Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-05-19; Parks & Recreation Commission; 503-4; Aquatic Fee IncreasesAB# 503-4 MTG. DATE: 5-19-03 - STAFF: BEVERLYlPOPE I I I RECOMMENDED ACTION : INFO TITLE : AQUATIC FEE INCREASES ACTION Review and discuss staff report and direct staff accordingly. ITEM EXPLANATION : During the March Parks and Recreation Commission meeting, staff ac(ulessed the Commiss on with proposed fee increases for the programs and rental of the existing Swim Complex. The proposed fee schedule was expected to return an approximate 43% cost recovery for the aquatic operation. As part of the March staff presentation, the Commission was informed that the goal of the Council was to have the aquatic facility be 50% self-supporting. Based in part on that information, the Commission directed staff to return with a cost recovery fee structure that would produce a percentage closer to Council’s goal. However, additional information considered as part of the Commissions direction also included survey results of fees charged by other North County facilities providing similar programs. Staff returned to the Commission in April with a fee schedule more closely aligned with a 50% cost recovery rate. Prior to recommending that fee schedule for consideration by the City Council, the Commission did suggest one change. That change increased the per lane hour charge to Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) from $5.00 to $6.00. Although the action to endorse the proposed fee schedule was supported by the Commission with a vote of 4-1 , the dissenting vote did not concur with the increased rate to CUSD. Anticipating some controversy over the proposed fee increases, staff began to prepare for a presentation to City Council. In processing the proposed fee increase for Council consideration, staff searched the City’s Document Management System (DMS) to identify when the charges for CUSD had increased since the pool began operation. The DMS had identified the following rate increases by year and cost. They are: July 1983 $14.00/hr February 1985 June 1989 June 1998 August 1999 July 2001 $14.00/hr for exclusive use and $7.00 for non-exclusive use $1.80 per lane hour $1.90 per lane hour $2.10 per lane hour $2.40 per lane hour The above rate increases were also applied to other community groups that rented space in the pool as well. In the mid 199O’s, an additional charge for lifeguards and utility costs was also applied to user groups that requested pool use after normal operating hours. Those charges were directly offsetting and covered the City’s additional staff costs and utility increases as a result of operating the facility in the later evening hours when, typically, pool covers where in place to conserve the heating and energy costs. AB# Page 2 While searching the City’s Document Management System, staff uncovered information that may have a bearing on the fee recommendation that the Commission endorsed for City Council consideration. In the minutes of the May 9, 1989 City Council meeting (Exhibit I), staff discovered the following information relating to City Council Agenda Bill #I 0,014 - “Adoption of Revised Fees for City Services.” Specifically relating to proposed fee increases at the Aquatic Complex, the minutes read, “It was the consensus of Council that the swimming pool operate at 45 percent cost recovery and the other parks and recreation programs remain at 60 percent cost recovery. Council requested staff to determine appropriate pool fees based at the 45 percent cost recovery policy, but recommended leniency toward the youth”. Although staff realized that no official action in terms of a vote was taken by Council to formally adopt a 45 percent cost recovery policy, the minutes did state that a consensus of Council Members did endorse that rate. In light of this recently discovered information and after considerable discussion among department staff members, it was unanimously agreed that this fee issue should return to the Commission for further consideration. This decision was made solely on the basis that