Ashwaubenon board opens months-long review of co‑sponsor policy after swim, wrestling and baseball groups request nonresident enrollments

The Ashwaubenon Park and Recreation Board spent the largest portion of its Feb. 17 meeting on a fact‑finding session about co‑sponsored youth organizations and whether the village should allow nonresident, non–open‑enrolled participants in those programs.

Rex introduced the item and said seven organizations are co‑sponsored by the village (he asked the board to exclude the special‑needs children’s program from the discussion because it is jointly administered with the school district). Of the remaining six, staff said three organizations — the swim club, wrestling club and youth baseball — had formally requested permission to accept nonresident, non–open‑enrolled participants. Representatives from each of those three groups attended to present to the board and answer questions.

Positions presented - Swim club: Megan, identified at the meeting as a swim club coach, said the club runs nearly year‑round programming and allows unlimited entries at competitions. She told the board the immediate competitive issue is fielding relays in some age groups — especially boys’ relays — and that bringing in select nonresidents could enable more residents to experience championship meets. Megan said the club would pursue slow, measured growth if allowed and suggested geographic limits (for example, nearby West De Pere) could be considered. She also noted that Ashwaubenon swim lessons already enroll some nonresidents and that staff estimated about 10% of current swim‑lesson participants are nonresidents.

- Wrestling: A representative identified himself as a club official (Brandon Wallace) and said the wrestling program is relatively small (about 44 registrants at the time of the meeting) but runs a successful annual tournament. He emphasized that tournaments and volunteer needs are core revenue sources and said the club already advertises and recruits through schools, weekly newsletters and social media.

- Baseball: A baseball representative described significant operating costs (equipment and batting cage purchases, field prep and tournament hosting) and warned that dropping village in‑kind services — groundskeeping, field preparation, bathroom cleaning and park staff support — would make the sport difficult to run as a co‑sponsored program. The baseball speaker said the club could support some nonresident participation for league play but had concerns about allowing nonresidents for tournament teams and stressed the club’s reliance on village in‑kind support and modest financial assistance.

Board and staff points Staff walked through the origin of the current residency requirement, saying the village tightened rules roughly 15–20 years ago in response to parent complaints that Ashwaubenon residents were losing playing time when programs admitted large numbers of nonresident athletes. Staff recommended a stepwise process: tonight's fact‑finding and Q&A, follow‑up questions at the March meeting, then a recommendation to the village board in March for a policy decision.

Board members asked about several details that would determine how an open policy might work in practice: volunteer and board composition requirements for co‑sponsored organizations (the current guideline aims for a majority of Ashwaubenon residents on organization boards), insurance and association rules (wrestling cited USA Wrestling cards and coach certification), how registration fees work and whether a differential fee for nonresidents could be used. Staff reminded the board that some co‑sponsored organizations already collect a $15 open‑enrollment fee that remains with the organization; that fee was described in the meeting as a partial recognition of the different tax base.

No vote; next steps The board did not make a final policy change. Instead, members voted to "open the floor" and hear presentations from the organizations and directed staff to collect additional data and return with a formal recommendation at the March meeting for referral to the village board. Rex said the village board will ultimately decide whether taxpayer dollars and in‑kind services should continue to subsidize nonresident participants if the park board recommends opening programs.

Why it matters: The issue ties to participation trends (several sports reported smaller rosters than in previous decades), equity for resident taxpayers, and the budgetary and operational cost of village support (groundskeeping, field prep, insurance and facility time). Several board members framed the discussion as balancing local taxpayer priorities against program viability and potential economic benefits from tournaments and meets.

Ending: The board set a schedule for more detailed follow‑up at the March meeting and asked organizations to provide specific, measurable proposals (for example, proposed caps, geographic limits, or nonresident fee levels) so the board and village board can weigh fiscal and programmatic tradeoffs.