Peachtree City councilors direct manager to renegotiate county payment, study rec fee changes and prioritize five park projects

Peachtree City council members asked the city manager to begin negotiations with Fayette County over the county’s annual payment for resident use of city recreation facilities and directed staff to prepare cost and timing estimates for several prioritized recreation projects.

The council’s action came during a multi-hour work session in which members reviewed the Recreation Master Plan and related SPLOST projects, discussed fee structures for pool passes and facility rentals, and weighed options for the city’s proposed pickleball complex and indoor pool alternatives.

Council members said the current county payment — $150,000 per year — does not reflect how many Fayette County (non‑Peachtree City) residents use city recreation programs. The consultant, CPL, estimated a payment closer to $820,000 per year; the difference between CPL’s estimate and the current payment is roughly $670,000. Council directed the city manager to ask the county to reopen talks and negotiate a new flat payment; if talks do not produce a materially increased payment the city will pursue a revised fee schedule that differentiates Peachtree City residents from county residents who live outside city limits.

Why it matters: Council members framed the county subsidy as a major driver of the parks-and-rec operating deficit. Staff and the consultant’s data show non‑city residents make up a substantial share of program participation; council members said the city cannot sustain operating deficits for active recreation facilities without either increasing fees for non‑residents, securing a higher county payment, or both.

What the council asked staff to do - Ask the city manager to negotiate with Fayette County about the annual payment and report back with the county’s response and suggested next steps. The council authorized the manager to pursue negotiations rather than returning first for additional authorization. (Direction to City Manager Justin; timeline: initial outreach and a status report to council in March–April.) - Prepare a staff analysis of fee‑schedule options. That analysis should include (a) changes to rental and program fees, (b) an option to cap family pool passes (the master plan and staff materials showed inconsistent family-pass entries and councilors asked staff to reconcile pricing and present an option that caps household charges), and (c) tiered pricing that distinguishes Peachtree City residents, Fayette County non‑Peachtree City residents, and out‑of‑county users. (Recreation staff; timeline: preliminary results for council discussion during the spring budget/work‑session cycle.) - Produce cost, funding and schedule estimates for the council’s short list of recreation priorities so the council can choose which projects to pursue in the near term. The council asked for focused estimates on: Kelly Drive Park improvements, Battery Way Park (playground/parking/bathroom work), Drake Field restrooms, the Mead Field driveway/parking access, and the proposed Pickleball complex (staff were directed to model an 18‑court option with room for future expansion rather than the 24‑court recommendation in the consultant’s draft). (Public Works and Recreation; timeline: staff to present prioritized cost options at a work session in April/May so projects can be folded into FY26 budget discussions.)

Pool passes and the family cap Council members reviewed inconsistencies between the consultant’s recommended fee schedule and the city’s website, especially for family annual pool passes. The master plan materials showed multiple formats (family of 4, family of 5+, per‑person add‑ons) and some apparent spreadsheet placement errors; staff agreed to reconcile the documents, confirm whether household caps exist on the city website, and present one clear, recommended family‑pass structure with revenue impact estimates.

Pickleball, natatorium alternatives and the Kedron pool bubble Councilors discussed the consultant’s recommendation for a large pickleball complex (the consultant recommended 24 courts in one concept). Several council members preferred a smaller initial build (18 courts) with space preserved for future expansion; they also asked staff to analyze tournament requirements and local private‑sector capacity so the city can avoid unnecessary competition with private operators.

Separately, staff presented options for the Kedron pool covered structure after the council was told the existing inflatable “bubble” is beyond its warranty. Staff and council discussed three paths: (1) purchase a new seasonal bubble (10‑month lead time was cited), (2) build a permanent fiberglass shell/structure over the existing pool (higher capital cost but longer life and reduced seasonal installation labor), or (3) pursue a full natatorium (indoor pool) — the council noted a full natatorium would be a major, long‑lead project likely requiring a bond referendum. Staff were directed to obtain competitive cost and schedule estimates for a replacement bubble and for a permanent fiberglass structure and return with a direct comparison; the bubble timing (lead time) was flagged as urgent because the current bubble will need replacement before next winter.

Hockey rink Staff and commissioners also discussed requests from local hockey users for a year‑round, enclosed facility. The current outdoor rink has humidity and corrosion issues; staff were directed to obtain a structural engineering evaluation to determine whether the existing building can be enclosed and upgraded or whether a replacement facility would be required, and to return with high‑level cost options for council consideration.

Mead Field driveway (Scarborough property) Councilors directed staff to open discussions with the adjacent property owner about cost sharing for the planned permanent Mead Field driveway that crosses or abuts private property. Staff was asked to research prior property documents, potential easements, and whether the adjacent developer should share project costs, and to return with options and a proposed negotiation approach.

Other outcomes and next steps - Staff will reconcile the consultant fee tables and reprint corrected pages for council and post corrected fee tables online. - Staff will prepare an April work session packet that includes: (a) an update on county‑payment negotiations, (b) fee schedule options with modeled revenue impacts, and (c) project cost/schedule estimates for the council’s short list of priorities so council can indicate which projects to move into the FY26 budget. (Direction to City Manager Justin and department directors.)

Ending: The council emphasized it wanted Peachtree City residents to receive preferential recreational pricing while developing a sustainable approach so taxpayers do not continuously subsidize growing use by non‑city residents. Council members repeatedly asked staff to present options that show both the revenue and operating impacts so members can make explicitly budgeted choices during the FY26 budget cycle.