Public Services Council Committee Special Meeting on Swim Club Lane Usage and Contract – May 5, 2026
Public Services Council Committee Special Meeting – May 5, 2026
The Jonesboro Public Services Council Committee held a special called meeting on May 5, 2026, at 4:30 PM to address a dispute between two swim clubs, JETS Aquatic Club and Shark Wave Aquatic Team (SWAT), over lane usage and a new contract for the city pool. The meeting included procedural objections from SWAT, a presentation from JETS, public comment, and committee deliberation leading to a proposed framework for lane allocation and pricing.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Bryce Cook (Chairman, Shark Wave Aquatic Team Board) raised two procedural objections: an alleged conflict of interest involving Councilmember Chris Gibson (whose daughter is on one team) and asymmetric meeting notice. Cook stated SWAT would not participate until those concerns were resolved and excused himself from the meeting. The City Attorney responded that Gibson had recused himself, and state law requires only two hours’ notice for a special called meeting (notice was sent Saturday morning), so the meeting was lawful.
- Tim Byrd (Former President, JETS Aquatic Club) presented JETS’ case, stating JETS has 58 USA swimmers vs. SWAT’s 20, and 155 AAU registered swimmers (currently 158). He argued for a 7‑lane / 3‑lane split based on program size, citing safety concerns with overcrowding (9.2 swimmers per lane under a 5/5 split vs. 6.6 under 7/3). He noted JETS’ 82% retention rate, a USA swim meet hosting history, and over $1 million in scholarships. He offered to provide current AAU rosters and requested safety and fairness.
- Jeremy Terrell (public comment) warned against creating a situation similar to a previous youth sports dispute ("Revolution"), urged caution that lane allocation not hinder either team, and noted that AAU numbers can fluctuate. He supported prioritizing child safety.
- Jim Rose (Blytheville) confirmed that AAU rosters are current but not verifiable for past dates, and offered to provide TeamUnify billing data as additional verification.
Discussion Items
- Procedural Objections: SWAT objected to Chris Gibson’s participation and meeting notice. The City Attorney confirmed Gibson’s recusal and that legal notice requirements were exceeded. The committee voted to proceed without SWAT’s participation.
- Lane Allocation: The City Attorney explained that last year lanes were split 5/5, but disputes over uneven usage led to a proposed 6/4 split based on 2025 USA numbers (60/40 ratio). JETS argued for 7/3 based on current numbers; SWAT had not presented an alternative before walking out. The committee discussed the difficulty of verifying historical numbers and decided to use current AAU rosters as the basis, rechecked on June 30 and August 31, 2026.
- Contract Pricing: The committee discussed moving from a flat $2,000 per lane fee (which included estimated heating costs) to a $1,000 per lane base fee plus actual heating costs split based on usage periods. SWAT’s proposed primary usage period was May 1–October 1. The committee requested a due diligence clause allowing verification of AAU rosters.
- Unanimity Requirement: The City Attorney noted that any committee decision would need to be ratified by the full City Council; if unanimous, it could be "walked on" that night; if not, it would require normal procedure. The committee did not take a formal vote on the lane allocation framework but reached consensus on the approach.
Key Outcomes
- Lane Allocation Framework: The committee directed staff to amend the contract to base lane splits on AAU roster numbers as of May 7, 2026, with subsequent checks on June 30 and August 31, 2026. Lane usage percentages will be updated accordingly.
- Pricing Structure: The committee agreed to a $1,000 per lane base fee, plus actual heating costs apportioned by usage period and lane count. Heating costs for months when only JETS uses the pool (e.g., November–December) will be borne solely by JETS.
- Verification Clause: A due diligence clause will be added allowing the city to request certified AAU rosters or billing data at any time to verify swimmer count.
- Next Steps: City Attorney Carol Duncan will redraft the contract incorporating these terms. The committee adjourned at approximately 5:30 PM. A motion to adjourn was made by LJ Bryant, seconded by Anthony Coleman, and passed 6–0 (Chris Gibson recused).
Meeting Transcript
I'd ask to be recognized for procedural objection, Chair. Once I can prove this, I'll already using myself. I plan to do so. I'll say my objection once appropriate. I'm gonna give 15 minutes for each team of for each team to present, then I will allow the committee 15 minutes for questioning, and then we'll I will allow 15 minutes for deliberation and uh conclusion. That's all I have. Um, just to clarify, anything that comes out today would then have to go on and be ratified by city council. And I would ask that that decision be walked on tonight if we do come to a decision. If it's unanimous out of the committee, it can be walked on. If it is not unanimous, it cannot perve the city council rules. If I could be recognized briefly. Chair. Oh, thank you. Um I'm Bryce Cook. Um, I'm here on behalf of Sharkwave Aquatic Team. I'm the chairman of the board for Sharkwave Aquatic, and I certainly appreciate all of y'all's time and attention and being here tonight. Um, there are two significant procedural objections that that I must raise. First, there is a apparent conflict of interest. Um at least a question raised as to the chair's um the propriety of the chair being involved in this process, and for that we're seeking recusal, which I believe you've already addressed. However, there's also an issue of asymmetric notice of this meeting. Umtice was given to one side before the public was given notice, certainly before we were. And under those circumstances, I believe we will need some information and written guidance from the city attorney on the city's position as to each of those. Only for the purpose of making sure the public can have confidence that this process is full, fair, and neutral with those questions before us. And with that, I will excuse myself. So, what are your two questions? Number one about recusal, and number two, about notice of the special called meeting. I'll provide those concerns in writing. Okay, well, let me respond. Not in writing. Number one, the chair's already said he'll recuse, so that issue is addressed. Number two, state law only requires is it two hours? Two hours notice of a special called meeting, period. And then there are publication requirements. I believe both sides got way more notice than that. I sent out the notification on Saturday morning. Right. Um two hours is what's required by state law. So there is no notice issued for this meeting. Obviously, this is not the correct forum for you and I to have a legal debate over what the law says. Um, I will seek written guidance and additional information from the city on this. And with that, we'll excuse ourselves. I assume my objections are overruled. I I just need you to understand that the city may go forward hearing from the other side. And if the council committee makes a decision, that's on them. Because proper notice was given by state law. There is no guidance as to how this will take place because this is an unusual circumstance. We were asked if we would give both sides an opportunity to be heard by the committee and by council, and we tried to facilitate that as quickly as possible because there are no current signed contracts to use our pool, and I know both teams want to get in the water as quickly as possible, and neither team can get in the water until there's a signed contract. So we were trying to facilitate that on behalf of both swim teams to get you in the water quicker. Certainly, our desire is to get in the water quicker. Right.
openpublica.com