File Photo by Gabriel Christus/Aurora Sentinel
AURORA | Aurora lawmakers on Saturday said they support raising fees at city recreation facilities — one of a handful of proposed changes meant to recover more of the money spent annually on providing related services.
Currently, a membership at one of the city rec centers costs about $178 annually for a single resident between the ages of 27 and 61, while an membership valid at all rec centers costs $310. Those fees would increase to $195 and $340, respectively.
Fees for swimming lessons would also be raised from about $29 to $40 per hour, and the hourly cost of renting a sports field would increase from $35-55 to $38-70. Daily rentals for tournaments, which currently cost $300, would instead cost $750.
“This is not on autopilot,” city manager Jason Batchelor said during the April 27 workshop. “We’re going to monitor the impact on our foot traffic. Are we seeing that fall-off from the sticker shock? … If folks aren’t coming through the door, we’re not getting the cost recovery we want.”
While city staffers said fees for rec center memberships, swimming lessons and field rentals would be increased by up to 10% for each of “the next three years,” it was unclear whether any of the increases discussed will begin this year and what relation the annual hikes have to the specific adjusted fees that were presented to the council.
Brooke Bell — director of Aurora’s Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Department — wrote in an email Monday that the changes were “a work in progress that must consider currently advertised rates that are in place through the fall.”
On Saturday, Bell and others framed the fee increases as a way for the city to regain ground lost during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, the ratio of income to expenses generated by recreational services offered to the public was about 45%. Prior to the pandemic, that number was closer to 60%.
Aurora’s budget projects that the recreation fund will receive about $7,057,050 in revenue from user fees while losing $17,268,909 in 2024, offset by a subsidy of $9,019,991 from the city’s general fund.
Bell also reported that Denver and Colorado Springs recovered less money than Aurora from their recreational offerings, with Denver seeing a 21% return on investment and Colorado Springs recovering about 30%.
Council members Alison Coombs and Curtis Gardner both opposed the increases, saying they unfairly burdened residents for the fact that the city hasn’t raised the fees since 2019. They also pointed out that, unlike private gyms, city rec facilities aren’t established to turn a profit.
“We want to be as fiscally responsible as we can be,” Coombs said. “We also want to make sure that we are providing safety and services for our community, and sometimes that’s going to cost us money.”
However, most of the council was supportive. Danielle Jurinsky and other conservatives also questioned the city’s decision to sponsor free programs for children without collecting data on their ages and cities of residence and balked at city staffers saying children as young as 8 years old are allowed to visit rec centers unaccompanied and, on “rare” occasions, do.
Jurinsky said she believed the city should at least require children or their parents to pay some amount of money, in the same way some nonprofits tell attendees to “pay what you can,” which could facilitate the city gathering information about minors using its facilities and how many pay to be there.
“I think that charging nothing is a failure,” Jurinsky said. “I used to have to do a bunch of chores. … I just think, for many reasons, there should be a charge. Even if it’s a dollar.”
Bell said the Parks, Recreation and Open Spaces Department also hopes to save money and increase revenue by identifying in-demand classes and programs, figuring out other uses for city facilities that are underutilized and identifying other fee increases.
Councilmember Crystal Murillo was the only member of the council who didn’t attend Saturday’s workshop, where the group also talked about strategic planning, the current citywide budgeting process and the pursuit of federal grants.
So, some of the Aurora rec centers are no longer open (Eg:Expo) and lawmakers want to raise the cost for the ones that are open? Very interesting indeed. Not exactly a community friendly decision
you get who you vote for right? 🙁
This community has to determine if it wants to fund community activities from tax revenue or not. Right now? You are paying $7,057,050 in revenue from user fees but losing $17,268,909 in 2024 from expenses which is only offset by a subsidy of $9,019,991 from the city’s general fund. If my math is correct that makes it run in a deficit of 1.2 million dollars.
But, hey, that’s ok…..Danielle Jurinsky and other conservatives also questioned the city’s decision to sponsor free programs for children and Jurinsky said she believed the city should at least require children or their parents to pay some amount of money and [btw] “I think that charging nothing is a failure,” Jurinsky said. “I used to have to do a bunch of chores.
And you have to put up with her and them for 3 more years. LOL
According to the story using the examples it gives, the city will lose $9 million dollars a year. I would like to think these council members are capable to do some basic P/L math. It looks like a few have chewed into it and know the consequences their up against. Math does not lie. You don’t need to be a CPA.
As these are public facilities, they do not have to produce a profit, and those returns can remain neutral. However, at a minimum a break-even business plan is something taxpayers should demand to keep these services available.
