Ellensburg council approves first reading of parks-and-recreation fee ordinance, including proposed pool pass increases

The Ellensburg City Council conducted first reading of Ordinance 4959 on the evening of the meeting to amend Chapter 2.34 of the Ellensburg City Code, revising parks and recreation rates and fees for the Kittitas Valley Memorial Pool and Fitness Center, picnic shelters, athletic field use and tournament maintenance, and updating alcohol insurance requirements for city facilities.

Why it matters: Parks and recreation fees affect both routine users (seniors, veterans, youth and families) and local event organizers; the city's parks budget is heavily subsidized and staff said updates are needed to address rising operating costs and create a more sustainable revenue stream.

Parks and Recreation Director Brad Case told the council the proposal was developed as part of the 2025'26 budget priorities and would move several fee items out of code and make them publishable annually by the director. Case said the goals were to “increase revenues and reduce operational costs within the parks and recreation department as well as identify a sustainable revenue source.”

The ordinance proposes: increasing adult activity center hourly rental rates that have not been substantially updated since the 1980s; raising team fees for youth and adult sports (staff proposed moving youth from $20 to $30 and adult from $30 to $50 or $60 depending on category); removing tournament and maintenance fees from code and publishing them annually to reflect changing staffing and supply costs; and changing picnic shelter rentals to a flat $50 (five-hour block) or $100 (full day).

Pool fee changes are the most detailed portion of the proposal. Staff recommended increases ranging from roughly 10% to 30% across categories: a 10% daily-admission increase, a proposed 30% increase for many pass types (10-visit, quarterly and annual passes in some categories), and swim lessons up about 20%. Case said the city last froze pool rate increases in 2017 and that operating costs for the pool have increased by about 42% since then. He also said the pool's operating budget totals roughly $900,000 and that the facility recovered approximately $278,000 in revenue in 2024, representing roughly a 70% subsidy from the general fund.

Case told the council that under the proposed pass rates, pass-holders would still see a roughly 14% savings compared with paying daily admission, and that the 10-visit and three-month pass changes alone would boost pool revenue by about $21,000 using 2024 utilization figures. He also cited high usage: about 51,000 daily pool uses in 2024 and roughly 1,178 swim-lesson registrations.

On tournaments and fields, staff said bringing field prep and maintenance under city control (rather than relying on volunteer user groups) raised quality and reduced volunteer burnout. Case estimated tournaments coming to town in 2025 could generate more than $3 million for the local economy and said tournament organizers commonly charge hundreds per team; the city wants to recover maintenance costs while remaining competitive with Yakima, East Wenatchee and Pullman.

Public comment included neighbors who use the pool frequently and who urged a more gradual increase. Gary Kumesk, a long-term pool user, said a 30.4% increase for passes "seems disproportionately high" given seniors and veterans are among the heaviest users and many users are financially strained.

Council discussion focused on two recurring items: whether fees that change frequently should be removed from code and published by resolution (or annually by staff), and whether increases should be phased in to soften the near-term impact on regular users. Several councilmembers expressed interest in moving some fees to a resolution or published schedule so staff can update fees annually without code amendments; staff said some categories (pool passes, shelter rentals) could remain fixed while others (tournament fees, new program fees) would benefit from administrative updating.

Councilmember Mary (name not specified in the transcript) moved first reading of Ordinance 4959; the motion was seconded and passed on first reading by voice vote. Councilmembers indicated they will return for a second reading and asked staff to present options (including phased increases and a transition to a published fee schedule) before final adoption.

The council did not adopt final changes at the meeting; second reading and formal adoption will be scheduled in a future meeting, and staff said they will provide an annual report on published fees if the council approves that approach.

Ending: The ordinance returns for a second reading; staff and councilmembers signaled continued interest in tracking impacts on seniors, veterans and low-income users and in offering alternatives such as phased increases or targeted discounts during the next review cycle.