HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-09-05 PRC Special Meeting Packet
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
September 5, 2017 Council Chambers
6:30 pm Building A, 276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Buddingh, Doyle, Garcia-Lopez, German, Gregorio, Zarem, and
Chair Fernandez
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Commission on any subject
matter within the Commission’s jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State
law generally prohibits the Commission from discussing or taking action on any issue not
included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Commission may schedule the topic for
future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Commission will enact the Consent Calendar staff recommendations by one motion,
without discussion, unless a Commission Member, a member of the public, or staff requests
that an item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of thes e items, please fill
out a “Request to Speak” form and submit it to the Secretary prior to the meeting. Items
pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed immediately following the Consent
Calendar.
1. APPROVAL OF JULY 20, 2017, REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commission approve the minutes
2. APPROVAL COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ ABSENCE FROM JULY 20, 2017,
SPECIAL MEETING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commission excuse the absence
ACTION ITEMS
The Item(s) listed in this section of the agenda will be considered individually by the
Board/Commission and are expected to elicit discussion and deliberation. If you wish to
City of Chula Vista Boards & Commissions
Parks and Recreation Commission
Page 2 ׀ Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda September 5, 2017
speak on any item, please fill out a “Request to Speak” form and submit it to the Secretary
prior to the meeting.
3. MILLENNIA PARK P-5 STRATA PARK PROJECT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Park and Recreation Commission approve the
draft Park Master Plan for the 1.9 acre turnkey public neighborhood park located in the
south central part of Millenia, Chula Vista at the intersection of Orion Avenue and Strata
Street. Staff also recommends that the park name, “Strata Park” be approved. Using the
name of the fronting street as the park name continues the naming theme which was
begun with the first Millenia Park, Stylus Park.
4. COST RECOVERY, RESOURCE ALLOCATION AND REVENUE
ENHANCEMENT STUDY
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Commission approve and recommend to City Council
approval of the Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation and Revenue Enhancement Study
5. ARTICLE REGARDING SHOWERING BEFORE USING SWIMMING POOLS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Aquatic Supervisors review the article.
OTHER BUSINESS
6. STAFF COMMENTS
7. CHAIR’S COMMENTS
8. COMMISSIONERS’ COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting on November 16, 2017, 6:30 pm at Montevalle
Recreation Center, 840 Duncan Ranch Road, Chula Vista, California.
Materials provided to the Parks and Recreation Commission related to any open-session item
on this agenda are available for public review in the Recreation Department Administration
Office located at 276 4th Avenue Building C, Chula Vista, during normal business hours.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access,
attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service, contact the Human Resources
Page 3 ׀ Parks and Recreation Commission Agenda September 5, 2017
Department at (619) 691-5041 (California Relay Service is available for the hearing impaired by
dialing 711) at least forty-eight hours in advance of the meeting.
I declare under penalty of perjury that
I am employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Recreation Department and that I posted this document
on the bulletin board according to Brown Act requirements.
Dated:8/23/17___ Signed:tiffany kellbach ______
DATE: SEPTEMBER 5TH 2017
ITEM TITLE: APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT PARK MASTER PLAN FOR
THE 1.9 ACRE SOUTH CENTRAL PARK, STRATA PARK
A PUBLIC NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LOCATED IN
MILLENIA, AND THE NAME “STRATA PARK”.,
SUBMITTED BY: Mary Radley, Landscape Architect, Development Services
Department
REVIEWED BY: Kelly Broughton, Development Services Director
Richard Hopkins, Director of Public Works Operations
Tim Farmer, Principal Recreation Manager
SUMMARY
This report presents the draft Park Master Plan for the third of the Millenia parks and seeks Park and
Recreation Commission’s approval of the plan and the park name.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Development Services Director has determined that the project was adequately covered in
previously adopted Final Second Tier Environmental Impact Report, EIR 07-01. Therefore, no
additional environmental review is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Park and Recreation Commission approve the draft Park Master Plan for the 1.9 acre
turnkey public neighborhood park located in the south central part of Millenia, Chula Vista at the
intersection of Orion Avenue and Strata Street. Staff also recommends that the park name,
“Strata Park” be approved. Using the name of the fronting street as the park name continues the
naming theme which was begun with the first Millenia Park, Stylus Park.
Parks and Recreation Commission
AGENDA STATEMENT
9/5/17, Item_____
Page 2 of 4
DISCUSSION:
Background
This 1.9 park site is located in Millenia, formerly known as the Eastern Urban Center, in eastern
Chula Vista. The SPA plan for the development was adopted by City Council on October 6,
2009, resolution No.2009-224 and Ordinance No. 3142. The site was offered for dedication to
the City on Final Subdivision Map No. 16081 recorded at the County Recorder’s Office on
December 28th, 2015. The SPA includes an overall master plan for the system of six parks
within the development, describing their locations, how the park obligations per chapter 17.10 of
the municipal code, will be met, overall design concepts, and program elements to be included
within each park.
Parks Concept for Millenia
The Special Planning Area SPA plan for Millenia, adopted Octob er 6, 2009 by Resolution
No.2009-224, includes an Urban Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan that describes a
system of parks, plazas and trails within the development that will reinforce the character and
function of the development as the premiere urban-mixed use center of South San Diego County.
It includes a concept diagram of each park including the 1.9 acre South Central Park, P-5. Each
concept diagram lists the elements recommended to be included and the overall theme for the
park.
Millenia Parks Agreement
The Millenia project meets its park obligations, as stated in Chapter 17.10 of the Municipal code,
through a combination of parkland dedication, parkland development improvements and in lieu
fees. The ways in which these provisions are to be made are documented in detail in the
“Agreement Regarding Construction of Parks in a Portion of Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center”
(Park Agreement) Resolution No.2009-226 approved on September 15, 2009 by City Council.
The Millenia parks are to be provided through the “turnkey” method where the developer
constructs the park on behalf of the City in lieu of paying park development fees. The park
agreement makes provision for an increased level of park facilities than are typically included in
a Chula Vista Park. The associated level of park credit given by the City for the parks is
increased to reflect the increased level of amenities. In addition the developer will provide
recreation facilities along the jogging trails through the business district for which they will
receive credit as well as meeting the remaining portion of their obligation with in lieu fees. The
agreement allows for the City to approve special event programming in Millenia parks to help
encourage the sense of community.
The Millenia master developer and the landscape consultants, Spurlock Landscape have entered
into a two-party agreement for the design of the South Central Park.
South Central Park (P-5)
The overall theme for the park is “Light”. The draft master plan for the park includes the
following elements:
Restroom Building (with limited storage)
Flexible Use Plaza
Shade Structure/Trellis (creating patterns and color)
9/5/17, Item_____
Page 3 of 4
Picnic/BBQ area
Porch Swings
Fitness court
Open Lawn/Flexible Event Space
Outdoor Game Facilities (heavy duty public park grade)
Ping pong
Foosball
Bean bag toss
Horseshoe
Community Garden
Movable tables and chairs
Hydration Station
Formal and Informal Walks
Low Water Use Planting Palettes (reflecting both sun and shade)
Special Light Elements (in addition to standard park lighting)
Glow in the Dark aggregate paving
Light Rings
In-ground lighting
Glowing boulders
Special Maintenance Provisions
The Park Agreement makes provision for a more enhanced level of park maintenance than the
Chula Vista General Fund typically allows for. Fifty percent of the maintenance cost will be the
City’s average annual cost per acre for park maintenance. To match this a mount, 50%, will be
contributed to the City by a CFD (discussed below) that assesses future development in Millenia.
This enables the City to maintain the parks with more maintenance intensive features at no
additional cost to the General Fund.
Community Facilities District CFD 14M (Mello-Roos District) administers funds for Millenia’s
public infrastructure maintenance. The resident’s special tax contribution represents the cost of
50% of the park maintenance costs. The City’s General Fund allocates an equivalent to 50% of
the parks maintenance costs annually to this same Community Facilities District. This
mechanism is set up to ensure that the funds for the maintenance of Millenia’s parks are used
exclusively for maintaining the Millenia Parks.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the Parks and Recreation Commission members and
has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property which is the
subject of this action. Consequently, this item does not present a disqualifying real property-
related financial conflict of interest under California Code of Regulations Title 2, section
18702.2(a)(11), for purposes of the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100,et seq.).
Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any Parks a Recreation
Commission member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict
of interest in this matter.
9/5/17, Item_____
Page 4 of 4
RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY’S STATEGIC PLAN
The City’s Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality,
Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. The
proposed South Central Park addresses the Healthy Community and Connected Community
goals as it seeks to provide recreational opportunities for residents.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
There is no current fiscal year impact to the City.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
This is a turnkey park meaning that the developer builds the park on behalf of the City to meet
their park obligations. There will be no capital cost to the City for the creation of this park. The
only cost will be the cost per acre to the general fund each year for the maintenance of the park,
described in the discussion section of this report.
The budget for the development of the park is $2.63 million ($2.10m construction costs and
$0.53m soft costs.)
The current costs estimate for design and construction of the park prepared by the design
consultants is $2.63 million.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Park Design Exhibits
Prepared by: Mary Radley, Landscape Architect, Development Services Department
1
STRATA PARK
MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
July 27, 2017
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
2
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
SHEET INDEX
1. SITE CONTEXT
2. SITE ANALYSIS
3. gOALS AND ObjECTIvES
4. PARK MASTER PLAN
5. PERSPECTIvE vIEwS
6. PARK AMENITIES AND fuRNISHINgS
7. SHADE STRuCTuRE CHARACTER IMAgES
8. HARDSCAPE MATERIALS
9. LIgHTINg CHARACTER
10. HARDSCAPE MATERIALS
11. PLANTINg PALETTE
12. COMfORT STATION
13. SITE uTILITIES, gRADINg & DRAINAgE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
3
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
SITE ANALYSIS
INSTITuTIONAL
OPEN SPACE
COMMERCIAL
MuLTI-fAMILY
TOwNHOME
SINgLE fAMILY
OffICE
STRATA
PARK
LAND uSE PLAN
vEHICuLAR
REgIONAL TRAIL
PARK CIRCuIT wALK
PASEO
STRATA
PARK
CIRCuLATION PLAN
OPEN SPACE
STRATA
PARK
OPEN SPACE PLAN
bIRCH R
D
EASTLAKE PARKwAYORION AvENuEMETRO AvENuESTRATA STREET
OPTIMA STREETMONTAgE AvENuESR - 125bIRCH R
D
EASTLAKE PARKwAYORION AvENuEMETRO AvENuESTRATA STREET
OPTIMA STREETMONTAgE AvENuESR - 125bIRCH R
D
EASTLAKE PARKwAYORION AvENuEMETRO AvENuESTRATA STREET
OPTIMA STREETMONTAgE AvENuESR - 125
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
4
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
SITE ANALYSIS
SITE vIEw EAST TO MOuNTAINSSITE vIEw NORTH TO MOuNTAINS
STYLuS PARK ENTRYvIEw INTO SITE fROM NORTHEAST CORNER ALONg STRATA STREET STYLuS PARK STREETSCAPE
CONTEXT CONDITIONSSITE
SITE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
5
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
SITE ANALYSIS
REGIONA
L
T
R
AI
LCENTRAL PASEOMOUNTAIN VIEWMOUNTAI
N
VI
E
W
- PRESER
V
E
D
B
Y
P
RI
V
A
T
E
D
RI
V
E
PREVAILING
BREEZE
FREESTANDING
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
TOWNHOME
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
TOWNHOME
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
(4-6 STORIES)
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
(4-6 STORIES)
ORION
PARK
STRATA
PARK
STRATA
S
T
R
E
E
T
ORION
AVENUEPRIVATE
DR
IVEMONTAGE AVENUE
M
I
L
L
E
N
I
A
A
V
E
N
U
E
BUFFER
ARRIVAL
ENTRY
SITE DRAINAGE AND SLOPEELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
(4-6 STORIES)
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
(4-6 STORIES)PRIVATE
DR
IVEPRIVATE
DR
IVEPRIVATE
DR
IVEPRIVATE
DR
IVE
SUN
LEgEND
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
ROAD ALIGNMENT
VIEWS
PARK ENTRIES
PARK SPACE
Strata Park is located at the terminus
of the central paseo, and forms an
important activity node in both the
regional trail network and community
green spine. As the meeting point
between the multifamily residential
developments, and single family
housing it becomes a gathering space
for multiple generations - with direct
connections from adjacent homes
with recreational opportunities for all
of Chula vista. The park location gives
easy access to Orion Park, as well
as the possibility for complementary
programming. Along the same view
corridor the activity node provides views
to the mountains beyond. The activated
north-east corner of the park provides
opportunity for the comfort station to
support a large community gathering
area, and tie into larger regional
connections.
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
6
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
2009 EASTER uRbAN CENTER PARK CONCEPT PLANS
TOwN SQuARE PARK PASEO
600'
STRATA PARKTOwN SQuARE PARK PASEO STRATA PARK
N NOT TO SCALE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
7
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
COMMuNITY PARK AMENITIES
ORION PARK STYLuS PARK (fuTuRE) MILLENIA PARK STRATA PARK
- COMfORT STATION
- COMMuNITY PLAZA
- SHADE STRuCTuRE/TRELLIS
- PICNIC AREA
- SPLASH PAD
- DOg RuN
- PLAY AREA / TOT LOT
- bOCCE COuRTS
- MOvAbLE TAbLES & CHAIRS
- fLEXIbLE LAwN
- COMfORT STATION
- PLAY AREA / TOT LOT
- TREE HOuSE
- SOCCER fIELD
- TENNIS COuRTS
-bASKETbALL COuRTS
- fLEXIbLE LAwN
- COMfORT STATION
- COMMuNITY PLAZA
- SHADE STRuCTuRE/TRELLIS
- PICNIC AREA
- wATER fEATuRE
- DOg RuN
- PLAY AREA / TOT LOT
- TERRACED SEATINg
- COMfORT STATION
- COMMuNITY PLAZA
- SHADE STRuCTuRE/TRELLIS
- PICNIC AREA
- PORCH SwINgS
- fLEXIbLE fITNESS AREA
- fLEXIbLE LAwN
- gAME/ACTIvITY AREAS:
- PINg-PONg
- fOOSbALL
- bEAN bAg TOSS
- HORSESHOE
- COMMuNITY gARDEN
- MOvAbLE TAbLES & CHAIRS
THE STRATA PARK PLAN IS INTERSPERSED wITH MuLTI-gENERATIONAL ACTIvITY SPACES TO COMPLEMENT
ADjACENT PARK PROgRAMS.
SHADE STRuCTuRE wITH PATTERN AND COLOR
COMMuNITY gARDEN
wALKINg TRAILS
PICNIC AREA
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
8
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PROjECT NARRATIvE
PROjECT gOALS PROjECT NARRATIvE
• CREATE AN ICONIC AND ACTIvATED COMMuNITY SPACE
• SuPPORT AND ENHANCE THE MILLENIA STREETSCAPES
• ENSuRE STRONg CONNECTIONS bETwEEN THE PARK AND THE
SuRROuNDINg DEvELOPMENT
• ESTAbLISH THE PARK AS A NEIgHbORHOOD fOCAL POINT
• ACCOMMODATE PROgRAMMINg Of COMMuNITY ACTIvITIES
• INCLuDE A MIX Of ACTIvE AND PASSIvE uSES
• ENCOuRAgE MuLTI-gENERATIONAL ENjOYMENT
• CREATE AN INvITINg AND fLEXIbLE SPACE
• DESIgN A vARIETY Of OPEN AND SHADED OuTDOOR AREAS
• ACCOMMODATE A vARIETY Of gROuP SIZES
• uTILIZE A DROugHT TOLERANT AND LOw MAINTENANCE PLANT PALETTE
• INCORPORATE uNIvERSAL AND ACCESSIbLE DESIgN
• INCLuDE AN AuTOMATED EffICIENT AND LOw MAINTENANCE
RECLAIMED IRRIgATION SYSTEM
• INCLuDE A POTAbLE IRRIgATION SYSTEM fOR THE COMMuNITY gARDEN
• DEvELOP STORMwATER TREATMENT AS A fEATuRE
• REvEAL AND INTEgRATE LIgHT AND SHADOw
THE STRATA PARK PLAN ESTAbLISHES THE PARK AS A NEIgHbORHOOD
fOCAL POINT bY TYINg INTO ADjACENT PEDESTRIAN ROuTES AND
CREATINg ACTIvE gATHERINg DESTINATIONS. THE DESIgN PRESENTED
IS AN EvOLuTION Of THE INITIAL MASTER PLAN CONCEPT wHICH HAS
bEEN REfINED TO bEST SERvE THE COMMuNITY gIvEN CuRRENT SITE
CONDITIONS AND EvOLuTION Of SuRROuNDINg DEvELOPMENTS.
