Rohnert Park staff propose new 'service categories' and subsidy targets to boost financial sustainability of parks and rec

Rohnert Park’s Community Services director told the City Council on June 24 that the department is cost recovering nearly all of its in‑house program costs but needs a policy update to account for uncovered overhead and to set clearer subsidy targets.

Cindy Bagley presented calendar‑year 2024 figures that show roughly $2.4 million in program and service revenue and an overall departmental cost‑recovery rate around 94%, leaving an estimated $145,000 net subsidy under the current accounting. She explained the department wants to move from its existing “service areas” framework to a new set of “service categories” (community benefit; transportation and accessibility; animal welfare and safety; lifelong learning and enrichment; youth development; recreation and drop‑in access; health, fitness and wellness; culture and performing arts; specialized instruction; facility rental and access) and recommended subsidy ranges for each.

Bagley said the current policy does not include many overhead costs — such as marketing, administrative staff time, utilities and deferred facility maintenance — and that incorporating those will change cost‑recovery percentages when fully accounted for. She identified lap swim as an example: it currently meets only about 22% cost recovery against a 50% target.

Her recommended subsidy targets include keeping community benefit programs at 100% city subsidy (0% cost recovery), transportation and accessibility at 75–100% subsidy, animal welfare at 25–50% cost recovery (with recognition of mandates), and varying cost recovery targets for other categories (for example, youth development 25–50% subsidy; facility rentals expected to be self‑supporting). Many community events currently rely on Measure M funding, Bagley said, which means changes to the general fund would only arise if Measure M funding were lost.

Council members asked for practical steps and timing. Bagley proposed a phased approach: 1–6 months to assign programs to categories for items with available cost data, another 6–18 months for more complex items, and 1–2 years to produce a final, adoptable policy. Council offered direction to staff to proceed with the analysis and asked staff to consider increasing the recommended youth development subsidy in light of demographic shifts.

Council members also raised implementation questions about facility rentals and event staffing costs — specifically whether groups that rent city facilities (for example Project Grad) should cover the cost of on‑site city staff rather than the city absorbing that expense.

Bagley and staff committed to returning with detailed cost estimates and indicated they will consult the Parks and Recreation Commission and community partners as the work continues.