The City Council held a work session on September 8, 2025, to discuss two major topics: the Parks and Recreation Cost Recovery and Fee Study, and the Tourism Program. No formal actions were taken; the session was for discussion and direction to staff. Council members present included Councillors Falkner, Martinez, Schemel, Council President Valenzuela, Councillor Marshall, Councillor Gutison, along with Parks and Recreation Director Ann Lane, Jesse Vanderzanden, and other city staff.
The topic is parks and recreation assessment and fee study. No public comment will be taken, and the council will take no formal action. Let the record show that Councillor Falkner, Martinez, Schemel, Council President Valenzuela, Councillor Marshall, Councillor Gutison, and Parks and Rec Director, Parks and Recreation Director Ann Lane, Jesse Vanderzanden are present at the table. And then there are various members of city staff and community members in the audience. And I'm going to turn it over to Ann. So thank you for your time this evening, Mayor and Council. Tonight's work session is focused on the parks and recreation assessment and fee study. This topic is complex and uncomfortable. We're going to take it one piece at a time. After each piece, we'll pause to check in, answer questions, and discuss the information. The recently adopted 2040 Vision Plan includes a goal for a healthy and active community. An intended outcome for the goal is an increase in safe and accessible recreation opportunities. A few actions needed to reach the goal include the identification and reduction of barriers to participation, and increasing access to recreation opportunities. Additionally, this project has been identified in the adopted city council goals and values for both 2024 and 2025. The expressed goal to enhance recreation opportunities for all with an objective to complete the parks and recreation cost recovery plan is intended to see outcomes that increase quality of life for a happy and healthy community, fiscal sustainability for maintenance and operations, and accessible recreation opportunities for all ages and abilities. Lastly, we are required to do this work as directed by City Code Section 3401. Shown here fully, the yellow highlighted section states the philosophy is to base user fees on cost of service. So the city will be able to recover the costs associated with delivering a service to an individual or group. By recovering the cost of providing a service, the rest of the community is not subsidizing services benefiting individuals. It is also important to note that City Code 3402B states we are required to complete a cost of service study every five years. In 2023, a solicitation of a request for quotes for the project was completed. A consultant was hired, and the fee study portion of the project was completed. In 2024, time was spent soliciting input through two joint work sessions with the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council, as well as a community stakeholder workshop and a partner network workshop. After that, a draft recommended cost recovery model provided by the consultant was presented to City Council and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Later that year, the commission held a work session to explore ideas and discuss options to address concerns raised about the rentals category. Consensus was reached that they were at an impasse on a recommendation regarding the rentals category, but voted to recommend approval of the rest of the plan. Next, an athletic club and organization stakeholder meeting was held. Based on their comments, consistent themes emerged of affordability, maximizing opportunity for participation, and recognition that these organizations provide a benefit to the community. Since the last stakeholder meeting, there have now been two city council work sessions, and that counts tonight's. Okay, we'll move on. One of the steps along the way in developing the plan was to develop service categories. What's shown here is an excerpt from the final report provided by the consultant. In essence, the purpose of organizing all parks and recreation services into categories is to discourage attempts to determine fees and charges, and therefore cost recovery decisions based upon special interests, age-based services, or individual values. Ten service categories have been developed, and their definitions are written out here. This too is an excerpt from the final report provided by the consultant. These 10 categories represent only the services offered by Forest Grove Parks and Recreation. And every service offered by Parks and Recreation is assigned a category. In addition to the service categories, there are common goods services and exclusive benefit services. A common good service has a greater subsidy investment. Lower cost recovery expectation is seen as community building, provides accessibility to marginalized underrepresented populations, has broad appeal to a wide audience, and the services contribute to greater equity, cultural awareness, and make everyone in Forest Grove's life better. An exclusive benefit service has a greater cost recovery expectation, lower subsidy investment is individualized, of special interest, requires higher competency or ability level to participate, are specialized activities and are often accessible outside of the Forest Grove Parks and Recreation System. Common goods services and exclusive benefit services are identified on the cost recovery continuum as the X axis across the bottom. High subsidy, low cost recovery, and low subsidy, high cost recovery are identified on the cost recovery continuum as the Y access along the side. The 10 service categories are listed in order on the continuum from those perceived to be common good services to those seen as providing a more exclusive benefit. Feedback and engagement through a collection of meetings with the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council representatives, as well as department staff and stakeholders resulted in the draft recommended cost recovery model shown here. This recommendation was provided by the consultant and presented to city council in August 2024 during the work session. The result of the work session was consensus by City Council on the three components of the draft cost recovery model. Those three components included the order of the categories along the continuum, the cost recovery goals for each of the categories, and the overall approach of the cost recovery continuum. Shown here and provided in your packet are images of the draft cost recovery plan and the final report document as provided by the consultant. This is a proposed plan, not a policy.