Basin Recreation to rethink $150M bond after council, taxpayer concerns

Basin Recreation is reconsidering the scope of a proposed recreation bond after presenting plans for new facilities at East Canyon and Silver Creek Village. Photo: Basin Recreation

District will return with a smaller proposal after officials question whether two new recreation centers are more than voters will support

PARK CITY, Utah — Basin Recreation will scale back a proposed $150 million bond for two new recreation facilities after residents and Summit County Council members raised concerns about the cost, with district officials agreeing Aug. 5 to return with a smaller proposal before the November ballot deadline.

The Summit County Council, acting as the governing board of the Snyderville Basin Special Recreation District for election purposes, had been scheduled to consider a resolution placing up to $150 million in general obligation bonds on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The council did not vote on that resolution.

Instead, after a public hearing and council discussion, Basin Recreation Executive Director Rob Parrish and board Chair Ryan Bruce agreed to return with a revised bond amount.

“I’m okay with us coming back in a week or two weeks with a revised number,” Parrish told the council. He said the district would establish a new budget and then work with residents to determine what could be built within it.

The original proposal called for two new recreation centers: a roughly 64,000-square-foot facility at East Canyon and a roughly 120,000-square-foot facility at Silver Creek Village.

East Canyon was envisioned with fitness and weight-training space, indoor courts, multipurpose areas and climbing and bouldering. Silver Creek Village was proposed with fitness space, an indoor field, multipurpose areas and aquatics.

Parrish told council members that the district still believes additional recreation space is needed but acknowledged that the current proposal may not be the right size.

“Whether or not what we’re planning now is the right size, or if we need to reduce that, is a question,” Parrish said.

Basin Recreation developed the proposal following public surveys and planning that identified demand for additional aquatics, climbing, courts and indoor field space.

At the Aug. 5 meeting, however, officials said feedback had shifted as residents began seeing specific costs.

Bruce said the district’s Administrative Control Board still supports taking a recreation bond to voters but was not united behind the $150 million amount.

“Our committee and I are open to a lower amount,” Bruce said, adding that reducing the bond would likely mean reducing the proposal from two facilities to one.

Parrish said survey responses suggested that if Basin Recreation moved forward with only one facility, Silver Creek Village would likely come first. He also said residents had suggested phasing the project rather than building both facilities at once.

Councilmember Chris Robinson urged the district to reconsider the size of the request rather than place the $150 million proposal on the ballot and see whether it passed.

Robinson said he believed the district might need to “cut it in half or less” and warned that an unsuccessful $150 million bond could hurt Basin Recreation’s credibility and complicate future government bond measures.

Councilmember Roger Armstrong also urged Basin Recreation to narrow the proposal, saying the existing Fieldhouse is crowded but questioning whether all of the amenities contemplated in the two-facility plan were necessary.

“My advice today is whittle it down,” Armstrong said, urging the district to focus on basic fitness and recreation needs and find a price that would be more reasonable for residents.

Two residents spoke during the public hearing, both raising concerns about the size of the proposed tax increase.

Orlie Bush, who said she has lived in the area for more than 30 years, told the council she already pays more than $720 annually for Basin Recreation and its existing bonds and questioned whether taxpayers should fund amenities comparable to those found in a private health club.

Another resident, who identified herself as Sandra, called $150 million “a big pipe dream” and urged Basin Recreation to develop alternative plans in case voters were unwilling to support the full request.

Tax impacts were a major part of the discussion.

Parrish said updated estimates from Zions Public Finance put the new $150 million bond at approximately $255 per year for a primary residence with a $1 million fair market value under a level-amortization structure. A wrapped structure was estimated at $295 annually for the same home.

Parrish said the district was leaning toward level amortization, which would allow debt service to decline as existing bonds are paid off.

Those figures represented only the proposed new bond. Council members noted that property owners also pay Basin Recreation’s existing bond obligations and operating levy and asked the district to provide a clearer picture of the total amount residents would pay.

The district also presented preliminary operating estimates for the proposed facilities.

Parrish said The Fieldhouse currently recovers 93.4% of its operating costs through memberships, programs and other fees. Basin Recreation overall recovers 24.8% of its costs because trails, open space and park facilities generally do not generate revenue.

Using The Fieldhouse as a benchmark, staff estimated annual operating costs of about $1.46 million for the portions of East Canyon comparable to existing Fieldhouse space, with about $1.36 million in projected revenue. Comparable portions of Silver Creek Village were estimated at $2.65 million in annual operating costs and $2.47 million in revenue.

Those figures do not include complete operating costs for specialty amenities such as climbing and aquatics, which require separate analysis. District officials also cautioned that the resulting 93.4% cost-recovery figure for comparable space was not a projection of how the new facilities would ultimately perform.

Parrish said the district remains convinced that additional recreation capacity is needed. Still, the public response has made clear that officials need to reconsider what residents are willing to pay for.

“What we planned for was what the community asked for, and now what we’re hearing is it’s outside their budget,” Parrish said.

Parrish said the district still had time to develop another option before the deadline for notifying state election officials about a November bond measure.

No specific revised amount was set during the meeting.

The meeting ended without a vote on the $150 million bond resolution. Basin Recreation instead agreed to return with a lower bond amount and a clearer proposal for what the district believes voters should be asked to fund.