Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Athletic Fields Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mansfield staff previews athletic-field fee changes: hourly billing and higher participant fees among options to free up fields for residents
Summary
Staff previewed field-allocation policy options ahead of an April 20 joint session with council: move from participant fees to hourly rates or raise flat participant fees; staff cited 60% nonresident participation and falling association numbers despite population growth from about 47,000 (2009) to 87,000 (2024).
Mansfield parks staff briefed the board on options to revise athletic-field allocation and fee policy, seeking direction before a joint meeting with City Council.
Director Matt said staff will present benchmarking and recommended options at the April 20 joint workshop. He described two main approaches: (1) increase the existing participant fee (example proposals suggested moving resident/nonresident participant fees from the current $8/$15 to $10/$20) or (2) shift to an hourly billing model that invoices associations for actual field and lighting hours used.
Staff framed the policy problem around access and cost recovery. Matt said about 60% of participants in local associations are nonresidents, and that associations often hold exclusive allocation windows (about 243 days per year) without using much of the time. He argued that an hourly billing model would charge for actual use—so unused blocks would be freed to public rental—and better reflect electric costs for lights (staff cited ballfield electricity for small fields costing $50–$65 per hour and large fields up to $85 per hour).
Matt summarized the historical fee path: participant fees transitioned from a per-hour model to flat participant fees in 2014 and moved to current rates (resident/nonresident) by 2022; light fees have been $20 per hour. The parks team emphasized administrative tradeoffs: hourly invoicing requires staff time to collect schedules, track use and invoice, but could free field windows and increase cost recovery; staff noted the target cost recovery for athletic fields is 25% and the department is currently well below that threshold.
Board members asked about likely pushback. Matt said while associations might grumble, residents who lack field access have expressed growing frustration and benchmarking shows Mansfield’s rates are often below peer cities. Staff recommended working with associations and giving advance notice if changes are adopted; any new fees would likely be scheduled to take effect Jan. 1 following council adoption and budget timing.
Next steps Staff will present fee models and benchmarking at the April 20 joint meeting to seek council direction and return proposed policy language later in the budget cycle.
