Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Use Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees ask for transparent fee schedule for community use of school facilities; debate over waivers and custodial costs
Summary
Board members pressed district staff for a clear, published fee schedule and written waiver guidelines after a detailed discussion of the district's policy for community use of school facilities, including questions about nonprofit discounts, custodial charges and discounted rates for school-related boosters and student groups.
Board members discussed policy KF, which governs community use of Richland School District 2 facilities, pressing district staff to provide a written fee schedule and clearer waiver rules for nonprofit and school-related groups.
Deputy Superintendent Dr. Marshall Ann Franklin and senior operations and finance staff described the current process: facility requests are submitted through Facilitron; a senior operations official can waive or reduce fees for nonprofit organizations or district-sponsored groups; and the district may require district security or county deputies depending on the event. District staff said custodial fees are contracted separately and are not part of the fee schedule that administration can waive.
Trustees sought greater transparency and consistency. Board Member Dennis said many student activity boosters, coaches and sponsors already perform custodial work and asked whether districts could reduce facility costs for groups that directly benefit district students. Several trustees asked staff to publish a public fee schedule, with suggested tiers tied to organization size (for example, a scale for nonprofits by membership) so applicants can determine likely costs before requesting space. Board Member Porter asked that the board be provided the fee schedule and that the schedule and waiver criteria be posted on the district website.
Administrators said non‑profit organizations typically receive a 50% waiver under the district's current approach but the amount depends on organization type and the activity; they also said that custodial fees are contractually separate and cannot be waived by the district. Trustees requested a written schedule that shows typical discounts, custodial expectations, time-based pricing (for multi-hour vs. all‑day events), and any allotment of free events for school groups. Board members also discussed special considerations for student-led or school-benefiting events (bands, boosters, art performances, camps), and asked staff to explore higher rate reductions for those groups so fundraising dollars can be used directly for student programs.
Board members asked administration to include energy-cost monitoring information as part of a future discussion — trustees suggested potential energy savings could offset some rental costs — and requested the financial and operations staff include the fee schedule in the next board brief for review and a follow-up workshop.
