmond Recreation & Parks Department was the principal target of a blistering Grand Jury investigation in 1999 (see attached MSWORD file), but many of the practices seem to have been perpetuated. Most cities operate their Recreation & Parks Departments a “pay as you go” basis, recouping as much as 80% of the cost from users. According to a recent report, Richmond’s Recreation & Parks Department collected only $186,000 in fees compared to the $7,923,904 it costs to operate the department. That’s a little over 2% cost recovery. 

In all fairness to the department, some of this is due to pressure from some City Council members to keep user fees as low as possible in order to serve the high number of individuals, particularly children, who come from low income households. When money abounds, this may be a worthy public policy objective, but it is no longer tenable. Even in the good times, the policy was not implemented using common sense. 

For example, Winston & Strawn reported that the Richmond Convention Center (Auditorium) is operated at a loss, generating only $159,243 in income against $318,893 in expenses. The losses are only partly because the Convention Center is rented out at rates that are lower than its cost to operate. The primary problem, according to Winston & Strawn, is how it is operated. The current manager, while perhaps doing the best he can under the circumstances, has no prior experience producing or promoting shows and has received no formal training in operation of the Convention Center since he was appointed as coordinator eighteen months ago. “There is no reason,” continues the Winston & Strawn report, “why the City must continue to lose money operating the Convention Center.” The recommendation is to either outsource the entire operation of the Convention Center or enter into a contract with a promoter to book the facility for a fixed number of events. Within a year, the Convention Center could be returning hundreds of thousands of dollars to the City instead of the other way around.  

Let’s look at the Richmond Swim Center. The facility costs $449,004 annually to operate, including labor, water, utilities and maintenance. Although I have requested the information several times, the Richmond Recreation & Parks Department can’t even tell me what the income derived from the operation is or how many people use it. However, we do know that, compared to Hercules, El Cerrito, Albany and Berkeley, the Richmond Swim Center is a bargain. Its closest competitor, the City of El Cerrito, charges $5.50 for adult lap swimming, while Richmond charges only $3.00. It’s no wonder El Cerrito residents like to come to Richmond to swim; they get a 45% discount over their home town pool. Lap swimmers in Albany pay $5.00 and Berkeley, $4.50. Hercules is the same as Richmond, except non-residents pay a 33% premium. With some fee adjustments, it is possible that the Richmond Swim Center could move toward being self-supporting and not have to close. 

Here’s another idea from a contract teacher for a class offered by the Richmond Recreation & Parks Department: “I teach identical classes (as an independent contract instructor) through both the Richmond and San Anselmo recreation departments.  I realize most San Anselmo residents can afford to pay more for courses than many Richmond residents, so that department can charge more per class.  I discount my Richmond class accordingly.  However, San Anselmo both charges more and gives me a smaller split of the fees charged. (I still make more for my class in San Anselmo.)  Perhaps the [Richmond] rec department could charge a minimal fee for some free services and raise the rates on others a bit,  offer contract instructors a slightly lower split (say, 75/25% instead of 80/20), or loosen the requirement that a city employee be present at all functions held at rec department sites. (for example, someone needs to open and close the community center for the neighborhood council meeting, but perhaps it isn't necessary to pay a city employee to sit through it for several hours.)” 

That brings up another gripe I have about Richmond Recreation & Parks Department policy regarding community centers. A City employee always has to open and close the facilities and remain present while any activity is going on. Supposedly this is to protect the City from “liability.” This is, in my opinion, a myth. As a City Council member, I have learned, sadly, that the biggest liability to the City is not the public, but its own employees. I am reminded of this every time we pay out $100,000 to settle a lawsuit for some stupid or negligent action of a City employee, such as the sexual harassment complaint against Armand Mulder, and former Chief Samuels’ failure to deal with it appropriately. 

Another fact that is perhaps not well known about the Richmond Park & Recreation Department is that it has an unusually high cost per customer served. Also, a large part of the recreational activities available to Richmond residents is not provided by the Richmond Park & Recreation Department at all but but by a myriad of non-profits, such as PAL, soccer leagues, the mayor’s “Kids First” after school program grants, etc. I have always advocated that the City could deliver recreational activities more efficiently and effectively by operating less as a prime provider and more as a facilitator, connecting users with providers and providing the physical facilities, such as sports fields and community centers. At the same time, the department could monitor all of the opportunities as well as the number and demographics of persons being served and endeavor to develop programs to fill the gaps. In 1997, I authored, and the City Council passed unanimously, Resolution 60-97 (see attached MSWORD file.) intended to implement some of these principles. 

A resolution of the City Council is supposed to be public policy and is supposed to be implemented by the city manager and his staff. Not so in Richmond, where the staff runs the City instead of the City Council. The Richmond Recreation & Parks Department professionals have never implemented, or even acknowledged, Resolution 60-97. They are the experts, and they know better. Now their expertise will apparently deprive Richmond of a Recreation program in the future. 

I am sure there are other ways that Richmond’s recreation programs can be saved through better practices, and I solicit recommendations and suggestions from E-Forum readers.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT NO.doc

Resolution Recreation.DOC