Ashwaubenon Park Board OKs recommendation to allow nonresident participants up to 15% in co‑sponsored youth programs

The Village of Ashwaubenon Park and Recreation Board voted March 18 to recommend that co‑sponsored youth organizations be allowed to enroll nonresident, non‑open‑enrolled participants up to a 15% cap based on the prior year’s enrollment, with organizations foregoing the Village’s cash contribution and notifying the Parks Department by July 1.

The recommendation, which the Park Board approved and will send to the Village Board for final action, also calls for an annual review of the modified policy and sets a suggested additional $15 fee for each nonresident participant. The board’s motion specified that groups electing to include nonresidents would not receive the cash portion of the Village’s co‑sponsorship support but would retain in‑kind services such as field maintenance and facility use.

Why it matters: the change would let teams and clubs expand rosters to remain viable while shifting direct cash support away from organizations that enroll nonresident participants. Board members and organizational leaders said the policy seeks to balance program viability with fairness for Ashwaubenon taxpayers who fund parks services.

Board members debated fairness, program viability and operational costs. Dean Hess emphasized competitive and coaching fairness if nonresidents fill roster spots: "If in fact you bring in a non resident and they're competing and you have an individual ... and all of a sudden you bring in a non resident to fill a spot and you find out that that non resident happens to be better in performance," Hess said, describing the concern about displaced local participants. Several board members said they favored a uniform rule across co‑sponsored programs rather than treating organizations case by case.

Organizers who requested the change described local impacts. Donovan Miller, president of Ashwaubenon Youth Baseball, said the league currently lists about 249 league participants and that roughly 70 of them are nonresidents (about 28%). "Of those, 70 are non resident, which means they are school choice or live in the community, go to maybe a church school or home school," Miller said, adding that tournament teams and older age groups show higher nonresident shares but that turning away some requests has already occurred this season.

Renee Jaden Rice, representing Ashwaubenon Swim Club, said the program could absorb the loss of roughly $2,900 in direct cash but could not survive without in‑kind pool support from the Village. "The in kind support of the pool that we would not be able to survive without," Rice said, noting enrollment and age‑group mix would determine how a cap or waiting list would be administered.

Staff presented financial and operational tradeoffs. Parks staff noted that the Village currently provides modest cash contributions (typically in the low thousands per organization) plus substantial in‑kind services — examples cited in discussion included roughly $2,750 in direct supply reimbursements and $3,000 for payroll for youth baseball, and more than $30,000 estimated value in field maintenance and utilities tied to those programs. Staff cautioned that increasing program participants could raise maintenance, utility and staffing costs — for example, more night games increase utility bills and field prep demands.

Board compromise and administration: the board approved a motion to allow nonresident, non‑open‑enrolled participants up to 15% of the prior year’s enrollment for organizations that elect to open registrations, require those organizations to notify the Parks Department by July 1 if they intend to participate under the modified policy, assess an additional $15 nonresident fee, and require an annual policy evaluation. Organizations that choose to admit nonresidents would forgo the Village’s cash contribution but keep in‑kind facility support. The board specified that organizations that do not want to admit nonresidents would remain fully co‑sponsored with current cash and in‑kind support.

What happens next: the Park Board vote was recorded as "all in favor" and the motion carried; the recommendation will be forwarded to the Village Board for final consideration at its next meeting. If adopted by the Village Board, the Parks Department and each co‑sponsor would implement enrollment‑cap mechanics and reporting procedures before any organization opens a nonresident registration window.

Votes at a glance: the Park Board approved the recommendation by voice vote; the motion passed with the board chair calling for "All in favor say aye" and announcing "Motion carries." No roll‑call tally by name was recorded in the transcript.