[0:00] shop, we have invited our good friend

[0:02] Whitney Ward

[0:04] who has come to Cache Valley on multiple

[0:05] times from VCBO. And the reason I I

[0:09] really wanted to have Whitney here is I

[0:12] am on the steering committee. Mark has

[0:13] been to a couple of the steering

[0:14] committee meetings, as has George and

[0:16] Kurt. And there's there's been a lot of

[0:18] circular conversations. And um I don't

[0:22] know that I at some point the goal is

[0:27] that they might have a consensus that

[0:29] they think would work for the county

[0:31] that they would bring to us to vote to

[0:32] put on the ballot. That would be the

[0:34] final That would be the final step. And

[0:37] I'm not even sure that will happen, but

[0:39] I wanted everyone else to be informed

[0:41] and to to be able to ask questions and

[0:43] to hear kind of what the conversations

[0:45] have been around the study that VCBO did

[0:48] and what where it's kind of morphed into

[0:50] cuz it's it's kind of got legs of its

[0:52] own, right? So, I'm going to turn some

[0:55] time over to Whitney and um

[0:58] let her kind of give us an overview and

[1:00] then you guys can ask questions and

[1:01] we'll just go from there.

[1:05] » Afternoon, Keegan and or not here to

[1:07] >> They're out of town. So is Keegan.

[1:09] Keegan's out of the country.

[1:11] And so I'm assuming Dave I know Dave

[1:12] will be here for council meeting night.

[1:14] He may show up at some point. He didn't

[1:15] tell me he wasn't coming.

[1:17] So.

[1:19] >> And I have a lot of information and I

[1:21] can go as quickly or as slowly as you

[1:23] guys would like.

[1:24] >> an hour, so.

[1:25] >> Perfect. So, I did want to as Sandy

[1:28] mentioned give you an overview of the

[1:30] process since we have a little bit more

[1:31] time than a typical

[1:33] uh council meeting and talk to you about

[1:36] where

[1:37] we're in the middle of a cycle, right?

[1:39] We're sort of circling and where we're

[1:40] circling and what the conversations have

[1:42] been and then go through some of our

[1:45] work to date. And ultimately, I think

[1:48] we're honing in on a recommendation, but

[1:51] we would love to hear the thoughts of

[1:53] the council as we work towards this.

[1:57] And so, uh

[1:59] you know, typically these processes

[2:01] start with information gathering. We do

[2:03] some visioning work. We develop a range

[2:05] of concepts. We work together to

[2:08] synthesize a preferred alternative, and

[2:10] then we finalize and and put a lot of

[2:13] meat behind that sort of alternative.

[2:15] And in this project, that is also kind

[2:18] of that gap between concept development

[2:20] and synthesis is the variation between

[2:23] phase one and phase two in our contract.

[2:25] And um as we've been going through this

[2:27] process,

[2:29] um and I'll just jump right to the next

[2:31] one. There's been some circling. We

[2:33] think we come to a preferred

[2:34] alternative, and we develop it, and

[2:36] people get excited about it, and then

[2:38] there are concerns, and then we sort of

[2:40] circle back again, and look at another

[2:42] preferred alternative, and develop it.

[2:44] And so, we're kind of cycling in this

[2:46] middle between phase one and phase two,

[2:50] where we've done a lot of work in

[2:52] gathering information, and we'll talk

[2:53] through that survey. We've developed

[2:56] numerous concepts, looked at a lot of

[2:58] different sites and site alternatives.

[3:01] We've dove into the financials on a

[3:03] number of those different concepts to

[3:04] better understand them.

[3:06] And ultimately,

[3:09] you know, this it's a little bit of a

[3:11] challenge, and you'll see this come out,

[3:13] but

[3:15] there are a lot of reasons to like

[3:16] different options,

[3:18] right? And so, while there is a

[3:21] preferred alternative that really checks

[3:23] all of the boxes, the challenge with

[3:24] that alternative as we get into it is

[3:25] that it's the most expensive

[3:26] alternative, which makes it less viable

[3:29] for the community. And so, we'll talk

[3:30] through the pros and cons and

[3:31] considerations of all of those options

[3:33] together. But we haven't quite, as Sandy

[3:36] said, come been able to come to

[3:37] consensus on an alternative in the

[3:39] committee, but we're working through

[3:41] those options together.

[3:44] So, just as a reminder on the

[3:45] information gathering phase, we did do a

[3:48] very robust community survey, and we did

[3:52] it in two parts. We started with the

[3:54] South Valley survey. We then did the

[3:56] broader Cash County survey. We looked at

[3:58] those responses in tandem because the

[4:01] South Valley didn't respond in high

[4:03] numbers to the Cash County one because

[4:05] they'd already taken the survey and we

[4:07] had told them that. So, we did do a

[4:09] swath through. We did get over 10,000

[4:11] responses, which is an incredible survey

[4:13] response rate uh for a community this

[4:16] size. And of that, uh we generally heard

[4:20] that people are very interested in uh

[4:24] county supported indoor recreation.

[4:26] There's a consistent number of about 7%

[4:29] of people who don't want it. They it's

[4:31] too expensive, they don't feel like it's

[4:33] the role of the government. There's a

[4:35] range of reasons that they don't feel

[4:37] it's appropriate, but the vast majority

[4:39] of people are generally interested in

[4:43] recreation. Now, that dips a little bit

[4:46] when we go into how many people are

[4:48] willing to support a tax increase to

[4:50] help pay for it, and that drops down to

[4:52] 84%, but still a pretty high number.

[4:55] Now, this was a self-selected survey, so

[4:57] it's important to note people who are

[4:59] interested in it or against it usually

[5:00] come out and let their voices be heard,

[5:02] and those who are maybe in the middle or

[5:05] don't have the time, aren't as

[5:06] interested, may not take the time to

[5:08] respond to the survey. So, that's

[5:09] important to keep in mind.

[5:11] >> Bryson, can you turn off the chandeliers

[5:13] in the middle? I don't I can't remember

[5:15] which one that is.

[5:16] There we go. Now we can see it. Thank

[5:18] >> And then as we look at responses to the

[5:21] survey, you can see we had good

[5:23] representation from across communities

[5:25] in the county.

[5:27] Um and so that gave us a good sense of

[5:30] where people are, what they're looking

[5:32] for,

[5:33] and what they're hoping to see.

[5:36] As we looked at priority programs,

[5:38] swimming and aquatics was the number one

[5:40] priority across the county. It just eked

[5:43] ahead of interestingly adult sports

[5:46] recreation and fitness. So, youth sports

[5:49] recreation and fitness came in third

[5:51] place by a narrow margin. Again, high

[5:54] interest across all three of those.

[6:00] As we asked people what they wanted to

[6:02] see for dry recreation,

[6:05] indoor court sports was the number one

[6:07] priority followed by open fitness areas,

[6:11] weightlifting, indoor dedicated track

[6:13] and walking area. So, that falls in

[6:15] line.

[6:16] Indoor courts, of course, run the gamut

[6:18] of ages, but

[6:20] youth and young adults predominantly and

[6:22] then the next three are more sort of

[6:23] adult oriented programs. With we often

[6:27] find indoor track and walking areas a

[6:29] strong priority in older adults.

[6:33] When we looked at community swimming

[6:36] pool interest,

[6:37] lap swimming and learn to swim were

[6:40] number one priorities and then a zero

[6:42] entry like

[6:44] a very shallow depth pool for young kids

[6:47] to play in was the third priority. And

[6:50] then the fun things, water slides and

[6:52] fitness classes, things like that came

[6:54] down the line there. But lap swimming

[6:56] and learn to swim followed by a space

[6:58] for young kids.

[7:00] And folks

[7:02] very much want indoor year-round pools

[7:05] when we asked what type of aquatics are

[7:07] important.

[7:09] And then we did look at community spaces

[7:11] and really they're just looking for sort

[7:13] of party rooms, small community event it

[7:16] sounds like you guys have a good

[7:17] assortment of community spaces available

[7:20] that folks are using.