THE ENTRY PLAZAS LOCATED AT THE TERMINuS Of THE PASEO AND THE
CORNER Of STRATA STREET AND MONTAgE AvENuE ACCOMMODATE A
vARIETY Of gROuP SIZES AND ACTIvITIES, wHILE DESIgNED TO EXPRESS
LIgHT AND SHADOw AS A CENTRAL fEATuRE Of THE SITE. A LAYERED
CENTRAL TRELLIS AT THE MAIN PLAZA INCORPORATES A RHYTHM Of
SHADE, SHADOw, LIgHT AND COLOR TO bECOME A DESTINATION fEATuRE
vISIbLE fROM THE PASEO. THE ORIENTATION Of THE TRELLIS REDIRECTS
vIEwS AND MOvEMENT TOwARD PLAZA AND LAwN SPACES TO CREATE A
SEAMLESS CONNECTION TO THE PARK PROgRAMMINg.
INfORMAL gARDEN-LIKE EDgES ALONg STRATA STREET AND THE
ADjACENT RESIDENTIAL DEvELOPMENTS fORM A TEXTuRED AND
COLORfuL bACKDROP TO PARK ACTIvITIES. THIS PLANTED EDgE
INTEgRATES wITH gENTLE TOPOgRAPHY TO REINfORCE PARK
CIRCuLATION AND fRAME gATHERINg SPACES AND vIEw CORRIDORS.
THE PLANTINg PALETTE uTILIZES DROugHT TOLERANT AND SITE ADAPTED
PLANTINg TO CREATE A bRIgHT, COLORfuL AND ALMOST gLOwINg EffECT
THAT CHANgES SEASONALLY. PLANT SPECIES ENgAgE THE SENSES
THROugH COLOR, fRAgRANCE, DAPPLED LIgHT, TEXTuRE AND MOvEMENT,
wHILE REINfORCINg CITY SuSTAINAbILITY AND MAINTENANCE gOALS.
THE LOOSE PLANTINg COMPOSITION ALLOwS THE gARDEN TO bECOME A
SANCTuARY AND INfORMAL PLAY AREA INTERSPERSED wITH PLAYfuL
LIgHT fEATuRES.
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
9
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PARK MASTER PLAN
STRAT
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
R
I
v
A
T
E
D
R
I
v
E PRIvATE
DR
IvE
A
b
C
D
E
f
g
H
I
j
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
u
v
w
X
PROgRAM ELEMENTS
Open Lawn / Flexible Event Space
Shade Structure
Regional Trail
Community Garden
Hydration Station
Picnic/BBQ Area w/ Hot Coal Bin
Fitness Court
Informal Path
Elevated Ring Light Feature
Flexible Use Plaza
Comfort Station and Storage Building
Vegetated Stormwater Swale
Porch Swings
Removable Bollards
Concrete Ping Pong Table
Concrete Foosball Table
Horse Shoe Court
Concrete Bean Bag Toss
Sun Garden
Moon Garden
Monument Sign Attached To Building
Moveable Furnishings
Fixed Picnic Seating
Lighted Boulders
HARDSCAPE LEgEND
Standard Gray Concrete W/ Sand Finish
Glow In The Dark Aggregate Paving
Stabilized Decomposed Granite
Enhanced Paving: Pavers Or Integral
Color Concrete with Sand Finish
N 50 SCALE
b
C
K
L
L
L
A
M
O
N
P
Q
R
S
S
T
u
D
f
f
f
H
H
H
I
I
E
j
v
vw
X
X
X
g
0 100’50’25’
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
10
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
bIRD'S EYE vIEw LOOKINg NORTHEAST
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
11
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
vIEw DOwN PASEO
vIEw fROM PASEO
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
12
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
TRELLIS vIEw fROM bEAN bAg TOSS COuRT
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
13
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
EAST PARK ENTRANCE bY COMfORT STATION
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
14
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
SHADED SEATINg uNDER TRELLIS
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
15
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
SOuTHEAST MOON gARDEN ENTRANCE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
16
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
wEST PARK ENTRANCE NEAR COMMuNITY gARDEN
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
17
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
wEST CORNER ENTRANCE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
18
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
TRELLIS CHARACTER IMAgERY
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
19
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PARK AMENITIES AND fuRNISHINg
fOOD TRuCK PLAZA
COMMuNITY gARDEN
OuTDOOR fOOSbALL OuTDOOR fITNESS AREA OuTDOOR fITNESS bIKES
HORSESHOES OuTDOOR PINg PONg OuTDOOR bEAN bAg TOSS
MOvIES IN THE PARK CROSSfIT TRAININg gROuP gAMES
PROgRAM + AMENITIES
TEMPORARY / fLEXIbLE PROgRAM ACTIvITIES
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
20
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PARK fuRNISHINgS AND MATERIALS
bENCHES
TRASH AND RECYCLINg
PICNIC TAbLES
TAbLE wITH IPE OR ALuMINuM SLATSbENCH wITH IPE OR ALuMINuM SLATS
CONCRETE RECEPTACLE
MOvAbLE TAbLE AND CHAIRS
ALuMINuM CAfE TAbLE AND CHAIRS
bIKE RACK
HYDRATION STATIONgARDEN fENCE
ALuMINuM RACK
fOuNTAIN AND bOTTLE fILLINg6 fOOT wOOD OR METAL POST AND wIRE MESH fENCE
Home / Halsey Taylor Endura II Outdoor HydroBoost Bottle Filling, Station Bi-Level Pedestal
NonFilter NonRefrige FreezeResist, Gray
Image May Not Reflect Selected Options
Halsey Taylor Endura II Outdoor HydroBoost
Bottle Filling, Station Bi-Level Pedestal
NonFilter NonRefrige FreezeResist, Gray
Page 1 of 4Halsey Taylor Endura II Outdoor HydroBoost Bottle Filling, Station Bi-Level Pedestal N...
5/23/2017http://www.halseytaylor.com/4420bf1ufrkgry
CHARCOAL bbQ ASH DISPOSAL
STEEL fREESTANDINg CHARCOAL bbQ PRECAST CONCRETE ASH bIN
ALuMINuM bENCH SwINg
bENCH SwINg
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
21
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
LIgHTINg CONCEPT - bANDED LIgHT
ILLuMINATED PAvINg bANDS or
PINLIgHTS
LIgHT POSTS
LED TREE RINgS
LIgHT bOLLARDS
TRELLIS LIgHTS
gLOwINg bOuLDERS
gLOwINg AggREgATE
bIg DIAgRAM SHOwINg THE LIgHTINg CNOCEPT fROM PASEO TO
STRATA PARK
N 50 SCALE
LEgEND
IN GROUND LIGHTING
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT LIGHTING
VERTICAL LIGHTING
SPECIALTY LIGHTING
A
A
A
E
A
C
C
C
f
f
g
g
g
g
g
D
ED
D
b
b
b
0 100’50’25’
STRAT
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
R
I
v
A
T
E
D
R
I
v
E PRIvATE
DR
IvE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
22
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PARK fuRNISHINgS AND MATERIALS
POuRED IN PLACE RubbER SuRfACINg AT
fITNESS AREA
bANDED CONCRETE PAvINg AT MAIN PLAZA STAbILIZED DECOMPOSED gRANITE AT
gATHERINg AREAS
REgIONAL TRAIL
EXPOSED AggREgATE CONCRETE AT bbQ AREAS
SECONDARY PATHS: STAbILIZED DECOMPOSED gRANITE wITH CONCRETE MOw
CuRb
SAND fINISH CONCRETEgLOwINg
AggREgATE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
23
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PLANTINg CHARACTER DIAgRAM
LAwN - fLEXIbLE TuRf AREA
SuN gARDEN - SCuLPTuRAL SuCCuLENTS wITH
fLOwERINg EvERgREEN SHRubS AND bRIgHT
SEASONAL COLOR
ORNAMENTAL - gRAPHIC bANDS Of bRIgHT AND
fLOwERINg PLANTS
MOON gARDEN - CASCADINg gRASSES AND
SHRubS wITH COOL TONE fLOwERS AND vARIEgATED
AND TINTED fOLIAgE ACCENTS
STREETSCAPE- PER STREETSCAPE PLAN
LARgE SHADE TREE SuCH AS:
uLMuS PARvIfOLIA
fLOwERINg ACCENT TREE SuCH AS:
jACARANDA MIMOSIfOLIA
EvERgREEN STREET TREE SuCH AS:
QuERCuS ILEX
AIRY CANOPY TREE SuCH AS:
PLATANuS RACEMOSA
N 50 SCALE
LEgEND
0 100’50’25’
ZELKOvA SERRATA
' vILLAgE gREEN'
TREES PER APPROvED STREET IMPROvEMENT PLANS
METROSIDEROS
EXCELSA
ARCHONTOPHOENIX
CuNNINgHAMIANA
gEIjERA
PARvIfLORA
STRAT
A
S
T
R
E
E
T
P
R
I
v
A
T
E
D
R
I
v
E PRIvATE
DR
IvE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
24
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PLANTINg PALETTE - STRATA STREETSCAPE (fROM PREvIOuS APPROvED PLANS)
ZELKOvA SERRATA ' vILLAgE gREEN'
SAwLEAf ZELKOvA
ARCHONTOPHOENIX CuNNINgHAMIANA
KINg PALM
RHAMNuS CALIfORNICA 'LITTLE SuR'
LITTLE SuR COffEEbERRY
PHORMIuM 'MAORI QuEEN'
MAORI QuEEN NEw ZEALAND fLAX
HELICTOTRICHON SEMPERvIRENS
bLuE OAT gRASS
METROSIDEROS EXCELSA
NEw ZEALAND CHRISTMAS TREE
juNCuS PATENS 'ELK bLuE'
SPREADINg RuSH
CAREX PRAEgRACILIS
SLENDER SEDgE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
25
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PLANTINg PALETTE - SuN gARDEN (SuCH AS)
ALOE ARbORESCENS 'SPINELESS'
TOOTHLESS TORCH ALOE
HETEROMELES ARbuTIfOLIA 'DAvIS gOLD'
DAvIS gOLD TOYON
CISTuS X PuRPuREuS
ORCHID ROCKROSE
ACACIA REDOLENS 'LOw bOY'
PROSTRATE ACACIA
ESCHSCHOLZIA CALIfORNICA
CALIfORNIA POPPY
SIMMONDSIA CHINENSIS
jOjObA
ERIOgONuM fASCICuLATuM
buCKwHEAT
CRASSuLA fALCATA
AIRPLANE PLANT
bOugAINvILLEA ORANSENKA
ORANgE bOugAINvILLEA
gEIjERA PARvIfLORA
AuSTRALIAN wILLOw
SCuLPTuRAL SuCCuLENTS wITH fLOwERINg EvERgREEN SHRubS AND bRIgHT SEASONAL COLOR
RHAMNuS CALIfORNICA 'LITTLE SuR'
LITTLE SuR COffEEbERRY
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
26
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PLANTINg PALETTE - MOON gARDEN (SuCH AS)CASCADINg gRASSES AND SHRubS wITH COOL TONE fLOwERS AND vARIEgATED AND TINTED fOLIAgE ACCENTS
MuHLENbERgIA RIgENS
DEER gRASS
CEANOTHuS 'YANKEE POINT'
YANKEE POINT CEANOTHuS
uLMuS PARvIfLORA
EvERgREEN ELM
ACHILLEA MILLEfOLIuM
COMMON YARROw
AEONIuM HAwORTHII
HAwORTH'S AEONIuM
TEuCRIuM fRuTICANS
buSH gERMANDER
ALOE RubROvIOLACEA
ARAbIAN ALOE
ARTEMISIA 'POwIS CASTLE'
wORMwOOD
EuPHORbIA AMYg. 'HELENA'S bLuSH'
HELENA'S bLuSH EuPHORbIA
YuCCA 'bRIgHT STAR'
bRIgHT STAR YuCCA
TRACHELOSPERMuM jASMINIOIDES
STAR jASMINE
RHAMNuS CALIfORNICA 'LITTLE SuR'
LITTLE SuR COffEEbERRY
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
27
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PLANTINg PALETTE - ORNAMENTAL gARDEN (SuCH AS)gRAPHIC bANDS Of bRIgHT AND fLOwERINg PLANTS wITH STRIKINg fORM AND TEXTuRE
DIANELLA 'CASSA bLuE'
bLuE fLAX LILY
ALOE vERA
MEDICINAL ALOE
QuERCuS ILEX
HOLLY OAK
KALANCHOE bEHARENSIS
vELvET ELEPHANT EAR
AgAvE ATTENuATA
fOX TAIL AgAvE
DIETES gRANDIfLORA
fORTNIgHT LILY
LAvANDuLA 'OTTO QuAST'
SPANISH LAvENDER
ANIgOZANTHOS 'fLAvIDuS gREEN'
gREEN ANIgOZANTHOS
wESTRINgIA 'MORNINg LIgHT'
COAST ROSEMARY
TRACHELOSPERMuM jASMINIOIDES
STAR jASMINE
CAREX PRAEgRACILIS
SLENDER SEDgE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
28
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
COMfORT STATION - PRELIMINARY fLOOR PLAN (1/4" = 1')
0 8’4’2’
PLUMBING CHASE AND
UTILITY/STORAGE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
29
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
COMfORT STATION - PRELIMINARY ELEvATIONS (3/16" = 1')
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
30
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
COMfORT STATION - INSPIRATION IMAgERY
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
31
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
N 50 SCALE 0 8’4’2’
CuT / fILL CALCuLATIONS:
1,800 CY Of fILL
SITE uTILITIES, gRADINg AND DRAINAgE
STRATA PARK
July 27, 2017
32
STRATA PARK - MILLENIA P5 MASTER PLAN
PRIME CONSuLTANT CONTACT INfORMATION
brad Lents, Principal-In-Charge
blents@spurlock-land.com
Ieszic formeller, Project Manager
iformeller@spurlock-land.com
619.681.0090
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
i
Acknowledgements
City of Chula Vista
Current Parks and Recreation Commission
Jan Buddingh
Thomas Doyle
Hector Fernandez
G. Michael German
Rennsie Gregorio
Maria Garcia-Lopez
John Zarem
2015 Parks and Recreation Commission
Joseph Boehm
Jan Buddingh
Maria Garcia-Lopez
Israel Garza
John Vogel
Staff Project Team
Kristi McClure Huckaby - Director of Recreation
Tim Farmer, Principal Recreation Manager
Gil Contreras – Principal Recreation Manager
Tiffany Allen, Assistant Director of Development Services
Richard A. Hopkins, Director of Public Works
Iracsema Quilantan, Assistant Director of Public Works
Silvia Cosio, Senior Management Analyst
Agnes Bernardo, Parks Operations Manager
Consultants
PROS Consulting, Inc.
Leon Younger – President
Neelay Bhatt – Vice President and Principal Consultant
Sarah Durham – Project Consultant
City of Chula Vista
ii
Table of Contents
- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE
1.1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT PROCESS ........................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
- COMMUNITY INPUT ............................................................................ 5 CHAPTER TWO
2.1 PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 COMMUNITY ON-LINE SURVEY .................................................................................................................................... 6
- COMMUNITY PROFILE ..................................................................12 CHAPTER THREE
3.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 12
3.2 MARKET PROFILE .............................................................................................................................................................. 19
3.3 RECREATION TRENDS ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 21
3.4 BENCHMARK ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................................. 29
- CLASSIFICATION OF SERVICES ...................................................32 CHAPTER FOUR
4.1 FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS........................................................................................................................................ 32
4.2 PARAMETERS FOR CLASSIFYING SERVICE TYPES ...................................................................................... 33
4.3 SERVICE CLASSIFICATION PROCESS ................................................................................................................... 33
- COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS .........................................................37 CHAPTER FIVE
5.1 COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS PROCESS ............................................................................................................. 37
5.2 GOAL OF THE COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS MODEL................................................................................... 37
5.3 SUMMARY OF INITIAL COST OF SERVICE ........................................................................................................... 38
- PRICING POLICY ..................................................................................39 CHAPTER SIX
6.1 PRICING PHILOSOPHY AND POLICY ....................................................................................................................... 39
- IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................41 CHAPTER SEVEN
7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 41
- CONCLUSION ..................................................................................56 CHAPTER EIGHT
APPENDIX A - FUNDING AND REVENUE STRATEGIES .............................................57
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
1
- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION 1.1
The City of Chula Vista
Recreation Department
(“Department”) undertook a cost
recovery, resource allocation and
revenue enhancement study to
update the existing fee
schedule’s fees and charges
through a policy and philosophy
based approached. This would
help to establish a consistent and
defensible mechanism to classify
offerings based on benefits
received by individual users and
the community at large.
The objective of this plan is not
to become a procedural manual
or provide recommendations set
in stone but rather to serve as a dynamic tool and a philosophical guide to help the staff continue to update
procedures associated with cost recovery and pricing. This study is intended to serve as a framework for how
the pricing policy will continue to evolve in the future. The alternative pricing strategies and revenue
generation resources are suggestions based on successful examples implemented by other park and recreation
systems and which the staff indicated they would be interested in pursuing.
