ROV Relocation Cost-Benefit Analysis
August 5, 2026







The recent discussion about a proposed meeting with Congressman Garamendi to discuss a potential $4 million grant for repairs to the ROV caused me to begin thinking again about the proposed relocation
and the future of Historic Shipyard 3. Any funding for the maintenance of the ROV is good news, and I hope Garamendi can come through.

 

The $4 million figure is, of course, far short of the $20 million or so required to move the ship, but it would keep it afloat and accessible to the public.

 

The Richmond Museum Association (RMA) owns the Red Oak Victory, and board support of the relocation study seems like a no brainer. At no cost to the ROV or the RMA, we will all find out about
the feasibility and cost of a move. Good information, if the study is well done.

 

However, events caused me to take another look at the “Red Oak Provided: Cost Benefit Analysis,” which presumably was provided by some someone associated with the ROV and which is the basis for
the argument in favor of the relocation.

 

Figure 1 – Red Oak Provided: Cost Benefit Analysis

The Red Oak provided Cost Benefit Analysis is, however, fatally flawed, and it lacks any detailed analysis of how the figures were derived. It projects an annual increase in revenue ranging from
$950,000 to $1,200.000 that is based largely on erroneous assumptions and wishful thinking.

 

Below is a critique of the Cost Benefit Analysis that points out these errors.

 

Annual Revenue Generating Activity

Current Location (2025)

Ford Point Location (Estimate)

Notes or other relevant data

Critique

Visitors [revenue from]

$21,000

$400,000 to $600,000

20,000 to 30,000 [visitors per year] for the first three years. This is predicated on $20 a visitor.

The presumption of dramatically increased ROV visitation with visitors paying $20 is the largest single projection used to justify the relocation.

 

It is severely flawed for several reasons:

 

  • The Rosie the Riveter Visitor Center is free. Projecting that every Visitor Center
    visitor, including children, will also visit the ROV and pay $20 is extremely dubius. In 2025, the Rosie the Riveter Visitor Center logged 33,689 visitors. Most museum ships provide discounts for children seniors and other, reducing the amount to less than
    $20 for many visitors.
  • The presumption that the proposed relocation will expose the ROV to people who otherwise would not be aware of it and motivate them to pay $20 for a visit has no basis. Harbour
    Way South is not a well-traveled thoroughfare. It is a dead end mainly used by ferry patrons, many of whom are the same commuters that return day after day. The Craneway has ceased to be a venue that attracts large crowds for special events.
  • There would be no parking for ROV visitors most days because the ferry lot fills up early and stays full all day, with substantial use even on weekends.
  • Assuming the reported $21,000 from visitor fees at the current location with each visitor paying at least $15, that’s only 2,100 visitors annually. One reason may be that the ROV
    is open only on Saturday and Sunday in the summer from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM (12 hours a week total) and 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM in the winter (10 hours a week total). Regardless of where the ROV resides, increased visitation will require dramatically increased
    volunteer time or paid staff to act as docents and store clerks and collect fees. Is there a plan and budget for this?
  • Marketing the ROV is currently concentrated on the use of social media, some of which gets picked up by local news (mostly virtual) outlets. There is almost no wayfinding for Shipyard
    3 or the ROV outside Shipyard 3. A marketing and branding study might have been a better use of the City’s $300,000 to provide a plan for increasing both awareness and visitation.

 

Store Sales

$15,000

$100,000 to $150,000

Store sales historically average is 25% of Admissions. The ROV is currently at 65%

The Rosie Visitor Center store is open 7 days a week. Gross sales are about $6,000 a week, or $75,820 a year. Net revenue is $35,354 annually.

 

Projecting sales of $100,000 to $150,000 annually from a relocated ROV has no basis. The net revenue, which is the only number that should be
counted, would be substantially less than  $100,000 to $150,000.

Community/Private events

$42,000

$100,000

Increase due to change in location and increased Marketing

There is no parking at the proposed relocation site, other than ferry parking, which is full weekdays and weekends during the day, limiting parking
for large gatherings to the evening.

 

The current location has adequate parking all day every day.

 

The current location is adjacent to the Riggers Loft, which over the years, has hosted thousands of people for events, providing evidence that
people will easily find seemingly remote locations. The Sailing Goat and Point San Pablo harbor is another example of a seemingly remote location on a dead-end road that regularly attracts large crowds for dining and entertainment.

 

There is no basis for projecting that event use will increase just because of relocation.

Development Grants/Fundraising

$75,000

$350,000

Funds from Federal, State and relevant foundations, individual donations and business entities

There is no basis for predicting that relocation will result in nearly a 5-fold increase in grant funding.

TOTALS

$153,000

$950,000 to $1,200,000

These estimates are modeled on Rosie the Riveter Museum attendance whose attendance ranges from 40,000 to 60,000 (Note 1)

The estimate of revenue increase by as much as $950,00 to $1,200,000 annually is seriously flawed. Some of it is based on erroneous data, such
as Rosie Visitor Center visitation.

 

Notes: In 2025, the Rosie the Riveter Visitor Center logged 33,689 visitors. The ROV figure of 40,000 to 60,000 is not accurate, although pre-Covid
figures were close to 60,000, they have never recovered.

 

You might ask, what is my interest in the ROV, the Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park? Many of you know me, but for those who may not:

 

  • As a City Council member, I played a major role in bringing Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park
    to Richmond. I was the principal liaison with the City during the initial initial feasibility study and subsequently authored most of the legislation that established the relationship between the City of Richmond and the National Park Service. I was the founding
    board member of Rosie the Riveter Trust.
  • When the RMA was advocating to take ownership of the ROV and move it to Richmond, there were many detractors saying that
    the cost of maintenance would end up as a liability for the City. I supported the acquisition, which had to be approved by the City.
  • I founded
    Rosie was the Riveter Trust and continue to serve as a board member. Rosie the Riveter Trust has grown to have an annual budget in excess of $1 million. Rosie the Riveter Trust has also raised millions of dollars for
    rehabilitation of historic properties in the park.
  • I saved the Riggers Loft and sponsored the legislation that enabled its rehabilitation.
  • I worked with the City and the National Park Service to save the Whirley Crane and move it to its current location.
  • I authored the legislation that enabled the ROV to occupy its current location for $1 a year rent.

 

 

Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM delivered to your email address?

Click here to sign-up to receive the E-Forum.
Tom Butt is the former mayor of Richmond, CA, having served 27+ years until January of 2023, eight of those as elected mayor. Tom Butt is an architect and founder of the 50-year
old Richmond architecture-engineering firm Interactive Resources. He serves on the board of two Richmond nonprofits,
Rosie the Riveter Trust and
East Brother Light Station, Inc. Visit the
Tom
Butt website
for additional information about Tom Butt’s activities and a digest of past E-FORUMS going back to 2000,
http://www.tombutt.comSubscription to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by selecting “unsubscribe from
this list” at the bottom of this email. This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This email was sent to *|EMAIL|*

why did I get this?    unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

*|LIST:ADDRESSLINE|*


Recent Posts