[7:22] And

[7:23] one of the key questions we asked is how

[7:25] far people would be willing to drive for

[7:28] recreation. And the vast

[7:32] majority of respondents would like to

[7:35] have a recreation center

[7:37] under 15 minutes drive from their house.

[7:40] Now, some in the further community said

[7:42] we're willing to drive up to 20 minutes.

[7:44] We understand we're a little further

[7:45] away. Um

[7:47] and so there's a little bit of diversity

[7:50] in those numbers, but you can see the

[7:51] communities are pretty close in their

[7:53] responses.

[7:56] And again, when we asked if folks would

[7:58] support a tax increase to fund a new

[8:00] recreation facility, um the vast

[8:03] majority of respondents, um

[8:07] 66% said yes, they're likely to or very

[8:11] likely to. And then there's a little bit

[8:13] in the might or might not category of

[8:15] about 18% and those ones it's typically

[8:18] what's in it for me? Is there something

[8:19] I like? Is it close to home? Is it

[8:21] hitting my needs and criteria?

[8:23] >> So when you asked if they'd support a

[8:25] tax increase, did you give a dollar

[8:26] amount or percent amount?

[8:28] >> We asked

[8:29] and we did get a dollar amount from

[8:31] those who responded. And the mean was

[8:34] $20 a month. The average was about $15 a

[8:37] month.

[8:38] And so that equates to approximately

[8:40] 180, well, specifically $180 a year that

[8:43] folks were willing to pay

[8:45] as a tax increase. And we were pretty

[8:49] quite specific in the survey to note

[8:52] that this tax increase would not mean

[8:54] you get to go use the facility for free.

[8:56] That's always a question that it's a tax

[8:57] increase plus a fee to use the facility.

[9:00] Um and so that was that median $15 a

[9:05] month is what we've been looking at as

[9:07] we've gone through this process from

[9:09] that point.

[9:10] >> understand that the $15 a month is the build the facility.

[9:16] Is there another question where you

[9:18] explain that there would be also a

[9:20] monthly fee for users?

[9:21] >> We did note that, yes, in the survey. We

[9:24] did not ask them how much they'd be

[9:25] willing to pay for a month, but in this

[9:27] question about would you support a tax

[9:30] increase, we did note in addition to

[9:33] paying a membership.

[9:35] >> Okay, so that's the way it would be it.

[9:37] Would you you'd be paying a membership

[9:39] of

[9:41] some amount and you would also have a

[9:43] tax increase.

[9:44] >> Correct.

[9:45] I was very adamant about that.

[9:46] >> Yes, correct. Sandy was great and like

[9:49] we have to be very clear in what we're

[9:50] asking people so that they know that

[9:53] just by paying their property taxes

[9:55] doesn't mean that they automatically get

[9:57] to use the facilities for free.

[10:02] And so again, our key takeaways from the

[10:04] survey, swimming and aquatics are the

[10:05] number one priority followed by in close

[10:08] proximity youth and adult sports

[10:11] recreation fitness programs,

[10:13] indoor courts, indoor cardio and

[10:15] strength weightlifting areas, dedicated

[10:17] indoor track, and in some communities

[10:19] indoor fields, specifically the south

[10:21] half of the valley, were were the

[10:23] priorities in what we saw there.

[10:25] And again, the majority of the

[10:27] respondents are looking for new

[10:28] recreation and wellness center within 10

[10:30] to 15 minutes of their home.

[10:36] So the when we were here at the council

[10:38] last, there was also just a question

[10:40] about how often do these facilities get

[10:42] used and what how do we figure out how

[10:45] many memberships we're going to sell

[10:46] when we look at the operations of the

[10:48] facility. And so we pulled together some

[10:51] information from local annual budgets as

[10:55] well as a national database. So on the

[10:57] left is the natural date national

[11:00] average database that nationally 15% of

[11:04] residents have a pass

[11:07] a membership to a community recreation

[11:09] center.

[11:10] In Provo specifically, 16% of the of the

[11:15] population has some

[11:17] level of a membership plus they have 2%

[11:19] non-resident members as well.

[11:22] South Davis Recreation is 14% plus 2%

[11:26] non-resident members. Lehi City

[11:29] Recreation has 15% so they're right in

[11:31] line with national averages. Now, these

[11:34] are memberships, so they have a lot of

[11:36] other people who just come visit and use

[11:38] the facility for events, programs,

[11:40] activities, or day use passes, and

[11:43] that's that kind of total annual users

[11:45] at the bottom. So, Provo um recreation

[11:48] has 2.2 million annual users within

[11:52] their facility, and that's from their

[11:53] 2023 data.

[11:55] Um South Davis is lower at 600,000. Lehi

[12:00] is 363, so that means Provo is

[12:03] programming that thing like crazy

[12:05] outside of typical membership use. And

[12:07] you do see that in their They have a

[12:09] very low um

[12:12] or a very high return on investment.

[12:14] They're one of the only community rec

[12:16] centers that doesn't have a subsidy.

[12:18] They actually earn enough money to pay

[12:20] for their full operations, which is

[12:21] pretty rare.

[12:22] >> Can you say Go back.

[12:23] >> Yeah.

[12:24] >> When you say total annual users,

[12:26] 600,000.

[12:28] >> Those are clicks of people walking

[12:29] through the door.

[12:31] >> So, so in that instance, you're going to

[12:34] say somewhere around 2,000 users a day.

[12:38] >> Correct.

[12:39] Yeah, that's absolutely correct.

[12:44] And Smithfield recreation actually has a

[12:46] much higher percentage. They have 23% of

[12:48] their residents that are members, and 7%

[12:51] of additional members that are

[12:53] non-residents.

[12:55] Um and again, that speaks to the desire

[12:58] for indoor community recreation within

[13:01] the community.

[13:02] Um we did also get some great numbers

[13:05] from North Logan. Uh they're seeing

[13:07] 184,000

[13:09] They're serving 184,000 people through

[13:11] their programs, and that's um at the

[13:13] Hansen Sports Complex plus the sort of

[13:15] parks and recreation programming. So,

[13:17] they're already seeing a very high level

[13:19] of usership with the limited facility in

[13:22] the indoor fields. And again, um

[13:26] just looking national data

[13:28] about 25% of the US population is a

[13:31] member of a fitness center

[13:33] in some way, shape, or form. Um and 30%

[13:37] of those have memberships to multiple

[13:39] facilities. So,

[13:41] health, wellness, recreation is

[13:43] something that is generally invested in

[13:46] within our communities.

[13:48] >> Yeah.

[13:49] >> So, the Smithfield is part of

[13:52] the high school, right?

[13:53] >> It is attached to the high school.

[13:55] >> others are

[13:57] put together like that?

[13:58] >> It's very rare these days. Um

[14:02] right now, there are a handful of

[14:04] others, but we're seeing a trend where

[14:06] the school districts don't want

[14:08] community act to have access to their

[14:11] schools in the a way that's not

[14:13] controlled by the school and by the

[14:15] school district. And so, that is not

[14:18] something that we're seeing in new

[14:19] construction

[14:21] at all right now, but it is something

[14:23] that does exist in communities that did

[14:25] exactly what Smithfield did and said,

[14:27] "We have collectively a need for a pool,

[14:29] collectively a need for gymnasiums. Why

[14:31] don't we share those needs?" And so, you

[14:34] know, decades ago that was more common

[14:35] practice. It's less common practice

[14:38] today. And there's also some ongoing

[14:40] legislation that we're hearing about um

[14:42] in the state legislature that is sort of

[14:45] um

[14:47] cracking down on school safety and

[14:48] security. It's a big topic of

[14:50] conversation. And so, they're really

[14:52] trying to control who uses their

[14:55] facilities, who has access, and when,

[14:56] and how people have access to those

[14:58] facilities.

[14:59] >> That's too bad because the taxpayers are

[15:00] the ones who paid for the schools, too.

[15:02] Like that it's a I I can understand

[15:04] their need for your security, too, but

[15:06] there's a lot of facilities that we paid

[15:08] for that sit empty.