PROS Consulting Inc. a national management consulting firm located in Indianapolis, IN, which specializes in
the parks and recreation industry , has partnered with the Recreation Department, the Public Works
Department and city staff in this planning process which included the following steps:
1. Conduct meetings with staff, elected officials and commission members on issues concerning the plan.
2. Benchmark fees and charges and pricing practices with those of other park and recreation agencies.
3. Develop a cost of service model to identify true costs for all offerings.
4. Recommend service classifications for each program as one of the following: core essential, important
or value added.
5. Develop cost recovery and policy recommendations based on the service classifications.
City of Chula Vista
2
PROJECT PROCESS 1.2
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 1.3
These recommendations are guidelines for the City leadership and the Recreation Department to follow. It is
important to keep a flexible approach as it applies to implementation of the recommendations. Consistent
measurement and tracking as well as on-going communication with the community will be critical to ensure
buy-in for the process.
The recommendations are based on the following:
Community input from public meetings
1200+ online and print survey responses in English and Spanish obtained from every recreation facility
Comparable information from benchmarked sources
Available direct, indirect and overhead cost data supplemented by staff assumptions
Parks and Recreation Commission input
Iterative staff feedback across multiple City departments
Consultant’s operational experiences and nationwide best practices
How do we classify and manage our
services based on our mission, the
cultural context of Chula Vista and
within the financial realities of our
economy?
What is the true cost us to perform
our services and what are the best
methods of managing these costs?
What practices and
successful strategies are
being utilized by arts,
recreation and community
service systems similar to
Chula Vista?
What are the recommended cost
recovery strategies, to improving the
long-term financial viability of the
Chula Vista Recreation Department?
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
3
The following are the key recommendations that are outlined in detail in Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 of this
report.
Key Recommendations
1. Incorporate Program Based Pricing Philosophy Based on Exclusivity and Levels of (Individual versus
Community) Benefit
2. Offer Base Prices with Resident and/or Nonprofit Discounts
3. Offer Differential Pricing Rates (Prime-Time and Non-Prime Time rates)
4. Annually Update the Cost of Service Model
5. Incorporate City’s Asset Management Program into Recreation Fees
6. Seek Non-Traditional Funding Sources
7. Update Master Fee Schedule
City of Chula Vista
4
CONCLUSION 1.4
The key to a successful plan and philosophy centers on knowing the true costs to produce a service or product
and using a consistent process to manage, expand or eliminate offerings based on community values and
financial goals. The expectation is not that the plan is perfect from the start but that it is realistic and
dynamic, thus allowing the staff to continue using and updating it over time.
Pricing of services is a dynamic process and complex process. By recommending a consistent philosophy driven
by service classifications, cost recovery goals and differential pricing, th e proposed plan supports Council goals
and establishes a sustainable process for cost recovery in the future.
The pursuit of earned income dollars should continue to be emphasized, and support and training should be
provided to staff to ensure the plan’s success in achieving the desired results. Additionally, updating the cost
of service model annually will allow s taff to reflect revenue and expense updates accurately in the updated
Master Fee Schedule. If the recommendations are implemented in their entirety, based on current projections
and market conditions, it is realistic to estimate a 5% - 10% increase in as a combination of increased revenue
and streamlined expenses (as well as operational efficiencies). This could translate into an impact of $100,000
- $200,000 on the bottom line in the upcoming year, which will go a long way towards helping the Recreation
Department achieve increased financial sustainability.
The recommendations outlined recognize Chula
Vista’s growing and diverse population, the socio-
environment and the need to ensure long-term
financial sustainability.
Lastly, a successful plan implementation requires a
focused persistence but also warrants patience in
implementing, tracking and modifying strategies
based on their success or failure. It is important to
bear in mind that this plan is meant to be a
guideline that helps elevate the data-driven
decision making process of the Recreation
Department and thus lead to long-term financial
sustainability.
Supportive leadership and trained staff who all buy into the collective vision and consistently communicate
that vision to all users will be the key to ensuring that the Recreation Department meets the community needs
in a financially sustainable manner for years to come.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
5
- COMMUNITY INPUT CHAPTER TWO
PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARY 2.1
Chula Vista staff helped organize open public meetings in
October 2014 at two locations: Norman Park Senior Center and
Montevalle Community Center. They were also followed by a
second round of meetings at the same sites in September 2015.
These meetings were publicized by City staff through written
invitation letters, email blasts, publicity specifically at the
centers and word of mouth.
The goal of the first set of meetings was to obtain broad
community input and their preferences for a host of revenue
and pricing decisions ranging from differential pricing to
scholarships and nonresident fees to new revenue sources. The
second set of meetings shared initial findings and
recommendations in order to gather community feedback and
keep them updated with the progress. There were over fifty attendees who expressed a wide range of
opinions, and a broad consensus on several key issues.
The following table demonstrates the summary findings from the public meetings.
Issues Community Feedback
Resident / Nonresident pricing Most would support instituting a higher fee structure for
nonresidents who use City Services
Basic / Intermediate Programs
There was a split between those who would and would not
support user fee increases based on the advanced/specialized
nature of certain programs or services
Admin Fee
Respondents indicated they would support an administrative fee
support if there was assurance that the fees collected would be
used towards a specific park or facility, or for maintenance or
enhancement of that park or facility
Price Discount (Non-prime time)
Respondents would support a price discount to attend programs
at a less convenient location or time but were uncertain about
price increase for prime time slots.
Willingness to pay more to create a self-
sustaining Scholarship Fund? Yes, a majority of respondents indicated they would support
City of Chula Vista
6
COMMUNITY ON -LINE SUR VEY 2.2
An online survey powered by Survey Monkey was administered to the Chula Vista community during the months
of March - April 2015. This survey focused on how supportive the community was of initiating new fee policy
and pricing structure. Staff conducted outreach and community engagement via email blasts and online
communication. Additionally, staff printed copies of the survey in English and Spanish and had made the copies
available at each center to ensure greater access and participation.
The survey received a total of 1,209 responses which is among the highest response rates the consulting firm
has ever seen and speaks highly of staff’s extensive efforts and an engaged community.
Below are summary responses from those surveys , followed by select open ended comments received during
the survey process.
2.2.1 ARE YOU A RESIDENT (HAVING MAIL DELIVERE D TO AN ADDRESS IN C HULA VISTA)?
About 10% of all respondents were nonresidents which means over 1,000 respondents were residents of Chula
Vista. This indicates that the survey findings reflect true community findings and represent the audience that
the Department and City serves.
90.49%
9.51%
Yes No
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
7
2.2.2 WOULD YOU SAY YOU AR E SATISFIED OR DISSA TISFIED WITH THE VAL UE RECEIVED FOR
THE AMOUNT PAID TO R ECEIVE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECREA TION SERVICES?
The respondents indicated a very high level of satisfaction with the value they received for what they paid.
Nearly 80% of all respondents stated that they were somewhat or very satisfied , which compares favorably to
results the consultant team has seen nationwide.
2.2.3 I WOULD SUPPORT INST ITUTING A HIGHER FEE STRUCTURE FOR NONRESIDENT S WHO USE
CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECREATION SERVICES.
Over 70% of all respondents indicated support for higher nonresident fees to be charged while 27% did not
support it. However, one must keep in mind that 10% of all respondents were nonresidents hence the
opposition to nonresident fee from actual residents is expected to be much less, and indicates a high
preference for differential pricing for residents versus nonresidents.
37%
41%
11%
6%5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Very Dissatisfied Don't Know or Not
Applicable
34%35%
12%
15%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don't Know or
Not Applicable
City of Chula Vista
8
2.2.4 I WOULD SUPPORT A FE E STRUCTURE WHERE TH E USER FEE INCREASES BASED ON
ADVANCED OR SPECIALI ZED NATURE OF THE PR OGRAM OR SERVICE.
A majority (52%) supported having higher fees for specialized programs versus introductory level programs or
services offered by the Department.
2.2.5 I WOULD SUPPORT PAYI NG A HIGHER PRICE FO R AN INSTRUCTOR WITH SPECIALIZED
CREDENTIALS VE RSUS AN INSTRUCTOR W ITH THE MINIMUM NECE SSARY.
Over 2/3rds of all respondents (67%) supported having higher fees for instructors with specialized credentials
for programs services offered by the Department. This indicates a willingness to pay higher fees b ased on the
quality of the experience offered by a higher quality or specialized instructor.
12%
40%
21%20%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don't Know or
Not Applicable
23%
44%
16%
12%
5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don't Know or
Not Applicable
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
9
2.2.6 I WOULD SUPPORT A FE E STRUCTURE THAT INC LUDES AN ADMINISTRAT IVE FEE THAT
HELPS FUND THE MAINT ENANCE OR ENHANCEMEN T OF CITY OF CHULA V ISTA PARKS,
FACILITIES AND PROGR AMS.
The results were evenly split between those willing to pay an additional administrat ive fee to help fund
maintenance versus those that were against it and thus it does not appear to be a viable recommendation at
this point based on community feedback.
2.2.7 I WOULD SUPPORT A PR ICE DISCOUNT TO ATTE ND PROGRAMS AT A LES S CONVENIENT
LOCATION OR TIME. (E XAMPLE: MUCH LIKE A MOVIE TICKET FOR A M ATINEE ACROSS TOWN
VS. EVENING AT A CLO SER LOCATION).
13%
36%
24%23%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don't Know or
Not Applicable
30%
40%
12%11%
7%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don't Know or
Not Applicable
City of Chula Vista
10
2.2.8 I WOULD BE WILLING T O PAY A SLIGHTLY HIG HER FEE TO SUPPORT A SELF -SUSTAINING
SCHOLARSHIP FUND THA T WOULD HELP PROVIDE SCHOLARSHIPS FOR THO SE UNABLE TO
AFFORD THE CITY’S RE CREATION OFFERINGS.
The results were evenly split between those not willing versus those willing to pay a slightly higher fee to help
support a self-sustaining scholarship fund to help those who may be unable to afford the offerings. It is
important to note that the Recreation Department had a scholarship fund in the past but it was eliminated due
to budget cuts.
2.2.9 OPEN ENDED FEEDBACK
The following are select comments taken from the open ended survey comment box.
Norman Park Senior Center
Great job
Limited pension, retired, no family. Norman Park is a social place for retired persons with limited
income.
Montevalle Recreation Center
Very reasonable price. Great instructors and staff.
I like it. Everything: price, diversity of activities, all.
Loma Verde Recreation Center
I am very happy with the current system!
Loma Verde and Parkway Pools
Great services and facility
15%
32%
21%
25%
8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Strongly Agree Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Don't Know or
Not Applicable
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
11
Heritage Park
Higher costs = less participants
I don't think prices are neither cheap nor expensive. But I truly believe that prices are ok for what Rec.
offers.
If the fees increase, I would not be able to participate. I come here because it is affordable. If I
wanted someone more expensive, I would take my child somewhere else.
Those who cannot afford these programs already get free preschool!
If prices stay low, there would not be much need for scholarships. We use recreation services because
they are priced decent. If prices increase, they would be more than other services in the area (YMCA,
after school, etc.) and we may choose those instead.
Otay Recreation Center
I take my child to Apples to Zebra for Teacher “___” and Teacher “___”. (names removed to protect
privacy) I would pay extra if they were trained with credentials!
I'd be fine with paying a higher price for better equipment.
Pricing is very fair.
Having two girls in sports, we need to make skill development a priority and need coaches who know
how to coach. I would be very willing to pay more for this. Also would pay more for girls’ only sports!
If fees go up then class size needs to go down, especially for swim lessons.
I believe we pay higher fees for those classes with independent contractor teachers (art, cooking,
certain of the language courses) already. Appreciate those offerings greatly!
Prices are way too much for recreation
Your programs are a gift to our community. You need to charge what you must to sustain good teachers
and employees and maintain the facilities. We have greatly appreciated the classes for special needs
kids. We have also enjoyed swim lessons and some of your free soccer and basketball classes. We live
on very little and are grateful for the reasonable fees for these classes. If you must raise your prices,
then do it and God will help those of us that need it.
I think your services are very affordable & that's the reason why so many people enroll in your
programs. If you raise those fees, you run the risk of losing a lot of customers, because if your fees are
about the same as someone closer to them, they might just go there instead.
I support any raise hike that subsidizes financial aid or education.
I am generally against increased rates of any kind.
I am thankful for the wonderful staff at all the recreational locations. I have always been impressed
with dedication and kindness of the instructors my children have been with. Thank you.
I would support a lesser fee for services for residents of Chula Vista for use of recreational facilities
City of Chula Vista
12
- COMMUNITY PROFILE CHAPTER THREE
DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 3.1
The Demographic Analysis provides an understanding of the population within the City of Chula Vista,
California. This analysis is reflective of the total population, and its key characteristics such as age segments,
income levels, race, and ethnicity.
It is important to note that future projections are all based on historical patterns . Unforeseen circumstances
could have a significant bearing on the validity of the final projections.
3.1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
The total population within the Chula Vista jurisdictional boundary had an increase of approximately 2.7% from
243,916 in 2010 to 250,584 in 2013. The current estimated population is projected to reach 263,637 in 2018,
and total 288,259 by 2028.
According to the U.S. Census reports, the total number of households has increased by approximately 2%, from
75,515 in 2010 to 77,046 in 2013. The total number of households is expected to grow to 80,668 by 2018 and
reach 87,112 by 2028.
The city’s median household income of $63,207 is above the state and national averages, while per capita
income ($25,279) falls below both averages.
Based on the 2010 Census, the population of the Chula Vista is much younger (33.7 years) than the median age
of the U.S. (37.2 years). Projections show that the target area will undergo an aging trend, with the 55+ group
growing to represent 25.7% of the total population by 2028.
The majority of the estimated 2013 population is White Alone (53.28%), with the Some Other Race (20.67%)
representing the largest minority, while those of Hispanic/Latino origin represent 59.42% of the populace.
Future projections through 2028 expect the White Alone segment to decrease minimally to 51.91% of the total
population, followed by the Some Other Race (22.58%) and Asian (14.52%) minorities. The Hispanic ethnicity is
forecasted to increase to 65.88% of the total population by 2028.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
13
3.1.2 METHODOLOGY
Demographic data used for the analysis was obtained from U.S. Census Bureau and from Environmental Systems
Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI), the largest research and development organization dedicated to Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) and specializing in population projections and market trends. All data was acquired
in July 2014 and reflects actual numbers as reported in the 2010 Censuses, and estimates for 2013 and 2018 as
obtained by ESRI. Straight line linear regression was performed by PROS for the projected 2023 and 2028
demographics. The geographic boundary of the City of Chula Vista was utilized as the demographic analysis
boundary shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1-Target Area Boundaries
City of Chula Vista
14
RACE AND ETHNICITY D EFINTIONS
The minimum categories for data on race and ethnicity for Federal statistics, program administrative reporting,
and civil rights compliance reporting are defined as below . The Census 2010 data on race are not directly
comparable with data from the 2000 Census and earlier censuses; caution must be used when interpreting
changes in the racial composition of the US population over time. The latest (Census 2010) definitions and
nomenclature are used within this analysis.
American Indian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South
America (including Central America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment
Asian – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast
Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea,
Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam
Black – This includes a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – This includes a person having origins in any of the original
peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands
White – This includes a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East,
or North Africa
Hispanic or Latino – This is an ethnic distinction, a subset of a rac e as defined by the Federal
Government; this includes a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or
other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
15
243,916 250,584 263,637 275,859
288,259
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2010
Census
2013
Estimate
2018
Projection
2023
Projection
2028
Projection
City of Chula Vista: Total Population
Total Population
3.1.3 CHULA VISTA POPULACE
POPULATION
The City of Chula Vista has witnessed very little growth in recent years. From 201 0 to 2013, the city’s total
population experienced an increase of 2.7%, from 243,916 to 250,584. Projecting ahead, the total population
of the target area is expected to continue to grow over the next 15 y ears. Based on ESRI and straight line
regression based predictions through 2028, the local population is expected to have approximately 288,259
residents living within 87,112 households. See Figure 2.
Figure 2-Total Population
City of Chula Vista
16
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010
Census
2013
Estimate
2018
Projection
2023
Projection
2028
Projection
55+
35-54
18-34
<18
City of Chula Vista: Population by Age Segments
AGE SEGMENT
Evaluating the distribution by age segments, the city is somewhat balanced between youth, young adult,
family, and senior populations. In 2010, the largest segment by population is the 35-54 group representing
29%, and the smallest is the 55+ segment which constitutes 19.3% of the population.
Per ESRI and straight line regressions, over time, the overall composition of the population is projected to
undergo an aging trend. Based on the 2013 estimate, the 35 -54 segment remains the largest age group,
constituting 28% of the population. Future projections through 2028 show that the <18 and 35 -54 segments will
undergo small decreases in size as compared to the population as a whole, while the 18 -34 and 55+ groups will
slowly grow. The 55+ group is expected to grow more rapidly than any other segment, with approximately
25.7% of the population by 2028. This will create an even distribution among the four major segments, with
the 55+ group representing the largest segment by a narrow margin. This is consistent with general national
trends where the 55+ age group has been growing as a result of increased life expectancies and the baby
boomer population entering that age group. See Figure 3.
