East Allegheny ad hoc committee reviews new facility rental policy and flat-fee proposal

The East Allegheny School District ad hoc committee met to review proposed revisions to Policy 707, "Use of Facilities," and to consider a new fee schedule intended to simplify rentals and recover costs. The presenter explained, "So this is for policy 7 0 7, the use of facilities," and said the blue folder contained the proposed policy and administrative regulations while the Manila folder held the current policy and comparative fee schedules from other districts.

Committee members focused on clarifying five rental groups, how much the district should absorb for custodial and security costs, and whether to move to a flat-fee model for feeder programs and community groups. The Chair warned that the district has in the past been "too friendly in what we were charging," and recommended a middle path that avoids both subsidizing outside organizations and unduly burdening community teams that rely on events to fundraise.

Security costs shaped much of the discussion. One participant recounted that security for a recent multi-day event cost $3,400, a figure many members cited when arguing that contracted security and added custodial hours should be passed to outside renters. Members broadly agreed that school-sponsored activities run by district staff should remain under a different cost treatment than outside, for-profit rentals.

On group eligibility and discounts, the presenter described a proposed criterion for Group 3 (mixed EA-affiliated and outside participants), noting a suggested threshold of substantial local participation; committee members pushed back on a 95% threshold as impractically high and discussed alternative wording such as "dominantly EA community" or a lower percent requirement.

Several operational items were discussed that would affect fee design and enforcement: whether the district concession stand should be rented or reserved for district use, how to handle privately owned equipment stored in district facilities, the need for designated and trained concession house managers, and requirements for district staff to operate sound systems and press-box equipment. The stage manager and audio staff raised that some services (for example, design work on lighting) have historically been billed at higher specialist rates (examples voiced during the meeting included $75/hr for design work and $32/hr for supervisory staff), and that those service fees should be listed separately from base rental rates.

Benchmarking to neighboring districts shaped several proposals. Committee members reviewed Burrell, Norwin and West Mifflin fee schedules as comparators and discussed setting auditorium and pool rates accordingly; examples in the discussion ranged toward $175–$200 per hour for auditoriums and $200 per hour was discussed for pool rentals, with the understanding that facility upgrades could justify higher fees in the future.

Rather than set final dollar amounts at the meeting, the committee coalesced around two procedural steps: adopt a policy framework that permits a flat-fee option (with higher add-ons tied to tiered security triggers) and build an administrative-regulation schedule with concrete numbers for board review. The Chair proposed and the group agreed to add an annual fee-structure review (suggested for September each year) to ensure fees reflect realized costs. Final numeric fee choices and security-deposit percentages were deferred for the November agenda so staff can compile comparative schedules and proposed dollar amounts.

The committee did not take a formal vote on any fee amounts at the meeting; instead members asked staff to prepare a written recommendation and a draft AR reflecting the flat-fee approach, tiered security triggers, and suggested hourly/service rates for inclusion on the November board packet.