Evanston parks officials present $25–29 million aquatic center plan, urge countywide penny tax in November

Evanston Parks and Recreation District Director Kim Larson told the Uinta County School District #1 Board of Trustees that the district’s 40-year-old pool is “at the end of its useful life” and that renovating the existing facility would not meet community needs. Larson asked the board to support the parks’ plan to build a new aquatics complex adjacent to the current recreation center and to back a countywide temporary specific-purpose sales tax on the November ballot to finance the project.

The proposal would put a competition lap pool and a recreational pool next to the rec center and repurpose the old pool into gym or gymnastics space. “We have a 99 page report saying that our pool is at the end of its useful life,” Larson said, and described health and mechanical problems that make renovation impractical.

Larson presented multiple cost figures from the feasibility work and subsequent design concepts. She cited an estimated construction cost for a new facility of about $25,000,922 and said converting the old pool for gym space would be roughly $2.9 million; at another point she summarized a planning-level combined estimate of about $28.8 million for both a new facility and conversion. Larson also said the group had proposed asking for a roughly 1% temporary county sales tax (commonly called a penny tax) and that the countywide package of recreation and public-safety projects from several municipalities sums to about $43 million, with an annual revenue estimate from the tax of about $3.8 million.

The parks director said the proposal relies on multiple revenue sources: the November ballot measure, donations and grant-seeking, and a new nonprofit, the Evanston Recreation Foundation, to solicit private gifts. Larson described a donor pledge from the McKinley family: “They will match any other grant up to 200 per grant, donation up to $250,000” distributed as $250,000 a year for three years, contingent on the penny tax passing. She said the countywide tax was temporary and would end once projects were paid off unless voters approved another measure.

Board members and audience members pressed on affordability and scale. One board member noted recent voter resistance to tax increases and cautioned that the 1% sales tax could add hundreds of dollars to a large purchase for local families; Larson replied that many visitors to the county would also help pay via sales taxes on tourism-related purchases. Trustees and attendees also raised contingency concerns: Larson and board members walked through scenarios where construction cost escalation and contingencies could extend the tax repayment period from the plan’s 7.5 years to approximately 10 years.

Larson emphasized design choices intended to serve multiple user groups, including separate temperature-controlled pools—colder water for competitive lap swimmers and warmer water for recreational and therapy uses—and accessibility features such as zero-depth entry, ADA family changing rooms and a lazy river. She also discussed revenue-generation elements, including rentable party rooms and concessions, and the potential to host multi-day swim meets that could increase visitor spending in town.

The parks district will continue design and fundraising work with Burbox Aquatics, Albertsons Engineering and the Evanston Recreation Foundation and is coordinating resolutions for municipal partners and the county commissioners. Larson asked trustees to consider the recreation center’s operating agreement and to be prepared for referendum work later in the year; the parks director said she would return for follow-up as needed.

The board took no formal vote on the project at this meeting; Larson’s presentation was received as information and the parks department indicated it will pursue municipal resolutions and grant/donor work ahead of the November ballot.

The board and parks representatives stressed that the proposal remains a plan rather than a final commitment: project costs and the final financing package will depend on referendum results, grant awards and donor matches. Trustees said they expect to see any formal intergovernmental agreements, operating agreements and budget impacts before taking action related to district funds or facilities.