Here we are again, who is using the product? Are these citizens of Aurora? Or are we a city that’s in business to subsidize folks that are not willing to contributing to these services? I’m surprised that this “data”- (like a city address) on users is not already a given. It looks like Brooke Bell did not ask any questions during her multi-city survey to establish city resident fee qualification. Denver offers services like this, rates are higher to out of city residents for facility participation. Denver Emily Grifith Opportunity School is a great example of a different pricing schedule for any non-Denver resident.
I am shocked to think that children use recreational facilities while their parents may be at work, and thus are unable to accompany them. In their effort to raise revenues to offset tax decreases, I expect the City Council majority to propose coin-operated swings or coin-operated turnstiles for entry to playgrounds. Taking from those least able to either pay or voice their opposition is modus operandi. It all gives the term “Pay to Play” an entirely new meaning.
I have played Senior Softball out of Aurora for now starting last week my 29th year. When I started there were 50 to 60 front range teams with Aurora averaging 5 to 7 teams in various age, (50+ and 70+), and skill brackets over the years. Until two years ago the cost had been from roughly $500 until 2022 $770 per team per year over a 27 year period.
In 2023, the cost was raised to $1,000/team. In 2024 the cost was raised again to $1,300. Aurora this year has only two teams left representing our city out of 52 total front range teams. All the others past Aurora teams have fled to other communities mostly over cost.
I asked, last week, at the Sports Park, Reed Hastings, the, I’ve been told, Aurora leader in charge of Senior Softball why was he driving teams away from Aurora because of these increases. He stared, glared and replied to me in a very belligerent manner, “We don’t make a dime off you guys, zip, zero” with his left hand showing a zero. I replied, as I quickly walked away, “maybe that shouldn’t be your goal”.
These increases were done, I’m guessing, without any Council knowledge but certainly with the Parks and Rec’s leadership’s knowledge. I get that we senior softball players are/were less than 100 citizens but the outcome will be the same for the thousands using the other programs in Aurora. Leaving the programs with a bad taste in their mouth for the decisions that were made.
Looks to me that Parks and Rec, just like Aurora Water Department wants to act like a for profit business instead of what it should be, a department for the betterment of the citizens that decide to reside in Aurora. Hope we eventually hire department heads who think that way.
This is a poor decision for our community. Jurensiki, Zvoneck, and Sundberg made multiple decisions they knew would lead to a budget shortfall and now they are going to reduce access to prosocial activities for children. Cue the complaints from them about poorly behaved kids and the need for minimum sentences for youth again this summer.
The City would not struggle financially the way it does if the retail tax base per capita performed at Average for Colorado cities rather than 14% below — objectively scoring an F grade.
So long as Council has no strategy to reach Average, its leaving about $35 to $40 million in additional annual revenue on the table. No increase in tax rates or fees are necessary if the city can boost the volume of retail activity being taxed.
Aurora squanders its advantage as a gateway to DIA and the advantage in regional access that E-470, I-70 and I-225 provide by having zero notable attractions and venues. None. Let that reality sink in for a moment. Aurora largely fails to participate in a sizeable regional market and as a result, we suffer below-average city services. When Aurora taxes a $10 purchase, Denver taxes $15.90. That’s per capita.
The city desperately needs a strategic boost to retail, dining and entertainment so spenders would have a reason to come spend. And that strategic boost must come without sacrificing any future tax revenues so no give-aways. Aurora can’t afford them.
Its truly sad our City Council lacks the political courage and vision to take meaningful action. It has viable strategic options– exiting the Denver Scientific and Cultural Facilities Ponzi scheme and creating an Aurora Cultural Facilities District with no change in the sales tax rate chief among these. Instead we hear crickets as we subsidize Denver’s cultural gluttony.
Put a non-binding measure to exit the Denver SCFD and create an Aurora Cultural Facilities District on the ballot to give voters in Aurora a chance to be heard. Yes, the legislature could simply ignore the outcome but the next SCFD reauthorization vote would be very difficult to secure if the second largest city in the District is being held against its will. Aurora voters don’t fully understand their collective power here.
Are we really this gullible or is it that Aurora’s been victim to a 36-year outbreak of Stockholm Syndrome–convinced that we’re not worthy to have the cultural tax collected here, invested here? And that our starving cultural organizations like the Fox Theater should have to cower and beg for the Denver SCFD’s crumbs. Clearly, the established political elite–both blue and red–would have us continue to think so.
This is a poorly written article that gives no context to proposed fee increases. Anyone who watched the budget workshop would know that Aurora charges less for recreation activities than most other municipalities. It is logical to increase fees to be on par with other municipalities. For one to say this is price gouging is incredibly misleading.