A central point of the meeting was the debate over potential increases in park fees for both residents and non-residents. Discussions revealed a consensus on the reasonableness of current rates for residents, with the community enjoying access to facilities such as beaches, dog parks, and sports courts without additional charges. However, concerns were raised about fee structures for Monroe County residents, with some expressing dissatisfaction over perceived “bait and switch” tactics. Proposed rate changes included maintaining the current entrance fee for Monroe County residents, while increasing non-resident fees. The council considered a new structure categorizing visitors by residency, suggesting that non-residents pay more, with the potential for a revenue increase of around 20%.

Additionally, the council explored the implications of changing the free access policy for guests of local accommodations, a move that could generate additional revenue but also potentially impact local tourism. The idea of implementing fees for these guests was weighed against community sentiment and the original intent of promoting tourism.

The discussion also extended to potential fee increases for community programs, sparking concern that such increases could negatively impact instructors and families participating in these programs. One participant voiced disappointment, equating fee hikes to pay decreases for instructors, a sentiment that resonated with others who feared increased costs for families. The council considered the introduction of a sliding scale for low-income families, particularly for swimming lessons, to ensure equitable access.

In terms of facility rentals, the council debated proposed fee increases for pavilion and tiki hut reservations, maintaining a focus on access for village residents only. A proposal to increase the large pavilion rental fee from $50 to $100 for four hours was met with general support, while a consensus emerged against allowing non-residents to reserve facilities.

Another discussion centered on contractor agreements and revenue splits, particularly focusing on the 90/10 split between the village and contractors for program revenue. The council proposed maintaining this arrangement while exploring other revenue-generating options that would not burden contractors. Concerns were raised about the feasibility of increasing contractor fees, given the substantial investment contractors make in developing their programs.

The council also addressed the operational challenges faced by the lifeguard team due to staffing shortages, emphasizing the need for adequate funding to support quality service. A proposal was made to introduce a seasonal fee for high school swim teams utilizing pool facilities, with considerations for potential impacts on families.