Fountain Hills council asks staff to return with uniform nonprofit fee plan, recommends 50% local discount and $30 ancillaries

Fountain Hills town council on Monday used a work session to press staff for a simpler, uniform approach to community center fees for local nonprofit organizations and to direct staff to return to the council with a formal proposal for a vote in October.

Staff presentations by Community Services Director Kevin Snipes and Town staffer Paul Soledinger showed a long history of inconsistent discounts and ad hoc arrangements that staff said are hard to administer. Snipes said the discussion was “solely discussing our nonprofits and our local nonprofits specifically,” and proposed a menu of options that staff said would all increase revenue relative to the current, uneven practice if rental volumes stay the same.

The council’s goal, several members said, is fairness and predictability for renters and staff. Council members agreed to ask staff to bring back an ordinance or council item for the Oct. 7 meeting recommending a three‑year, 50% discount for resident local nonprofits and a flat ancillary fee for audiovisual/coffee/typical extras; council members proposed $30 for ancillary items (staff had recommended $25). If the council adopts the item, staff recommended an effective date of Jan. 1 to allow groups time to plan.

Why it matters: Council members and staff said the community center is heavily used and that inconsistent or informal discounts create substantial administrative work for staff and confusion for renters. Staff said standardized rules would make renting easier for users and reduce single‑person dependency for on‑site managers.

Key facts and figures - Ballroom reservations: staff reported 435 total ballroom reservations in the most recent year reviewed; 106 of those were by local nonprofits. Staff said about 65 distinct local nonprofits have used the community center over recent years. - Budget context: Paul Soledinger told the council that, considering senior services, utilities and operations, the community center budget for fiscal year 2026 is “somewhere around $770,000.” He said fiscal year 2025 expenditures were about $714,000 and that capital improvements over the last three years totaled “like, $6,700,000.” - Current pricing: presentation slides shown in the meeting included a Monday–Thursday “full rate” and a lower resident nonprofit rate (slides referenced $100 full and $50 resident nonprofit for some time slots), but later in the session staff said the resident ballroom rate is $75 per hour and nonresident $150 per hour; staff and council repeatedly noted that the town’s rental data contain inconsistencies and that historical discounts may not be fully captured in the system. - Ancillary fees proposed: staff recommended a $25 flat fee for audiovisual and coffee (rather than itemized charges); council members suggested raising that to $30. Staging was discussed separately; staff noted staging is charged at $25 per piece. - Minimums and operations: staff recommended retaining a four‑hour minimum for ballroom rentals to preserve availability for larger events and to cover setup/tear‑down time.

Discussion highlights - Administrative burden: Snipes and other staff described how varied, longstanding discounts have left the community center manager and front‑line staff the only people who reliably know who has what deal. Council members repeatedly framed the change as a fairness and administrative‑efficiency measure rather than a revenue‑maximizing move. - Subsidy choices: Council members discussed how much of the community center’s operating costs the town should recover. Staff said every scenario on the table would raise rental revenue relative to the inconsistent discounts now in place if rental volumes stay constant. One council member framed the policy decision as how much the town will subsidize local nonprofits versus nonlocal users. - Phasing and notice: staff recommended a Jan. 1 effective date and suggested a staged approach as an alternative (for example, phased increases over multiple years) so nonprofits can plan. Several council members proposed either a single‑step 50% discount for resident nonprofits this year followed by reductions in the discount over two years (50% then 40% then 30% off the baseline) or keeping a flat 50% discount for three years while monitoring revenue impacts.

Outcome and next steps Council members agreed to ask staff to return with a formal item for the Oct. 7 council meeting recommending a three‑year, 50% discount for resident local nonprofits and a flat ancillary fee (council majority proposed $30 for audiovisual/coffee). Staff will prepare contract/fee language and notification materials and present the item for a formal vote; until the council votes, current arrangements remain in effect. Council also asked staff to prepare clear messaging for nonprofits and to produce paperwork (for example, 501(c)(3) documentation checks) that would standardize eligibility.

What the council did not do: no ordinance or fee change was adopted at the work session. The session produced direction to staff rather than a formal vote.

Provenance: Staff opened the discussion of community center fees at the start of the work session and identified the topic as the first of two deep‑dive items; the discussion concluded with council direction that staff return with a formal item for the Oct. 7 meeting for potential adoption and with implementation on Jan. 1 if adopted.