Sales of seasonal tennis permits for adults peaked in calendar year 2001, at nearly 20,000. The volume of seasonal permits fell sharply in response to fee increases in both 2003 and 2011 and by the latter year just 6,818 permits were sold—nearly two-thirds less than in 2001. The 2003 decline in adult seasonal permit volume was accompanied by rapid increases in sales of single-play permits, which nearly doubled in 2003 and nearly tripled by 2005. The increase in single-play permits probably occurred because their price did not increase until mid-2005. That same pattern did not hold in 2011, however, probably because fees for both types were increased at the same time.

Recreation Centers

The city doubled fees for adults and more than doubled fees for seniors at recreation centers at the start of fiscal year 2012. Following the fee increases, paid membership declined by 51.9 percent in 2012, keeping the city from realizing an expected boost in revenues. Instead, 2012 recreation center revenue was comparable to 2011, falling $4.0 million short of the city’s projection of $8.8 million.

The city’s recreation centers were free of charge until 2003, when the parks department began to charge membership fees for adults and seniors; memberships for children 17 and under remain free. Adults pay more to use recreation centers with pools, while seniors pay the same fee for any center. In 2012, the cost of adult permits doubled to $150 a year for recreation centers with pools and $100 a year for centers without pools. Adults can purchase a six-month membership for half the cost of the annual fee. The membership fee for seniors went up from $10 a year to $25 a year for all recreation centers. Additionally, the eligibility age for senior membership at recreation centers was increased from 55 to 62.

For recreation centers without pools, adult 12-month memberships decreased by 68.6 percent and annualized six-month memberships fell by 11.6 percent. The declines were slightly steeper at recreation centers with pools: a 72.8 percent fall in full-year memberships and 15.9 percent decline in six-month memberships. Nonetheless, memberships for centers with pools remained more popular than the less expensive membership restricted to centers without pools. Adult full-year memberships at recreation centers without pools dropped from just over 7,000 in 2011 to 2,200 members in 2012. The number of adults who purchased the more expensive annual membership to access all recreation centers, including those with indoor pools, fell from 32,000 in 2011 to 8,900 members in 2012.

Although fees for both full-year and six-month adult memberships doubled, the increases appear to have led some New Yorkers to switch their memberships from full year to six months. Before the increase in fees, there were twice as many full-year members than six-month members on an annual basis: nearly 40,000 full-year members compared with about 20,000 six-month members. After the fee increases, however, the six-month membership became the more popular option, with just over 11,000 full-year members compared with nearly 17,000 six-month members.

There were two factors that affected senior memberships: a 150 percent increase in the annual fee and an increase in the eligibility age, from age 55 to age 62. While the eligibility age rose, individuals between the ages of 55 and 61 who held senior memberships before the change and who continue to renew their memberships prior to the expiration date will still qualify for the senior citizen rate. Senior memberships declined 50.1 percent in 2012, from about 36,000 to just over 18,000 members. The data do not allow us to evaluate whether the decline was in response to the higher fee, the increase in eligibility age, or both.

Monthly sales of memberships were below 4,500 each month from July 2011 through April 2012, lower than in any month between July 2009 and June 2011. Sales for the 10-month period averaged 3,500 memberships a month, compared with an average of 6,800 memberships a month over the same period in 2011. During May and June of 2012, the last two months of the fiscal year, membership sales were more than double the average for the rest of the year—over 9,000 in May and close to 11,000 in June. Although the data do not distinguish between first time and repeat sales, a considerable share of June sales are likely to have been renewals of memberships purchased in June 2011.

In addition to membership fees, which represent about 90 percent of the revenue associated with recreation centers, the city also includes a few other fees, such as revenue from the Junior Ranger program, the Alley Pond Park adventure course, the Natural Classroom program, lawn bowling, and kayak rentals. Recreation center revenue directly attributable to membership fees, estimated using membership numbers, was $4.31 million in 2010, $4.55 million in 2011, and $4.31 million in 2012. Total recreation center revenue was similarly flat: $4.75 million in 2010, $4.70 million in 2011, and $4.76 million in 2012. In 2012, total recreation center revenue was about $4.0 million shy of the city’s projection.

Ballfields

Due to limits on the data available on ballfields (see sidebar, above), our analysis of the impact of increasing the cost of permits to use them is constrained. Fewer permits were sold following the fee increase, although the city appears to have hit its revenue projection, presumably because of changes in the mix of permits purchased.

As was the case with recreation centers, the number of ballfield permits sold jumped in March 2011, just prior to the fee increase at the end of the month. But it is less clear that the spike in permits was associated with the fee increase. It was not dramatically higher than the number sold in March 2010, when there was no fee increase looming. In March 2012, though, permit volume declined from the preceding March. Despite a decrease in permit volume, monthly revenue in March 2012 was $593,000, 65 percent more than in March 2011 when there was a spike in permits sold. March 2012 ballfield permit revenue was the parks department’s highest monthly total since July 2009.

In the first months after the fee increase, monthly revenue was up only slightly or even lower than for the same month in the previous year. Beginning in August 2011, monthly revenue has generally been substantially higher than in the corresponding month prior to the fee increases.

In November 2010, the city projected additional revenue of $180,000 and $720,000 in 2011 and 2012, respectively, from raising the cost of ballfield permits. Unlike the revenue targets for recreation centers and tennis courts, the city met the projection for ballfield revenues in both years. As with tennis permits, the city does not produce an estimate of the total ballfield revenue, but we can compare the projection for new revenue resulting from the higher fees when the proposal was introduced with the actual increases from 2010 to 2011 and 2012. The increase in total revenue from 2010 to 2011 was consistent with the projection that the fee increase would result in $180,000 additional revenue for 2011 (the higher fees were only in effect for the last three months of the fiscal year). In 2012, when the city had projected that the higher fees would yield $720,000 in new revenue, the growth in actual revenue from 2011 to 2012 exceeded that amount by $35,000.

Conclusion

The parks department raised its fees for tennis permits, recreation center memberships, and the use of ballfields as part of a citywide effort to close projected budget shortfalls. While anticipating some fall-off in usage, the city still projected that the new fee schedules would raise $6.3 million in additional revenue in 2012. The decline in sales of tennis permits and recreation center memberships was far steeper than expected, however, and the gain in revenue totaled roughly $1.1 million—a fraction of what had been expected.

Perhaps equally troubling, the sharp drop-off in parks usage runs counter to the Bloomberg Administration’s anti-obesity and other health policy initiatives.