Sandpoint City Council nixes giving employees free JER Sports Center memberships

By Zach Hagadone
Reader Staff

Members of the Sandpoint City Council backed away from a proposed resolution that would have given city employees free memberships to the James E. Russell Sports Center, voting 5-1 at their regular Dec. 4 meeting to reject the proposition. Council President Deb Ruehle cast the sole vote in favor.

Sandpoint Mayor Jeremy Grimm fronted the resolution, which would have waived the annual membership fee to the JER Sports Center for employees as a benefit not only to “encourage employee health and wellness,” but support worker retention and recruitment.

In addition, it would have given Sandpoint Police Department employees 24-hour access to the facility and free personal use outside the normal operating hours of 7 a.m.-8 p.m.

According to the current fee schedule, membership rates for city residents are $40 per month or $400 per year, and $45 per month or $450 per year for non-residents. Members pay $5 per 90-minute tennis session and $3 per 90-minute pickleball session. Non-member access is $16 per 90-minute session of either court sport. 

The interior of the James E. Russell Sports Center. Courtesy photo.

Beyond that, there will be 90 minutes of free “community court time” for all users each day, and users 19 and under — regardless of whether they are residents — would all receive free memberships, but still be required to pay the daily usage fee.

Grimm said waiving those membership fees for employees would represent a “new and innovative way to improve retention, employee morale and potential attraction of employees, as we have some turnover,” and cited a number of other cities around the country that give city workers free or reduced-cost access to municipal rec and fitness centers.

However, a survey of Sandpoint city employees — which drew 30 respondents — showed a strong majority reporting they would not use the JER Sports Center at least 10 times per month (26 said “no”) and 29 reported that they would not buy a $40 per month membership if it wasn’t otherwise provided as a benefit. Asked if they would bring a partner or friend with them to access the center if given a free membership, 14 said “yes” and 16 said “no.”

Anonymous written comments also illustrated a lack of interest in accessing the facility, with 10 of the 19 responses stating that they do not play tennis or pickleball.

“Only interested in having someplace to walk in wintertime, and that will be free to everyone; not a tennis or pickleball player; if I had $40 per month for fitness, I would use it toward a regular gym membership,” one respondent wrote.

“If facility were multi-sport, beyond racket sports, answers would likely be different,” wrote another. 

“Would not purchase/use [a membership] if pickleball and tennis are only sports offered,” wrote yet another respondent.

Grimm summarized the survey responses during a presentation to council at the top of the agenda item, adding, “This tells me that it’s not a hot and heavy demand — probably because it’s kind of an expensive, exclusive sport to play.”

That said, he added, “I’m simply trying to do something that helps retain and attract employees at no out-of-pocket, no tax cost to the budget.”

Some councilors indicated they’d heard pushback from community members on the proposed fee waiver for employees, and commentary on various local social media pages was decidedly opposed. While sparse, testimony at the Dec. 4 meeting echoed some of the prevalent themes in the public discussion, including that providing free membership to employees amounted to a subsidy of their use, to be borne by taxpayers.

Area resident Rebecca Holland, who has been a longtime, vocal critic of the JER Sports Center project from its earliest stages in 2022, testified that the proposal “reeks of conflict of interest.” 

“From an ethical point of view, it should trouble you to give a free membership … to city staffers, some of which will be involved with future decisions with this facility,” she said.

During deliberation, councilors struggled with the equity of providing free memberships at the center as a benefit, when survey results indicated that it wouldn’t be all that attractive to employees.

“If it’s not a benefit for everybody, then it’s not really a benefit,” said Councilor Pam Duquette, later adding, “I just think it’s another one of those community divisive things that doesn’t need to be,” and, “I just don’t think this is something that we ought to get into.”

Councilor Kyle Schreiber agreed, saying it appeared to be “a bit of a lose/lose, and our employees have spoken and said they’d rather have something else.”

However, he later concurred with Councilor Rick Howarth, who suggested that an alternative may be to offer free memberships just to employees of the JER Sports Center, in order to both attract applicants and ensure that workers at the facility are well acquainted with its use and the court sports it was designed to facilitate.

“I do not see a purpose in offering it to all of the employees given the survey data you had,” he said, going on to say that he would only vote for the proposal if it could be offered specifically to the part-time employees of the center.

During his staff report at the beginning of the Dec. 4 meeting, Sandpoint Community Planning and Development Director Jason Welker said the city is still seeking qualified applicants for one or two more positions at the center, which is due to open for play on Monday, Dec. 16. The first public event will take place Friday, Dec. 13 with a free screening of Home Alone, which kicks off at 5:30 p.m. in the community room with cocoa and crafts, and the film showing at 7 p.m. on a 52-foot screen.

Grimm reminded the council that the facility is already funded for this fiscal year, with costs of heating and lighting already budgeted for.

“We could pursue it slowly by pursuing it as a one-year benefit,” he said, and later added that, “If I were to vote tonight, I would be supportive of trying this out for a year.”

Ruehle agreed with that, and moved to amend the motion to limit the employee-wide benefit to one year and collect usage data in the meantime.

“When we can do something like this [for employees], I am 100% on board,” she said.

Duquette wondered why the city would provide the benefit for a year, only to potentially take it away. What’s more, she added, “I don’t even see that it’s a benefit for employees.”

Grimm said that upon failure of the resolution, he would work with the city’s legal counsel and human resources staff to craft a “defensible policy” to carve out free membership for JER Sports Center employees only — something Councilors Joel Aispuro and Justin Dick both said they’d be more comfortable with — while tracking usage for a year and revisiting the idea of offering free membership as a benefit for all employees.

Schreiber also agreed, adding, “As it stands right now, if we’re going to search for ways to improve the quality of life for our employees … this doesn’t appear to be it.”