Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pool Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oak Creek-Franklin board previews pool resolution, debates Fund 80 use and user fees
Summary
The Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District board reviewed a draft resolution to authorize a new pool project with a 'not to exceed' cap of $34,000,000, discussed whether ongoing costs should sit in Fund 80 or Fund 10 and weighed user fees versus a levy for operations and staffing.
The Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District board discussed a draft resolution to authorize a new pool project and debated how to pay for construction and long-term operations, including whether maintenance reserves should sit in Fund 80 and whether user fees or a future levy should cover expenses.
District staff outlined two accounting paths for operating and reserve funds. “This would be completely absent from being part of the state aid formula because it would be in Fund 80,” the Staff member said, explaining that amounts in Fund 80 are not counted as state-aidable revenue while money in Fund 10 would fall under the district’s revenue limit and could affect aid calculations. A Committee member raised concerns that unrestricted balances can affect state aid eligibility: “If you have too much money, then the state says you don't need that much and they don't give you as much,” the Committee member said.
Board members and staff discussed mechanisms to build operating reserves. One Committee member proposed earmarking a portion of monthly recreation passes for the pool fund: “We have a monthly pass cost $40. Can we take $10 of that every person or something and put it in that fund?” the Committee member asked. The Staff member replied that such a proration is possible and that program fees would typically fund staffing for programming.
Staff described the expected operating model and costs. The Presenter said the current pool program uses about 26 employees—“2 of which are full time staff with other 10 instructors, 12 lifeguards”—and that program staffing is normally covered by user fees, while operational costs such as custodial and chemical expenses would increase with two pools. The Presenter also noted planned efficiencies, including dedicated boilers and the potential for solar installations to reduce energy costs.
Board members discussed whether to include a fiscal cap in the resolution. The Committee member insisted on a not-to-exceed clause to keep the board’s commitment flexible; the Chair confirmed the draft can accommodate language capping the project at $34,000,000. “You’re not agreeing to $34,000,000. You’re just saying you’re not gonna exceed $34,000,000,” the Committee member said, arguing the clause would allow the district to scale elements if bids come in lower.
The board also debated access and wording in the resolution. A Committee member asked that the resolution prioritize community access by naming a “community pool” ahead of “competition pool” and suggested renaming a “weight room” to a “strength and conditioning” or “fitness” room to avoid the perception the facility is reserved for athletics. The Chair said staff would revise the language.
The Chair reviewed the calendar for next steps: the board is scheduled to vote on the resolution on Aug. 12, and if approved the district would move into a post-resolution, pre-referendum phase ahead of a Nov. 5 referendum with planned outreach including targeted presentations, mailers and social media. The draft resolution will be revised per board feedback and returned for approval on Aug. 12.
Because the board did not take a final vote, the resolution remains pending. The district will bring updated language and cost details to the Aug. 12 meeting for a formal vote and additional public information sessions will be scheduled before the November referendum.
