Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Partnerships topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Three Lakes board votes to discontinue talks to host regional aquatic center on school land
Summary
After a multi-hour presentation and questions about land use, parking, liability and community perception, the Three Lakes School Board voted to discontinue discussions with the 3 Lakes Regional Aquatic and Fitness Center about building on school property; proponents said the privately funded project would have required a land transfer and $40–45 million in fundraising.
The Three Lakes School Board voted to discontinue discussions with the 3 Lakes Regional Aquatic and Fitness Center about building the proposed facility on school-owned land.
Board members raised repeated concerns about land availability, parking and long-term liability before taking the motion. Mr. Williams, speaking for the project, said the plan envisioned four pools, accessible amenities, childcare and community rooms and estimated a fundraising goal “in the neighborhood of $40 to $45 million” with no district tax dollars requested; the proposal would have required either a permanent transfer or a long-term use arrangement for roughly 5–10 acres adjacent to the school. “We don't want it to be a municipal liability,” Williams said, adding the group wanted to rely on private fundraising and encouraged a partnership where the school could use the facility.
Board trustees questioned whether the wooded parcel proposed for the facility was the right location and whether the district would be “landlocked” for future school needs if it gave up acreage. One board member warned that sharing the existing parking lot for large events would be impractical, and several trustees emphasized the public-perception risk while the district remains under an operational referendum. Legal and permitting questions were also flagged: trustees said they would need much more information about ownership, lease terms and contingencies in the event the facility failed.
Following the discussion a motion to discontinue the partnership talks, moved by Jess and seconded by Mitch, passed with aye votes and no opposition.
The district did not adopt or authorize any land transfer, nor did the board commit any district funds; the motion stopped further formal consideration of placing the proposed aquatic center on school property. The presenters were thanked for their work and told the board would inform them of the decision.
