Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facility Use Agreement topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Anamosa council denies facility use agreement with school district over liability, scheduling concerns

City of Anamosa City Council · October 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After hours of discussion about insurance, staffing and scheduling conflicts with the school, the Anamosa City Council voted 5–0 to deny a proposed facility use agreement that would have allowed the parks and recreation walking program limited access to school facilities.

The Anamosa City Council voted to deny a facility use agreement with the Anamosa Community School District after councilors raised liability and scheduling concerns. A council member moved to deny the agreement, saying, “So with that being said, I'm gonna make a motion to deny the facility use agreement.” The motion carried with five yes votes.

City staff and Parks & Rec staff described the walking program as a small drop-in activity with “probably between 5 and 10 people” on a given day, run in morning hours. Parks and Rec representative Chris Looney said, “I believe on any given day, we have probably between 5 and 10 people that come in and walk.” Councilors pressed staff on whether existing city insurance would cover use of school facilities and noted a clause in the draft agreement that requires proof of liability insurance. A staff speaker read the contract provision: “Clause 7 of the agreement insurance clause specifies liability insurance, the insurance terms, and proof of insurance that would need to be furnished as part of this agreement.”

Council members also raised practical scheduling problems: school events take precedence under the draft agreement, which could frequently displace the scheduled walking days, and staffing at 6 a.m. would likely require an additional hire or schedule changes. One council member estimated a part-time employee would cost roughly $1,774 and that the program would need a substantially higher turnout to cover payroll. In light of those operational and risk concerns, the council voted to deny the agreement.