Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses steep pool rental increases after lengthy testimony from Masters swimmers and seniors
Summary
Recreation staff proposed multi‑year increases in user fees and a plan to raise pool lane rental rates toward market levels; dozens of Masters swimmers and seniors objected to proposed adult nonprofit lane fees. Council held aquatic and pool‑rental fees for further review and approved the balance of the fee schedule.
Recreation and Parks Director Justin Long presented Alameda’s annual user‑fee schedule on Dec. 2 and proposed a multi‑year plan to raise lap‑lane rental rates toward market levels ahead of the new Emma Hood aquatic center. The presentation noted program fee increases aimed at closing the gap between current subsidized rates and operating costs.
Long said the goal is to recover costs where activities deliver individualized benefits while keeping community and youth programs affordable. “We try to limit our fee increases and target them in a very balanced way,” he told council.
But the lifeblood of the evening was sustained public testimony from Alamedans who said the proposed adult nonprofit lane fees — the charge for Master swimmers — would be ruinous for a program that serves seniors, cancer survivors, parents and longtime residents. Several speakers traced multi‑decade volunteerism and donations to city pool facilities, and made a public‑health case for keeping affordable adult coached swimming.
“We are staying active and healthy … Please look upon all swim teams as equal,” said Masters swimmer Maria Ducey. Numerous other speakers documented that many Masters members are seniors or lower‑income residents for whom the team is essential to physical and mental health.
Council response and action: Council asked staff for additional data and opted to remove the aquatic fee and pool‑rental lines from tonight’s vote to allow more analysis. The council approved the remainder of the fee schedule but directed staff to bring the aquatic and pool‑rental changes back for formal action after outreach and review.
What changed: Staff had proposed reaching a market lane‑rental rate in a planned multi‑year phase; after the public comment, staff proposed and council accepted stretching some increases out further while the department studies cost allocation and lifeguard charge options.
Local context: The recreation commission had reviewed the schedule; council members emphasized the city’s objective to balance fiscal sustainability with access for older residents and youth. The direction to hold aquatics fees for additional study came after widespread testimony that the proposed increases could put community‑run nonprofit teams at risk.
