City outlines Measure U youth spending, leisure needs and a fee‑recovery framework for recreation programs

At the June 3 council meeting, assistant city manager Wu and Recreation and Parks staff presented how Measure U revenues are allocated to youth services and summarized a new Recreation & Parks cost‑of‑service study that proposes a five‑tier fee‑recovery framework for program and facility fees.

Measure U youth spending: Assistant City Manager Wu told the council Measure U channels 90% of its funds to public safety, 5% to youth and 5% to quality of life. For fiscal year 2023–24, staff estimated Measure U youth spending at roughly $1.7 million (about 5.6% of Measure U receipts), split primarily between Recreation & Parks and the library. Recreation staff described services at the April Maldonado Community Youth Center — including a multimedia lab, job‑training market and leadership programs such as Key Club and the mayor’s youth task force — and the library noted baby and bilingual story times, homework help through sixth grade, anime and teen clubs and heavy bookmobile outreach.

Leisure needs assessment and youth engagement: Recreation staff said a five‑year leisure needs assessment is underway, with more than 1,000 respondents and targeted outreach to teens; results will be presented to council in July with demographic breakdowns. Dennis Smitherman, recreation division manager, reported the youth center recorded 2,900 visits (duplicated) and 1,185 unique users in 2024 and emphasized staffing and mentorship as key elements of youth programming.

Cost‑of‑service study and fee‑recovery pyramid: Staff (RCS consultants and Recreation & Parks) presented a cost‑of‑service approach that groups programs into five levels — from “exclusive individual benefit” (recommended 75–100% cost recovery) down to “community‑wide benefit” (largely subsidized or free). The pyramid is intended to align pricing with the public vs. private benefit of programs: higher cost‑recovery targets for private or exclusive facility rentals and lower recovery (or free access) for broad public events and some youth services.

Council comment and equity concerns: Council members generally supported the concept but asked for clarity on placement of specific programs (for example, lap swim and youth sports) and urged protections for youth and senior access. Council member So to emphasized collecting participant demographics and ZIP‑code data from registrations to assess accessibility and inform fee decisions. Recreation commissioners present supported higher recovery for facility rentals and recommended further public analysis before finalizing program‑by‑program pricing.

Implementation steps: Council approved a policy framing (not specific fee increases) that lets staff and the Parks Commission use the pyramid to set fees and return with detailed proposals. Staff will bring the leisure needs assessment next month and then follow with fee recommendations tied to the pyramid and with proposed resident discounts and scholarship options to protect access.

Ending: Staff said the fee framework is intended to provide a predictable pricing policy while preserving subsidized access for programs that provide broad community benefits. The council asked staff to present demographic usage data and to consider transit/transportation barriers in program access.