Layton City: Recreation Centers area drain on general funds.

Read Article from Standard Examiner

Salt Lake Tribune

Interesting Article from the Salt Lake Tribune.  In a nutshell, if Draper City wants to Rec Center that is one thing, but they put it on the wrong ballot.

The Proposed Draper Recreation Center

This post was created for citizens of Draper, Utah who are evaluating whether they want to support Draper City's proposed $29 million bond to build a recreation center.  We are grateful to Mayor Smith, the City Manager and the Draper City Council and others who are working to bring the idea of recreational facility to the citizens of Draper; however we are concerned about the timing and type of facility being proposed and are asking the city to postpone the vote until November, 2012 so that the project can be 1) more fully evaluated and vetted by the citizens, and 2) voted on by a larger number of constituents. 

About the Proposed Recreational Facility

The proposed Draper City Recreational Center would include a large 120-140K square foot facility with some of the possible amenities to include a large pool with lazy river, slides, workout equipment, gymnasiums, a jogging track, aerobic rooms, etc.   The city has indicated that one of the top perceived priorities of the center would be to include the pool with a lazy river and slides.   The proposed facility would be slightly larger than the new Herriman City Recreation Center completed in 2011.

About this POST

The authors of this POST represent a group of citizens, businesses and other stakeholders in or around Draper City who will be impacted in some way by the project.

Our Recommendation

The writers of this blog are not collectively FOR or AGAINST the bond or a recreation complex of some kind; however, WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ANY NEW TAXES being passed and approved by a very small number of people.  We are also concerned about the current state of the proposal and the timing of its impending vote in June, 2012.  It is simply too soon!  We are therefore asking citizens to act now to postpone the proposal until it can be further vetted, refined and made public. 

While many in the community may be willing to support a recreation complex of some kind; we are concerned that the idea is in need of:

1)    further scrutiny from taxpayers before a vote on a bond is presented to the community,

2)    a better and more developed proposal from the city, and

3)    further discussion about the potential involvement of other stakeholders such as Salt Lake County and local businesses. 

We therefore strongly recommend that:

1) the City of Draper either voluntarily postpone the vote until November 2012, or

2) the citizens of Draper overwhelmingly vote NO in June, 2012 to force the measure to be postponed and/or revisited. 

We are recommending this course of action for the following reasons:

•   IT MAY NOT BE THE BEST TIME FOR ANOTHER TAX:  With uncertainty in the economy combined with federal tax breaks that may expire later this year, in addition to rumors that Salt Lake County is about to propose a $110+ million bond to repair existing county recreational facilities, the timing of this bond could not be worse for taxpayers.  We believe that it would be prudent for Draper City to postpone the proposal until November at the earliest.     

•   JUNE IS TOO SOON FOR A VOTE: A common tactic of politicians who want to pass a potentially difficult project is to present it to voters with short notice and outside of a traditional voting cycle to limit the number of voters who might participate; which is what has happened here.   The community was not notified of this project until April of 2012 for a vote in June of 2012.  This is simply not enough time given the number of stakeholders that will be impacted.  A larger, more representative body of citizens will vote on the measure in November coinciding with the upcoming Presidential election.  A delay in the vote would also allow the proposal to be further vetted and refined and would be a responsible gesture by the city.

•   THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TOO OPEN-ENDED.  The direction and use of proceeds needs to be better defined.  The current proposal gives the city a blank check book to use $29 million as they please.   The current proposal suggests that that the facility would be larger than the recently completed Herriman Community Center and could be built for approximately $200 per square ft.  We believe these numbers are way too low.   The Herriman Recreation Center was completed in 2011 and cost the county approximately $236 per square ft.   Experts in construction suggest that the Draper City proposal will be similar to the costs of the Herriman’s complex.

•   THE PROPOSED BOND DOESN’T ACCOUNT FOR ALL OF THE COSTS:  The proposed bond of $29 million does not represent the REAL costs to taxpayers.  With fees and interest, the bond is most likely to exceed $40M.   Additionally, the $29 million proposed bond only accounts for construction costs, and does not include ongoing maintenance and operations of the facility.   It is very likely that the city will have to ask taxpayers for additional funds in the future to pay for the ongoing operations and upkeep of the facility.  As an example, Salt Lake County is currently considering asking citizens to pay for a $120M bond to cover upkeep and repair of EXISTING recreational facilities.  In short, these facilities can be very expensive to maintain.

•   MEMBERSHIP FEES ARE USUALLY EXTRA: The bond does not account for membership or usage fees.   Most community recreation centers do not collect enough tax revenue to cover their operations costs so they require residents to pay an additional membership fee every year for a membership.   These could be as much as $500 per year per family.  The Herriman Recreation Center charges $400 per year ($38 per month) for a family of two plus $25 for every additional family member.  In short, a family of 6 would pay $500 per year to use the facility for the basic membership.   The size and scope of the proposed Draper City facility would be comparable to that of Herriman.  