Figure 3-Population Age by Segments
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
17
Figure 5 - Hispanic/Latino Population
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010
Census
2013
Estimate
2018
Projection
2023
Projection
2028
Projection
City of Chula Vista: Population by Race
Two or More Races
Some Other Race
Pacific Islander
Asian
American Indian
Black Alone
White Alone
58.24%65.88%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2028
City of Chula Vista: Hispanic/Latino Population
All Others
Hispanic /
Latino Origin
(any race)
RACE AND ETHNICITY
In analyzing race and ethnicity, Chula Vista is fairly diverse. The 2013 estimate shows that 53.28% of the
population falls into the White Alone category, while Some Other Race (20.67%) and Asian (14.25%) represent
the largest minorities. The Hispanic ethnic group totals 58.24% of the estimated 2013 population. ESRI and
straight line regression data projections for 2028 expect the population to remain consistent, as the White
Alone decreases slightly to 51.91% and the Some Other Race (22.58%) and Asian (22.58%) minorities undergo
minimal increases. Those of Hispanic/Latino Origin are expected to continue an upward growth trend,
climbing to 65.88% of the population by 2028. See Figure 4 and 5.
Figure 4- Population by Race
City of Chula Vista
18
$-
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
$180,000
2013
Estimate
2018
Projection
2023
Projection
2028
Projection
Median
Household
Income
Average
Household
Income
Per Capita
Income
City of Chula Vista: Household Income Characteristics
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
Median
Household
Income
Per Capita
Income
City of Chula
Vista
California
U.S. A
City of Chula Vista: Comparative Income Characteristics
HOUSEHOLDS AND INCOM E
The City of Chula Vista’s projected
income characteristics demonstrate
steady growth trends. The median
household income is estimated to be
$63,207 in 2013 and per capita
income is an estimated $25,279. As
per ESRI and straight line regression
data, household income is projected
to grow to $123,517 by 2028, while
per capita income will reach $36,079.
The median household income
represents the earnings of all persons
age 16 years or older living together
in a housing unit. (Figure 6).
As seen in Figure 7, the city’s median household
income is above the state ($61,400) average, and is
well above the national ($52,762) average. Per
capita income falls below the state ($29,511) and
national ($27,915) averages. Future predictions
expect that both median household Income and per
capita income for the area will increase to $123,517
and $36,079, respectively, by 2028. Based on these
income characteristics, it is important to ensure a
pricing strategy that does not price people out of the
market but also focuses on financial sustainability to
ensure continued services to these populations.
Figure 6- Household Income Characteristics
Figure 7- Comparative Income Characteristics
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
19
8.0%
9.9%
17.1%
3.0%
25.0%
9.5%
18.6%
8.9%
Education Attained (25+ years old)
< 9th Grade
9-12 Grade (No Diploma)
High School Graduate
GED/Alternative Credential
Some College (No Degree)
Associate's Degree
Bachelor's Degree
Graduate/Professional Degree
32.2%
53.7%
5.3%
8.8%
Marital Status
Never Married
Married
Widowed
Divorced
MARKET PROFILE 3.2
3.2.1 LEVEL OF EDUCATION
The following chart, based on ESRI data, depicts the education level of adults 25 years and older within the
City of Chula Vista. Approximately 82% of residents have at least a GED/alternative credential or high school
diploma, and around 28% have a Bachelor’s degree or better.
3.2.2 MARITAL STATUS
The chart below, ESRI data, illustrates the marital status among residents of Chula Vista. Nearly 54% of the
population is married, while 32% are single and never have married.
City of Chula Vista
20
90.9%
9.1%
Civilian Population in Labor Force (16+ years old)
Employed
Unemployed
Expenditure Avg Spent Total Spent
Admission to Sporting Events, excl. Trips $72.85 $5,613,145
Fees for Participant Sports, ecl. Trips $149.75 $11,537,336
Fees for Recreational Lessons $159.69 $12,303,854
Membership Fees for Social/Recreation/Civic Clubs $197.11 $15,186,437
Camp Fees $52.61 $4,053,032
Rental of RVs or Boats $10.08 $776,977
Exercise Equipment and Gear, Game Tables $76.21 $5,871,597
Bicycles $32.45 $2,499,883
Camping Equipment $12.32 $949,533
Hunting and Fishing Equipment $29.04 $2,237,772
Winter Sports Equipment $9.73 $749,303
Water Sports Equipment $7.49 $577,112
Rental/Repair of Sports/Recreation/Exercise Equipment $4.63 $357,104
Recreation Expenditures
3.2.3 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
The following represents the rate of unemployment in the City of Chula Vista as per ESRI data. With just over
9% of residents unemployed, the target area is significantly higher than the national rate.
3.2.4 RECREATION EXPENDITU RES (OVERALL – NOT SPECIFIC TO RECR EATION DEPARTMENT)
The chart below, based on ESRI data, reveals household spending on select recreational activities and
equipment within the City of Chula Vista. Total and average spending are based on 77,046 households. As can
be seen, a high amount is spent annually on fees for Participant Sports, Recreation lessons an d even fees for
social, recreation and civic clubs including YMCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, private clubs and instructors as well as
city offerings.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
21
RECREATION TRENDS AN ALYSIS 3.3
The following tables summarize the findings from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) 2015 Sports,
Fitness and Leisure Activities Topline Participation Report, as well as the local market potential index data,
which compares the demand for recreational activities and spending of Chula Vista residents to the national
averages. While this information will be far more helpful in the Recreation Department’s Needs Assessment
process currently underway, these trends help predict demand for types of activities and thus allow the
consulting team to make market based pricing recommendations.
Summary of National Participatory Trends Analysis
1. Number of “inactives” increased slightly, while “actives” are participating more
a. “Inactives” increased 10.6% from 2009 to 2014, from 74.8 million to 82.7
million
b. 209 million “actives” are participating more often and in multiple
activities
2. Most popular sport and recreational activities
a. Fitness Walking (113 million)
b. Running/Jogging (51 million)
c. Treadmill (50 million)
3. Most participated in team sports
a. Basketball (23 million)
b. Tennis (18 million)
c. Baseball (13 million)
4. Activities most rapidly growing over last five years
a. Adventure Racing – up 136%
b. Non-traditional/Off-road Triathlon – up 123%
c. Squash – up 101%
d. Traditional/Road Triathlon – up 92%
e. Rugby – up 77%
5. Activities most rapidly declining over last five years
a. Wrestling – down 40%
b. Touch Football – down 32%
c. In-line Roller Skating – down 32%
d. Racquetball – down 25%
e. Slow-pitch Softball – down 23%
City of Chula Vista
22
Information released by Sports & Fitness Industry Association’s (SFIA) 201 5 Study of Sports, Fitness, and Leisure
Participation reveals that the most popular sport and recreational activities include: fitness walking,
running/jogging, treadmill, free weights and road bicycling. Most of these activities appeal to both young and
old alike, can be done in most environments, are enjoyed regardless of level of skill, and have minimal
economic barriers to entry. These popular
activities also have appeal because of the
social aspect. For example, although
fitness activities are mainly self-directed,
people enjoy walking and biking with other
individuals because it can offer a degree
of camaraderie.
Fitness walking has remained the most
popular activity of the past decade by a
large margin, in terms of total
participants. Walking participation during
the latest year data was available (201 4),
reported over 112 million Americans had
walked for fitness at least once.
From a traditional team sport standpoint,
basketball ranks highest among all sports, with approximately 23 million people reportedly participating in
2014. Team sports that have experienced significant growth in participation are rugby, lacrosse, field hockey,
ice hockey, roller hockey, and gymnastics – all of which have experienced double digit growth over the last five
years.
Between 2009 and 2014, the estimated number of “inactives” in America increased by 7.9 million individuals
(10.6%), from 74.8 million in 2013 to 82.7 million in 2014. According to the Physical Activity Council, an
“inactive” is defined as an individual age 6 and up that doesn’t take part in any “active” sport. Although
inactivity was up in 2014, the 209 million “actives” seem to be participating more often and in multiple
activities.
The Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) Sports, Fitnes s & Recreational Activities Topline Participation
Report 2014 was utilized to evaluate national sport and fitness participatory trends. SFIA is the number one
source for sport and fitness research. The study is based on online interviews carried out in Ja nuary and
February of 2015 from nearly 11,000 individuals and households.
NOTE: In 2012, the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) came into existence after a two -year strategic
review and planning process with a refined mission statement-- “To Promote Sports and Fitness Participation
and Industry Vitality”. The SFIA was formerly known as the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association (SGMA).
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
23
2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14
Golf 27,103 24,720 24,700 -0.1%-8.9%
Basketball 25,131 23,669 23,067 -2.5%-8.2%
Tennis 18,546 17,678 17,904 1.3%-3.5%
Baseball 14,429 13,284 13,152 -1.0%-8.9%
Soccer (Outdoor)13,957 12,726 12,592 -1.1%-9.8%
Badminton 7,469 7,150 7,176 0.4%-3.9%
Softball (Slow Pitch)9,180 6,868 7,077 3.0%-22.9%
Football, Touch 9,726 7,140 6,586 -7.8%-32.3%
Volleyball (Court)7,737 6,433 6,304 -2.0%-18.5%
Football, Tackle 7,243 6,165 5,978 -3.0%-17.5%
Football, Flag 6,932 5,610 5,508 -1.8%-20.5%
Volleyball (Sand/Beach)4,324 4,769 4,651 -2.5%7.6%
Gymnastics 3,952 4,972 4,621 -7.1%16.9%
Soccer (Indoor)4,825 4,803 4,530 -5.7%-6.1%
Ultimate Frisbee 4,636 5,077 4,530 -10.8%-2.3%
Track and Field 4,480 4,071 4,105 0.8%-8.4%
Racquetball 4,784 3,824 3,594 -6.0%-24.9%
Cheerleading 3,070 3,235 3,456 6.8%12.6%
Pickleball N/A N/A 2,462 N/A N/A
Softball (Fast Pitch)2,476 2,498 2,424 -3.0%-2.1%
Ice Hockey 2,018 2,393 2,421 1.2%20.0%
Lacrosse 1,162 1,813 2,011 10.9%73.1%
Wrestling 3,170 1,829 1,891 3.4%-40.3%
Roller Hockey 1,427 1,298 1,736 33.7%21.7%
Squash 796 1,414 1,596 12.9%100.5%
Field Hockey 1,092 1,474 1,557 5.6%42.6%
Boxing for Competition N/A 1,134 1,278 12.7%N/A
Rugby 720 1,183 1,276 7.9%77.2%
National Participatory Trends - General Sports
Activity Participation Levels % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
3.3.1 NATIONAL TRENDS IN G ENERAL SPORTS
The most heavily participated in sports for 2014 were golf (24.7 m illion) and basketball (23 million). While
both of these activities have seen declining participation levels in recent years, the number of participants for
each activity is well above the other activities in the
general sports category. The popularity of golf and
basketball can be attributed to the ability to compete
with relatively small number of participants. Golf also
benefits from its wide age segment appeal, and is
considered a life-long sport. Basketball’s success can
also be attributed to the limited amount of equipment
needed to participate and the limited space
requirements necessary, which make basketball the only
traditional sport that can be played at the majority of
American dwellings as a drive-way pickup game.
As seen below, since 2009, squash and other niche
sports, like lacrosse and rugby, have seen strong
growth. Squash has emerged as the overall fastest growing sport, as it has seen participation levels rise by
100% over the last five years. Based on survey findings from 200 9-2014, rugby and lacrosse have also
experienced significant growth, increasing by 77% and 73% respectively. Other sports with notable growth in
participation over the last five years were
field hockey (42.6%), roller hockey (21.7%),
ice hockey (20%), gymnastics (16.9%), and
cheerleading (12.6%). In the last year, the
fastest growing sports were roller hockey
(33.7%), squash (12.9%), competition
boxing (12.7%), lacrosse (10.9%), and rugby
(7.9%). During the last five years, the
sports that are most rapidly declining
include wrestling (40.3% decrease), touch
football (down 32.3%), and racquetball
(24.9% decrease).
In terms of total participants, the most
popular activities in the general sports
category in 2014 include golf (24.7
million), basketball (23 million), tennis
(17.9 million), baseball (13.1 million), and
outdoor soccer (12.6 million). Although
four out of five of these sports have been
declining in recent years, the sheer
number of participants demands the
continued support of these activities.
City of Chula Vista
24
2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14
Swimming (Fitness)N/A 26,354 25,304 -4.0%N/A
Aquatic Exercise 8,965 8,483 9,122 7.5%1.8%
Swimming (Competition)N/A 2,638 2,710 2.7%N/A
National Participatory Trends - Aquatics
Activity Participation Levels % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
3.3.2 NATIONAL TRENDS IN A QUATIC ACTIVITY
Swimming is unquestionably a lifetime sport, and activities in aquatics have remained very popular among
Americans. Fitness swimming is the absolute leader in multigenerational appeal with over 2 5 million reported
participants in 2013. NOTE: In 2011, recreational swimming was broken into competition and fitness
categories in order to better identify key trends.
Aquatic Exercise has a strong participation base, and has recently experienced an upward trend. Aquatic
exercise has paved the way for a less stressful form of physical activity, allowing similar gains and benefits to
land based exercise, including aerobic fitness, resistance training, flexibility, and better balance.
Doctors have begun recommending aq uatic exercise for injury rehabilitation, mature patients, and patients
with bone or joint problems due to the significant reduction of stress placed on weight -bearing joints, bones,
muscles, and also the effect of the water in reducing swelling of injurie s.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
25
2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14
Fitness Walking 110,882 117,351 112,583 -4.1%1.5%
Running/Jogging 42,511 54,188 51,127 -5.6%20.3%
Treadmill 50,395 48,166 50,241 4.3%-0.3%
Free Weights (Hand Weights)N/A 43,164 41,670 -3.5%N/A
Weight/Resistant Machines 39,075 36,267 35,841 -1.2%-8.3%
Stationary Cycling (Recumbent/Upright)36,215 35,247 35,693 1.3%-1.4%
Stretching 36,299 36,202 35,624 -1.6%-1.9%
Free Weights (Dumbells)N/A 32,209 30,767 -4.5%N/A
Elliptical Motion Trainer 25,903 27,119 28,025 3.3%8.2%
Free Weights (Barbells)26,595 25,641 25,623 -0.1%-3.7%
Yoga 18,934 24,310 25,262 3.9%33.4%
Calisthenics/Bodyweight Exercise N/A N/A 22,390 N/A N/A
Aerobics (High Impact)12,771 17,323 19,746 14.0%54.6%
Stair Climbing Machine 13,653 12,642 13,216 4.5%-3.2%
Pilates Training 8,770 8,069 8,504 5.4%-3.0%
Stationary Cycling (Group)6,762 8,309 8,449 1.7%24.9%
Trail Running 4,845 6,792 7,531 10.9%55.4%
Cross-Training N/A 6,911 6,774 -2.0%N/A
Cardio Kickboxing 5,500 6,311 6,747 6.9%22.7%
Martial Arts 6,643 5,314 5,364 0.9%-19.3%
Boxing for Fitness N/A 5,251 5,113 -2.6%N/A
Tai Chi 3,315 3,469 3,446 -0.7%4.0%
Barre N/A 2,901 3,200 10.3%N/A
Triathlon (Traditional/Road)1,148 2,262 2,203 -2.6%91.9%
Triathlon (Non-Traditional/Off Road)634 1,390 1,411 1.5%122.6%
National Participatory Trends - General Fitness
Activity Participation Levels % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Legend:Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
3.3.3 NATIONAL TRENDS IN G ENERAL FITNESS
National participatory trends in fitness have experienced some strong growth in recent years. Many of these
activities have become popular due to an increased interest among people to improve their health by engaging
in an active lifestyle. These activities also have very few barriers to entry, which provides a variety of
activities that are relatively inexpensive to participate in and can be performed by nearly anyone with no time
restrictions.
The most popular fitness activity by far is fitness walking, which had over 11 2.5 million participants in 2013,
which was a 2.9% increase from the previous year. Other leading fitness activities based on number of
participants include running/jogging (51 million), treadmill (50 million), hand weights (42 million), and
weight/resistant machines (36 million).
Over the last five years, the activities that gr ew most rapidly were off-road triathlons (up 123%), road
triathlons (up 92%), trail running (up 55%), high impact aerobics (55% increase), and yoga (up 33%). Most
recently, from 2013-2014, the largest gains in participation were high impact aerobics (14% increase), trail
running (up 11%), and barre (up 10%).
