Advisory committee recommends 6‑lane pool, sales‑tax bond for Prescott Valley recreation center

Prescott Valley, Ariz. — Sept. 18, 2025 — The Prescott Valley Town Council heard a presentation Thursday from the 15‑member Citizen Recreation Facility Advisory Committee, which recommended a phased recreation center anchored by a 6‑lane, 25‑meter indoor pool and urged using a dedicated sales‑tax bond to pay for the project.

The committee recommended that the town place a revenue bond backed by a dedicated sales tax on the ballot (a revenue-bond/sales‑tax approach) and unanimously opposed financing the facility through a secondary property tax. Committee members also recommended a phased build that would start with four core amenities and allow future expansion.

Committee chair Eric Tetrault said the group was assembled under the town’s creation resolution and worked through surveys, facility tours and contractor and finance briefings over several months to determine what the community wanted. "The committee's purpose was to act as the voice of the community," said Patricia Bridal, co‑chair of the committee. "After much education, reflection and discussion ... this committee voted unanimously that sales tax should be used as the dedicated funding source." The committee said it met from April through August and included residents from a range of ages and backgrounds.

What the committee recommended

The advisory committee narrowed a long list of possible amenities to seven principal features: a 6‑lane, 25‑meter indoor pool (with a slide/pad child area and locker rooms), a multiuse gymnasium, a weight and conditioning area, part‑time child watch (short blocks of supervised childcare), group exercise studios, multipurpose rooms (rentable for events and classes) and an indoor track.

Committee members voted unanimously to recommend a starter package of four core amenities: the indoor pool, gymnasium, weight/conditioning space and part‑time child watch. The committee reported that the remaining three items — group exercise studio, multipurpose room and indoor track — were carried by a majority vote and are included in the overall recommendation for future phases and buildout.

Funding, phasing and fiscal guidance

The committee considered two financing options presented during its work: general obligation bonds secured by a secondary property tax and revenue bonds secured by a dedicated sales tax (an excise on sales). After discussion about fairness to nonresidents who shop in Prescott Valley and concerns about the burden of higher property taxes on some households, the committee voted unanimously in favor of a dedicated sales‑tax revenue bond and opposed a secondary property‑tax approach.

The committee told council members that the town should follow its debt‑management policy (Policy 4‑14) and remain financially conservative; the committee recommended designing any tax rate and bond structure to pay down debt faster if feasible (for example, choosing a rate that shortens the repayment period). The committee also recommended that any voter‑approved sales tax include a planned sunsetting mechanism so the rate would decrease proportionally as debt is repaid.

Cost and timeline

Committee members emphasized that cost estimates presented to them varied and must be updated before final budgeting. The presentation referenced capital estimates from consultants (including Kitchell) and a range of estimated annual operating costs; committee presenters described that range to council as roughly between about $2.5 million and about $3.5 million per year and said those figures reflect different amenity packages and assumptions (for example, all‑day childcare increases operating projections). The committee recommended that the council update consultant pricing before any final ballot language or bond sizing is finalized.

The advisory committee asked the council to consider phasing construction so the town could deliver core services first and add other amenities later if needed. Committee members also recommended siting the facility to integrate with existing town recreation assets and infrastructure to save costs (for example, using existing roads, utilities and parking) and to support multigenerational use.

Site, partners and operations

Presenters said the committee did not make operational decisions about who would run the facility; the committee’s charge focused on the "what" (amenities) and "how" (funding). The presentation noted the YMCA, Boys & Girls Club and other organizations were consulted as part of tours and research, and the committee discussed the option of a nonprofit operator. The committee also reported that the YMCA is pursuing a childcare facility in the area, which influenced the committee's decision on full‑time childcare.

Skyler, a town staff presenter, told the council the committee had not yet had direct conversations with the local school district about formal partnership arrangements but that staff could pursue those discussions. "We haven't had conversations with the school, but we can," the presenter said.

Next steps for council

Council members were told the recommendation will return to the council for approval at a future meeting (council discussion slated for October, likely Oct. 9) and that, if approved, a ballot measure would be prepared for the November 2026 general election (revenue bond measures typically appear on November ballots in even‑numbered years). Presenters estimated a construction schedule of roughly two to two‑and‑a‑half years after approval and financing, with an opening most likely in 2028 if the timeline holds.

Public‑interest points raised by council

During the study session council members asked whether the high school swim team could use pool lanes, how lane time would be allocated between schools, competitions and public swim, whether grants or corporate sponsorships had been explored, and why the committee chose part‑time child watch rather than full‑time childcare. Presenters said full‑time childcare was discussed but that operating full‑time childcare would likely require a partner operator and could change the facility's financing model and increase liability and regulatory obligations for the town.

The committee emphasized that final decisions about operation, exact site, bond sizing, final amenity list and partnership arrangements would require further study and updated cost estimates before council approval and before any ballot language is finalized.