Aquatic center subcommittee debates merits of contractual proposals; city to extend new draft

By Kim McDarison

A meeting of the Whitewater Aquatic and Fitness Center Subcommittee was held last Thursday, during which the two negotiating parties, the city of Whitewater and the Whitewater Unified School District, debated the merits of operating and lease agreements for the facility as proposed by each party. 

During the meeting, the city offered its proposal, outlining a 15-year length of contract, with a split obligation between the two parties for center-related expenses. The proposed agreement stipulated that each party would contribute $219,000 toward annual facility-related expenses, with $70,000 of those funds earmarked for capital expenditures. Operational expenditures would increase annually by 3% to adjust for inflation. The proposed contract further carried a split obligation to pay for the facility’s existing accumulated debt, with each entity becoming responsible for a payment of $222,000. 

The school district proposed a 1- to 3-year length of contract, with the organization assuming no responsibility — beyond the payment of a $7,500 fee for pool use by the school’s athletic department and summer programming — for operational expenses, but taking full responsibility for maintenance and capital improvements made to the facility up to $250,000, an amount which the district proposed to make available through its “Fund 80,” which is dedicated to community-oriented expenditures. The district, within its written proposal, further offered to assume responsibility for one-third of the facility’s existing debt, in an amount of $150,000. 

During the subcommittee meeting, Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education and subcommittee member, Jen Kienbaum said the board had met the night before the subcommittee’s meeting and would agree to pay half of the facility’s existing operational deficit, but did not want any further financial obligation associated with the facility’s day-to-day operational expenditures. 

After a period of discussion, the parties agreed to consider making changes to each proposal and return for renewed discussion during the subcommittee’s next meeting, which will be held Wednesday, June 14, at 6 p.m., in the Whitewater High School library. 

An earlier story, including the introduction of the two proposals to the public, is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/officials-share-proposals-in-advance-of-upcoming-aquatic-center-subcommittee-meeting/. 

During Tuesday’s regular meeting of the Whitewater Common Council, the body reconvened from a closed session meeting during which the proposed aquatic center contractual agreements with the school district were discussed. 

After reconvening in open session, council members instructed City Manager John Weidl to “deliver a draft proposal for a four-year operating agreement, with … split operations and capital (cost obligations), and removing future deficit responsibility for the school district.” 

The measure received unanimous approval from the city council.  

Subcommittee meeting discussion

During the subcommittee’s Thursday, May 11, meeting, each negotiating party offered a critique of the proposed operating and lease agreement offered by the opposing entity. 

Opening the discussion, Weidl said that the proposal submitted by the city was meant to serve as a “talking point” to begin negotiations with the school district. 

Kienbaum noted that the school board, in a meeting held the night before, had agreed it would be willing to split the costs of the more than $400,000, which had earlier been identified by the city as an operational deficit that had occurred in previous years, and was being carried on the city’s books. 

Presenting the district’s overall position, Kienbaum said: “We, as a school board, are in the business of servicing the children, from an educational standpoint, within this district, and we do not want to be part of the operations of the facility. We want to maintain the maintenance of the facility itself — the roof, floors, HVAC, boilers, things like that — but we actually do not want to be involved in the operational piece of it. The reason behind that is that we’re not involved in the day-to-day decision-making abilities, but yet we are responsible for deficits when incurred.” 

Citing the difference in the proposed length of contract offered by each entity — the city looking for a 15-year contract and the district offering a range of between one and three, she said: “The reason being for that is in three years, we feel that we could audit what’s been going on and, if need be, adjust these expenses paid on behalf of the district. For example, for using the facility, or making changes to the agreement at that period of time.”  

Subcommittee member and Whitewater Common Council President Jim Allen suggested that even with a longer length of contract, either side could ask to revisit the agreement and make changes. 

Kienbaum said that the longer contract likely would have held more value for the city if it were responsible for capital improvements and maintenance, but the district’s proposal removed that obligation from the city, offering the possibility, from the school board’s perspective, she said, that “a smaller timeframe may be acceptable.” 

City councilwoman and subcommittee member Jill Gerber thanked the board for its willingness to share in half of the expense of the accrued deficit. 

Looking more specifically at the district’s proposal, titled: “Option A,” in packeted materials shared with the subcommittee, she said: “If you look at the bottom line number, it’s just not feasible for the city end, I think, to hold all that.” 

Gerber said she did not agree with the district’s position that it did not have involvement with day-to-day decision-making affecting the facility. 

She said: “I do feel you do have a say in what happens to us operationally with A: how the equipment’s maintained, when you maintain it, which could affect our operations, (and) B: you’ve cut the concessions, or the ability for them, which cut about $30,000 out of our operating costs by not allowing the kids to go there. 

“You also, if you look at our hours, you occupy 600 hours, and not 400 hours, of our pool time, which also affects us in selling memberships and the ability to be open to the public. So even though you are directly not having a say in it, your decisions you make as a school board, or as a school, are affecting what we can bring in operationally.”  

Gerber advocated for the district to become “more invested into the operations, whether that be some form of money, or some compromise of the money, but your decisions that you are making are affecting our operating, and we can’t survive unless you are in there with us.” 

Whitewater Unified School District Superintendent Caroline Pate-Hefty questioned whether $30,000 attributed to concessions sold at the aquatic center was an accurate number. 

Gerber noted that it was a number she had “heard,” but could not say it was “exact.”  

Weidl said he would look for an exact figure. He asked the panel to consider the value of concession sales as a contributing budgetary factor rather than “get into the weeds” of an exact number. 

He agreed with Gerber that the district’s use of the aquatic facility impacted the city’s ability to manage its use and costs. 

Kienbaum said she agreed the district’s use of the facility brought impacts, adding: “I would agree that the $7,500 is a low-ball number, but we’d also like to take into consideration, too, that if we are getting charged for usage — we do have a policy, policy 830, which allows the city to utilize our facilities for aftercare programs for Park and Rec, and we don’t charge for that as well — so I think even though we are talking about the pool here, I think in the grand scheme of things, you know, there are services that go back and forth that there’s an expense allocated to, that maybe we don’t charge for as well. So I would like that just to be taken into consideration when assessing fees towards us.” 

Said Pate-Hefty: “I think that’s a critical example of some of the differences in the types of businesses that we run. We are in the business of kids. And the reason we made the decision not to allow children to come to lunch — come around the building — is because we had significant attendance issues connected with it in our data.” 

She cited incidences of vaping associated with students accessing parts of the high school and its grounds where they were unsupervised. 

“In the kid business that we’re in, it doesn’t connect to a financial dollar amount. Right? I highly question there was really $30,000 of snacks and nachos purchased, I’m guessing that’s a higher food budget,” she said, adding that if $30,000 was a representation of dollars lost from students no longer accessing the aquatic center concession area for lunch, “we have a real problem … because we’re certainly not making $30,000 now that we are limiting them from coming over to you.” 

She cited financial gains as opposed to safety concerns as “an example of us being in very different ends of things, and why it’s difficult for us to run a business together.” 

She said the example made clear why the board thought the city would be better off running its own business while the district assume responsibility for caring for the building, which, she said, was something that the district does “really well, because we have a lot of those facilities.” 

Allen asked if high school students were allowed to go off campus for lunch. 

Pate-Hefty said they were not. 

“It’s a safety issue,” she said, adding: “We cannot provide supervision to go through the pool area; there’s hallways and access where you cannot provide supervision.” 

Citing the differing goals of the city and school district, as outlined by Pate-Hefty, Gerber said: “that’s maybe the problem in the way the aquatic center was set up to begin with, but we are trying to compromise there, but maybe the compromise … maybe that $7,500 needs to change to make it more doable. If you look at the sheet that was handed out with (the district’s) facility use, I don’t know, but we’re coming out more closer to $63,000.” 

Kienbaum said she could bring the $63,000 expenditure number, which the city has identified as the cost associated with the district’s athletic and summertime programming use of the facility, back to the board for further discussion.  

Pate-Hefty said the district also would need to verify the number, noting that, after reviewing information with the district’s athletic director, she was “not sure that we agree with all the hours that are posted on here.” 

Allen said he though it was important that both the city and the district participate in capital improvement-related discussions. 

“I think it needs to be shared,” he said. 

Subcommittee members discussed adjusting a future contract’s length of term to a timeframe between three and 15 years. 

Allen suggested that the city might consider 10 years. 

Said Kienbaum: “Based on where we were prior, and where we’d like to go, (the board was) looking for a little bit shorter timeline, to make sure that this new arrangement does, indeed, work.” 

She said she could see the board agreeing to a five-year contract, but not accepting terms of 10 years. 

“We have turnover in school funding that changes on an annual basis for us, so we want to make sure that we are able to follow through on our commitments,” she said. 

Allen suggested drafting a 10-year contract with a clause to revisit it in five years. He said a longer contract helps the city with its budgeting processes.  

Pate-Hefty advocated for a clause to revisit in five years, with the added contingency that if the city was operating at a deficit, the contract would be revisited in three years. 