staff felt incorrect information had been provided to the Commission in terms of what the City Council’s goal is for cost recovery at the Swim Complex. During previous discussions with the Commission, staff had reiterated on several occasions that the Council goal is 50%. The attached Exhibit I indicates an obvious contradiction to that statement. To the extent that this information may have a bearing on what the Commission recommends to the Council, staff is returning with a fee schedule that represents a cost recovery rate closer to the 4!jth percentile (Exhibit 2). For comparison, also attached on Exhibit 2 is what the Commission endorsed in April. Staff is not endorsing either fee schedule, rather, the information is presented solely for re-consideration and comparative value. - While it is true that the Councils goal is to operate at a 60 percent cost recovery rate for recreation programming, the revenues often return a rate between 65 - 70%. Accordingly, staff has always operated with the understanding that the Councils cost recovery objective was a minimum recovery rate and should be exceeded contingent upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to what the market will bear and a market comparison of similar facilities and program cost. Notwithstanding that, the attached Exhibit 2 repres.ents a fee schedule that is estimated to produce a cost recovery more closely related to the percentage discussed by Council during the May 9, 1989 City Council meeting. As an additional point of contention discussed by staff, it has been brought to our attention that the opportunity for public input related to this issue has been deemed less than satisfactory among certain users of the facility. More specifically, the notification process was considered inadequate. Staff would not disagree with that assessment as some level of misunderstanding has occurred with respect to which individuals andlor user groups should have received notification of the March and April Commission meetings. That said, staff views this as an opportunity to improve the public input process by making a concerted effort to notify appropriate individuals and groups that use the facility well in advance of the May lgth Commission meeting. 7 AB# Page 3 Although staff regrets any imposition passed on to the Commission by having to return with this item, collectively we feel it imperative to provide accurate information to the best of our knowledge so that informed decisions and recommendations can be made. Moreover, we are compelled to report inaccuracies so that we can maintain accountability and a high level of trust between the staff, Commission, and the community. ,- FISCAL IMPACT: Listed below is a comparison of the estimated additional revenue that will be generated as a result of the Commission’s action in April. The cost recovery rate is based on what was the Commissions understanding that the Councils goal was to be 50%. It also includes the Commissions recommendation to increase the per lane hour fee from $5.00 to $6.00 for CUSD. The secondary summary revenue numbers represent the estimated return from the 45% cost recovery fee schedule. SUMMARY OF REVENUE INCREASE Pre -Beginner Learn to Swim - Family Passes I nd ivid u a I Passes Daily Admission Rentals Programs APRIL PRC RECOMMENDATION $10,365 19,300 14,050 11,550 5,841 33,590 6,779 $1 01,475 45% COST RECOVERY $ 4,630 9,680 11,340 7,340 3,859 20,772 6,839 $64,460 FY 03-04 Budget $473,791 $473,791 Total Estimated Revenue with Increases $269,475 $232,460 Estimated Cost Recovery Percentage* 0.569 0.491 *A 36% decrease in usage and revenue is expected with increased fees. EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Minutes for AB 10,014, Adoption of Revised Fees for City Services - May 9, 1989 I 2. Fee Schedule Indicating 45% Cost Recovery 15 May 9, 1989 c MINUTES Page 2 3 CONSENT CALENDAR: (Contlnued) 4. AB 110,013 - AMENDING CLASSIFICATION PLAN AND SALARY PLAN FOR POLICE SERVICES AIDE. Councl I adopted RESOLUTION NO. 89-iS8, mndlng the classlflcatlon plan and salary schedule of the Clty to revlse the classlflcatlon of Pollce Servlces Alde. ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Mayor Lewls presehted a Certlflcate of Appreciatton to the Farmers Insurance Group of Canpanles for the 2,000 Combat Auto Theft (C.A.T.) decals and walvers. The Certlflcate was accepted by Carl Wllson, who thanked the Clty for Its Interest In thls program. Councll adopted the followlng Resolutlon: AB 110,010 - ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION. RESOLUTION NO. 89-134, ACCEPTING A DONATION OF COWAT AUTO THEFT DECALS AND WAIVERS. PUBLIC COMMENT: There were no requestd to address the Councll. ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION: 5. AB 19988 - AYENDMENT TO PERS CONTRACT - FIRE SAFETY EMPLOYEES. Councll adopted the followlng Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. NS-66, AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RET I REMENT SYSTEM 6. A@ 110,006 - ESTABLISHMENT OF SPEED LIMIT ON PORTION OF PALMAR AIRPORT ROAD. Councll adopted the followlng Drdlnance: ORDINANCE NO. NS-67, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 10.44 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE ey THE AODITION OF SECTION 10.44.330 TO ESTABLISH THE SPEED LIMIT UPON PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD FROM EL WINO REAL TO THE EASTERLY CITY LIMIT. PUBLIC HEARING: MI 110 014 -,ADOPTION OF REVISED FEES FOR CITY 5 .r~ERvtc;S. Jim Elllott, Flnance Dlrector, gave the staff report as contalned In the Agenda 8111. He sald he had met wlth the Parks and Recreation Cmlsslon on Aprl I 17, 1989, and had explalned the fees for aquatlcs and the Agua Hedlonda fees. They expressed concern that the Cwncll understand how Important the youth sports actlvltles are to the Clty., and that the Clty's goal of offsettlng the cost of operation should not overrlde Interest In sponsorlng those.actlvltles. COUNCIL MEMBERS. Lewls Kulchln Pett I ne Mamaux Larson Lewls Kulchln Pett 1 ne Mamaux Larson Lewls Kulch In Pett I ne Mamaux Larson EXHIBIT 1 h \ \ [- \ J MINUTES May39,: 1989 Page 3 fl.;s.*--k PUBLIC HEARING: (Contlnued) Mayor Lewfs opened the Public Hearlng at 6:16 p.m., and Issued the lnvltatlon to speak. Jeff Pease, 7821 Estancla Street, spoke on the Issue of the fee proposed for the North Cast Aquatlcs, statlng he has been Involved as a coach for the last 14 years, and has coached the Masters Program the last seven or eight years. He referred to a handout glven to Councll Members prlor to the meetlng, setting cut 13 polnts concernlng thelr program and the ramfflcatlons of a fee Increase for thefr program. and the money brought Into the Clty through those programs. charged any swlm team In San Dlego County, and could not be passed on to the membershlp. Yr. Pease asked Councl I to subsldlre this program and keep the fees where they are at the present tlme. .Wa@~hf~-AtKJei'lr Olreator, Carlsbad qlgh School, s?Wrd that costs are always a factor whdn offered et the hlgh school. He'rald the tncrease In cost would dlrectly affect the hlgh school program and he rqur$ted CajncrJ subsldfze the programs for the hlt& Sew arid the NCA. J Ir A I len, 7302 Arelea Place, spoke as an Interested parent, wlth chlldren In the hlgh school nlm program and the NCA. He sald there would be some chlldren In those programs who would not be able to afford a fee Increase. Mr. AI len asked Councl I to keep the fees where they are ncu. Thomas Frey, 1840 Eastpolnt Avenue, stated the chlldren were uslng the "fringe tlmes" at the nlmmlng pool and paylng prime tfme fees. He explalned the programs A fee of $2.50 per hour wlll be the highest program Is Diana Sflva, 2150 Janls Way, stated she had served on the Swlm Pool Shdy Cmmlttee, and that Canmlttee agreed unanimously that an olynplc-slze pool wa5 necessary and that al I ages were to be able to use that pool. She told of the dlfflculty of keeplng part- tlme maches and sald that an Increase of 78 percent carld force the nlm teams to move to another pool slte to survJve. She asked the Clty to conslder a mre reasonable Increase In pool fees. Frank Erlckson, Oceanslde, sald he