Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation Pools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members weigh proposal to restore free adult access to city pools as budget questions arise
Summary
Council members discussed an ordinance to remove adult swim fees at city pools (introduced for first reading), with staff estimating a roughly $50,000 revenue reduction at Lafayette and additional amounts at Pershing and Pavonia; members asked for usage and residency breakdowns and discussed budget offsets.
Council members on Tuesday debated a first-reading ordinance that would roll back adult swim fees at several Jersey City pools and asked administration staff for more data before adopting a change.
A council member said she and Councilman Gilmore were introducing the ordinance to revert to pre-2024 policies (pools had been free previously for residents), while retaining the existing exemption for children. Staff said Lafayette Pool generated about $47,000 in revenue in the prior summer; Pavonia and Marion combined produced smaller amounts (around $20,000). The administration estimated that restoring free access at Lafayette and Pavonia would reduce revenue by roughly $50,000 to $70,000 and that adding Pershing Field would raise that figure further (a council member put Pershing’s annual revenue impact at roughly $130,000 and another staff estimate put total impact with Pershing near $110,000–$120,000).
Council members asked staff to provide more detailed data before a final decision, including the share of users who live outside Jersey City (staff said they would provide residency breakdowns), seasonal vs. year-round usage, and options to publicize changes to shorten long entry lines. The administration offered options for outreach, including social media and flyers, and suggested enforcement practices that could initially be warning-based.
Members discussed budget offsets if the revenue line is reversed, and the administration said the council’s discretionary appropriation or other lines could be repurposed to cover the reduction; staff said specific offsets would be identified during budget preparation. The ordinance had not yet been adopted; the matter remained at first reading and councilmembers requested additional information ahead of the Thursday introduction and the formal budget process.
No final vote was taken at the caucus; staff said they would supply the requested residency and usage data and that council could amend the ordinance before introduction.
