Parks staff propose membership overhaul, separate court reservations and new fees to close budget gap

Parks and Recreation staff on Tuesday presented a proposal to restructure how Boulder sells facility access, asking the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board for input on charging by facility type, limiting some subsidies and beginning to charge for court reservations that historically were included with some rec‑center memberships.

Deputy Director Scott Schuttenberg said staff modeled the changes to “create a way to generate more revenue, still meet the needs of the public, and…have it be a win‑win for community members as well as parks and rec.” He told the board staff predict the package would add roughly $700,000 in recreation fund revenue in 2026.

Why it matters: the department says rising costs and underperforming cost‑recovery on some facilities require new pricing to preserve services. The proposals affect memberships, daily entry rates, seasonal facility passes and how courts (tennis/pickleball) are reserved and paid for. Staff emphasized a phased approach with further work on financial aid and a sliding‑scale in 2026.

What staff proposed

- Facility‑type pricing: instead of one pass that automatically covers all parks and recreation facilities, staff would sell separate passes (rec centers, seasonal outdoor pools, Boulder Reservoir) and an “all‑access” pass that bundles them with a 15% cross‑discount. The department modeled that most members use only one facility type; only about 6% used all three types last year.

- Revenue target and assumptions: staff used 2024 activity levels, forecast about 595,000 visits and included a planning assumption that 15% of members would hold multiple facility access privileges. The department’s cost‑recovery target per entry is $9.46; current revenue per visit is $6.79.

- Courts (tennis and pickleball): reservations would no longer be free for members across the system. Staff proposed charging reservation fees systemwide rather than limiting paid reservations only to non‑rec locations. The current court reservation fee is $5 per hour; staff proposed $10 per hour as a market‑level rate and a two‑hour cap per day. Staff said walk‑up play would remain free when courts are unreserved.

- Third‑party benefits and financial aid: staff said they will not change third‑party insurance or benefit access (for example, SilverSneakers, Renew Active) in 2026. Changes to the department’s financial‑aid sliding scale and other subsidy rules are planned for the 2026 cycle after further outreach and analysis.

- Product and software changes: the new fee structure is tied to a recreation management software launch. Staff said that the system chosen currently does not allow memberships to directly reduce the cost of a court reservation, a vendor limitation they said could take about a year to remedy.

Staff quotes and examples

“We were not meeting our cost‑recovery targets because expenses just continue to increase,” Schuttenberg said in the presentation.

Recreation Manager Megan Lohman described operational limits at courts and with third‑party benefits: “The difficulty with that is the software that we’ve chosen does not allow you to have a membership that applies to a rental.” She told the board the vendor is aware of the issue and exploring solutions.

Board concerns and staff responses

Board members raised equity and optics questions, especially for courts adjacent to rec centers. One board member worried members would feel they were paying for rec center access but still have to pay additionally for nearby courts. Staff said walk‑up access would remain free and that charging for reservations is intended to reduce monopolization of popular time slots and to allow better systemwide tracking and reimbursement (staff cited inability to capture third‑party reimbursements at courts because there are no card‑swipes or staff at those sites).

A board member suggested tradeoffs such as member discounted reservation rates; staff said they would explore discounting or “punch pass” solutions but that the chosen registration software currently limits how memberships can apply to rentals.

Key numeric proposals and clarifications

- Projected additional revenue: about $700,000 in the recreation activity fund for 2026 (based on modeled assumptions). - Cost‑recovery per visit target: $9.46 (current realized ~$6.79). - Proposed court reservation fee: $10 per hour (current $5/hr; staff called $10 “on the lower end of the market”). - Reservation rules discussed: 7‑day booking window, 30‑minute/1‑hour/2‑hour time slots and a 2‑hour per‑day cap per user. - Household membership rule change proposed: cap household membership to four people, with a low additional‑member fee for each extra person. - Youth and senior subsidies for seasonal facilities: staff proposed reducing some outdoor‑facility subsidies (for example, senior discount from 25% to 20% and youth discounts at seasonal facilities from 40% to 25%), while preserving major financial‑aid commitments and planning a new sliding scale in 2026.

Implementation timing and next steps

Staff said the structure (not final dollar amounts) is the focus of this meeting; dollar amounts and the full fee schedule are scheduled to come before the board in October as part of the budget/fee adoption process. Staff plan to launch the new recreation management software in mid‑November and begin marketing new membership options when the system is live. Staff repeatedly described the changes as phased and said they will keep third‑party benefit access unchanged through 2026 while they design the sliding scale and other mitigation measures.

What remains unresolved

Staff acknowledged technology limits (the vendor currently cannot apply a membership to a court rental), outstanding negotiations with groups such as BOCO Pickleball and the Boulder Tennis Association, and the need for further modeling on annualizing court reservation revenue. Board members asked staff to continue options analysis for member discounts on court reservations and to prepare clear communications plans.

Ending note

Staff asked the board for general support for the structural approach to pricing and for suggestions on communication. Board members gave initial support while requesting more detail, especially on courts and how the changes will affect frequent users and people who rely on third‑party benefits.