Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sachem board debates facilities-use policy, weighing for-profit fees and Tamarack field options
Summary
Trustees discussed revising the district’s facilities-use policy to separate preauthorized resident/nonprofit use from for-profit rentals, debated higher fees for for-profit users, and floated using or leasing six unused acres at Tamarack as a possible revenue source.
Board members spent an extended portion of the Oct. 23 meeting debating proposed revisions to the district’s facilities-use policy, focusing on whether for-profit users should be allowed regular access to fields and gyms and at what rates.
One board member argued, "Our fields are for our communities," urging that resident and nonprofit youth groups be prioritized. Other members said the district currently charges different fees (discussion referenced a reduced not-for-profit rate and prior hourly charge examples) and suggested a two-bucket framework: a preauthorized category (resident/nonprofit groups that meet clear criteria and can be approved administratively) and a non-preauthorized category that would come to the board for approval. "If they meet the criteria, please approve it," one member said, asking administration to create preauthorization standards that would avoid repetitive board-level disputes.
Discussion also turned to a nearby six-acre parcel at Tamarack that some members floated as a potential revenue source if leased or developed for athletic use. Suggestions ranged from leasing or permitting the site for for-profit leagues to exploring sale or long-term lease options; several trustees urged community input before any large-scale plan. The board asked the policy committee and administration to present a recommendation with clearer preauthorization criteria, fee schedules for different user types and legal review to protect taxpayers and the district's insurance exposure.
The board asked administration to consult other districts for comparators on fee structures and to bring proposed policy language back to the policy committee for first and second readings. No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting; trustees instructed the policy committee and administration to draft recommended language and to invite cabinet or legal representatives to future committee meetings to resolve open questions faster.