[15:10] >> And there are very complementary hours

[15:12] of use. Typically, recreation centers

[15:14] are early morning and then late

[15:16] afternoon, evening, and weekends, right?

[15:18] And so, there's there's a lot of logic

[15:20] behind that approach, but also just a

[15:23] trend, unfortunately, a little bit away

[15:25] from it.

[15:30] Any other questions on the sort of

[15:33] information gathering before we jump

[15:34] into facility options? Yeah.

[15:37] >> So, you state that there's 10,397

[15:40] respondents, right?

[15:41] >> Yep.

[15:42] >> We have a

[15:44] population of around 145,000,

[15:47] so that's about a 7%

[15:50] draw.

[15:50] You consider that good compared to

[15:52] others?

[15:53] >> I do consider that good.

[15:55] Yeah. So, often times when we do surveys

[15:58] like this, we'll see somewhere between 3

[15:59] and 5%. So, we were excited about the 7%

[16:03] response rate.

[16:06] » And And the part of this phase two,

[16:08] didn't that have a statistically

[16:12] There was a different kind of a survey.

[16:14] >> Yeah, so

[16:15] >> been done yet, correct?

[16:16] >> Correct. So, we had budgeted in phase

[16:18] two to have a company, uh, Y2 Analytics

[16:21] is their name. They have a list of

[16:25] registered voters that they reach out to

[16:27] specific demographics of different

[16:29] voters in different communities to do a

[16:31] very targeted voter-based survey. Um,

[16:35] and that was something that was

[16:37] anticipated with our phase two work in

[16:39] the conversations that we've been having

[16:41] with the steering committee. Folks

[16:44] worry that that's still not

[16:45] representative. And so, the discussion

[16:47] has been, can we find something to put

[16:49] on the ballot, if it's the right thing

[16:51] to put on the ballot, to really see how

[16:54] communities feel. Now, there's an equal

[16:56] concern that if we don't put the right

[16:57] thing on the ballot, it will skew

[16:59] potentially the perspective of what

[17:02] people are interested in within the

[17:04] community. And so, there's been a lot of

[17:05] conversation back and forth, but that is

[17:07] still absolutely an option on the table

[17:10] if we wanted to do a statistically or a

[17:12] vote a more statistically valid

[17:14] voter-based survey, we have that option.

[17:21] So, when we came to you last, we were

[17:24] looking at three different facility

[17:26] distribution options.

[17:28] The one larger centralized facility, the

[17:31] two options north-south, and the three

[17:33] options north-south and center. Now, at

[17:35] that point, we were talking about

[17:37] potential

[17:38] >> What are your mics? Sorry.

[17:40] >> Oh, you're okay.

[17:42] >> This is a recorded meeting.

[17:43] >> Oh, okay.

[17:44] At this point, we were talking about

[17:46] these through the lens of potential

[17:48] recreation districts. We've since

[17:51] shifted our conversation to say,

[17:53] you know, a a best-case scenario

[17:55] financially for the county would be a

[17:57] county-based bond um that would

[18:01] have buy-in from all of the residents in

[18:03] the county. So, these diagrams in our

[18:05] last meeting, we've kind of gotten rid

[18:07] of the yellow lines moving forward, and

[18:10] we're looking at how we might distribute

[18:11] facilities within the county, and how

[18:13] those can best serve the needs of the

[18:15] county moving forward.

[18:20] And so, uh we did put together some

[18:23] preliminary concepts. We've put together

[18:25] capital construction costs for those

[18:27] concepts, and we've put together

[18:29] operational cost estimates at a very

[18:31] high level. Now, these are, like I said,

[18:34] because we kind of keep cycling between

[18:36] phase one and phase two, we have not

[18:37] done a deep dive into any one of these

[18:40] options, but we have done an analysis

[18:42] for all three of them to help us with a

[18:44] comparison and a discussion.

[18:48] Um that's, you know, a good

[18:50] disclaimer and draft statement on there.

[18:53] Um we did note that right now, from a um

[18:59] sort of national perspective, you may

[19:01] not need more than one aquatic center

[19:04] within the community based off of your

[19:05] population. However, we've heard very

[19:07] clearly from the steering committee and

[19:09] from the survey that everybody wants

[19:10] aquatics. And there is a concern that if

[19:12] you build a pool in one location and you

[19:14] don't build a pool in another location,

[19:17] then that may not be a successful

[19:19] um attempt to meet the recreation needs

[19:22] within the community community. So, you

[19:24] will see that all of our options do

[19:26] include aquatics at some level.

[19:29] It was also noted that the current

[19:32] Eccles ice sheet is very highly

[19:34] utilized, and eventually it should be

[19:36] added on to. That need is not a driving

[19:38] need right now. So, there is space on

[19:41] the site to be able to add on to that,

[19:42] and that's what we would recommend is

[19:44] that instead of building another ice

[19:45] sheet somewhere else in the community,

[19:47] you take advantage of the resources that

[19:49] exist at the Eccles ice sheet, and

[19:51] ultimately build a new ice sheet in that

[19:53] site and location. So, you won't see ice

[19:55] on any of the options that we're talking

[19:57] about right now, either.

[19:59] Um and then we did note that there are

[20:01] just some things that you need to have

[20:02] in every facility again to hit the needs

[20:05] of every generation. So, those are the

[20:07] courts, the indoor walking jogging

[20:08] track, open fitness and equipment space,

[20:11] uh group fitness spaces, a party or

[20:13] community room, and then of course you

[20:15] need administration and locker rooms.

[20:17] So, you will see those consistently

[20:18] across all of the options.

[20:24] So, option one

[20:26] is the option that puts one facility in

[20:30] the in the county. And originally we

[20:32] thought, you know, let's put it up by

[20:34] where the ice and the Hansen Sports

[20:36] Complex are because then you have a

[20:38] colocation of amenities and programs and

[20:40] elements. But the challenge is we have

[20:43] heard that folks are tired of driving

[20:45] from the south end of the county up to

[20:47] that location. So, then we started

[20:49] looking at a range of other

[20:51] uh potential locations that are more

[20:52] centralized to the county.

[20:55] Um with that option, we looked at gosh,

[20:57] maybe six six different sites, which

[21:00] we'll talk about in just a minute. But

[21:02] this is kind of the concept that we put

[21:04] together for that central facility. It

[21:06] would have a more robust gymnasium

[21:09] component on day one with the ability to

[21:11] add indoor turf

[21:14] as needed in the future. It would have

[21:16] of course all of the fitness elements

[21:17] that we've talked about, an indoor pool

[21:20] for children, play feature for teens, as

[21:24] well as a competition sized lap pool.

[21:27] So, 25 yd 25 m with associated seating

[21:31] in it. Um

[21:33] Now, this one again, if you go forward

[21:36] with the one facility within the county,

[21:38] we would say build the field house on

[21:40] day one. Um if we look at options with

[21:43] other facilities clustered in with this,

[21:45] maybe the field house becomes less of a

[21:47] driving priority. So, there is a little

[21:49] bit of a square footage delta here.

[21:52] Um

[21:53] And then again, we did look at a range

[21:55] of different locations and we did drive

[21:57] time analysis. So, we have not picked

[22:00] any specific location, but we looked at

[22:02] drive times from a lot of them. The one

[22:05] that's up on the screen right now is

[22:06] from the fairgrounds. We said, what if

[22:08] we put this on the county fairgrounds,

[22:09] what would access and accessibility look

[22:11] like within the county? And you would

[22:13] hit 70 to 75% of the population within a

[22:17] 15-minute drive depending on traffic and

[22:19] conditions.

[22:22] And we looked at a number of

[22:23] alternatives. We sort of said, you know,

[22:25] 10th West makes a lot of sense from an

[22:28] access and accessibility perspective,

[22:30] and the numbers just don't change

[22:31] dramatically as we start to look at

[22:33] other other sort of sites in that area.

[22:38] So,

[22:40] this facility, and you'll see this in a

[22:42] little while, this is the most

[22:44] cost-effective option.

[22:45] You build one building, one building is

[22:47] staffed, there's it's managed in in one

[22:50] location. Um you get the best return

[22:54] because people are all going to this one

[22:56] facility to serve the needs of the

[22:58] county, but ultimately, we don't feel

[23:01] like it's meeting the needs of the

[23:03] county because access and accessibility

[23:06] and local community-driven

[23:08] um

[23:09] conversations are driving this. And we

[23:12] feel like one facility, one central

[23:13] facility, is going to make some people

[23:16] feel perhaps disenfranchised or like

[23:18] their needs aren't going to be met. And

[23:20] so this while the most cost-effective is

[23:23] not the one that we would lean towards

[23:24] as the most viable recommendation right

[23:26] now.

[23:29] » The discussion a lot of times was if

[23:31] that was put on the ballot that people

[23:33] outside of Logan probably would not it

[23:35] wouldn't pass.

[23:36] >> Right.

[23:37] >> Probably.

[23:38] >> And the the viability of passing is

[23:39] something that is a big part of the

[23:41] conversations with the steering

[23:42] committee cuz the steering committee is

[23:44] a group of folks who want this to be

[23:45] successful. They want it they want to

[23:48] see something happen. They've been

[23:49] hearing about it from their

[23:50] constituents. They've been trying

[23:51] independently to work through it, but

[23:54] they they would love to be in

[23:56] partnership with the county, but they

[23:58] want to make sure that whatever's put on

[23:59] the ballot has the best chance possible

[24:01] of passing.

[24:03] And so you'll hear the rest of this

[24:05] conversation about why it may or may not

[24:07] pass in our conversations.

[24:11] » Did any of your studies on these options

[24:14] consider that um it could be leased out

[24:17] on weekends or whatever to club sports

[24:19] or whatever so that there'd be some type

[24:21] of revenue and how does that

[24:23] >> Yes.

[24:23] >> affect things?

[24:24] >> And and we have some slides later on

[24:26] that talk about our operational analysis

[24:29] assumptions.

[24:30] Um that's a really big question in

[24:32] community recreation is what's the

[24:35] balance between leasing the space out to

[24:37] generate revenue versus having the space

[24:39] available to the community to meet the

[24:41] needs of the community. And admittedly

[24:43] on our operational analysis, we run them

[24:46] on the conservative side of having some

[24:49] leased operations, but typically outside

[24:51] of peak hours so that the spaces are

[24:53] available for the community when they

[24:55] need them most. So um let's say a Sunday

[24:58] for example or later in the evening or a

[25:00] portion would be leased out to a club

[25:02] space but not all of the gymnasiums

[25:04] leased out at one time for example.

[25:07] >> And of all the options that go inside of

[25:09] this facility, is not aquatics and

[25:12] swimming the most expensive one and

[25:14] >> It is.

[25:15] Correct.

[25:17] Yes.

[25:19] >> It is.

[25:21] And uh there may be partnerships for a

[25:26] competitive swimming pool but the rest

[25:28] of the aquatics, the youth activities,

[25:31] the the space for the kids, the space

[25:33] for community lap swimming, those are

[25:35] ones that are hard to find community to

[25:38] help contribute to.

[25:40] And so school districts are the ones

[25:41] that we often see as a funding partner

[25:44] for competitive pools and then that

[25:46] becomes an agreement of how do the

[25:48] dollars come in and how do they go out?

[25:49] Our recommendation is actually to lease

[25:52] the pools to the school districts versus

[25:55] having an upfront agreement and the the

[25:57] benefit of that is you get those lease

[25:59] dollars over time and those lease

[26:00] dollars can change.

[26:01] >> Well, tell the schools to make up their

[26:03] mind. Either partner with us or don't

[26:05] rent their

[26:06] >> [laughter]

[26:06] >> pools.

[26:06] >> They don't want us in their space but

[26:08] they want to use our they want us to

[26:09] build space for them.

[26:10] >> It doesn't make sense.

[26:11] >> So, lease it to them when they do want

[26:12] to use it. That's that's really the

[26:13] recommendation.

[26:14] >> Yeah, that makes sense.

[26:16] >> It it is. It's very hard. As we're

[26:18] looking at uh the next option and sorry

[26:20] I jumped over that very quickly. The

[26:22] next option is looking at two

[26:23] facilities, one on the north side of the

[26:25] county, one on the south side of the

[26:27] county. Now again, the specific

[26:29] locations of these have has not been

[26:31] determined but we have been looking at a

[26:33] couple of different potential locations

[26:35] flanking north and south.

[26:38] Um

[26:41] Both of these again want an aquatic

[26:43] center to some scale but we're

[26:44] recommending a reduced footprint of an

[26:46] aquatic center. So, as we look at the

[26:49] north side, again because the Hansen

[26:51] Sports Complex is up in North Logan,

[26:53] we're recommending gymnasiums be a

[26:55] priority over indoor turf. And we have a

[26:58] modest, but very functional pool that's

[27:01] being recommended. So, a zero-entry play

[27:03] component, a space that you can do a

[27:05] water aerobics, or you can set up a

[27:07] ninja course, or something fun. A

[27:09] basketball hoop for the teens, and then

[27:12] some lap lanes off to the side.

[27:15] Um again, you see the square footage

[27:17] drop. So, this one's running around uh

[27:19] just shy of 70,000 sq ft, but we've also

[27:23] planned, as we've looked at different

[27:24] options and alternatives, for growth.

[27:27] So, knowing that additional gymnasiums

[27:29] would likely be needed in the future,

[27:31] making sure there's a footprint for

[27:32] those. If aquatics does continue to grow

[27:35] in popularity, and there is a funding

[27:37] partner, making sure there's a way to

[27:39] grow an indoor competitive pool. And

[27:41] also, if the community is just yay pools

[27:44] all the time, space for an outdoor

[27:46] seasonal pool, as well.

[27:48] >> And one thing, Whitney, that is kind of

[27:50] a component that maybe will come in the

[27:53] meantime or later, but if this North

[27:56] Valley was near the current ice arena,

[27:59] there can be an exchange of heat to to

[28:01] heat the pool. Like, there could be some

[28:02] economies done with a North Valley

[28:05] location.

[28:06] >> And some cost savings associated with

[28:08] that. There's a lot of sort of um

[28:11] energy-based financing that by

[28:14] increasing the efficiency of the ice

[28:15] rink and tying it into the pool

[28:17] operations, there could be some dollars

[28:18] available. If that lo- co-location is uh

[28:22] benefit.

[28:25] Um

[28:27] So, this one Hold on, I went the wrong

[28:29] direction. Sorry, pardon me. North

[28:31] Valley.

[28:32] Uh we did look at a couple of different

[28:34] locations on the north side of the

[28:36] county. This one is specifically is

[28:39] looking at sort of that North Logan

[28:41] co-location. That would hit uh just over

[28:44] about 56% of the county population

[28:46] within a 15 minute drive, but you see

[28:49] that we're like by the time you get down

[28:50] to Providence, we're out into the 20

[28:52] minute drive. And so it's really not

[28:54] hitting again that that south side of

[28:56] the county, and some of the farther

[28:58] north communities are also in that 20

[29:00] minute drive distance.

[29:04] Um as we look at the South Valley,

[29:07] um again,

[29:09] here we've done

[29:11] limited indoor courts plus a small

[29:13] indoor turf component, so people have

[29:15] access to that indoor turf. The same

[29:17] pool that we're showing on the north

[29:19] side. We did just put a note here that

[29:22] Skyview and Mountain Crest currently

[29:24] have lap pools for competitive swimming.

[29:27] And so you do have that use kind of

[29:28] covered as long as

[29:31] I mean, it's perfect for the

[29:32] high school kids, right? The The place

[29:34] that it hits or misses the mark is on

[29:37] club competitive swimming. But again,

[29:40] you're not going to get as many dollars

[29:41] from a club component outside of

[29:44] a pool lease. And so we do want to make

[29:47] sure there's space on both of these to

[29:48] grow into a future competitive pool if,

[29:51] let's say, the pools go out in the high

[29:53] schools, the school district doesn't

[29:55] want to pay for them there, they want to

[29:56] partner up and put them in at the

[29:58] community rec center, we want to make

[30:00] sure there's space for that moving

[30:01] forward.

[30:05] And again, looking at the south side,

[30:07] we're throwing a dart somewhere kind of

[30:09] between Nibley and Hyrum there. And uh

[30:12] we're looking at about 46% of the county

[30:15] population within a 15 minute drive. Um

[30:18] as you put the two of these together,

[30:21] you hit 85% of the county within that 15

[30:24] minute drive time.

[30:26] And so um there's a couple of sort of

[30:29] east-west, north-south extremities that

[30:32] are outside of it, but generally good

[30:35] access and accessibility.

[30:41] And so here

[30:43] we like this option for a couple of

[30:46] reasons. It has the potential to serve

[30:48] the entire county

[30:50] to an effective level.

[30:53] Right? There are equal amenities that

[30:55] are kind of distributed within the

[30:57] county, so everybody has access to

[31:00] gymnasiums, indoor turf, some level of

[31:02] aquatics. And it's it's that Goldilocks

[31:05] solution, right? It's

[31:08] of course more expensive than the one

[31:10] facility, less expensive than the three

[31:12] facilities,

[31:14] um but operationally it's something that

[31:15] feels like it might be attainable. And

[31:17] we'll look at the finances here in a

[31:19] little bit.

[31:20] Uh again, we haven't finalized the site,

[31:23] so that's something that would be an

[31:24] ongoing conversation on these.

[31:27] And then of course facility option

[31:28] three, this one was um

[31:32] for a minute we were really excited

[31:34] about option one because it's so

[31:36] cost-effective. And as we sort of

[31:38] fleshed out option one, it became

[31:41] apparent again that some folks might

[31:42] feel disenfranchised by that one

[31:44] facility. And so, we went to the two

[31:46] facilities, but in that conversation

[31:48] about one we said, "If there was a

[31:50] facility kind of between Logan and North

[31:53] Logan,

[31:54] and then we move the northern one up to

[31:57] Smithfield because Smithfield is seeing

[31:59] some potential pressures from the

[32:00] district that over time they might not

[32:03] be able to continue to operate in the

[32:05] way they have been in the past." Um if

[32:07] we moved a new facility into Smithfield,

[32:10] we did another one kind of on the north

[32:11] end of Logan, and we did a third one on

[32:13] the south side of the valley in that

[32:15] sort of Nibley-Hyrum zone, could that

[32:18] meet the needs of the county? And from

[32:20] an accessibility perspective, the answer

[32:23] is absolutely yes. So,

[32:26] um

[32:26] you guys did see all of the floor plans.

[32:29] So, the center one would be the one

[32:31] that's in the center, kind of in that

[32:33] Logan-North Logan, and then you can see

[32:35] the the north and south up flanking it

[32:37] on either side. So, this one would be

[32:39] that three facility option.

[32:42] And of course, it does hit everybody

[32:45] really effectively. Um and in fact, a

[32:48] large percentage of the residents of the

[32:50] county are within a 10-minute drive

[32:51] time, which is awesome.

[32:54] But, it does add the a third facility to

[32:58] cost of construction, to cost of

[33:00] operations, to running and managing the

[33:02] pool, all of those various components.

[33:06] And so, ultimately, while this might be

[33:09] in 50 years what's right for Cache

[33:11] County or 30 years what's right for

[33:13] Cache County as you continue to grow,

[33:15] right now we feel like it is and we

[33:18] heard this very clearly from the

[33:19] steering committee. So, when I say we, I

[33:21] mean sort of the collective we, that

[33:23] it's too expensive, it's too big, it's

[33:25] too much of an ask for the community.

[33:29] As much as it hits everybody right where

[33:32] they need it, it's not quite hitting in

[33:35] the pocketbook, which really matters

[33:36] today.

[33:38] So, we did do a deep dive into costs and

[33:41] we brought in specialists. We have a

[33:44] portfolio of projects that we use as a

[33:46] cost basis, but we asked a construction

[33:48] company, uh Westland Construction Blackridge is

[33:53] their pre-design group. We asked them to

[33:56] put together some costs and I don't

[33:57] expect you to read this. I have it blown

[33:59] up on the next slide.

[34:00] But, we wanted

[34:02] a better idea of construction costs and

[34:03] we also asked them to be conscientious

[34:06] of what the facility might be and we've

[34:08] been talking about can we use

[34:10] pre-engineered buildings for a portion

[34:11] of it? Can we make it a little bit um

[34:17] sort of of the community. I don't know

[34:19] the right term. I was going to say sort

[34:20] of grittier, but maybe a little bit more

[34:23] appropriate for Cache County in a way

[34:24] that could be more cost-effective.

[34:26] And so, they looked at the three

[34:28] different facilities, the central, the

[34:30] south valley, and the north valley

[34:31] facilities, and put together a proposed

[34:34] construction cost. And then we

[34:37] um they their proposed construction

[34:38] costs are in 2026 dollars. So, after

[34:41] chatting with them, we then escalated

[34:43] that 4%. We're back into a nice 4% per

[34:46] year escalation cycle, which is exciting

[34:48] after the 2020s

[34:51] early 2020s um

[34:53] And so, we escalated that, and then we

[34:55] added soft cost. And soft costs are all

[34:58] of the things that are outside of the

[35:00] hard construction cost. So, it's um the

[35:02] design, if there's any site work,

[35:04] permitting, utility sort of work outside

[35:07] of the site, furniture, fixtures,

[35:09] equipment, all that extra kind of cost

[35:11] that goes into a facility. Um we had

[35:13] been carrying 28% soft cost because we

[35:16] weren't sure when the things were going

[35:17] to get built. So, we had a couple of

[35:19] years of escalation built into it. We've

[35:21] pulled that back to a 2020 um

[35:25] seven cost plus 20% soft cost, which is

[35:28] totally buildable for next year. If

[35:30] these go out another year again, we

[35:32] would just add a 4% per year escalation

[35:34] over the top of it.

[35:37] And so, right now with all three

[35:38] facilities, that's 168 million dollars

[35:41] that we would be asking for for the

[35:43] construction cost of the three

[35:45] facilities, not including the operation

[35:48] cost.

[35:49] And so, that's where everybody in the

[35:50] room kind of said, "Uh yeah."

[35:55] "Too big." And so, if we look at the

[35:57] option two with the North and South

[35:59] facility, that brings it down to just

[36:01] over a hundred million dollars. So

[36:03] again, it feels like it's a more

[36:05] attainable upfront cost. And we'll look

[36:07] at the bond impacts here in just a

[36:09] second.

[36:12] And then for operational cost, uh we

[36:15] have a partner that we work with that

[36:17] does recreation centers all over the

[36:18] country. And so, Ballard and King has

[36:21] been helping us with the operational

[36:23] cost assumptions and impact.

[36:25] And so again, we've been looking at that

[36:28] sort of market penetration of a max of

[36:30] 15% but what would it look like if we're

[36:32] down as low as 10% in memberships? Um

[36:36] and we looked at

[36:38] revenues and expenditures after

[36:40] construction. So, it's based off of sort

[36:41] of a 2029 dollars for staffing and for

[36:44] expenses.

[36:48] Um looking at again 7 days a week, 50

[36:53] open 50 weeks a year or closed only on

[36:56] holidays.

[36:57] Um and you'll see that 5 or 6:00 a.m. to

[37:00] 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. Those those early

[37:02] mornings and later evenings are are

[37:04] pretty desired hours.

[37:10] This is the membership that basis. Now,

[37:13] again, if you think about if you

[37:15] remember we're looking at this in 2029

[37:17] dollars. So, these are average

[37:18] memberships today in facilities across

[37:20] Utah. So, that is again a little bit

[37:22] conservative on the

[37:25] um cost for memberships and admissions.

[37:29] And so, if we look at option one, option

[37:31] two, and option three revenues, we're at

[37:34] uh just under 3 million dollars in

[37:36] revenue for option one. Yeah.

[37:39] >> Would you go back a slide?

[37:40] >> Of course.