City of Chula Vista
26
2009 2013 2014 13-14 09-14
Bicycling (Road)39,127 40,888 39,725 -2.8%1.5%
Fishing (Freshwater)40,646 37,796 37,821 0.1%-7.0%
Hiking (Day) 32,542 34,378 36,222 5.4%11.3%
Camping (< 1/4 Mile of Vehicle/Home)34,012 29,269 28,660 -2.1%-15.7%
Wildlife Viewing (>1/4 Mile of Home/Vehicle)22,702 21,359 21,110 -1.2%-7.0%
Camping (Recreational Vehicle)16,977 14,556 14,633 0.5%-13.8%
Birdwatching (>1/4 mile of Vehicle/Home)13,847 14,152 13,179 -6.9%-4.8%
Fishing (Saltwater)13,054 11,790 11,817 0.2%-9.5%
Backpacking Overnight 7,757 9,069 10,101 11.4%30.2%
Archery 6,368 7,647 8,435 10.3%32.5%
Bicycling (Mountain)7,367 8,542 8,044 -5.8%9.2%
Hunting (Shotgun)8,611 7,894 7,894 0.0%-8.3%
Skateboarding 7,580 6,350 6,582 3.7%-13.2%
Roller Skating, In-Line 8,942 6,129 6,061 -1.1%-32.2%
Fishing (Fly)5,755 5,878 5,842 -0.6%1.5%
Climbing (Sport/Indoor/Boulder)4,541 4,745 4,536 -4.4%-0.1%
Climbing (Traditional/Ice/Mountaineering)2,062 2,319 2,457 6.0%19.2%
Adventure Racing 1,005 2,095 2,368 13.0%135.6%
Bicycling (BMX) 1,858 2,168 2,350 8.4%26.5%
National Participatory Trends - Outdoor Recreation
Activity Participation Levels % Change
NOTE: Participation figures are in 000's for the US population ages 6 and over
Large Increase
(greater than 25%)
Moderate
Increase
(0% to 25%)
Moderate
Decrease
(0% to -25%)
Large Decrease
(less than -25%)
3.3.4 NATIONAL TRENDS IN G ENERAL RECREATION
Results from the SFIA’s Topline Participation Report demonstrate increased popularity of numerous outdoor
recreation activities among Americans. Much like the general fitness activities, these activities encourage a n
active lifestyle, can be performed individually or with a group, and are not limited by time restraints. In 2014,
the most popular activities in the outdoor recreation category include road bicycling (40 million), freshwater
fishing (38 million), and day hiking (36 million).
From 2009-2014, outdoor recreation activities that have undergone large increases are adventure racing (up
136%), archery (up 33%), backpacking overnight (up 30%), and BMX bicycling (up 27%). Over the same time
frame, activities declining most rapidly were in-line roller skating (down 32%), camping within ¼ mile of home
or vehicle (down 16%), and recreational vehicle camping (down 14%). See Figure 11.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
27
Activity MPI
Participated in Baseball 117
Participated in Basketball 109
Participated in Football 102
Participated in Golf 92
Participated in Soccer 132
Participated in Softball 105
Participated in Tennis 104
Participated in Volleyball 105
City of Chula Vista Participatory Trends - General Sports
Activity MPI
Participated in Aerobics 104
Participated in Jogging/ Running 112
Participated in Pilates 92
Participated in Swimming 98
Participated in Walking for Exercise 101
Participated in Weight Lifting 107
Participated in Yoga 102
City of Chula Vista Participatory Trends - Fitness
3.3.5 CHULA VISTA SPORT AND MARKET POT ENTIAL
The following charts show sport and leisure market potential data from ESRI. A Market Potential Index (MPI)
measures the probable demand for a product or service in the City of Chula Vista. The MPI shows the
likelihood that an adult resident of the target area will participate in certain activities when compared to the
US National average.
The National average MPI is 100, therefore numbers below 100 represent a lower than average participation
rate, and numbers above 100 represent higher than average pa rticipation rate. The service area is compared to
the national average in four (4) categories – general sports, fitness, outdoor activity, and money spent on
miscellaneous recreation. Chula Vista demonstrates above average market potential index numbers in all
categories.
As seen in the tables below, the following sport and leisure trends are most prevalent for Chula Vista residents.
Cells highlighted in yellow indicate the top three sco ring activities for each category based on the purchasing
preferences of residents.
GENERAL SPORTS MARKE T POTENTIAL
FITNESS MARKET POTEN TIAL
City of Chula Vista
28
Activity MPI
Participated in Backpacking 104
Participated in Hiking 101
Participated in Bicycling (mountain)101
Participated in Bicycling (road)100
Participated in Boating (Power)82
Participated in Canoeing/Kayaking 73
Participated in Fishing (fresh water)76
Participated in Fishing (salt water)102
Participated in Horseback Riding 105
City of Chula Vista Participatory Trends - Outdoor Activity
Activity MPI
Spent on sports/rec equipment in last 12 mo: $1-99 96
Spent on sports/rec equipment in last 12 mo: $100-249 96
Spent on sports/rec equipment in last 12 mo: $250+99
Attend sports event 102
Attend sports event: baseball game - MLB reg seas 113
Attend sports event: basketball game (college)95
Attend sports event: basketball game - NBA reg seas 130
Attend sports event: football game (college)108
Attend sports event: football game - NFL Mon/Thurs 111
Attend sports event: football game - NFL weekend 109
Attend sports event: high school sports 92
Attend sports event: ice hockey - NHL reg seas 104
Went on overnight camping trip in last 12 months 92
Visited an indoor water park in last 12 months 108
Visited a theme park in last 12 months 134
Went to zoo in last 12 months 110
City of Chula Vista Participatory Trends - Money Spent on Recreation
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY MAR KET POTENTIAL
MONEY SPENT ON MISCELLANEOUS RECREATION
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
29
BENCHMARK ANALYSIS 3.4
In order to evaluate how Chula Vista’s Recreation Department ranks on program and rental fees, the consulting
team in collaboration with staff identified comparable (and best practice) agencies and developed a
benchmark matrix to be used. The agencies were all based in Southern Californ ia and are ones the City often
benchmarks against routinely. Cities included in the benchmark:
Carlsbad
Poway
Escondido
Oceanside
The key findings from the benchmark indicate that Chula Vista charges much lower than all comparable
agencies.
3.4.1 PROGRAM PRICING EXAMPLES
ADULT SOFTBALL
The following chart demonstrates program fees for adult softball . By dividing the total program cost by the
number of games offered by each benchmark city we are able to figure out cost per game per team. Total cost
per game per team include the additional official’s fee.
Chula Vista adult softball program prices are among the lowest of the benchmark cities. Chula Vista also has
the lowest fee for officials at $12.00. Poway has the highest cost per game per tea m but do not charge an
official fee.
R NR R NR
Chula Vista
10 Games: $435
Official Fee $12
$43.50
$12
$43.50
$12
$55.50 $55.50
Carlsbad
10 Games: $480
Official Fee: $22
$48.00
$22
$48.00
$22
$70.00 $70.00
Oceanside
10 Games:
$450R/$500NR
Official Fee: $15
$45
$15
$50
$15
$60.00 $65.00
Escondido
10 Games: $400
Official Fee: $20
$40
$20
$40
$20
$60.00 $60.00
Poway 10 Games: $640*$64 $64 $64.00 $64.00
Agency Total Cost / Game / TeamCost / Game / TeamSoftball
*Poway programs are run by Sportsplex USA (public/private partnership). Admission fee of $2.50 per
person/per night is not included in these figures
City of Chula Vista
30
YOUTH BASKETBALL
Chula Vista’s youth basketball program total cost per game fees are the second highest fees behind Carlsbad.
Escondido fees are the lowest at $6.88 for resident and nonresident. Poway currently does not offer a youth
basketball program.
TINY TOTS/PRESCHOOL PROGRAM
Chula Vista’s tiny tots/preschool program cost per session are among the lowest against the other benchmark
agencies. Carlsbad and Poway have the highest cost per session for residents and nonresidents.
R NR R NR
Chula Vista 10 Games $95 $119 $9.50 $11.90
Carlsbad 10 Games $151.20 $168 $15.12 $16.80
Oceanside 10 Games $80 $90 $8.00 $9.00
Escondido 8 Games $55 $55 $6.88 $6.88
Poway
Agency Youth Basketball Cost Total Cost / Game
*no municipal program
R NR R NR
Chula Vista 10 Weeks (20 Sessions)$188 $235 $9.40 $11.75
Carlsbad 4 Weeks (8 sessions)$135 $150 $16.88 $18.75
Oceanside 6 Weeks (12 Sessions)*$151 $161 $12.58 $13.42
Escondido 3 Weeks (9 Sessions)$99 $99 $11.00 $11.00
Poway 4 Weeks (8 sessions)$185 $195 $23.13 $24.38
**$10 material fee due each session
Agency Tiny Tots, or Preschool equivalent Cost Cost / Session
*$30 material fee due each session
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
31
AQUATIC PROGRAMS
The following chart depicts open swim and learn to swim fees for each of the benchmark cities. Each
benchmark city is comparable to one another with open swim cost per visit ranging from $2-$5. Chula Vista
also offers a 10 visit pass which becomes a better deal for residents and nonresident than compared to any
other benchmark cities cost per visit for open swim.
Chula Vista again is among the lowest cost per 30 min utes for learn to swim programs. Chula Vista’s resident
rates ($3.50-$4.00) cost per 30 minutes is the lowest among all the benchmark and nonresident rates ($5.30 -
$6.00) are comparable to Escondido ($5.10) and Poway ($5.82).
3.4.2 RENTAL PRICING EXAMP LES
Chula Vista’s gymnasium and pool hourly range rates are among the lowest compared to the benchmark cities.
The range includes resident and nonresident tiers as well as nonprofit pricing. Chula Vista’s hourly range rates
for multipurpose rooms are the highest at $30 -$200. The multipurpose room ranges vary greatly due to the
room size and amenities included with each room rental.
R NR R NR R NR R NR
Chula Vista
Infant
Child
Adult
Senior
Child 10-Pass
Adult 10-Pass
Senior 10-Pass
Free
$2
$4
$3
$12
$24
$18
Free
$2
$4
$3
$12
$24
$18
Free
$2
$4
$3
$1.20
$2.40
$1.80
Free
$2
$4
$3
$1.20
$2.40
$1.80
Youth (10 mtgs-30 min)
Adult (10 mtgs-30 min)
$35
$40
$53
$60
$3.50
$4.00
$5.30
$6.00
Carlsbad
Alga Norte Aquatic Center:
Youth/Teen
Adult
Spectator
Monroe Street Pool:
Youth/Teen
Adult
$3
$5
$2
$2
$4
$3
$5
$2
$2
$4
$3
$5
$2
$2
$4
$3
$5
$2
$2
$4
Youth (8 mtgs-30 min)$51.30 $57.00 $6.41 $7.13
Oceanside Lap Swim $4 $4 $4 $4 Youth (4 mtgs-30 min)$22 $32 $5.50 $8.00
Escondido Drop-in $3 $3 $3 $3 Youth (4 mtgs-50 min)$34 $34 $5.10 $5.10
Poway
Youth/Senior
Adult
$2
$2.50
$4
$5
$2
$2.50
$4
$5
Adult/Youth (8 mtgs-40 min)$52.00 $62.00 $4.88 $5.82
Cost / VisitCost Cost / 30 minAgencyOpen Swim Learn to Swim Cost
Gymnasium Multipurpose Room**Pool
Hourly*Hourly*Hourly*
Chula Vista $17-$130 $30-$200 $32-$64
Carlsbad $54-$108 $28-$98 $80-$120***
Oceanside $100-$200 $25-$150 $50
Escondido $40-$100 $15-$95 $110-$165
Poway $24-$86 $21-$94 N/A
*Rates are inclusive of Resident and Nonresident tiers, as well as Nonprofit
**Room size and amenities vary significantly
***Monroe Street Pool only (Alga Norte is $4500-$5500 for 6 hours)
Agency
City of Chula Vista
32
- CLASSIFICATION OF SE RVICES CHAPTER FOUR
FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPT S 4.1
Classifying services is an important process for an agency to follow in order to remain aligned with the
community’s interests and needs, the mission of the organization, and to sustainably operate within the bounds
of the financial resources that support it. The criteria utilized and recomm ended in service classification
stems from the concept’s foundation detailed by Dr. John Crompton and Dr. Charles Lamb, two Texas A & M
University professors with extensive expertise in marketing strategies for public recreation and park agencies.
In their publication, Marketing Government and Social Services, they propose that programs should be
evaluated on the criteria of type of service provided, who benefits, and who bears the cost of the program.
This concept is illustrated below:
The approach taken in this cost recovery project expands classifying services in the following ways:
For whom the program is targeted
For what purpose
For what benefits
For what cost
For what outcome
Type of
Service
•Core/Essential service
•Important service
•Value Added service
Who
Benefits?
•All the public
•Individuals who participate benefit but all members of the community benefit
in some way.
•Individual who participates
Who
Pays?
•The public through the tax system, no user charges
•Individual users pay partial costs
•Individual users pay full costs
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
33
PARAMETERS FOR CLASS IFYING SERVICE TYPES 4.2
The first milestone in this project was to develop a classification system for the services and functions of
Recreation Department that reflect the obligations of the entire Department, support functions performed,
and the value-added services that enrich both the visitor experience and generate revenues in mission-aligned
ways to help support operating costs.
The results of this process is a summary of classification definitions and criteria, recommended classification of
services provided by the Chula Vista Recreation Department, and a recommended range of cost recovery for
each service based on these assumptions.
Program and service classification is important as financial performance (cost recovery) goals are established
for each category of services. These classifications should be aligned with the existing cost recovery levels
identified in the Cost of Service model listed in the previous section and then organized to correspond with
cost recovery expectations defined for each category.
SERVICE CLASSIFICATI ON PROCESS 4.3
The service classification process consisted of the following steps:
1. Confirm the definition for each classification of service that fits the expectations of the Recreation
Department, their ability to meet public needs within the appropriate areas of service, and the mission
and core values of the community and the respective areas.
2. Develop criteria that can be used to evaluate each service and function within the Recreation
Department, and assign a classification that is defensible and logical.
3. Establish a range of cost recovery that can be attributed to each area listed within the service
classifications. The established range can then serve as a target for staff to work towards achieving
through a combination of reduced costs, as well as revenues from fees, charges, and non-traditional
sources.
Service Classification process was iterative with the PROS Consulting team and staff commencing the process in
a work session and then refining it through internal
discussions until there was consensus on the same.
The classifications are not meant to be set in stone. The
City should evaluate the classifications annually to ensure
congruence with the mission and values as well as the existing
financial situation and cost recovery goals.
Broad Public Benefit
Individual Benefit
Value
Added
User Fees
Important
Subsidized –
Taxes & Fees
Core Services
Mandated and General
Fund-Tax Supported
City of Chula Vista
34
4.3.1 SERVICE CLASSIFICATI ON DESCRIPTIONS
The service classification matrix below was used in the process described in the previous section. This
conceptual framework served as a guide to follow when classifying services and determining how each program
should be managed with regard to cost recovery.
Clarifying what constitutes a “Core Essential Service”, an “Important Service”, and a “Value Added Service”
will provide the Recreation Department and its stakeholders a better understanding of why and how to man age
each program area in terms of public value and private value. Additionally, the effectiveness of the criteria
linked to performance management expectations relies on the true cost of programs (direct and indirect cost)
being identified. Where a program falls within this matrix can help to determine the most appropriate cost
recovery rate or a range that should be pursued and measured.
CORE ESSENTIAL
SERVICES IMPORTANT SERVICES VALUE ADDED SERVICES
High Public Expectation High Public Expectation High Individual and Interest
Group Expectation
Free, Nominal or Fee Tailored
to Public Needs
Requires
Public Funding
Fees Cover Some Direct
Costs
Requires a Balance of
Public Funding and a Cost
Recovery Target
Fees Cover Most Direct and
Indirect Costs
Some Public Funding as
Appropriate
Substantial Public Benefit
(negative consequence if not
provided)
Public and Individual
Benefit Primarily Individual Benefit
Limited or No Alternative
Providers
Alternative Providers
Unable to Meet Demand or
Need
Alternative Providers Readily
Available
Open Access by All Open Access / Limited
Access to Specific Users
Limited Access to Specific
Users
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
35
4.3.2 CHULA VISTA RECREATI ON D EPARTMENT SERVICE CLASSIFICATI ON MATRIX
Using this process from Section 4.3.1, the Recreation Department staff in conjunction with the Consulting team
developed the classification of services based on community values and Department mission.
These classifications are the basis for future pricing policy decisions and desired cost recove ry goals for
individual areas. Best practice agencies usually have elected leadership approve these classifications while
staff implements fees and charges and revenue strategies to meet the cost recovery goals required for the
approved classifications. It is recommended that these classifications be evaluated every one to two years to
ensure alignment with community values and the established cost recovery goals.
City of Chula Vista
36
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
37
- COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS CHAPTER FIVE
The cost-of-service analysis summarizes Chula Vista’s financial information to understand the cost per unit of
service or activity, depending on the particular function.
