Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Fees Cost Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks and Recreation proposes value‑based cost‑recovery framework; seniors, rentals and swim lessons highlighted
Summary
Parks and Recreation Director Kate Smith proposed a value‑based fee framework July 16 that sets target cost‑recovery ranges by service type and aims to capture full program costs rather than charging primarily by participant demographics.
At a July 16 workshop West Sacramento Parks and Recreation proposed a new cost‑recovery framework that would set target fee recovery levels by service type rather than by participant demographics.
Director Kate Smith told the council that park acreage, trail miles and program participation have grown substantially and that operating costs — wages, utilities and maintenance — have risen since the department’s fee schedule was last updated. She said the department’s current fee methodology focuses mainly on direct costs and that the new framework would include full direct and indirect costs (staff time, overhead, facility maintenance) and set recovery goals according to a program’s public benefit and exclusivity.
Smith presented a tiered framework with service categories ranging from open‑access activities (parks, trails — 0% cost recovery) up through community events, education and enrichment, to private or rental activities where higher cost recovery is reasonable. Smith said she and a consultant reviewed the department’s current fees and that about 95% of fees could be aligned to the new framework with modest adjustments; a small set of activities showed large variances and will need policy direction.
Council discussion focused on concrete dollar impacts, affordability and scholarships. Councilmembers asked how proposed percentages translate to actual prices for seniors’ drop‑in passes, swim lessons and personal training. Smith and staff said senior passes have been charged as low as $5 annually and that moving to a market‑informed price would raise the fee but that the department proposes keeping senior access broadly affordable. Staff also described the department’s desire to create a scholarship or subsidy process (funding source to be defined) to ensure access for lower‑income residents.
Smith said staff will return with detailed, itemized fee proposals and implementation timing; the department aims for a fall adoption and winter implementation for selected fee changes.
Ending: Council supported the framework in concept and directed staff to return with detailed fee schedules with dollar amounts, and options for scholarships or sliding‑scale assistance for residents with limited means.
