Park Authority proposes new fee structure
[
A new draft study by the Fairfax County Park Authority recommends changing the fee structure to bring more equity to the park system.
The report suggests several strategies to make park programs more affordable to lower-income families. Together, these changes would cost approximately $26.6 million.
The draft 2024 Equity Study was presented to the Park Authority Board on Jan. 24 and will be presented to the Board of Supervisors’ Health and Human Services Committee today.
The study, prepared by the HR&A consulting firm, found the Park Authority’s reliance on fees means some recreation programs charge more than comparable programs elsewhere and more than many local residents can afford. As a result, recreation participation skews wealthier and whiter than the population of Fairfax County.
For example, 71 percent of summer camp participants and 44 percent of people who take classes are from households with incomes of $150,000 or more.
Related story: Park Authority report sets a framework for park investment priorities
Under the Park Authority’s requirement for its revenue fund, all participants must be charged enough for FCPS to recover 100 percent of costs, including overhead and administration. That means FCPS has to charge much more in fees than other agencies.
In contrast, the report states, national best practices call for cost recovery targets to be set at the program level, based on the community benefit they provide.
It recommends the use of community benefits to guide cost recovery goals. Reducing cost recovery from 100 percent to 25 percent would result in decreasing revenue from $54.5 million to $34.1 million. That would require $32 million in additional funding.
As an initial step, the report suggests implementing a cost recovery pyramid at a cost of $9.4 million. That would entail reducing cost recovery in areas with significant community and public health benefits, such as swim lessons and summer camps. Programs that benefit the individual, such as golf courses, personal training, and camping, could remain at 100 percent cost recovery.
To ensure low-income families are not excluded from recreation opportunities, the report also recommends sliding-scale fees based on household income for programs like camps and swim classes. That would cost an estimated $7 million.
In addition, it calls for flexible annual vouchers at an annual cost of $3 million. The vouchers could be distributed to qualified families for individual-benefit services, such as picnic shelters and campground rentals.
Members of the public are encouraged to submit comments on the report by March 1.
The Park Authority plans to use the results of the initial comment period to plan a robust community outreach program likely to run through the summer. That effort will include public meetings and a survey on how residents perceive park programs and what barriers prevent them from participating.
The Park Authority anticipates delivering comments and additional data on the equity study to the Park Authority Board and the Board of Supervisors by fall 2024.
I have an idea for Fairfax County. Instead of giving millions of dollars away to a few random needy families, use that money to lower costs for all families at Rec Centers. Then we won’t need the bureaucracy established to figure out who pays what on their sliding scale.
Serious question – we have other jurisdictions in the area, what do they do? Yes, Arlington and Alexandria are very small and Loudoun is comparable in size but probably not in demographics. But, what do they do?
It seems it makes more sense to lower fees across the board and promote the programs to lower income areas. In my experience it it a PITA to sign up for these activities and that is a deterrent.
The community benefits model would allow for all fees to be reduced not just for low income folks. That’s why a sliding scale is needed.
When industry wants more business, they lower costs to bring people in and generate more revenue. When government wants more business, they raise costs to bring more people in. Wait? Did I miss something there. Let me try this again.
When industry wants more business, they lower costs to bring people in. When government wants more business….Hmmm. I wish I went to school and got an MBA. Then maybe I could understand this.