Portola Valley parks committee questions consultant fee hikes, asks staff for more time

Portola Valley Parks & Recreation Committee members on Thursday pressed staff to slow implementation of a consultant—ee study they said would produce steep increases for users and add complexity to the town—ee schedule.

Karen, who presented the committee nalysis of Matrix Consulting ata, said the town currently recovers roughly 58% of recreation costs versus a commonly cited industry range of 20% to 50%. She warned that the study ppeared to mix per-user and hourly methodologies and that some of the consultant—stimates (for example, $137 per user for 100% cost recovery) needed additional scrutiny. "An increase from the recreation fees is actually going to be of minimal impact to the town revenue," Karen said, arguing the revenue pool is small and the administrative burden of many new line items could outweigh benefits.

The committee emphasized three near-term positions: hold pickleball fees steady until staff can calculate full, court-specific costs; convert picnic-area charges from a per-person to a per-event or per-hour rate; and separate community-hall recommendations so council can consider them quickly while staff continues deeper analysis of sport and court fees.

Public commenters representing local court and field users urged the committee to distinguish courts from fields in the fee structure. "The pickleball players are subsidizing the field people," a resident said, arguing courts require far less maintenance and that player-run maintenance further reduces town costs.

John, a long-time committee member, provided historical context for the current structure and cautioned that moving immediately to an hourly model would shift costs between youth and adult users. "If you go to an hourly rate, it could increase youth fees and decrease some adult fees," he said, urging a full apples-to-apples comparison before changing the pricing basis.

Committee members also questioned a slate of new administrative fees proposed in the Matrix work: application-processing charges of about $492 for facility rentals, class-instructor application fees near $197, a new $25-per-hour cleaning charge, deposits ranging up to $500, and a proposed storage fee of $144 per day. "There are a lot of new fees that add complexity and implementation cost," one member said, asking staff to weigh administrative burden against potential revenue.

Darcy, representing town staff, said the council—alendar creates urgency for some items: the council hearing is scheduled for June 24 and packets must be finalized in advance. She noted staff could present community-hall rates to council promptly while the committee takes more time to develop sport and court recommendations. Darcy also proposed using a competitive benchmarking approach for courts and fields (surveying peer cities) and then translating the result into a subsidy model for council consideration.

The committee voted to recommend that staff request more time from the council to refine field and court rates, pursue peer benchmarking, and return with a proposal that shows both recommended rates and the implied subsidy levels. Committee members also agreed as a practical interim measure that a modest, limited increase (a 10% across-the-board uplift was discussed) could be considered while staff completes the deeper analysis.

What happens next: the committee will meet again to finalize the sport- and court-fee model (targeting competitive comparisons, subsidy options and revenue elasticity projections) and staff will present community-hall recommendations to the council as a separate item. No final fee changes were adopted during the meeting; the committee sked staff for additional data and time before forwarding formal recommendations.