[37:41] >> So, on the monthly membership, just in

[37:43] my mind, if I'm a household of four,

[37:47] two adults, that's 50 bucks, two youth,

[37:50] that's 40. So, plus my tax dollars that

[37:53] I'm being charged

[37:55] >> You would have that household of 50

[37:57] plus your tax dollars.

[38:00] >> [snorts]

[38:00] >> So, you

[38:00] >> So, no matter how big the household is?

[38:02] >> Yeah, usually caps up to like up to four

[38:05] children or something then beyond that

[38:07] it's a nominal

[38:08] amount per

[38:09] >> So, when you said in your survey, you

[38:11] talked about $20 that people are willing

[38:14] to pay,

[38:15] where does that push that if you're

[38:16] talking two facilities?

[38:19] >> So, that dollar doesn't change.

[38:21] Households

[38:21] >> are only willing to pay and we're using

[38:24] the $15 a month number.

[38:26] And so the question is how many

[38:28] households are contributing to that and

[38:29] what is the sort of tax impact of that

[38:32] contribution? And that was the big

[38:34] question and the concern with option

[38:37] three is the cost was so high and we

[38:38] only have so many dollars. There's no

[38:40] way financially we think we can get that

[38:44] to be within the realm.

[38:45] >> And if you bought a membership you could

[38:46] use either facility.

[38:47] >> Correct.

[38:49] >> So how long would the tax increase go or

[38:52] would it ever drop off?

[38:53] >> So typically bond amounts are or bonds

[38:56] are for 20 to 30 years. This one has

[38:58] been calculated looking at a 20-year

[39:00] bond period. And then it would be up to

[39:04] the county

[39:05] to determine at that point if you do a a

[39:08] truth in taxation and continue that

[39:10] investment or if you let it drop off.

[39:19] And so again the revenues are about 3

[39:22] million for option one, 3.8 for options

[39:25] for option two and 4.6 for option three.

[39:28] So we do get some increased revenue.

[39:30] They're closer to home. They're more

[39:31] attainable. They're a little bit less

[39:33] crowded in each one. People want to use

[39:35] them, but there's not a big leap that

[39:38] you see between the three options.

[39:43] Uh you do see a big staff increase

[39:45] between between the three options.

[39:48] Um

[39:49] and with that staff increase you do see

[39:52] an operational cost leap. And so it's

[39:55] really option three is adding option one

[39:57] and option two together because you have

[40:00] all three of those facilities, the

[40:01] staffing for all three, the utility

[40:03] bills for all three, etc. Um and you do

[40:07] have a capital improvement replacement

[40:09] fund that would need to be applied to

[40:10] all three buildings. So there is an

[40:12] increased cost of operations that comes

[40:15] from growing from one to two and again

[40:18] from two to three.

[40:21] Lifeguards are a big

[40:23] uh staffing challenge for facilities.

[40:27] And so again, uh looking at option one,

[40:30] you can probably break even if not make

[40:32] money with option one if it were really

[40:34] well programmed.

[40:37] Um but again, we feel like it's not

[40:39] hitting all the community members where

[40:41] they are.

[40:42] Option two, it does require a subsidy,

[40:45] um but not nearly the subsidy that

[40:47] option three requires because of the

[40:49] staffing impact and the revenue increase

[40:51] isn't quite as impactful across those

[40:53] three.

[40:55] Uh there was also a conversation amongst

[40:57] the steering committee to see if there

[40:58] would be an opportunity to allocate some

[41:01] of the reps tax to cover the operational

[41:03] expenses and if that's something that

[41:06] could be viable to help reduce the

[41:08] capital or the upfront bond costs as

[41:10] well.

[41:14] And so looking at bond impacts and this

[41:16] is where I have to apologize, the

[41:18] holiday weekend got in the way. We do

[41:20] not have final numbers from Science &

[41:22] Engineering.

[41:22] So we have uh sort of rough order of

[41:25] magnitude from the information that they

[41:27] have shared with us to date, but if we

[41:29] look at option two as the potential

[41:32] recommended option, um we would want to

[41:35] make sure that they're built for the

[41:38] immediate needs with space to expand. Um

[41:41] and while they're still working on bond

[41:42] impacts, we anticipate it would be

[41:44] between 155

[41:46] and 165 a household for a countywide

[41:51] bond impact.

[41:57] » So how much is that a month? I'm I'm

[41:59] trying to do the

[41:59] >> So that is $180 is $15 a month.

[42:02] >> Okay. So it's less than $15

[42:04] >> than $15 a month. Yep.

[42:07] And again, that's just for the

[42:08] construction cost. We've sort of

[42:10] excluded that operational cost. That

[42:12] operational cost added like a dollar or

[42:14] two dollars a month, something like

[42:15] that.

[42:16] >> Included it?

[42:16] >> Yeah.

[42:18] Or a year, excuse me. It was a It was a

[42:19] pretty minimal amount.

[42:26] That's the end of the presentation.

[42:28] >> [laughter]

[42:29] >> A whirlwind of information.

[42:33] » What questions do you have? What is

[42:36] So, you mentioned Hansen facility.

[42:38] >> Yeah.

[42:41] >> So, now we're talking government

[42:44] competing against a private entity or

[42:46] what? Have you considered that? I'm just

[42:48] wondering I mean, we used them as a

[42:50] question.

[42:51] >> Yeah.

[42:52] >> And yet, they're private. And

[42:54] >> Can we ask Glenn now?

[42:55] >> Yeah, I think Ned Logan is

[42:58] They Yeah.

[42:59] >> And admittedly, what we typically see is

[43:03] when community recreation centers are

[43:05] built in communities, engagement in

[43:08] health and fitness activities across

[43:10] facilities rises.

[43:12] What people often do is they go and they

[43:15] join their community rec center and they

[43:17] discover they like something, but the

[43:19] rec center isn't quite maybe robust

[43:21] enough for their CrossFit needs or their

[43:24] spinning class. And then they go and

[43:25] perhaps join the local one down the

[43:27] street that meets that need. Or they,

[43:30] like we saw, go to the recreation center

[43:33] for their kids to engage in whatever

[43:35] those programs are and then they go to

[43:37] this other one over here. Or the kids

[43:38] become super excited about volleyball

[43:41] and again, outgrow the community rec

[43:43] options and go and engage in a

[43:45] competitive volleyball program down the

[43:46] street. So, we don't typically see

[43:49] community rec as detrimental. In fact,

[43:51] it's typically beneficial to the

[43:53] community

[43:55] and private sports and recreation

[43:57] programs.

[44:02] » What else?

[44:05] So, is there enough space around the

[44:07] Hansen complex to

[44:10] >> We did do a test fit and yes, there is

[44:12] enough space. It would require some

[44:14] shared parking agreements with the

[44:15] school district again, which we think

[44:17] would be a good complimentary

[44:19] hours of use component, but there's

[44:21] physically enough space for a facility

[44:23] there, yeah.

[44:23] >> And and I think believe the county owns

[44:25] some of that.

[44:31] » Yeah, the the steering committee

[44:32] meetings are

[44:35] robust

[44:37] >> [laughter]

[44:37] >> and circular in many times depending on

[44:41] who's at the meeting and what um

[44:44] opinions they have and so it's been a

[44:45] little frustrating, but I think I think

[44:48] that we've been able to get a lot of

[44:50] good information to you guys

[44:51] [clears throat]

[44:52] and Whitney's done a great job of

[44:53] guiding.

[44:55] >> And it's been hard, right? Because and

[44:57] we we hear that our steering committee

[44:59] is made up of the cities that represent

[45:01] the residents within this county and

[45:03] within the community. And they want to

[45:05] do what's right for their citizens. And

[45:08] so the closer to home, the more

[45:10] accessible that is for each and every

[45:12] one of those constituents that they

[45:14] represent, the better.

[45:15] And so it has been a challenge in trying

[45:17] to like find that balance between what's

[45:20] the right close to home and what's the

[45:22] right accessible attainable amount to

[45:24] hit everybody in a way that it feels

[45:26] like it's both community rec, but it

[45:29] also county wide rec at the same time.

[45:33] >> So, if I can ask

[45:35] you as part of the steering committee,

[45:38] how do we inform or educate our public

[45:42] about all the things that are coming to

[45:43] a head as far as taxes

[45:46] and coming down?

[45:48] When I look at what was proposed from

[45:49] the fire district, the unincorporated

[45:52] part of the county is

[45:54] going to be seeing an increase.

[45:56] >> Quite a bit.

[45:56] just for fire and the

[45:59] unincorporated county is still going to

[46:01] be taxed if we did a recreation center,

[46:03] but yet they're the ones who are farther

[46:04] away from it.

[46:05] >> Exactly. We we talked about those things

[46:07] and that that's a difficult um part of

[46:09] the conversation, Nolan. And typically,

[46:13] one of one of the things that was

[46:14] brought up by and I can't remember who

[46:15] it was that brought this up, but

[46:17] typically when we're going to put

[46:18] something on a on a bond election, you

[46:21] want to give yourselves at least 6

[46:22] months to educate the public and to make

[46:25] sure everyone understands and ask

[46:26] questions and kind of build up that PR

[46:30] piece. And if we if we voted if if

[46:33] something was brought to the council if

[46:34] the steering committee comes up with a

[46:35] proposal that they want us to bring to

[46:37] the council and say, "Would the seven of

[46:39] you vote to put it on the the ballot?"

[46:42] We would have none we'd have like just a

[46:45] few months.

[46:46] Very little time. So, there's there's

[46:48] that component that might make it less

[46:50] successful. Um my fear and has been all

[46:54] along is that you put it to a countywide

[46:56] vote and it's 49 to 51.

[47:00] But yet, we're still going to force

[47:01] those other 49% of the people to pay the

[47:03] same taxes. So, there's a lot of things

[47:05] to consider as we as we look at what's

[47:08] fair, what's best for the whole county.

[47:11] Um

[47:12] there is just multifaceted. There's just a lot of different parts to

[47:16] that conversation. But um

[47:18] the ultimate decision about what goes on

[47:21] the ballot will come to the council.

[47:23] That's that's our decision. Um

[47:26] at the end. So, hopefully

[47:28] and I don't know, you know, Lindsay's

[47:30] here. She's been involved from the

[47:31] beginning. There's

[47:33] We don't want to put If you put

[47:35] something on the ballot and then it

[47:36] fails, does that affect the ability for

[47:38] other communities to do something for

[47:40] their community because there's this

[47:42] overriding thought that we don't want

[47:44] recreation in our county? Um

[47:48] and

[47:48] >> that was Mark's point.

[47:50] >> Yeah.

[47:50] >> About libraries.

[47:52] >> Right. Yeah, the

[47:53] >> Yeah.

[47:54] >> We hear over and over again that

[47:56] >> voted

[47:56] >> the citizens voted down the light county

[47:57] wide library, but that was, you know, 15

[48:00] years ago.

[48:00] >> Yeah. A lot.

[48:02] But it still has repercussions.

[48:03] >> But we always point to that as a reason

[48:05] not to do anything.

[48:06] >> Yep.

[48:09] » So that'd be a very big concern, I

[48:10] think, with any any other new

[48:14] county wide effort.

[48:16] >> When does the steering committee meet

[48:17] next?

[48:18] >> It would be nice if there was a way to

[48:21] conduct the vote and read the results

[48:24] because I think

[48:26] we may well have a situation where a

[48:29] community

[48:30] uh like North Logan said, we we really

[48:33] do want this and we're at 55% and we

[48:37] want it.

[48:38] Um

[48:40] that may lend itself to setting up

[48:43] something different than county wide.

[48:47] But same thing with Logan

[48:49] and

[48:50] trying to lure my entire county into

[48:54] participating with it

[48:56] may make it unattractive

[49:00] to a community.

[49:01] That's the war back and forth between

[49:06] Logan's desire to have it in Logan

[49:09] and whether it gets voted one way or the

[49:13] other but with the location.

[49:16] It it's interesting to me that I think

[49:18] the city leaderships are far more

[49:21] interested in that issue than the

[49:23] citizens are. The citizens travel across

[49:27] city boundaries all the time to get what

[49:29] they want.

[49:33] » Yeah, that's that's hard, too.

[49:36] >> Well, the travel time is puzzling to me

[49:37] cuz I live in Mount Sterling and I drive

[49:39] to the south end of Logan to work every

[49:41] day and it takes me more than 20

[49:42] minutes.

[49:45] So yes, in the study it says 20 minutes

[49:47] or less and so

[49:50] I'm thinking of

[49:51] >> Our traffic models aren't up to date.

[49:53] >> Yeah.

[49:54] >> Well, it could be different in different

[49:55] times of day, too. It's like an average

[49:58] or whatever.

[49:58] >> I'm coming in at 6:30 in the morning.

[50:00] >> It should be okay. Okay, our traffic

[50:02] models are not up to date.

[50:05] So, June 12th is our next steering

[50:07] committee meeting.

[50:08] >> Okay.

[50:10] Maybe to Nolan's point, would you put up

[50:12] the

[50:14] drive time

[50:15] chart, at least the

[50:18] Well, I think any one of them will work,

[50:20] just for the question. But yeah, we

[50:22] could

[50:23] probably go to option two, numbers.

[50:27] » [clears throat]

[50:29] >> So, you know, we're looking at we're

[50:30] saying anything in red is 20 minutes

[50:33] >> or more.

[50:35] How much more? I mean, if we added

[50:37] another thing at 25

[50:39] >> do that for you.

[50:40] >> You know, is that a pink for

[50:43] 95%

[50:45] of the population?

[50:47] >> Probably.

[50:48] >> So, it I mean, it's you know, we're

[50:50] saying in that scenario, 30 minutes

[50:53] everyone that lives in the county minus

[50:56] somewhere up Logan Canyon

[50:58] is within 30 minutes or less of the of

[51:01] one of the two facilities.

[51:02] >> And and some of the comments that I have

[51:04] heard, people that live in mostly in the

[51:07] Nibley or Hyrum South area, they they

[51:11] love the North Logan North Logan has

[51:12] such a robust great programs. There's

[51:14] like if you've got four kids involved in

[51:17] soccer and you're driving to North Logan

[51:19] to get to practices multiple times a

[51:21] week. They're just so tired of that

[51:23] drive time. But but also

[51:26] they have really good programs and

[51:28] they've and they do come. Like and and

[51:30] Mayor Peterson has the data to show how

[51:33] many people from the valley come and

[51:35] take advantage of our programs. So,

[51:37] that's hard to that's hard to quantify

[51:40] that sometimes.

[51:45] Okay, does everyone feel like you have

[51:47] enough information about the

[51:50] kind of where the conversations have

[51:52] been, where they're going, so that you

[51:54] can think about that and maybe talk to

[51:55] your constituents when you have

[51:57] opportunities to be around them and

[52:00] get a better idea of when something is

[52:02] brought to us to decide whether we

[52:05] agree to put it on the ballot.

[52:07] Um

[52:08] >> How do we educate I mean, I know there's

[52:11] the fire district. I don't know about

[52:13] any

[52:14] other things, but our budget, are we

[52:16] going to be able to maintain without a

[52:18] tax increase this year and when we sit

[52:20] and look at our budget, I'm just saying

[52:22] all of the things that are lining up, I

[52:24] want the citizens to have

[52:27] ample knowledge of saying, "Yeah, we

[52:29] voted this in and then holy cow, 3

[52:31] months later when they start seeing

[52:33] their taxes go up, they're going to be I

[52:34] wasn't aware of this." That's what I'm

[52:36] trying to understand is

[52:38] how we let

[52:41] every citizen know, consider fire

[52:43] district, consider library, consider

[52:45] this because I've sat through two tax

[52:48] truth and taxation meetings and they get

[52:51] rallied just over 12 bucks.

