Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facility Rental Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears petition about gym scheduling; staff defends rentals and offers refund pathway
Summary
A petition presented to city council about basketball gym scheduling drew discussion at the Nov. 17 Pryor Creek Rec Center advisory meeting. Staff described high rental revenue and said refunds have been offered in some cases; board members urged a written rubric and better communication.
The Pryor Creek Rec Center advisory board discussed a petition that had been presented to the city council on Nov. 4 alleging conflicts in gym scheduling, particularly limited access to the basketball court. The item was placed on the Nov. 17 advisory-board agenda for public discussion.
Unidentified Speaker 1 summarized staff's review of the concern, saying staff had exchanged emails with the complainant and that the center is open about 103 hours per week, with roughly 88 hours available for basketball. "So we have 88 out we're open 103 hours a week," the speaker said while explaining that rentals and facility programming reduce some open-play hours. The speaker also provided last-year rental figures: pool rentals of $27,993 and other general rentals of $18,569, which together were described as roughly $46,500 in rental revenue.
Board members defended the center's practice of renting space to generate revenue, noting that tax receipts alone do not cover fixed costs. Unidentified Speaker 2 said such rentals are typically done under memoranda of understanding or contracts for organizations like schools. Unidentified Speaker 3 recommended the board adopt a formal rubric to set priorities for public access versus rentals and to create guidelines for refunds. "If we ever did need to set a priority, it would have those priorities set," a board member said, urging documentation of how the center prioritizes events.
On refunds, the director (as reported by staff) said the center has been liberal and lenient in issuing refunds when events are disrupted; one staff member confirmed an offer had been made to refund a patron in the disputed case. Board members agreed a written, but reasonably specific, refund policy should be developed to avoid overly broad rules that could be abused.
The city attorney had been informed and no legal flags were reported during the meeting. No formal directive or vote was taken; the discussion was recorded as informational feedback and staff were tasked with documenting practices and considering a written policy.
Next steps recorded: staff will email the complainant's correspondence and any proposed rubric or refund policy language to board members for review, and the board requested a breakdown of scheduling and refund examples for later consideration.