had been In the Masters Program for twenty years, and boys who cannot play the aggresslve sports do well In nlmnlng. He expressed concern for the group nlmners If the fees are I ncreased. Roland Sameison, 855 Vlolet Court, representing the Trlathletes utlllzlng the Masters Swlm Programs, stated those people would have an optfon to go elsewhere If the fees were Increased, but would rather stay here. He sald the publlclty the Cfty receives from these athletes could result In mre sponsors to subsldlze the teams. \ \ : j MINUTES May 9, 1989 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING: (Continued) Everett Hu lse, :4 17 Clement Ine, Oceans I de, stated he had tour chlldren In the swlm program and a fee Increase would jeopardlze havlng al I hls dlldren partlclpate In the program. Since no one else wlshed to speak on thls mtter, the Publlc Hearlng was closed at 6:40 p.m. Mr. Elllott sold that staff wanted to look at the fee for a parcel map and gadlng plan &e& fees, and would also return wlth a dlfferent fee schedule In that area. Cwncl I Introduced the fol lowlng Ordlnances: ORINANCE NO. NS-68, AHENDING VARIOUS TITLES OF THE CARLSBAD WNlClPAL WDF DEALING WITH CITY FEES. ORDINANCE NO. NS-69, AMENDIM3 TITLE 13, MAPTER 13.12 OF THE CARLSBAD WNlClPAL COOE BY ME MNDMNT OF SECTION 13.12.020 TO FOJUST SEWER SERVICE CHARGES. Councll dlrected staff to return wlth a pollcy requlrtng annual revtew of all city fees as part of the budget process. DEPARTMENTAL AND CITY MANAGER REPORTS: 8. AB 110,015 - STATUS REPORT - BATIQUITOS LAGOON ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. Gary Wayne, Plannlng Department, gave the staff report as contalned In the Agenda Blll. Rlchard Yoder, 7738 Madrllena Way, stated there was another slde to thls story whlch Is belng developed at thls tlm by a comrmnlty of concerned and dedlcated sclentlsts and managers of other lagoons. They wlll have Important things to say about the adequacy of the EIR and the deslrablllty of the proJect. urged Councll Members to not make any declslons or take any action before they had recelved those comments and caret u I ly cons 1 dared them. Mr. Yoder 3 MEMBERS Lewls Ku Ich In Pett I ne Mamau x Larson Lewls Kulchln Pett 1 ne Mamaux Larson + ine Description Aquatic Fee Comparative Analysis 05/44/2003 A B C D E F Current Value 4/21/03 %Incr. 45% Klncr. - 0 For comparative purposes, the Value Mean is the fee shown as a per hour or per day rate, times the number of hours or days offered for similar services and programs. 0 *For Birthday Parties with up to 100 people. W14Roo3 4:s PM Fees Chart win, MeanS.dc& EXHIBIT 2 19 I h I mo z= t I- e Aquatic Fee Comparative Analysis 05/14/2003 24 25 26 Diving/Synchro Swim - R 27.00 - 45.00 I 67% I 40.00 I 48% 37.00 - 60.00 f 62% 60.00 62Oh Diving/ - anchro -I__ Swim - NR __ . I__-- 3 50 5.75 4 00 (14% 4.00 14%] ______ Masters Daily Fee - R ______ 4.50 I 6.25 1 5.00 I .____ Vl: PO I ::$ 1 __ ______- 35.00 37.50 40.00 40.00 29 k0 31 Masters Workouts - NR - Mo. Fee 45.00 42.50 50.00 ' 1 I O/o 60.00 33% .Community/Non-Profit/lane/hr. ' 3.50 ~ 11.25* 6.70 -~ 91% 5.00. 4 3 '/o Commercial/Corp./lane/hour 8.80 - 10.00 14% 10.00 14% charges for pool switching and clean u as necessa . 1 -Per Hour/auard 1 16.00 1 -0- 25% 1 32 UA - C.U.S.D. /lane/hour 6.00 .p50°/o 5.00. 33 UA - N.C.A. - /lane/hour 2.40 1 - 6.70 1 180% 5.00 --_I_____~~ For comparative purposes, the Value Mean is the fee shown as a per hour or per day rate, times the number of hours or days offered for similar services and programs *For Birthday Parties with up to 100 people 108% 108% EXHIBIT 2 19 SUMMARY OF REVENUE INCREASE Pre -Beginner learn to Swim Family Passes Individual Passes Daily Admission Rentals Programs FY 03-04 Budget Tot a I Est i m'a ted Revenue with Increases Estimated Cost Recovery Percentage* APRIL PRC RECOMMENDATION $1 0,365 1 9,300 14,050 I 1,550 5,84 1 33,590 6,779 $1 01,475 45% COST RECOVERY $ 4,630 9,680 11,340 7,340 3,859 20,772 6.839 $64,460 $473,791 $473,79 I $269,475 $232,460 0.569 0.491 *A 34% decrease in usage and revenue is expected with increased fees.