[52:53] >> Um one thing that I mean, this is

[52:55] something that we need to consider and

[52:58] Keegan has really been pushing this. We

[52:59] have a public relations

[53:02] committee. I think Mark's the chairman

[53:03] of it. Um I think we need to be very

[53:07] robust. We've never met. Um I think we

[53:09] need to think about those things. How

[53:11] can we get out of here?

[53:13] >> of $0?

[53:14] >> Yeah.

[53:15] But how can we get out ahead of that

[53:17] with our website, with our messaging,

[53:20] you know, that I I think that whatever

[53:22] happens, whatever we do with the fire

[53:24] district, how we end up with that or if

[53:26] this comes to a ballot, um I think that

[53:29] public education is is huge and um and

[53:33] it's hard. I know that, you know, people

[53:35] are busy taking care of their families

[53:37] and earning a living and they

[53:38] to to be an informed citizen takes a lot

[53:41] of effort and a lot of people don't know

[53:43] where to look for they'd like to know

[53:44] more but they don't know where I get I

[53:46] get that all the time. How can I find

[53:47] out more about what's going on or who's

[53:49] running and so I think if we can have

[53:52] those discussions. I don't know what the

[53:53] answer is but I think we can do we're

[53:55] not doing anything right now and I think

[53:57] we can do something

[53:58] towards that.

[53:59] >> So help me understand this also if we're

[54:02] doing two facilities which you say would

[54:05] meet everything

[54:07] does the county take the role of

[54:09] administration on that or where is the

[54:11] role of administration going to be for

[54:12] those two?

[54:14] >> No.

[54:16] >> What we've heard is all they want from

[54:18] the county is the money.

[54:21] >> [laughter]

[54:22] >> There there

[54:23] >> Imagine that.

[54:25] >> Yeah. There there are very good people

[54:28] in this valley that run very good

[54:29] recreation programs that could staff

[54:31] those facilities.

[54:32] >> What we're really talking is mostly

[54:33] having the cities operated but but

[54:37] primarily use the county to raise

[54:41] money

[54:42] >> to build the facilities.

[54:42] Am I correct

[54:45] with that Lindsay?

[54:46] >> That's correct. I think the idea is it's

[54:48] not just about using the county's money.

[54:50] It's it's providing a service to the

[54:53] county residents. So it's not we're not

[54:55] just saying give us your money cuz we

[54:57] want to have a fantastic facility in

[54:59] Rifle and we're saying let's extend the

[55:01] extremely efficient operation of our

[55:03] recreation programs into this arena that

[55:06] would benefit the entire valley.

[55:11] There was also talk of phasing.

[55:13] >> Fair adult. You're not suggesting that

[55:15] the county

[55:17] form a recreation department and operate

[55:20] these facilities. What we're talking

[55:22] about is the county bonding for the

[55:24] money and then basically turning it over

[55:27] to the cities to operate the facilities.

[55:30] >> Maybe they have some kind of contract.

[55:32] >> idea that the

[55:34] cities that

[55:36] our our tax base would be used to build

[55:40] it

[55:42] and and hopefully we'd have some wraps

[55:44] money to maintain the facility, but the

[55:47] operational expenses

[55:49] would rest upon the cities.

[55:52] And that's

[55:53] whether that's practical or not and how

[55:56] much rest on which cities,

[55:58] I don't think that's been fleshed out

[56:03] entirely as to which cities are going to

[56:06] take

[56:07] care of the operational

[56:09] part of this, but I've never heard

[56:11] anyone suggest that we're going to

[56:13] operate the facilities.

[56:15] >> So, in one of the slides you talked

[56:17] about wraps, but there were numbers in

[56:19] red. Is that what you were saying wraps

[56:21] should contribute?

[56:22] >> That is the operational shortfall of the

[56:25] facility.

[56:26] >> Without wraps?

[56:27] >> Correct.

[56:28] >> It was 11 It was 1.1 million.

[56:30] >> The cost of the bond, the cost of the

[56:32] bond and the servicing of the bond would

[56:35] come out of property taxes levied by the

[56:39] county.

[56:39] >> Correct.

[56:40] >> But but then we would be asking Well,

[56:41] right right there, option two, 1.1

[56:43] million from wraps, right?

[56:45] >> Yes, so that is the amount of dollars

[56:47] that would be required to maintain full

[56:49] operations of the two facilities. The

[56:51] question is, how could some of it if any

[56:55] come out of wraps? And if so, great. If

[56:58] not, you can wrap that full amount into

[57:01] the bond

[57:02] to cover that delta.

[57:03] >> And she said it would only be a dollar

[57:05] or two a year.

[57:05] >> A couple of dollars a year, yeah.

[57:08] >> So, has it been explored totally that it

[57:12] can't be privately funded? Cuz was the

[57:15] Hanson privately funded at one time or

[57:18] how did that work?

[57:20] >> Um sorry, privately funding recreation

[57:23] centers?

[57:24] >> Uh-huh. Well, the the Hanson

[57:26] specifically,

[57:28] the Hanson complex.

[57:30] >> That one was privately built.

[57:34] And then ultimately

[57:36] North Logan City operated it after

[57:39] having it be privately operated. And

[57:41] then North Logan took that over

[57:43] and doubled the usage and the revenue in

[57:46] a year. And so then the Hansen family

[57:49] gifted it

[57:52] >> But you didn't ever pay for it, just the

[57:54] operation part of it.

[57:56] >> Right. That's right.

[57:58] >> And there may be opportunities for

[58:00] private partnerships once we get a if we

[58:02] said here's what we are comfortable

[58:04] with, here's what it's going to cost,

[58:05] let's start looking for some private

[58:07] funding or even some state funding

[58:09] possibly.

[58:10] Like there could be other options. We

[58:12] just haven't

[58:13] >> The RAPZ was just one suggestion.

[58:15] >> Just one suggestion that there is is

[58:17] recreation art parks and parks and zoos.

[58:20] So it's kind of what the and people are

[58:22] already paying that without it coming

[58:24] out extra out of their pockets. That amount they're already paying it by

[58:27] going out to eat and by the different

[58:29] things that fund the RAPZ tax.

[58:31] >> Well back to it's still taxpayer money.

[58:33] >> It is taxpayer money but they're already

[58:35] paying it.

[58:36] It's it wouldn't be an extra. Yes, it

[58:38] wouldn't be an increase.

[58:40] >> Back to your example of 49 and 51.

[58:43] >> Mhm.

[58:43] >> I could see if we did pull RAPZ in that would

[58:48] upset maybe some of the outlying

[58:49] communities who are relying on that RAPZ

[58:51] to help their

[58:53] >> Yeah.

[58:53] >> recreation.

[58:54] >> Yeah. I don't know that it's a viable it

[58:56] was just a thought that that might be

[58:58] something if if it was a big portion of

[59:00] the county that really wanted recreation

[59:02] and that they could have some of the

[59:03] operations paid for without incre- any

[59:05] tax increase, they may say yes, we want

[59:08] recreation

[59:09] overall and that's, you know, that would

[59:11] be something that would just have to be

[59:13] it's just one thought.

[59:15] One option.

[59:21] Okay.

[59:22] That was a very informative hour. Thank

[59:24] you, Whitney, so much for cut You've

[59:26] come to Cache Valley so many times.

[59:27] appreciate you.

[59:28] >> It's a good thing I like it up here.

[59:29] >> [laughter]

[59:29] >> I've heard that there's some really

[59:31] phenomenal bread that comes out of Hyrum

[59:34] on Friday mornings. So, we're going to

[59:36] have to at some point re- do our entire

[59:38] schedule so I can be here at 7:00 a.m.

[59:39] on a Friday morning.

[59:40] >> Perfect. Okay, does anyone have any last

[59:43] questions for Whitney before we

[59:45] finish up this meeting?

[59:47] Okay.

[59:48] >> Thank you all.

[59:49] >> All right, thank you.

[59:50] >> Okay, that ends our um

[59:53] workshop meeting. We will begin our

[59:55] council meeting at 5:00.

[59:58] There is and there are sandwiches,

[1:00:01] right, Andrew?

[1:00:02] >> Yes, ma'am.

Cache County Council Workshop Meeting – 05-26-2026

Transcript