Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation Aquatics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Placerville council weighs higher fees, shorter season and sponsorships to shore up Aquatic Center budget
Summary
City staff laid out operating costs, revenues and several options — including fee increases, a shorter weekday schedule after school resumes and resident discounts — and the council directed staff to develop proposals for the FY 2025–26 budget.
Placerville city staff presented a status update on the Placerville Aquatic Center and asked the City Council for feedback on options to close a projected operating gap for fiscal year 2025–26.
The presentation by Dennis Nishihara, recreation staff, said the city plans to open the pool for the 2025 season on June 2 and to close the last day of swim on Sept. 1. Nishihara told the council the facility operates about 92 days across the season and that the current fee schedule was last updated in March 2020.
Nishihara framed why the issue matters: the city projects roughly $222,993 in revenue from the Aquatic Center for the coming year against larger operations and maintenance costs. He said operations-related expenditures include about $465,700 in routine operations and additional maintenance and repair costs that bring the total to roughly $674,300 (figures presented by staff). The county contributed $37,500 in the most recent year, staff said.
Staff outlined several options for narrowing the budget gap: 1) shorten the season by eliminating some weekday public swim days after children return to school; 2) increase user fees and implement a two-tiered resident/nonresident price with a resident discount; 3) change the pool schedule (for example, close some weekdays or only hold public swim on weekends); and 4) pursue sponsorships or fundraising campaigns and longer-term capital investments (variable-frequency drives, pool covers) to reduce operating costs.
Nishihara presented sample fees and usage data: a season pass was described as about $40 (staff noted a senior discount subsidized by a Marshall Foundation grant), drop-in activity-pool fees about $4 per child, and swim lesson fees shown at about $39 for group lessons. Staff also reported roughly 5,331 individual drop-in visits over the season and average weekly attendance of about 540.
Councilmembers and members of the public pressed several practical points. Multiple councilmembers supported raising fees and offering a resident discount; several emphasized preserving lap swim and senior access. Councilmember comments repeatedly noted lifeguard availability and the loss of younger staff when school resumes as reasons to reduce weekday programming first. Residents urged saving the pool and suggested fundraising, sponsorships and asking the county for more support; speakers cited that a significant portion of users come from unincorporated El Dorado County.
Public commenters who spoke on the item included Joe Rodman and Sue Rodman, who urged keeping swim lessons and the pool available because of the lessons’ public-safety benefits. Ruth Carter urged sponsorships and called attention to data presented showing county users. Kathy Lishman and other residents suggested donation campaigns or business sponsorships.
The council provided direction to staff to return with concrete proposals. Mayor and council remarks indicated support for a combination of fee increases with a resident discount, preserving lap swim and weekend service through Labor Day if possible, and exploring sponsorships and targeted cost-savings. Staff said they will bring specific proposals to the budget hearings in May and follow up with cost and revenue analyses for the council to consider.
The presentation materials and public comments will inform staff’s budget recommendations to the council during the upcoming budget process.
