Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board to brief council on C5 fee structure and third‑party insurance programs after staff flags $40K–$50K annual gap
Summary
Board reviewed a multi‑year packet and prepared to meet City Council in a joint workshop to decide how to handle third‑party insurance programs (SilverSneakers and others) that pay reduced per‑visit rates; staff said insurer payments create an estimated $40,000–$50,000 annual revenue gap and that roughly 600 third‑party members use the C5.
The Culture and Leisure Services Advisory Board spent the bulk of its meeting preparing to brief the City Council in a joint workshop on third‑party insurance programs and the C5 facility fee schedule.
Staff told the board that about 600 third‑party insured members currently use the C5 and that the city receives limited per‑visit payments from programs such as SilverSneakers. "We're losing about 40 to $50,000 a year on it," a board member summarized during discussion after staff provided budget comparisons. Staff said insurer payouts typically arrive with a lag (around 60 days) and some companies cap monthly payouts per member, which complicates revenue forecasting.
Staff explained that city code requires council action to set user fees for facilities and that council must decide whether to keep insurer arrangements, renegotiate contract terms, change fee coverage (for example limiting insurance coverage to exercise classes but not courts), or discontinue acceptance of third‑party payments. Staff emphasized the decision has broad implications for seniors and other resident groups who currently access the C5 through insurance programs.
To avoid repeated back‑and‑forth between the board and council, staff said it had compiled a 100‑page workshop packet and requested a joint public workshop where both bodies could discuss options in the open. Staff indicated the workshop would be conversation‑based, would include public comment, and could occur in the February or March cycle; council-level approvals and state/agency permitting were noted as separate decision points for other items discussed.
Board members asked for additional data to understand how many active members and transactions the C5 serves, distinctions between resident and nonresident use, and scenario calculations showing net revenue under alternative fee structures. Staff committed to providing detailed membership and transaction reports and to preparing materials for the joint workshop.
Next steps: staff will present the compiled packet to council in a joint workshop for policy direction; the board and staff will use council feedback to refine recommended fee-schedule language and any required code or resolution updates.