Financial and participation (service unit) data were provided by Chula Vista’s Recreation and Public Works
staff. Departmental financial data were also supplemented with City cost allocation plan data which identifies
each department’s share of the cost for City support services. Additionally, costs for utilities such as water
were also included for park amenities such as picnic she lters etc. The City support services costs were
subsequently attributed to each division and program.
The Direct cost recovery represents the revenues divided by direct program expenditures indicating the highest
level of cost recovery. With every additional level of cost (e.g. Department overhead costs, City overhead)
added, the overall cost recovery percentage continue to decrease as revenues remain constant. However, this
comprehensive structure is the most accurate reflection of the ‘true’ costs of providing the service and the
proportion of costs recovered.
COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS PROCESS 5.1
The illustration below depicts the cost of service analysis and allocation process that was followed in this
project.
GOAL OF THE COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS MODEL 5.2
It is understood that this model was the first step in identifying the most accurate cost accounting structure
and thus, knowing the true cost of offering a program or a service. It is quite common to see agencies that
may not have every single level of costs available and, thus, the model helps make valid assumptions to fill the
gaps and help staff ensure they can capture those costs moving forward.
In order to be successful, Chula Vista must continue to update and refine the model as they move forward.
This includes determining accurate units of participation, updating costs at all levels (direct, indirect an d
overhead) and tying those to cost recovery goals based on the service classifications agreed to by the City
Council.
Gather and
confirm program
and services
operating costs
Identify
appropriate cost
of service
categories
Allocate overall
units of
participation to
categories
Estimated cost of
service for
program services
functions
City of Chula Vista
38
SUMMARY OF INITIAL COST OF S ERVICE 5.3
Given below is a sample of summary costs extracted from the Cost of Service model. The entire model is a
dynamic excel based model available to the staff for future updates and trend analysis.
As seen from the service classification section in Chapter 4, all Adult Softball is established as value-added
programs which is expected to have a cost recovery goal of 71% or higher. In addition, per the benchmark
analysis in Chapter 3, Chula Vista’s fees are also lower in comparison to most, if not all, the other
benchmarked agencies.
Thus, a combination of existing cost recovery, proposed service classification (and its ass ociated cost recovery
goal) and benchmarked fee and charge data are the factors used in determining future fees and charges
recommended in Chapter 7.
PROGRAM AREA CLASSIFICATION Value Added Core Important Value Added Important
Benefit Individual Public Public & Individual Individual Public & Individual
PROGRAM CATEGORY Adult Sports Pool Activities Preschool Special Events Youth Sports
PROGRAM CATEGORY Adult Softball
League (MSM)
Aquatics- Intro.
Instructional Levels
(Loma Verde)
Tiny Tots -
Montevalle
Community Fun
Run - (Fundraiser)
Youth Fall
Basketball League
Revenues 108,315 66,137 28,811 16,925 22,709
Expenditures:
Staff 40,957 41,512 4,318 1,613 12,264
Outside Services 480 - 1,500
Supplies & Services 17,082 6,250 175 11,670 2,349
Facility / Field Use 12,908 6,840 10,152
Cost Per Session 58,519 60,670 11,333 14,783 24,765
Number of Sessions 1 1 4 1 1
Program Cost 58,519 60,670 45,332 14,783 24,765
Other Program Costs
Total Program Costs 58,519 60,670 45,332 14,783 24,765
Department Administration 26,169 27,131 20,272 6,611 11,075
Park Cost 12,994
Custodial Staff - 7,240 6,024 3,485
City-Wide Overhead 43,077 44,661 33,370 10,882 18,230
Total Expenditures 140,759 139,701 104,997 32,276 57,554
Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures (32,444) (73,564) (76,186) (15,351) (34,845)
Cost Recovery
Direct Program Cost Recovery 185%109%64%114%92%
Program Cost Recovery with
Department Overhead 128%75%44%79%63%
Total Cost Recovery with City overhead 77%47%27%52%39%
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
39
- PRICING POLICY CHAPTER SIX
PRICING PHILOSOPH Y AND POLICY 6.1
The proposed pricing policy includes the following:
1. A proposed philosophy that focuses on exclusivity of use and the level of benefit (individual versus
community benefit) received.
2. A structure that sets fees and charges to recover true cost of service but with resident / nonprofit
discounts
3. A consistent implementation of fees and charges based on prime (peak) time and non-prime (non peak)
times
4. Standardized policies and procedures including cancellation windows, reservation policies etc.
To gain and provide consistency among the City leadership, the Parks and Recreation Commission, user groups,
staff, and the community, a philosophical revenue and pricing foundation must be implemented . As changes in
pricing strategy and philosophy are implemented, it would be helpful for the staff to incorporate the fol lowing
five steps in their approach:
6.1.1 PRICE SERVICES TO TH E BENEFITS RECEIVED
Using the classification matrix, continue to price services based on the benefits received to offset operating
costs. This approach will provide a fair method to distribute resources to the largest number of users of the
system. In addition, the Recreation Department should prepare for future changes in government funding that
may result as agencies in California and nationwide respond to fiscal realities.
6.1.2 PRICE SERVICES BASED ON COST RECOVERY GOA LS WITH PRICING FLEX IBILITY
Pricing based on meeting established cost recovery goals will provide a defensible approach to justify staff’s
decision making and ensure community and leadership buy -in for a process that is objective and process-driven
versus one that may seem more subjective and personality-driven.
6.1.3 PROVIDE USERS’ OPTIONS THROUGH DIFF ERENTIAL PRICING
Options in pricing of services allow users to pick and choose what components of the service they want to buy
and allow staff to provide a tiered range of service offerings. This approach is helpful in the establishment of
multi-tiered pricing and allows users to pick and choose what level of quality or quantity they want and will
pay for accordingly.
Differential pricing options encourage users to move to a classification that best fits their schedule and price
point. These pricing options provide opportunities for staff to maximize utilization and revenue generation for
facility rentals and program offerings. The pricing options below include some that Chula Vista currently offers
and some others that could be evaluated by staff for future offerings.
Primetime Incentive Pricing
Non-primetime Length of Stay Pricing
Season and Off-season Rates Cost Recovery Goal Pricing
Multi-tiered Program Pricing Level of Exclusivity Pricing
Group Discounting and Packaging Age Segment Pricing
Volume Pricing Equipment Pricing
City of Chula Vista
40
6.1.4 UTILIZE COST ACCOUNTING
The Recreation Department will continue developing an activity-based costing that includes direct, indirect
(and where possible, overhead) costs for the future. This will determine the cost per experience and level of
contribution before the actual pricing of the product or service. An activity based costing process will
facilitate efficient decision-making in determining the best method to price the program, activity, rental or
service in the most cost effective manner as well as identify programs that may not be able to meet their cost
recovery goals as outlined in the program classification matrix. This is an effective process but requires
appropriate resources to support data collection, analysis and reporting.
6.1.5 COMMUNICATE TRUE (FULL) COSTS TO ALL USERS
In all cases, especially when planning a price change, communicating the true (full) costs of a service or
program to all users helps increase their understanding of the value received. Often, users believe that the
price or fee they pay accounts for the entire cost of that offering. Marketing and communicating to convey the
benefits received and the level of contribution by the City will help aid the users’ understanding of the price
changes implemented.
Example: The price of your program or
service covers the individual benefit
associated with the service such as
materials and supplies, consumptive
goods, exclusive use of the facility, and
non-mission related staffing costs
associated with providing the service.
Recreation Department or this specific
program achieves a “_____” recovery
rate of the cost to provide services
primarily through user fees, while the
City’s General Fund covers the
remainder.
The fees and charges schedule
recommended in this report should be periodically reviewed and updated as needed based on the changes that
have occurred within the offerings provided. This will help the staff to evaluate which offerings should be
adjusted based on the pricing policy or cost recovery goals and also communicate the rationale behind the
changes to the users.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
41
- IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER SEVEN
These recommendations are guidelines for the city leadership and the Recreation department to follow. It is
important to keep a flexible approach as it applies to implementation of the recommendations. Consistent
measurement and tracking as well as on-going communication with the community will be critical to ensure
buy-in for the process. The recommendations are based on the following:
Community input from public meetings
1,200+ online and print survey responses in English and Spanish obtained from every recreation facility
Comparable information from benchmarked sources
Available direct, indirect and overhead cost data supplemented by staff assumptions
Parks and Recreation Commission input
Iterative staff feedback across multiple City departments
Consultant’s operational experiences and nationwide best practices
RECOMMENDATIONS 7.1
7.1.1 RECOMMENDATION #1 - INCORPORATE PROGRAM BASED PRICING PHILOS OPHY BASED
ON EXCLUSIVITY AND L EVELS OF BENEFIT
It is recommended that City leadership adopt a pricing philosophy based on exclusivity and levels of individual
versus community benefit. This philosophy ensures core programs have highest level of General Fund subsidy
while value-added programs have the lowest level of General Fund subsidy with the following range of cost
recovery goals for the program areas that fall in each category.
Core Programs (0% - 30% full cost recovery)
Important Programs (31% - 70% full cost recovery)
Value-Added Programs (71% - 100% full cost recovery)
7.1.2 RECOMMEN DATION #2 - OFFER BASE PRICES WITH RESIDENT AND/OR NONP ROFIT
DISCOUNTS
Create a base fee structure for all offerings and rentals with discounts for residents and/or nonprofits. See
below for the definitions of those terms.
Fee Terminology
Resident Resides within City of Chula Vista and other zip code specific groups
(e.g. Bonita)
Nonprofit "Nonprofit organization" means an organization organized or
incorporated for educational, civic, charitable, religious or cultural
purposes, having a bona fide membership, when proceeds, if any,
arising from its activities are used for the purposes of such
organization and may not be used for the individual benefit of the
membership of such organization.
Groups are required to submit form with State of California Nonprofit Tax ID number
Nonresidents/Commercial This includes anyone who does not fall into the resident or nonprofit
category.
City of Chula Vista
42
Proof of residency in the City of Chula Vista shall be one of the following:
Valid California Driver’s License displaying C ity of Chula Vistas address on license, or official I.D. card
issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles for non -drivers.
Current year utility bill listing name and address of current residence or property in Chula Vista on
which property taxes are being paid.
Active duty or retired military identification card.
Property tax statement.
7.1.3 RECOMMENDATION #3 – OFFER DIFFERENTIAL P RICING RATES (TIMING / RESIDENCY
RATES )
Establish differential and tiered pricing structures for all offerings. This is an established practice in the
recreation and travel industries (greens fees for twilight golf versus early morning tee -times, air fare pricing
etc.)
It is a great way to manage facility capacity utilization and provide incentives for people who have flexibility in
times to access facilities or rentals when they would otherwise be underutilized. There are a number of
differential pricing strategies utilized within the parks and recreation industry as outlined in Section 6.1.3 and
shown in the table below.
Types of Differential Pricing Strategies
Primetime Incentive Pricing
Non-primetime Length of Stay Pricing
Season and Off-season Rates Cost Recovery Goal Pricing
Multi-tiered Program Pricing Level of Exclusivity Pricing
Group Discounting and Packaging Age Segment Pricing
Volume Pricing Equipment Pricing
As further detailed in Chapter 7, it is recommended that staff continue to expand use of differential pricing
strategies in Chula Vista based on “timing” of offerings or activities e.g. time of day, weekday versus weekend
and regular weekends versus holiday weekends and “resident and / or nonprofit discounts”.
Timing
Prime Time Non-Prime Time
Facilities/Pools 5pm – close (Mon – Fri) / Sat. all
day
Mon - Fri during the day and Sun.
all day
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
43
Resident and / or Nonprofit Fee Tiers
Based on the Resident/Nonprofit discount and Prime Time versus Non-Prime Time pricing concepts, the
consulting team and staff recommend the following approach of tiered fees and charges as well as resident
discounts.
Fee Tiers (Programs)
Base Fees: Any Nonresident/For-Profit + During Prime Time = Base Fee
Resident Discount Fees: Any Resident/Nonprofit Registration + During Prime Time or Any Nonresident/For-
Profit + During Non-Prime Time = 75% of Base Fee
Fee Tiers (Facility/Pool Use, Rentals)
Base Fees: Any Nonresident/For-Profit + During Prime Time = Base Fee (or 100% of Council adopted fee)
Resident Discount Fees: Any Resident/Nonprofit Use + During Prime Time or Any Nonresident/Commercial Use +
During Non-Prime Time = 50% of Base Fee
Super Discount Fees: Any Resident/Nonprofit Use + During Non-Prime Time = 25% of Base Fee
7.1.4 RECOMMENDATION #4 – ANNUALLY UPDATE COST OF SERVICE MODEL
Continue to track indirect and overhead costs (including custodial, park maintenance etc.) to identify the true
cost of offering recreation services. Annually update the cost of service model with data captured during the
year and communicate the cost of service to the staff and users on an on -going basis. Each year, the
Recreation Department will review the cost of service model with the Pa rks and Recreation Commission and, if
need be, adjust the policies or existing practices to continue serving the community’s needs in the best way
possible.
7.1.5 RECOMMENDATION #5 - INCORPORATE CITY’S A SSET MANAGEMENT PROG RAM INTO
RECREATION FEES
A large number of existing parks and facilities as well as amenities in those facilities, are aging and at the end
of their useful lifecycles. While a pending asset lifecycle replacement study will provide clarity on future
needs, ensuring a pricing structure that supports long term capital improvement and maintenance will be
critical as the population served by the city increases, and consequently, so does the demand for parks and
recreation offerings.
City of Chula Vista
44
7.1.6 RECOMMENDATION #6 – SEEK NON -TRADITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES
More and more parks and recreation agencies are looking to partnerships and creative revenue generating
sources as a means to ensure long-term financial sustainability without burdening the existing user base.
Pursue new earned income options as a way to ensure greater financial sustainability.
The following are some creative sources of revenue that agencies nationwide have been successfully pursuing
in recent times. For a detailed list of all funding and revenue strategies based on staff discussions of
implementation risk and implementation feasibility, please see the Appendix.
Sponsorships
These are typically cash or in-kind fees paid to an agency by a brand or a business in exchange for
being able to promote their brand or business through the agency’s offerings (e.g. programs, events or
facilities). The City of Dallas recently had a partnership with the Naked Juice Brand for promoting
Naked Coconut Water at one of their park si tes / walking and biking lanes and Chula Vista is exploring
the same as well.
(e.g. City of Roseville, CA: Sponsorships for the Utility Exploration Center)
https://www.roseville.ca.us/explore/sponsorships.asp
Naming Rights
These are a type of advertising where a brand or a business paid a fee to be able to name a venue,
park or facility or even an event for a period of years. This can vary from 3 -20 years and is a very
common practice in the private sector but is also getting more prevalent in the public sector as well.
(Lewisville, TX – Toyota of Lewisville Railroad Park)
http://www.cityoflewisville.com/index.aspx?page=538
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
45
Crowd-funding
Refers to the collection of funds to sustain an
initiative from a large pool of backers—the "crowd"—
usually made online by means of a web platform. The
initiative could be a nonprofit campaign (e.g. to raise
funds for a school or social service organization), a
philanthropic campaign (e.g. for emergency funds for
an ill person or to produce an emerging artist), a
commercial campaign (e.g. to create and sell a new product) or a financing campaign for a public
agency (capital projects or program / operations related e .g. printing costs for all marketing materials)
Crowdfunding models involve a variety of participants. They include the people or organizations that
propose the ideas and/or projects to be funded, and the crowd of people who support the proposals.
Crowdfunding is then supported by an organization (the "platform") which brings together the project
initiator and the crowd. Given below are two examples of the most popular platforms that are
currently out there.
o www.Fundyourpark.org – Started by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA)
specifically focused on parks and recreation agencies and crowdfunding their needs for
programs and amenities in their communities.
o www.Kickstarter.com
The Mountair Park Community Farm to build urban farms in unused City Park Space
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1255067972/growing-in-the-city-the-mountair-park-
community-fa?ref=live
Marketing Support for creating Outdoor Recreation Map
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/403262169/outdoor-recreation-map-of-the-bob-marshall-
wildern?ref=live
o www.Razoo.com
After-School Programs for Environmental Education http://www.razoo.com/story/Feel-
Good-About-Contributing-To-Urban-Sprouts
Local Community Theater Support Group http://www.razoo.com/story/Team-Wang
Community-Led Design Project http://www.razoo.com/story/Hsc-Board-Match-Challenge
City of Chula Vista
46
Consistency in Policy / Process Implementation
Rentals / Facility Use Permits 21 days cancellation notice required
Non-refundable Reservation Fee $100 fee applied to permit fees
Rental Fee Payment Payment in full, 21 days prior to event date
Commercial Vendor Permit
(Charged per Vendor)
Base Fee ($100) ; Resident Discount ($50)
(use of air jump, pony ride, llama ride, petting zoo or similar)
Custodial Fee Weekend (Friday-Sunday) and holiday rentals to include $60 non-refundable
at all facilities (with opportunity for annual COLA)
7.1.7 RECOMMENDATION # 7 – UPDATE MASTER FEE SC HEDULE - PROPOSED FEES AND
CHARGES
Update the City’s Master Fee Schedule to include all facility rentals. To ensure consistent approach replace
program fees with formula to develop fees based on the program classification, current and desired cost
recovery goals e.g. Aquatics program fees are the only ones currently included in the fee schedule
Based on the current cost recovery rates, the service classification philosophy, cost recovery goals and staff,
the following table shows the proposed processes, recommended policies to be consistently implemented and
base fees and charges.
