Parks commission delays vote on proposed fee changes, asks for usage and comparative data

The Parks and Community Services Commission on May 21 declined to approve as presented a consultant-backed package of changes to parks and recreation fees, instead voting 6–0 to ask staff for more usage and comparative data and to return with multiple fee scenarios.

The commission met in a special hearing on a citywide master fee review that included 68 recreation-specific fees. Finance Manager Anna Acosta and consultant Terry Mattson told the panel the department’s annual cost is roughly $10.5 million, with about $1.8 million — or 17 percent — recovered through user fees. Mattson said most of the 68 fees (61) were proposed to stay unchanged, while staff recommended one new fee and five modest increases tied primarily to reserved park use and damage deposits.

Mattson described the most notable change as a new tournament field rental surcharge: a roughly 35 percent premium over base hourly rates when fields are used for tournaments rather than routine practices or games. He said the increases typically translate to about $5–$10 more per hour for many users and that the proposed adjustments were intended to be “non-provocative” and within regional norms.

Commissioners frequently pressed for more granular evidence. Chair Brown and several members said they wanted detailed usage statistics, revenue-impact projections, and side-by-side comparisons with nearby cities (examples discussed included Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and Irvine) before recommending changes to council. Vice Chair Wright and others said they supported protecting youth, senior and core programming but were open to raising nonresident and commercial fees to improve cost recovery. Commissioner Dawn Parker and others emphasized equity concerns and asked staff to model the effects on lower-income residents.

Public comment amplified the request for fuller accounting. Jay Humphrey, a Costa Mesa resident, and Cynthia McDonald, another resident, raised concerns about the city’s handling of a Fairview Park “fly field” permit, saying the city had not been collecting fees and warning of potentially large relocation and permitting costs associated with moving the fly field (citing a possible state “take” permit and estimated costs of $50,000–$100,000). Staff replied that there is a current use agreement with HSS that provides insurance and that an east-side relocation is still under master-plan review with no final cost estimate yet.

After debating options, the commission voted to withhold approval and request that staff and the consultant return with a packet of additional materials: usage data and revenue projections, comparative fee tables, and several scenario options (for example: CPI-only increases; targeted nonresident surcharges; and phased, multi-year adjustments). The motion was made by Chair Brown, seconded, and carried unanimously. Staff said they would aim to provide the materials as soon as practical and expected to return by July, while noting some research and noticing constraints could push the timeline.

What happens next: Staff will produce a supplemental packet, including comparative city data and usage-based revenue projections, and present multiple fee scenarios for the commission to consider before any final recommendation goes to the City Council.