Note: The Lawrence Times runs opinion columns and letters to the Times written by community members with varying perspectives on local issues. These pieces do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Times staff.
Would you like to send a letter to the Times? Great! Here’s how to do it.
The City of Lawrence is considering charging access and membership fees for recreation facilities as one strategy to help sustain the recreation services and programs our community relies on. But the real issue is that the city has anticipated having a $6.6 million budget deficit in 2026 and is looking for alternative ways to cover this deficit.
Many community residents remember promises to always make Sports Pavilion Lawrence free for all residents. Parks, Recreation and Culture Director Luis Ruiz says that promise was never codified, but one month after the sports pavilion opened in October 2014, Dave Corliss, the city manager at the time, released a memo clearly stating that “the City of Lawrence does not charge City residents for use at community and recreation centers.”
In response to the city’s proposal, I have started a petition asking the Lawrence City Commission to maintain free access to all recreation centers and to explore a series of possible alternative funding sources to maintain and improve our recreation centers. Almost 1,700 people have signed.
In February, the city launched a budget engagement session, inviting resident feedback using an online tool, A Balancing Act. This matters because the city budget impacts every resident, making community input crucial in setting funding priorities. A Balancing Act allowed residents to reallocate funds among programs, balancing personal interest with our community needs. Implementing fees for recreation facilities was not offered as one of 49 funding choices community members were given to help balance the budget.
Then in June, Parks and Recreation staff invited community feedback on proposed membership fees at all city recreation facilities. These fees were being considered to maintain and support our parks and recreation system while ensuring community access. An online survey was also available.
In July, the community survey results were published, showing that 81.5% of the 2,632 respondents were opposed to the rec center fees. More than 500 respondents also expressed interested in participating in focus groups on the issue, but the city couldn’t accommodate everyone and was only able to offer three focus groups. The department also received more than 1,300 open comments from people sharing their perspectives, thoughts and concerns.
On July 14, the city team presented a recommendation for membership fees to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The board expressed concerns that the fees introduced inequity and barriers to access; providing proof of low income would be a burden; and the fees program would be difficult and time-consuming to implement. At that meeting, they voted to oppose the proposed budget cuts to the department, and at their Aug. 11 meeting, they voted to recommend that Parks and Recreation keep indoor recreation centers free for self-directed exercise and recreation.
The Lawrence City Commission has expressed interest in these fees in spite of opposition from community members and their own advisory board. Taxpayers are already supporting recreation centers in the taxes we pay every year, but the city commission believes that the $500,000 they will generate from the rec center fees will somehow solve their budget deficit problems.
The city commission will hold a public hearing on the 2026 budget and accept public comment at their next meeting. I will be attending this meeting and will present my petition to the commission.
If you would like to express opposition to these fees, please consider:
• Signing the petition at change.org/NoLawrenceRecFees
• Writing to your commissioners at commissioners@lawrenceks.org and ccagendas@lawrenceks.org, and/or
• Attending the Tuesday, Sept. 2 meeting, starting at 5:45 p.m. at City Hall, to show your support for the petition.
— Carol Kummer (she/her), Lawrence
If this local platform matters to you, please help us keep doing this work.
Don’t miss a beat … Click here to sign up for our email newsletters
Click here to learn more about our newsletters first
More Community Voices:
Tom Harper/Lawrence Times
Max Kautsch: In loco parentis, or just plain loco – Surveilling Kansas students doesn’t make sense (Column)
“The outcome of the case will depend largely on whether the district can show that implementing software designed to monitor students the way it did was closely related enough to an important government interest — namely, student safety — to justify Gaggle’s intrusion into the students’ lives,” Max Kautsch writes in this Kansas Reflector column.