The following sections list the sample recommended program fees as well as facility use / rental fees.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
47
Fitness Centers (quarterly fee for 12 week session)
Otay and Salt Creek Centers
Resident $20
Non-Resident $40
Norman Park Center
Resident $28
Non-Resident $56
Morning Fitness (Otay)
Resident $35
Non-resident $70
Shared use $60
Exclusive use $64
Equipment charges
Fee per day, per team $3
Maximum monthly fee per team $25
Cancellation fee $75
Non-profit, shared or exclusive use $32
Non-profit, long term shared use $28
Recreation office must be notified of cancellation a minimum of 24
hours prior to scheduled time for swimming pool rental. Failure to do
so will result in assessment cancellation fee.
2. Swimming Pools, Rentals, per hour
3. Swimming Pools, Other Charges
4. Swimming Pool, Cancellation Fee
SAMPLE PROGRAM FEES
Fees for Recreation Department activities and classes shall be set in consideration of the City's full cost
including overhead. As recommended in Section 1.3, to ensure consistency, the Master Fee Schedule should
include only facility, field and park rentals. As for program fees, shown below is a depiction of the model using
the service classification philosophy and existing cost recovery goals to determine recommended program fees
including appropriate resident discounts.
USE PERMIT – OTHER FACILITIES
CURRENT FEES
Revenues
Current Full
Cost Classification
Recommended
Range
Current Full
Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Desired
Full Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Percentage
Change Required
to meet
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Current
Fee
Recommended
Resident
Discount
Recommended
Base Fee (25%
Premium)
RECREATION PROGRAM AND CLASS FEES
Adult Softball League (MSM)$108,315 $140,759 Value Added 71% - 100%77%100%23%$435 $535 $669
Aquatics- Learn To Swim Intro.$66,137 $139,701 Core 0% - 30%47%30%-17%$35 $29 $36
Tiny Tots - Montevalle $28,811 $104,997 Important 31% - 70%27%50%23%$188 $231 $289
Community Fun Run - (Fundraiser)$16,925 $32,276 Value Added 71% - 100%52%100%48%$10 $15 $19
Youth Fall Basketball League $22,709 $57,554 Important 31% - 70%39%50%11%$95 $105 $132
City of Chula Vista
48
PROPOSED FEES
2. Swimming Pools, Rentals, per hour 100%50%25%
Shared use $140 $70 $35
Exclusive use $150 $75 $38
Swim Lane Rentals (per lane)$30 $15 $8
1. Fitness Centers (quarterly fee for 12 week session)Base Resident
Discounted Rate
Norman Park Senior, Otay and Salt Creek Fitness Centers
Base $60 $45
Daily Rate $6 $5
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
49
USE PERMITS – OTHER PROPOSED CHARGES
PROPOSED Base Resident
Discounted Rate
1. Cancellation Fee
2. Commercial Vendor Permit
Charged per Vendor $100 $50
(use of air jump, pony ride, llama ride, petting zoo or similar)
3. Required Deposits
Nonrefundable Reservation Fee $100
4. Custodial Fee, per rental
All Facilities (weekends and City holidays only)$60
Recreation office must be notified of cancellation a minimum of 21 days prior to scheduled time for
activity. Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of the fee. Applies to General Facilities - Use Permit
rentals only.
City of Chula Vista
50
II III IV
Auditorium/Main Hall $17 $56 $111
Classroom $11 $33 $67
Dance room $11 $33 $67
Kitchen facilities $6 $11 $22
Game room
Parkway Gymnasium $17 $65 $130
Small gym
Large gym
Auditorium/Main Hall $17 $56 $111
Outdoor/stage $17 $56 $111
Craft room $11 $33 $67
Kitchen facilities $6 $11 $22
Cornell Hall - full $111 $222
Cornell Hall - half $56 $111
Game room $10 $20 $40
Conference room
Loma Verde Recreation Center
Auditorium/Main Hall $17 $56 $111
Classroom $11 $28 $56
Dance room $11 $33 $67
Kitchen facilities $6 $11 $22
Game room $10 $20 $40
Other Recreation Facilities
Chula Vista Woman's Club $56 $83
Memorial Bowl (2 hr minimum)$67 $133
Otay Recreation Center
Gymnasium $11 $56 $111
Classroom $11 $28 $56
Game room $10 $25 $50
Patio $10 $25 $50
Salt Creek Center
Gymnasium - full $30 $65 $130
Gymnasium - half $20 $40 $80
Fitness Center $5 $35 $56
Multipurpose rooms:
~Full (includes kitchen and patio use)$30 $75 $150
~Half with kitchen $10 $35 $70
Exterior patio only $60 $120
Outdoor basketball court $25 $50
Tennis Court $25 $50
Soccer Arena $25 $50 $100
Game room $10 $20 $40
Facility
Parkway Community Center
Norman Park Senior Center
Heritage Community Center
FACILITY FEE SCHEDUL E – PER HOUR
CURRENT FACILITY FEES
Note: Salt Creek Fitness Center is currently
not available to rent.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
51
II III IV
Montevalle Center
Gymnasium - full $30 $65 $130
Gymnasium - half $20 $40 $80
Multipurpose rooms:
~North $25 $60 $120
~South $25 $60 $120
~Middle $15 $40 $80
~2 room combo $30 $75 $150
~3 room combo $50 $100 $200
Craft room $15 $40 $80
Dance room $15 $40 $80
Outdoor basketball court $25 $50
Tennis court $25 $50
Game room $10 $20 $40
Interior courtyard $30 $60
Fire pit $40 $80
Exterior "west view" patio $10 $20
Veterans Center
Gymnasium - full $30 $65 $130
Gymnasium - half $20 $40 $80
Annex $30 $75 $150
Multipurpose rooms:
~Full $30 $75 $150
~Half $15 $35 $70
~Half with kitchen $17 $45 $90
Dance room $15 $40 $80
Game room $10 $20 $40
Sunset View Park
Roller hockey facility $50 $100
Equipment Charges for Montvalle, Salt Creek and Veterans Centers
Sound system $50 flat fee
Lectern $10 flat fee
Television/DVD/VCR $50 flat fee
Dry erase board $10 flat fee
City staff Full cost recovery
$16
$18Part-time aquatic staff
City staff is provided on an hourly basis, as needed. This charge is in addition to the above hourly
rental rates.
Part-time
Facility
City of Chula Vista
52
PROPOSE D FACILITY F EES
RECREATION PROPOSED Base Fees Resident Discounted Fees Super-Discounted Fees
(NR - Non.Res / PT - Prime Time / R - Resident /
NPT - Non Prime Time)NR + PT R + PT or NR + NPT R + NPT
Prime Time = 5pm - close (M-F) / Saturday - All
day; Non Prime Time = M-F during the day /
Sunday - All day 100%50%25%
Gymnasium - Large $150 $75 $38
Gymnasium - Large Half $95 $48 $24
Main Hall / Gym - Small $130 $65 $33
Kitchen facilities w/MH $25 $13 $6
Classroom $75 $38 $19
Dance room $75 $38 $19
Game room $45 $23 $11
Main Hall (MH)$130 $65 $33
Kitchen facilities w/MH $25 $13 $6
Outdoor Stage $130 $65 $33
Craft room $75 $38 $19
Cornell Hall Full $130 $65 $33
Cornell Hall Half $75 $38 $19
Conference Room $25 $13 $6
Game room $25 $13 $6
Kitchen facilities $25 $13 $6
Main Hall (MH)$130 $65 $33
Classroom $65 $33 $16
Dance room $75 $38 $19
Kitchen facilities w/MH $25 $13 $6
Game room $25 $13 $6
Main Hall (MH)$130 $65 $33
Gymnasium - Full $130 $65 $33
Gymnasium - Half $75 $38 $19
Classroom $60 $30 $15
Patio $55 $28 $14
Game Room $25 $13 $6
Parkway Community Center
Heritage Community Center
Norman Park Senior Center
Loma Verde Recreation Center
Chula Vista Woman's Club
Otay Recreation Center
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
53
RECREATION PROPOSED Base Fees Resident Discounted Fees Super-Discounted Fees
(NR - Non.Res / PT - Prime Time / R - Resident /
NPT - Non Prime Time)NR + PT R + PT or NR + NPT R + NPT
Prime Time = 5pm - close (M-F) / Saturday - All
day; Non Prime Time = M-F during the day /
Sunday - All day 100%50%25%
Gymnasium - Full $150 $75 $38
Gymnasium - Half $95 $48 $24
Multipurpose rooms:
- Full (includes kitchen and patio use)$175 $88 $44
- Half with kitchen $80 $40 $20
Game room $45 $23 $11
Montevalle Center
Gymnasium - Full $150 $75 $38
Gymnasium - Half $95 $48 $24
Multipurpose rooms:
~North Room (N)$140 $70 $35
~South Room (S)$140 $70 $35
~Middle Room (M)$95 $48 $24
~2 Room Combo $175 $88 $44
~3 Room Combo (N, M, S)$230 $115 $58
Craft room $95 $48 $24
Dance room $95 $48 $24
Game room $45 $23 $11
Veterans Center
Gymnasium - Full $150 $75 $38
Gymnasium - Half $95 $48 $24
Main Hall (MH)$175 $88 $44
Multipurpose rooms:
~Full (kitchen)$175 $88 $44
~Half $80 $40 $20
~Half w/ kitchen $105 $53 $26
Dance room $95 $48 $24
Game room $45 $23 $11
Salt Creek Center
City of Chula Vista
54
City staff Full cost recovery
Part-time $17
Part-time aquatic staff $19
FACILITY Base Resident Discounted Fees Super-Discounted Fees
(NR - Non.Res / PT - Prime Time / R - Resident /
NPT - Non Prime Time)NR + PT R + PT or NR + NPT R + NPT
Prime Time = 5pm - close (M-F) / Saturday - All
day; Non Prime Time = M-F during the day /
Sunday - All day 100%50%25%
Outdoor Courts
Basketball Court $55 $28 $14
Tennis Court $55 $28 $14
Salt Creek Community Center
Soccer Arena $115 $58 $29
Sunset View Park
Roller hockey facility $115 $58 $29
Non-Resident/
For-Profit
Resident/
Non-Profit
Memorial Bowl $150 $75
Mountain Hawk Park $150 $75
Amphitheaters (per hour)
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
55
Non-Resident/
For-Profit
Resident/
Non-Profit
Larger Inflatable (15 x 15 and / or larger)$150 $75
Food / Gaming Trucks $150 $75
Others
Other Proposed Fees
Eliminating Deposits
Based on discussions with staff and evaluating the cost benefits of the time spent (indirect expenses) on
administering the deposit collection and refunding process, it was found that the costs significantly outweighed
the revenue generated from the rare instance that the deposit was retained. In addition, it is also an
inefficient process resulting in a poor customer experience, and thus, it is recommended t hat deposit
collection in those specific instances be eliminated.
Since the renter’s details will also be on file prior to reservation, the Department would always be able to
recover costs associated with damages should that situation arise.
Non-Resident/
For-Profit
Resident/
Non-Profit
Small Shelter, Reservation Fee / day $150 $75
Medium Shelter, Reservation fee / day $300 $150
Large Shelter, Reservation Fee / day $600 $300
Cleaning / Damage Deposit $100 $100
Cancellation Fee, all $25 $25
Picnic Shelters
Cancellation Fee, 48-hour minimum notice required all shelter reservations
Non-Resident/
For-Profit
Resident/
Non-Profit
Daily $25 $20
Quarterly $250 $200
Active Recreation Areas (Non-sports specific)
City of Chula Vista
56
- CONCLUSION CHAPTER EIGHT
The key to a successful plan and philosophy centers on knowing the true costs to produce a service or product
and using a consistent process to manage, expand or eliminate offerings based on communi ty values and
financial goals. The expectation is not that the plan is perfect from the start but that it is realistic and
dynamic, thus allowing the staff to continue using and updating it over time.
Pricing of services is a dynamic process and complex process. By recommending a consistent philosoph y driven
by service classifications, cost recovery goals and differential pricing, the proposed plan supports Council goals
and establishes a sustainable process for cost recovery in the future.
The pursuit of earned income dollars should continue to be emphasized, and support and training should be
provided to staff to ensure the plan’s success in achieving the desired results. Additionally, updating the cost
of service model annually will allow staff to reflect revenue and expense updates accurately in the updated
Master Fee Schedule. If the recommendations are implemented in their entirety, based on current projections
and market conditions, it is realistic to estimate a 5% - 10% increase in as a combination of increased revenue
and streamlined expenses (as well as operational efficiencies). This could translate into an impact of $100,000
- $200,000 on the bottom line in the upcoming year, which will go a long way towards helping the Department
achieve increased financial sustainability.
The recommendations outlined recognize Chula
Vista’s growing and diverse population, the socio-
environment and the need to ensure long -term
financial sustainability.
Lastly, a successful plan implementation requires a
focused persistence but also warrants patience in
implementing, tracking and modifying strategies
based on their success or failure. It is important to
bear in mind that this plan is meant to be a
guideline that helps elevate the data-driven
decision making process of the Recreation
Department and thus lead to long-term financial
sustainability.
Supportive leadership and trained staff who all buy
into the collective vision and consistently communicate that vision to all users will be the key to ensuring that
the Recreation Department meets the community needs in a financially sustainable manner for years to come.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
57
APPENDIX A - FUNDING AND REVENUE STRATEGIES
REVENUE AND FUNDING STRATEGIES
Park and Recreation systems across the United States today have learned to develop a clear understanding of
how to manage revenue options to support parks and recreation services in a municipality based on the limited
availability of tax dollars. Park and Recreation systems no longer rely on taxes as their sole revenue option but
have developed new sources of revenue options to help support capital and operational needs.
A growing number of agencies have developed policies on pricing of services, cost recovery rates and
partnership agreements for programs and facilities provided to the community. They also have dev eloped
strong partnerships that are fair and equitable in the delivery of services based on whom receives the service,
for what purpose, for what benefit and for what costs. In addition, agencies have learned to use parks and
recreation facilities, amenities, programs and events to create economic development as it applies to keeping
property values high around parks and along trails through increased maintenance, adding sports facilities and
events to drive tournaments into the region that create hotel ro om nights and increase expenditures in
restaurants and retail areas. They have learned to recognize that people will drive into their community for
good recreation facilities such as sports complexes, pools, recreation centers and for special events if
presented correctly and if they are well managed.
Outlined below are several options for Chula Vista to consider. Some if not all of these sources should be
considered as an option to support the capital and operational needs of the department.
City of Chula Vista
58
The following chart examines each funding strategy’s implementation feasibility and risk by rating the strategy
high, medium, or low. The chart is sorted by strategies beginning at high feasibility with low implementation
risk descending to low feasibility with high implementation risk.
Funding Strategy Currently
Practicing
Corporate Sponsorships High Low
Crowdfunding High Low
Friends Groups High Low
Mello Roos District High Low
Reservations High Low
Equipment Rental High Low
Lighting and Landscape District High Low
Private Concessionaires Management High Low
Advertising Sales High Low
Partnerships High Medium
Volunteerism High Medium
Dedication/Development Fees High Medium
Permits (Special Use Permits)High Medium
CDBG Funding High Medium
Property Taxes High Medium
Naming Rights High Medium
Private Developers High Medium
Pouring Rights High Medium
Special Fundraisers Medium Medium
Impact Fees Medium Medium
Food and Beverage Tax Medium Medium
Capital Fees Low Low
Land Trust Low Low
Hotel, Motel and Restaurant Tax Low Low
Private Donations Low Low
Irrevocable Remainder Trusts Low Low
Special Improvement District/Benefit District Low Medium
Recreation Service Fees Low High
Foundations/Gifts Low High
Implementation
Feasibility
Implementation
Risk
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
59
FUNDING SOURCES
The following financial options outline opportunities for the department to consider in supporting capital
improvements as well as operational costs associated with managing the system for the future.
EXTERNAL FUNDING
Corporate Sponsorships - This revenue-funding source allows corporations to invest in the
development or enhancement of new or existing facilities in park systems. Sponsorships are also highly
used for programs and events.
o Notes: Consider for Dog Parks but in an unobtrusive way
o Example: Charleston County Parks and Recreation (http://www.ccprc.com/index.aspx?NID=5)
as well as establishing frameworks for sustained sponsorship opportunities by providing
packaged choices of offerings - City of Santa Barbara
(http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/parksrec/recreation/sponsor _opportunities.asp).