Weidl asked for clarification concerning deficits. 

Said Pate-Hefty: “If the budget looks like it has, and you are continuing to ask us to pay half of your operational deficit …” 

Weidl asked if the superintendent was offering to pay for operational costs. 

She said she was not, but was instead reacting to the current process regarding operating deficits. 

Relative to operational deficit payments, she said: “We are not interested in continuing to do that. And so if that’s what continues to happen, that you have an operational deficit, that, in three years, we want to revisit. I’m asking if that would be an option.” 

Weidl said he could not respond to questions about future deficits, saying: “I still think we’re stuck on — the whole thing doesn’t float if we can’t get the $63,000.” 

Weidl said he would next work to prepare a draft budget to present to the city council during an upcoming council meeting which included a closed session to discuss aquatic center contractual negotiations.

The meeting was held Tuesday. 

Looking beyond Tuesday’s council meeting, Weidl said: “We will share with you what the structure looks like with that number ($63,000) plugged in. And it leaves a multi-hundred thousand dollar deficit to operations. So I will share that information, but I think it’s critical we —  talk about terms all you want, but if we can’t get past the first fiscal year — so, I don’t know. Don’t ask me for my permission on the three years or anything about deficits. I just wanted to clarify what you were saying.”  

Approaching the podium from the audience, Whitewater resident and organizing member of the “Save the Pool” community group, which formed, according to its organizers to keep the public informed about the future of the aquatic center and contractual negotiations, Geoff Hale said: “It seems like this whole entire battle the city has come forward in leaps and bounds and the school side has not. This is a longterm facility. You’ve got to have a longterm commitment to make this work, and it’s time for the school board to step up and make it happen.” 

Allen pointed to the board’s willingness to split the cost of the existing deficit, noting that he wanted to “give them credit where credit is due.” 

Whitewater resident and Save the Pool organizer Jeff Knight noted that the district has two representatives on the city’s Parks and Recreation committee that oversees aquatic center operations.  

Weidl said that he would use the $63,000 figure to create a budget, anticipating that the exercise would produce an operating deficit. He would next look at the existing pool expenditures to make appropriate cuts to close the gap. 

Pate-Hefty sought to clarify that the $63,000 was being used in replacement of the district’s proposed $7,500 figure. 

City officials agreed that it was. 

Weidl cited costs associated with operating the pool and paying for chemicals 363 days a year as “fixed.” To close the gap, he said, he would look at reducing the pool’s hours of operation. He noted that closing the pool one day a week could save the city as much as $50,000, further noting that the pool received the least amount of use on Tuesdays. Another remedy might be to close the pool for two hours on each of the seven days it is open, he said.  

He also cited a position, titled: parks programmer, for which the city had budgeted, but would no longer plan to fill. He said the move could reduce the city’s budget by an additional $50,000. 

Whitewater Unified School District Buildings and Grounds Director David Friend suggested that the school district might absorb the cost of hiring its own lifeguards during its pool-related activities. 

City councilwoman and subcommittee member Lisa Dawsey-Smith suggested the city check with its insurance carrier before agreeing to changes affecting lifeguards. 

Considering the costs associated with operating the aquatic center, and incorporating a contribution from the district of $63,000, Weidl said the city’s contribution “roughly” would become $272,000. The city currently contributes $128,000 towards the operation of the aquatic center.  

He said the model, which he posed as an exercise to help subcommittee members better understand the breakdown of costs, would include the district becoming responsible for capital expenditures, and the city becoming responsible for any operational deficits.

To make that model work, Weidl said: “I would have to find that in the general fund. This would be cuts from elsewhere.”  

Kienbaum asked if the city was planning to consider increasing its marketing efforts to bring in more members and sell more services such as birthday party packages. 

Weidl said the city would present a marketing plan during the next subcommittee meeting, adding that in looking recently at the numbers, the city would need to add 282 new members, further describing them as members that “kept paying and never left,” saying that under that scenario, the aquatic center would “cash flow.”  

“We would have to increase the marketshare by 45% essentially,”  he said, adding, “I’m not trying to throw a lot of math at you, but I am trying to say it’s going to take more than two years. 

“Without you guys helping on this, the whole castle gets washed away.” 

Position statements 

Following the May 11 subcommittee meeting, each entity, the school district and the city, released position statements to the media. 

A link to the statements is here: https://fortatkinsononline.com/wusd-offers-statement-regarding-whitewater-aquatic-and-fitness-center-negotiations-city-offers-response/.