Kalispell council reviews proposed parks, recreation and park-reservation fee changes

City of Kalispell staff presented proposed changes to recreation program fees and a new park-reservation price matrix during the council work session on April 28, 2025.

Parks and Recreation Director Chad Fincher told council the department last updated fees in 2023 and follows a 2–3 year review cycle. He said staff used a two-part review — a direct cost analysis and a local market comparison — and incorporated proposed School District 5 facility-use fees into the cost model. “When we were looking at it in its entirety, it's 8 to 20% depending on the program,” Fincher said, explaining that the district's proposed charges raise costs for some city programs that use school gyms and fields.

Fincher said the department is proposing an 8% across-the-board increase for pool fees and described management efficiencies that reduce some staffing costs. He also explained a restructuring of park reservation fees so they will work with new online registration software; the prior sliding-scale matrix could not be directly implemented in the platform. Staff modeled prior-year rentals through the proposed matrix and said most bookings would not see large increases; one long reunion booking under the new matrix would pay several hundred dollars more but could reduce its requested block from seven hours to six to remain near prior-year cost.

Council members asked about the share of increases tied to School District 5 fees and about possible reliance on the general fund if fees were not adjusted. Fincher said the district fees account for roughly 8%–20% of the increase depending on program and that some costs are automatically supported by a transfer from the general fund established in prior budgets. Councilmember Fisher asked whether city work or parking provided to the district was negotiated as an offset; Fincher said the discussions reflect reciprocal use and that the school board had not yet adopted the proposed fees and had indicated some flexibility if fees were implemented, potentially delaying collections until budget authority was in place.

Council members also discussed scholarship support for low‑income participants. Fincher said the department operates a scholarship line funded in part by proceeds from program photography and that scholarship eligibility follows School District 5 free/reduced lunch criteria; he said local businesses have occasionally donated to support participants. Several council members suggested exploring an optional charitable “round-up” at online checkout to raise scholarship funds and noted city policy limits active solicitation by staff; staff said they would implement such a feature only at council direction.

On the pool, Fincher said the facility continues to operate at a deficit on a per‑participant basis and would need an entry fee around $17–$18 to break even under current cost assumptions; he said staff are seeking operating efficiencies to limit fee increases and avoid sharply reducing participation.

Council gave staff direction to bring the proposed fee schedule and reservation matrix forward for formal action at a future meeting so council can consider the specific ordinance or resolution during upcoming budget workshops.

Arthur Fredheim, a resident who offered public comment, supported an optional donation/round-up to help keep lessons and pool access affordable.

The council did not take a formal vote on the fees at the work session; staff will return with specific ordinance/resolution language and a fee schedule for council consideration at a future meeting.