Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parks Deerpoint Covered Court topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sandy council weighs covered full‑court at Deer Point Park amid cost, design and neighborhood concerns

5788964 · January 22, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City staff and consultants returned to the Sandy City Council for direction on whether to pursue a full‑court covered basketball shelter at Deer Point Park after updated price quotes, design options and neighborhood impacts were discussed.

Rochelle (staff member) told the Sandy City Council on Tuesday evening that staff was seeking direction on “whether we should continue to pursue a covered basketball court at Deer Point Park.”

The matter returned to council after earlier master‑plan discussions led to a decision to provide a full basketball court rather than a half court. Consultants from Lango Hansen presented dimensions and vendor quotes; Brian Martin, of Lango Hansen, said the shelter roof would measure about 100 feet long by 67 feet wide while the underlying full court is roughly 94 by 50 feet. Staff shared a range of supplier prices and a local supplier quote around $217,000 for a basic steel and metal‑roof structure. Adding the city’s “Sandy style” architectural elements (stone bases, secondary roof forms and a different roof pitch) would raise that vendor estimate by roughly $60,000–$80,000, staff said.

Why the decision matters: councilors raised concerns about scale, traffic and parking at a neighborhood park, possible noise and visual impacts seen from Highway 26, and whether the structure belongs at a neighborhood site versus a larger community sports complex. Several councilors and staff emphasized that moving forward would use system development charges (SDCs) and could delay or reduce funding availability for other projects if prioritized.

Council discussion focused on three practical tradeoffs: (1) cost and the range of vendor quotes — staff said recent supplier checks yielded a wide variance in material and installation pricing, (2) the aesthetic/“Sandy style” standard and whether to seek a variance or relax elements such as roof pitch to lower cost, and (3) parking and emergency access near Meadow Avenue and adjacent streets. Councilors asked whether a more modest interim option (installing the court and footings now, adding a roof later) would better manage budget timing. Christine (councilor) suggested installing footings now and deferring the cover to a later phase; staff confirmed the court can be built first and the cover added later without redoing the whole court.

Several technical points and cost figures discussed on the record: the city already has $1.5 million allocated to the Deer Point project (staff said that allocation includes the court surfacing but not the roof footings), vendor pricing spanned a wide range with some bids close to $600,000 on the high end and a lowest local supplier estimate near $217,000 (materials + installation), and a realistic “Sandy style” premium could be $60,000–$80,000 on top of a selected vendor price. Staff estimated a roughly $300,000 minimum total if the project incorporated some Sandy elements; other suppliers had higher estimates approaching $600,000.

Multiple councilors urged caution about bringing a structure that large into a neighborhood park with limited parking and houses nearby; others argued the roof would enable more year‑round play in Sandy’s rainy season and stressed the community demand for covered courts. Council members also asked staff to pursue additional outreach to adjacent residents and neighborhood stakeholders before final commitment.

Council direction and next steps: Councilors agreed to pause final commitment until budget discussions, permitting and additional neighborhood outreach. Staff was directed to refine cost estimates, identify possible funding sources (including available contingency and SDCs), and examine options to add footings now while deferring the roof if council elects that path. The council asked staff to return during budget season with refined numbers and neighborhood outreach results.

Ending: The council did not authorize construction tonight; instead members asked staff to return with a tighter cost package, clearer parking/traffic options and community feedback for a budget‑cycle decision.