Mesa parks director outlines fee changes; aquatics lane‑heating fee moves from school district to city
Loading...
Summary
The city presented proposed fee and charge updates for Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities, including a $1.50 per lane‑per‑hour aquatics heating charge now assessed by the city (previously charged by Mesa Public Schools), higher field supervision fees and revised rental rates for The Post.
Andrea Moore, director of Mesa Parks, Recreation and Community Facilities, outlined proposed revisions to the department’s fees and charges during the council study session, saying the department follows a schedule that must be set before summer registration for camps and aquatics.
Moore said the department reviewed neighboring cities’ fees, cost of service and market conditions with a subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and the board recommended approval of the proposed changes. "We reviewed other communities' charges, compared them to ours, went through our entire fee structure with a subcommittee of the parks board, and then reviewed the changes that we're recommending to you with them," she told council.
The most significant fiscal change identified in the presentation is an aquatics pool‑heating fee the city will now assess directly. Moore said groups that rent pools had previously paid a heating fee to Mesa Public Schools; with the city taking over utility accounts for pools under the intergovernmental agreement implemented last year, the city will now bill a $1.50 per lane per hour heating charge only during seasons when pools must be heated. The department estimated that change will produce roughly $50,000 in additional annual revenue but stressed the fee is not new to users: "We do not expect them to see a change," Moore said, noting the new charging method switches assessment from a per‑participant seasonal charge to a lane‑hour charge.
Council members asked how other parks and recreation charges compare to market rates and whether increases could push groups away. Moore said the department uses ranges to accommodate seasonal and program length differences and that the higher field supervision fees—intended to cover rising staff costs—target groups that rent fields, not everyday users. "The field preparation fees are the things that would ... have a direct impact to the groups that are renting the fields," Moore said.
The presentation also described changes to commercial facility fees. The Post—Mesa’s downtown event venue—had discounted introductory rates its first year to encourage use. Moore said the draft schedule formalizes a reduced “city” rate for city‑sponsored events (she cited an internal rate of $25 per hour for city events) while restoring higher private‑rental rates for the main room (presented examples: about $250 per hour in regular business hours and higher overtime rates for evenings/weekends). Moore said nonprofits working directly with the city could still qualify for the lower rate if the city is a sponsor or partner.
Other, nonfiscal changes listed in the draft include clarifying language (for example, removing a packaged birthday offering and listing a simple room rental instead) and updating definitions. Moore said the department aims for clarity and to eliminate unused fees.
Council members also asked about a proposed $1,500,000 cooperative contract to buy replacement playground components (slides, panels, climbing‑wall parts) rather than to construct new parks. Moore described the contract as intended solely for parts and repairs: "At $1,500,000, that's not enough to construct a park," she said. The presentation said construction of new courts or courts added from scratch would use separate job‑order or construction contracts.
Moore said renovation funding for the historic Post came from a mix of general fund cash and park bond authorizations, referring to the 2012 and 2018 bond packages as sources identified during the project planning.
Council members asked about next steps; Moore said the changes follow the board process and are timed ahead of the department’s April 1 implementation date for summer programming. Additional, specific fee adjustments and any implementation items would be returned to council for formal action as part of the budget and fees schedule process.
Ending: The report was informational; no formal council vote on the schedule occurred at the study session. Staff said they would return with final ordinance or fee schedules and that department staff will continue to work with the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and other stakeholders on final wording and implementation.
