Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Pool Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee tables Jonesboro pool contract after dispute over lane allocation and verification rules
Summary
The finance administration committee voted to table a proposed facility usage agreement with Jonesboro Jets after council members, parents and the SWAT team disputed a lane‑allocation method tied to AAU/USA membership counts and raised concerns about fairness and verification; administration said it wants the teams to reach agreement before a contract is approved.
The City of Jonesboro finance administration committee on Tuesday tabled a proposed facility‑usage contract between the city and Jonesboro Jets Incorporated after extended debate over how limited pool lanes would be allocated between the Jets and a competing swim program known as SWAT.
The measure, Resolution 26,059, would have tied lane assignments to the percentage share of rostered members recorded through AAU/USA registration at three checkpoints during the summer. Supporters described that approach as an attempt to use an objective third‑party count; opponents called a potential 7‑3 split unfair and warned it could leave growing teams with insufficient lanes.
"Seventy‑thirty is not equitable," said Dr. Charles Coleman, a committee member, during debate, urging either a return to an even 5‑5 split or that the teams work out allocations directly. "If they're going to be using the same pool at the same time, there's no other equitable way besides the percentage of roster sizes," he said while noting practical concerns about safety and lane density.
Bryce Cook, who identified himself as chairman of SWAT, asked the committee not to postpone the contract indefinitely, saying his team already has missed pool time because of heater outages and that further delay would force families to seek alternate, smaller facilities. "Do not postpone this indefinitely," Cook said during public comment, adding that parents had canceled a large swim meet amid the uncertainty.
Administration staff said the contract draft came from guidance taken at a Public Services Commission meeting and that it was intended to provide a clear, repeatable method for allocating lanes and verifying membership. "We want kids to swim," an administration representative said, acknowledging the difficulty of reconciling competing program needs and emphasizing that staff sought a fair, verifiable approach.
Several council members and committee members raised practical concerns about verification and extra administrative work if the agreement required staff to track day‑to‑day attendance. One committee member suggested allowing the teams to split lanes evenly for the coming year or to negotiate directly and return with a mutually acceptable contract. Another member moved to postpone the resolution indefinitely — a procedural motion that, as staff explained, would effectively end consideration of the contract as drafted.
Following public comment from parents who said the proposed allocation could curtail participation for their children, the chair put the motion to a voice vote and announced the resolution was tabled.
What happens next: staff and council said they will encourage the two teams to meet and reach an agreement that can be returned to the committee; administration also said it would work to ensure children are not penalized while the dispute is resolved and would communicate any interim arrangements.
The committee did not adopt a substitute allocation method or set a firm timeline for reconvening on the item; members expressed openness to a short special meeting if the teams can reach agreement quickly.
