Set Fair Pool Fees
Pool Advisory Committee:
This report is a very detailed approach to analyzing the fee structure for the pool however it strikes me as biased towards raising revenue by “incentivizing” pool users to upgrade to annual passes without some historic context of pool users, their frequency of use of the pool and revenues. For starters, what has been the traditional number of annual and seasonal users of the pool over the past? My recollection is that ratio was roughly 125/550. And likewise, what are the percents of past facility revenue generated by annual and seasonal passes? The report only shows projections.
Most importantly, more and better data on frequency of use of the pool by the different user options should be provided to you and discussed publicly. This is referred to as the drop-in rate in the report. Not all pass options use the pool with the same frequency. This can be seen in the table on page 9 which shows the annual and summer fees for the different pass categories divided by the drop-in rate. But do annual adult users (the lap swimmers) really only drop in 4 times a month? My recollection is that lap swimmers, adult and senior, are the biggest users of the pool by visits, dropping in 2-3 times a week. If scaled to drop in rates of the pool, fees for the lap swimmers should be the highest. The committee should ask staff for more details on the frequency of use by the different user categories before considering this fee structure. Staff may have this data and ask you should specifically ask how staff determined the “#drop-ins/month” data in the table
Other comments on the proposed fee structure:
1. Lower the drop-in fee to $10. $18 has to be the highest drop-in rate of any public pool in northern California. It is 2-3 times higher that these three comparable pools below. The City has acknowledged that a significant number of its residents are “cost-burdened”- 10% of Piedmonters spend more than 50% of their income on housing. A daily fee of $18 to use the Piedmont pool versus $6 to use a pool in say Oakland or Albany represents a real challenge for these households and would likely force them to go to pools outside of Piedmont.
https://www.albanyaquaticcenter.com/fee-info
2. Consider a monthly /book of 10 option for passes. These are very common options at most public pools and should be tested along with the incentivization options the report is proposing. The report mentions that these pass options were not very successful when tried at the Piedmont pool but they were assessed in 2020 – right in the middle of the pandemic – so that’s a faulty conclusion. And including these options in the fee structure would provide the community more options to enjoy the pool. The example of Albany is particularly informative -it provides a great array of simple options. I think most regular uses of the Piedmont pool, be it programs or lap swimming, know what is best for their schedule and livestyles and would rather have the defined elements of the Albany model rather than Piedmont’s incentive model. Also note that Albany scales fees with use. An annual user would pay 4 (12 months) times more than a summer user (3 months) which seems appropriate as pool hours, season of use, and water temperatures and volumes are the biggest drivers of the operating costs of the pool and have been set to accommodate lap swimmers. These operating costs should be borne by the most frequent users.
3. Don’t propose priority registration for use of the pool party room for annual pass holders. That room is a common community asset and should be available to all Piedmont residents on an equal basis. The idea may be well-intended to incentivize pass sales but if residents can’t afford to “buy up”, they shouldn’t be burdened by this choice. It’s kind of insulting to suggest a young family that wants to use the party room once a year should over-extend its membership to have a better chance to book the facility. Recall that these young families are paying the most in annual UU assessments of all families in Piedmont. Likewise, 30% of Piedmonters voted against UU – they should none-the-less have equal access to all aspects of the pool facility.
One question – do people signing up for the pool programs (lessons, aerobics etc.) need to join the pool in some capacity? I would think not.
Finally, hold another workshop to get public input on the fee structure. The release of this report and timing of this workshop have been poorly noticed and scheduled. Many residents, particularly families, are busy preparing for winter break and many have left town before the meeting. If you can’t schedule another meeting then have the Recreation Commission take up this matter. From my reading of the staff report, your recommendation will bypass the Recreation Commission.
Staff report: