Dozens of residents addressed the Payson Common Council on Oct. 8, 2025, urging divergent outcomes for a proposed bond authorization to build a new municipal pool and disputing the chosen Malibu site and the project’s stated cost.

Supporters said a new pool is a long‑needed community amenity that will serve growing numbers of families and can attract grant money; opponents said the Malibu proposal is too costly, opaque and should be reconsidered or built at Taylor Park instead.

Many speakers framed the issue as a choice about community investment. Laurie Vanover, a Payson resident, said, “I want a pool in this community. It doesn't matter to me if I never use it. I want it for those who will,” and added she believed “$90 a year or whatever that happens to end up for our taxes” would be justified. Ron Vanover, another resident, argued the town’s growing housing stock means more users and revenue, saying a new pool would “serve Payson for decades to come.”

Several speakers urged using grants to offset the local cost. Mike Quinn, a resident, told the council the project is “shovel ready” and said grant applications could turn “that $16,000,000 into $30,000,000,” recommending council members seek additional grant funding.

Other residents raised concerns about total project cost and site choice. Darlene Yonker Delage, a resident, said the bond pamphlet lists a “total cost of the bond authorization” of $25,983,000 and called that figure “a bit more than $16,000,000,” arguing the Malibu location is “ill advised.” Tom Thompson and Barbara Bunton, residents, both said the existing Taylor pool could be refurbished for far less and questioned why the Malibu site was chosen, with Bunton saying she was “not sure who is behind the push for the Malibu location.”

A few comments connected the pool debate to civic values. Michael R. Fox, a veteran and retired police officer who described himself as a proponent of a new pool, said: “They preach charity and community then vote against the very thing that brings this community together,” urging council members to consider the community benefits for children and seniors.

The meeting record shows the pool discussion occurred during the public comment section; the council did not take a formal vote on the bond at the Oct. 8 meeting. Several speakers asked council members to pursue grants and alternative financing and to revisit location studies and cost breakdowns before placing a bond measure before voters.

What happens next: The council did not adopt the bond at this session. Residents asked the council to provide clearer cost breakdowns, grant application plans and site justification before a formal decision or ballot measure is pursued.