•   ONLY 10-13% OF DRAPER CITIZENS ARE LIKELY TO USE THE FACILITY:  The national average of citizens who use community recreation facilities is between 10-13%.   We recognize that Draper is a very active and healthy community and many families already belong to some kind of health club in the area because there are so  many viable alternatives in the area.  If usage of the facility is not as high as the city projects, the overall costs of maintaining the facilities will rise because of lower than expected admission charges.

•   THE DRAPER CITY SURVEY IS NOT OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE MEASURE AS IS REPRESENTED BY THE CITY WEBSITE:  We had a chance to review the survey of 400+ individuals by Draper City.  The City suggests that the survey overwhelming support of the idea of a recreation center.  However, if you look at the at actually survey results, and the questions asked, the data is not so compelling.  The city added those who were “very supportive to those who are “somewhat supportive” to achieve a blended number that sounds overwhelming.   There is, on the other hand,  enough support to warrant additional discussion and refinement of the idea.  We would simply ask that enough time be given for additional input and research to take place.

•   THE CURRENT PROPOSAL COMPETES DIRECTLY WITH EXISTING BUSINESSES & PUBLIC RECREATIONAL FACILITIES:  The current proposal includes a pool with a lazy river and fountains plus workout facilities.  Many communities who build recreational facilities do so because there are limited alternatives for citizens in the area.   This is not the case in Draper as viable alternatives appeared first.  There are many private business and public community facilities with pools, water parks and workout facilities in the area.  We would encourage Draper City not to propose a facility that competes directly with local business and to exclude a pool with slides and lazy rivers and traditional workout facilities.

•   WHY BUILD A “ME TOO” FACILITY?  If Draper really wants to do something unique, why not propose a facility that 1) does not compete with other similar facilities in the area, 2) provides facilities to build friendly competition through sport, and 3) draws new business and tax revenue to the area?   We believe that a more refined proposal may reveal that a “Competition Complex” may be more viable and will not only serve the community better, but will also draw revenue to city businesses.    We would like to see Draper think more out of the box and consider a strategy that does not duplicate, but that makes Draper a destination stop in support of local businesses.   Some of these ideas include:

1.    ICE SKATING / HOCKEY RINK:  Ice skating and hockey are very popular activities in areas with ice skating facilities.  We have several high schools in the south end of the valley that could benefit from such a facility.  Families could also enjoy recreational Ice Skating, year-round.  Additionally, an rink may be able to be built more cost-effectively using new “synthetic ice” technology that is inexpensive to maintain and has 90% of the glide factor of traditional ice. 

2.    OUTDOOR FIELDS:  Instead of more places to play as there are many recreational “play places” in the area, we need more open spaces and organized places to develop recreational and competitive sports.  We believe that open fields for baseball, softball, Lacrosse, soccer, football, a Frisbee park, and tennis courts, would be more utilized and more cost effective to maintain.

3.    VELODROME:   A velodrome is an oval track for cycling.  Draper has an unusual number of cyclists and bikers.  A velodrome would create a fun and safe place to train and compete, as well as the potential of drawing events and competitions that would produce revenue for the facility and city businesses.

4.    OLYMPIC-SIZED COMPETITION POOL & DIVING COMPLEX:   Do we really need another pool with slides and fountains?  There are plenty in the area.  Perhaps this facility could incorporate a competition style pool that could be used by local schools, clubs and families for lessons, training and competition.   

5.    OTHER IDEAS PROPOSED BY THE PUBLIC:  The current proposal did not receive enough public input as the survey questions only presented a small public sample and presented a short list of ideas to choose from.  We believe that some additional time should be spent evaluating what should go into such a facility.

•   SALT LAKE COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED in the process.  There may be a way to include the county as a financial partner, which may be willing to contribute funds to a such a facility.    Both Draper City and Salt Lake County have shown some initial resistance to working together for political and financial reasons; however, Salt Lake County has indicated that there are long term plans for a SL County facility in the Draper area and there is an interest in working with the city in the long term.  

FAQ:

• What is a municipal bond?  A municipal bond is essentially a loan made to a city or local government but paid back by taxpayers that allows the municipality to fund projects just like a homeowner uses a mortgage to build a house.   The bond is issued by a municipality on behalf of the taxpayers, who pay for the bond through new taxes.  That is why the bond needs to be approved by the taxpayers.

• What are the details of the proposed bond and what is the tax impact to citizens and businesses? The city of Draper is asking for a $29 million dollar bond, which is likely to exceed $40M after fees and interest are accounted for.  The tax burden for citizens will be somewhere between $93-120 per year per household, not including membership fees or future tax increase to operate and maintain the facility.
•   Was adequate time provided to citizens and businesses to evaluate the impact of the bond and recreation center?  A common tactic of politicians who want to pass a potentially difficult project is to present it to voters with short notice and outside of a traditional voting cycle to limit the number of voters who might participate; which is what has happened here.   The community was not notified of this project until April of 2012 for a vote in June of 2012.  This is simply not enough time given the number of stakeholders that will be impacted.  A larger, more representative body of citizens will vote on the measure in November as it will coincide with the Presidential election.  A delay in the vote would also allow the proposal to be further vetted and refined.