Crowdfunding - Fairly new web-based source which aggregates funds from a group of people
who are willing to support a specific project, be it program related or facility related. Some sites that
successfully do that are www.kickstarter.org and www.razoo.com etc.
o Notes: Determine appropriate programs / capital updates
Partnerships - Partnerships are joint development funding sources or operational funding sources
between two separate agencies, such as two government entities, a nonprofit and a City department,
or a private business and a City agency. Two partners jointly develop revenue producing park and
recreation facilities and share risk, operational costs, responsibilities and asset management, based on
the strengths and weaknesses of each partner.
o Notes: Uncertainty for multi-year partnerships already budgeted for.
o Example: A relevant example includes the Muskingum Recreation Center being developed in
Zanesville, Ohio which is a partnership between t he Muskingum County Community Foundation
(MCCF), the Muskingum Family Y (MFY), Genesis HealthCare System and Ohio University
Zanesville (OUZ) (http://www.muskingumrecreationcenter.org/).
Foundations / Gifts - These dollars are raised from tax-exempt, nonprofit organizations established
with private donations in promotion of specific causes, activities, or issues. They offer a variety of
means to fund capital projects, including capital campaigns, gifts catalogs, fundraisers, endowments,
sales of items, etc.
o Notes: Not enough internal capacity to focus on Foundations / Gifts
Private Donations - Private Donations may also be received in the form of funds, land, facilities,
recreation equipment, art or in-kind services. Donations from local and regional businesses as sponsors
for events or facilities should be pursued.
Friends Groups - These groups are formed to raise money typically for a single focus purpose that
could include a park facility or program that will better the community as a whole and their special
interest.
o Notes: Similar to the Library and Police, to focus on O&M and Capital opportunities
Irrevocable Remainder Trusts - These trusts are set up with individuals who typically have more than
a million dollars in wealth. They will leave a portion of their wealth to the city in a trust fund that
allows the fund to grow over a period of time and then is available for the city to use a portion of the
interest to support specific park and recreation facilities or programs that are designated by the
trustee.
City of Chula Vista
60
Volunteerism - The revenue source is an indirect revenue source in that persons donate time to assist
the department in providing a product or service on an hourly basis. This reduces t he city’s cost in
providing the service plus it builds advocacy into the system.
o Notes: The Department has a large number of volunteers across multiple programs. They are
also tracked through Vologistics software system in Human Resources.
o Example: The City of San José Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services has leveraged a
very unique volunteer relationship by utilizing graduates from The Harvard Business School to
identify potential sponsorship value of its inventory and craft a compelling message for
potential sponsors – all on a pro-bono basis (http://www.hbsanc.org/cp_home.html?aid=1142).
There could certainly be potential opportunities of this sort with any of the educational
institutions including Mira Costa College, Palomar Community College, or University of
California San Diego.
Special Fundraisers - Many park and recreation agencies have special fundraisers on an annual basis to
help cover specific programs and capital projects.
o Notes: Community Fun Run, City Amateur Golf Tournament are fundraisers for the
Department and they are looking to start fundraisers / giveaways at Movies in the Parks - all
done through the Friends Group.
CAPITAL FEES
Capital Fees - Capital fees are added to the cost of revenue producing facilities such as golf courses,
pools, recreation centers, hospitality centers and sports complexes.
Dedication/Development Fees - These fees are assessed for the development of residential properties
with the proceeds to be used for parks and recreation purposes, such as open space acquisitions,
community park site development, neighborhood park development, regiona l park acquisition and
development, etc.
o Notes: The City is going through the PAD fees / Developers building turnkey parks - projects
Impact Fees - These fees are on top of the set user rate for accessing facilities such as golf courses,
recreation centers and pool facilities to support capital improvements that benefit the user of the
facility.
o Notes: User feedback from the Chula Vista community often emphasized ensuring that dollars
generated are spent on facility specific infrastructure issues
Mello Roos District - Fees for a specific purpose with an election approving district and fees by 2/3
majority.
o Notes: This is already being done in Chula Vista.
USER FEES
Recreation Service Fees - This is a dedicated user fee, which can be established by a local ordinance
or other government procedures for the purpose of constructing and maintaining recreation facilities.
The fee can apply to all organized activities, which require a reservation of some type or other
purposes, as defined by the local government. Examples of such activities include adult basketball,
volleyball, tennis, and softball leagues, youth baseball, soccer, football and softball leagues, and
special interest classes. The fee allows participants an opportunity to contribute toward th e upkeep of
the facilities being used.
Cost Recovery, Resource Allocation And Revenue Enhancement Study
61
o Notes: Focus on across the board impact fee not just targeting organized groups.
Fees / Charges – The Department must position its fees and charges to be market -driven and based on
both public and private facilities. The potential outcome of revenue generation is consistent with
national trends pointing to generating an average 35% to 50% of operating expenditures for combined
parks and recreation agencies.
o Notes: The current fee study is aimed towards specifically addressing these.
Permits (Special Use Permits) - These special permits allow individuals to use specific park property
for financial gain. The city either receives a set amount of money or a percentage of the gross service
that is being provided.
o Notes: These are currently in place system-wide.
Reservations - This revenue source comes from the right to reserve specific public property for a set
amount of time. The reservation rates are usually set and apply to group picnic shelters, meeting
rooms for weddings, reunions and outings or other types of facilities for special activities.
o Notes: These need to be consistent and reflect the exclusivity it provides – which is a
recommendation made in Section 1.4
Equipment Rental - The revenue source is available on the rental of equipment such as tables, chairs,
tents, stages, bicycles, roller blades, boogie boards, etc. that are used for recreation purposes.
o Notes: Currently, the pools in Chula Vista do provide equipment rentals.
GRANTS
CDBG Funding - Funding received in accordance with the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Programs national objectives as established by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Funding may be applied to such programs as Infrastructure Improvements, Publ ic Facility and Park
Improvements, Human Service Enhancements, Lead-Based Paint Education and Reduction, Housing
Education Assistance, and Economic Development and Anti -poverty strategies.
o Notes: This is prone to change and, thus, not a predictable source for the future. It is currently
availed for Norman Park Senior Center Operational hours and Therapeutic Recreation Programs.
Land Trust - Many systems have developed land trusts to help secure and fund the cost for acquiring
land that needs to be preserved and protected for greenway purposes. This could be a good source to
look to for acquisition of future lands.
TAX SUPP O RT
Property Tax- Ad valorem taxes on real property
Lighting and Landscape Districts - Special property owner approved assessment
o Notes: Evaluating creating a maintenance District; eastside park Stylus Park - developer
responsible for 50% of the maintenance / annually.
Hotel, Motel, and Restaurant Tax. - Tax based on gross receipts from charges and meal services,
which may be used to build and operate sports fields, regional parks, golf courses, tennis courts, and
other special park and recreation facilities.
o Notes: Could evaluate for future eastside development / hotels .
Special Improvement District / Benefit District - Taxing districts established to provide funds for
certain types of improvements that benefit a specific group of affected properties. Improvements may
City of Chula Vista
62
include landscaping, the erection of fountains, and acquisition of art, and supplemental services for
improvement and promotion, including recreation and cultural enhancements.
Food and Beverage Tax - The tax is usually associated with convention and tourism bureaus. However,
since parks and recreation agencies manage many of the tourism attractions, they receive a portion of
this funding source for operational or capital expenses.
o Notes: Evaluate potential for Bayfront Convention Center to be built.
FRANCHISES AND LICENSES
Pouring Rights - Private soft drink companies that execute agreements with the City for e xclusive
pouring rights within park facilities. A portion of the gross sales goes back to the City. The City of
Westfield, IN just signed a 10 year, $2 million pouring rights deal at their sports complex with Pepsi.
o Notes: Potential to consider for future sports complex development or in conjunction with the
former Chula Vista Olympic Training Center now named the Chula Vista Elite Athlete Training
Facility, a USOC Olympic and Paralympic Training Site
Private Concession Management - Contract with a private business to provide and operate desirable
recreational activities financed, constructed and operated by the private sector, with additional
compensation paid to the City.
o Notes: It is currently very minimal but the city has taken a step in that direction with Point
Loma Trust and with future development could be an increasingly viable opportunity for the
department.
Naming Rights – Many cities and counties have turned to selling the naming rights for new buildings or
renovation of existing buildings and parks for the development cost associated with the improvement.
o Notes: Evaluate potential for existing facilities / youth sports etc.
Example: Many cities and counties have turned to selling the naming rights for new
constructions of facilities or parks as a way to pay for the development and, occasionally, costs
associated with the project. A great example of this was in Lewisville, Texas where the city
signed a 10 year naming rights deal with a local Toyota dealership for their signature
community park which opened in 2009 and includes multiple sports fields, a dog park, skate
park, walking and jogging trails, three lakes for irrigation etc.
(http://www.cityoflewisville.com/index.aspx?page=538).
Private Developers - These developers lease space from City-owned land through a subordinate lease
that pays out a set dollar amount plus a percentage of gross dollars for recreation enhancements.
These could include a golf course, marina, restaurants, driving ranges, sports complexes, equestrian
facilities, recreation centers and ice arenas.
Advertising Sales - This revenue source is for the sale of tasteful and appropriate advertising on park
and recreation related items such as in the city’s program guide, on scoreboards, dasher boards and
other visible products or services that are consumable or permanent that exposes the product or
service to many people.
From: Mike German
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 12:06 PM
To: Audrey Denham; Falon Bollig (fleszczynski@medifit.com); Las Palmas Pool
Cc: Diana Thomas; Arturo Gonzalez; Tiffany Kellbach
Subject: Las Palmas Pool - Mandatory Showers
Dear Audrey and Falon,
The attached article from last month's Wall St. Journal highlights the need to comply
with state and local laws requiring all swimmers to shower before using any public
pool. Though I have noted this requirement to Las Palmas staff other than Falon, and
asked them to enforce it several times over the past several months, it remains
unenforced. This needs to change in order to avoid further pool closures and protect
the City of National City and its taxpayers from expensive lawsuits.
The law requiring all swimmers to take a warm, soapy shower before swimming exists
to prevent swimmers, especially those like myself who use the pool on a regular basis,
from contracting any of the diseases mentioned in the article. Like the turn signal on a
car, a thorough pre-swim shower is one of the cheapest insurance policies available to
protect both swimmers and municipalities from the risk of illness and the lawsuits and
increased insurance premiums resulting from sickness contracted at pools. As things
now stand, the city is not complying with its obligation under the law, making its failure
to enforce the existing statutes and regulations negligence per se, for which its liability is
almost inescapable. I speak from my experience as a Deputy Attorney General in this
regard.
We have better things to spend our tax dollars on than defending lawsuits that never
need be brought in the first place. Requiring the lifeguards to strictly enforce the shower
rule is neither burdensome on them nor oppressive upon swimmers, as I know from my
own experience as a lifeguard at pools and beaches. In addition to ensuring that the
lifeguards personally observe swimmers before they enter the pool to be sure they've
showered, better, more conspicuous, and legible signs need to be installed in the locker
rooms and entryways from them to the pool deck, in English and Spanish, reminding
swimmers of their obligation to shower thoroughly before e ntering the pool. The recent
addition of largely cosmetic signs to the pool indicates that funding is available for these
additional, more important signs.
The bottom - sorry! - line is best stated in the closing portions of the article:
Urine isn’t a primary source of germs in pools or hot tubs, but feces that clings to the
body is. At any time, Dr. Hlavsa said, adults have about 0.14 grams of poop on their
bottoms and children have as much as 10 grams.
* * *
Feces can contain bacteria, viruses and parasites such as E. coli, norovirus and giardia
that can lead to outbreaks of diarrhea, vomiting and other illnesses.
* * *
The solution ... is straight forward.
Shower for about one minute before swimming to remove personal care products and
traces of feces. And stop using the pool like an Olympic-size toilet.
Please note that I have copied the City of Chula Vista Parks & Recreation Commission,
of which I am a member, with this email and article, so the issue may be addressed
there as well. Thank you for considering these thoughts and do not hesitate to contact
me if I can assist in implementing them in any way.
Sincerely,
Mike German
An artificial sweetener found in more than 4,000 foods, beverages and pharmaceutical
products turns up in swimming pools in unusually high concentrations.
That’s intriguing until you learn how it gets there. Then it’s just gross.
“It’s evidence people are peeing in pools,” said Lindsay Blackstock, a doctoral student in
analytical and environmental toxicology at the University of Alberta, Canada.
Mrs. Blackstock and several colleagues tested 31 swimming pools and hot tubs in hotels
and recreational facilities in Canada for the presence of acesulfame potassium, an
DOW JONES, A NEWS CORP COMPANY
DJIA ▲22000.11 0.03%Nasdaq ▼6337.03 -0.05%U.S. 10 Yr ▼-11/32 Yield 2.262%Crude Oil ▲47.61 0.04%
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers visit
http://www.djreprints.com.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-that-pool-really-sanitary-new-chemical-approach-has-answers-1500642001
THE NUMBERS THE NUMBERS
Is That Pool Really Sanitar y ? New
Chemical Approa ch Has Answers
Checking for levels a common sweetener is one way to see how clean and healthy a pool is
|
Scientists find that testing pool water for a common artificial sweetener is one way to check the hygiene level of the pool.
PHOTO: SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES
July 21, 2017 9:00 a.m. ET
By
Jo Craven McGinty
artificial sweetener that is largely undigested and almost entirely excreted in urine.
There’s an ick factor to swimming in a pee-tainted pool, but the real concern is what
happens chemically. Urine combines with chlorine to create byproducts that irritate the
eyes and respiratory system, and the spent chlorine is no longer available to kill disease-
causing germs.
Pool operators continually
replenish chlorine to keep the
water safe, but tests like Mrs.
Blackstock’s help them figure
out what substances are
affecting the chemistry.
Sold under the brand name
Sunett, acesulfame potassium
is 200 times sweeter than
sugar and represents 8% of the
global high-intensity
sweeteners market, according
to Sergey Gudoshnikov, a
senior economist with the
International Sugar
Organization.
It’s used in products including baked goods, frozen desserts, chewing gum, diet sodas,
sport drinks, fruit juices, toothpaste, mouthwash, breakfast cereals, condiments, snack
foods, soups, cough syrups, jams and jellies.
Mrs. Blackstock and her colleagues were inspired to look for acesulfame potassium in
pool water because it is also used as a proxy to estimate the impact of human waste on
groundwater, lakes and rivers.
They found it in all of their pool and hot-tub samples, and in far greater concentrations
than in the water sources used to fill them. “We saw an increase of four times greater
and up to 570 times greater in recreational water samples compared to tap water
samples,” Mrs. Blackstock said.
The researchers also measured the amount of ACE -K, as it’s known for short, in urine
samples from 20 Canadians to arrive at a rough estimate of the normal concentration in
the general population.
Using that information, they deduced that a 110,000-gallon pool they studied contained
an estimated eight gallons of urine, while a 220,000-gallon pool contained an estimated
20 gallons. The concentrations represented about 0.01% of the total water volume.
“If your eyes are turning red when you’re swimming, or if you’re coughing or have a
runny nose, it’s likely there is at least some urine in the pool,” said Michele Hlavsa, chief
of the Healthy Swimming Program for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Urine isn’t a primary source of germs in
pools or hot tubs, but feces that clings to
the body is. At any time, Dr. Hlavsa said,
adults have about 0.14 grams of poop on
their bottoms and children have as much as
10 grams.
“When you’re talking about bigger water parks with 1,000 children in a given day, you’re
now talking about 10 kilograms or 22 pounds of poop,” she said.
Feces can contain bacteria, viruses and parasites such as E. coli, norovirus and giardia
that can lead to outbreaks of diarrhea, vomiting and other illnesses.
In 2011 and 2012, the most recent data available, the CDC recorded at least 185 illnesses
stemming from exposure to these or similar organisms in pools, hot tubs and spas.
Nearly 900 more cases were attributed to a chlorine-resistant parasite known as
cryptosporidium.
“We’re not so worried about pee,” Dr. Hlavsa said. “We’re worried it will use up the
chlorine that kills germs.”
ACE-K isn’t the only way to estimate the amount of urine in pools and hot tubs.
Ernest R. Blatchley III, an environmental engineer at Purdue University who studies
swimming-pool chemistry, has done it by measuring urea, a component of urine.
German researchers have used calcium, which is also excreted in urine.
But there is another tool that anyone can use: Their nose.
Appropriately chlorinated swimming pools and hot tubs smell strongly of the
disinfectant only when it has combined with substances like urine, lotions and hair
products. A healthy pool has very little odor, Dr. Hlavsa said, and it should not turn your
eyes red.
The solution to keeping it that way is straight forward.
Shower for about one minute before swimming to remove personal care products and
traces of feces. And stop using the pool like an Olympic-size toilet.
Write to Jo Craven McGinty at Jo.McGinty@wsj.com
SOME PREVIOUS COLUMNS
Dollar’s Gyrations Are No Cause for Alarm
Heat Index Captures Real Feel of Torrid Temperatures
Pollsters Survey What’s Wrong With the Polls