Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends $65 flat hourly rate for Grand Pavilion, advances fee schedule for full council adoption
Summary
The committee of the whole voted to amend the park and public facility fee schedule to set a flat $65 hourly rate for the Grand Pavilion and recommended adoption of the updated fees under suspension of the rules. Supporters called the rate a compromise; some members opposed weekend differentials.
The Brooklyn City Council committee of the whole voted to recommend amending the park and public‑facility fee schedule to set the Grand Pavilion at a flat $65 per hour and advanced the amended fee schedule to the full council for adoption under suspension of the rules.
The measure—Resolution 2026‑06, adopting permit and rental fees pursuant to BCO 539.16 and declaring an emergency—was presented with background from recreation staff and administration. Councilmember Sue Grodic objected to charging more for weekend rentals and urged eliminating the weekend differential, saying the pavilion will be used primarily by local residents, businesses and rec‑center members and should not carry a higher weekend surcharge. "I still disagree with charging more for the weekends," Grodic said during debate.
Councilman Matt Mosley and other members supported a single hourly rate as a compromise. Mosley recalled a finance‑committee discussion and said splitting the difference at $65 an hour would be fair and easier to administer. Administration staff, including Mr. Bruzzy and Mrs. McGinty, told the committee they had researched comparables and recommended the schedule presented to council; the mayor indicated support for the administration’s recommendation.
The committee first voted to amend the fee schedule to set the Grand Pavilion at $65 per hour (the motion passed on a recorded vote: Andy Certz — no; Matt Mosley — yes; Aaron Barowski — yes; Kevin Tansky — yes; Kathy Buchcci — yes; Sue Gerick — no; Steven Coyle — yes). Following that amendment, the committee voted to recommend adoption of the ordinance under suspension of the rules (recorded vote: Andy Certz — no; all other recorded members present — yes).
Members raised several operational questions during debate: the pavilion has no permanent air conditioning and officials said exterior ceiling fans could be explored to improve airflow; staff noted concerns about garage access and site constraints for adding additional doors; and the policy clarifies that service animals are exempt from the pavilion’s no‑animals rule. Staff also flagged that the reservation and finance software currently do not exchange enough detailed data to report patron types (resident, nonresident, member) and recommended a post‑season review of utilization after the first full rental season.
The committee’s action is a recommendation to the full council; the ordinance still requires the council floor to consider the amendment and the adoption motions. The committee chair said that if rental demand is lower than expected the administration could return with revised rates.
Next procedural steps: the council will consider a motion to amend, a motion to suspend the rules, and—if those pass—a motion to adopt the ordinance on the council floor.
