Santa Clara staff to present revised field-fee proposal after debate over nonresident discounts

Santa Clara Parks and Recreation staff will present a draft fee schedule to the Parks and Recreation Commission on March 10 after local youth sports groups debated whether nonresident nonprofit teams should receive discounted field permits.

The discussion centered on two related proposals: a resident nonprofit discount that would cut fees by half for organizations whose rosters are at least 75% Santa Clara residents, and a proposed new ‘‘Category 5’’ for youth nonprofits that do not meet the 75% threshold but have some Santa Clara residency (staff discussion referenced a 15% residency marker in the draft proposal). Staff said the 75% residency proposal would reduce an $8-per-hour permit to $4 per hour for qualifying groups.

Kim Castro, Parks and Recreation manager, led the staff presentation and summarized the existing proposal: "The proposal was for this category only, the way I understand it, ... having at least 75% or more residents on their roster would pay a reduced permit fee of 50%." Castro said the meeting was intended to refine fees and field-allocation priorities before the commission review.

AYSO Region 64 Regional Commissioner Michael Hsu, representing a youth-sports organization, supported resident-focused discounts. "I must say this is nice because I think it fits the philosophy I heard from the board, the city council where they wanna make it as free as possible for the kids," Hsu said, describing the intent behind lower fees for resident youth organizations.

Staff described a separate proposal, advanced by some user groups, to add a distinct Category 5 for youth nonprofits that are based in Santa Clara but whose rosters fall short of the 51% (or 75%) residency thresholds discussed elsewhere. That draft would make a City-based nonprofit eligible for a discounted rate if a baseline share of its participants live in Santa Clara; staff and participants discussed several ways to operationalize that approach, including a sliding scale that grants discounts proportional to the percentage of local residents on a roster.

Multiple participants opposed discounts for nonresident groups, citing limited field inventory. One participant, identified in the meeting as a resident, said: "I have real concerns because this opens this ... up to the entire town of Santa Clara. These are city parks." Several youth-league representatives warned that expanding discounted access to nonresident groups could dilute practice opportunities for existing Santa Clara teams.

Staff also described how it plans to allocate practice fields if the fee and category changes are adopted. Angelique (staff) outlined the proposed process: staff would collect reservation requests, assign a lottery number to each group, and conduct a lottery night where groups pick practice slots in two-hour increments in a serpentine order. "We take all of your guys' requests. We send out an email. We get all of the requests from the various groups. And then Marlon and I kind of do the piecemealing of the different fields and the spaces that are needed," Angelique said when describing current practice; she added the department wants a clearer, more equitable method and proposed piloting the lottery process for practices before tying it to fees.

Other operational items discussed included requiring organizations to be based in the city to qualify for resident-based discounts, a proposed two-hour slot structure, cancellation fees that would apply once the reservation timeline begins, and staff monitoring to prevent over-reservation. Staff said a draft of the fees and the staff report would be circulated in advance of the March 10 commission meeting; the report will note that groups attending in person generally opposed a nonresident nonprofit discount while some online participants favored it.

What staff will present and what will be recommended are distinct: staff told participants the nonresident nonprofit category would be documented in the commission report so decision makers are aware of the proposal, but it would not be included in the staff-recommended fee schedule unless the commission directs otherwise.

Next steps outlined by staff include distributing the draft report to stakeholders before the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting on March 10 and then forwarding the final recommendation to City Council as part of the council review process. Staff said they would consider a practice run of the allocation lottery so groups can see the system's effect prior to broad implementation.

No formal vote or fee adoption occurred at the discussion; staff recorded the views expressed and will incorporate them into the March 10 commission packet for commissioners and the public to review.