Consultants say Riverton could support multipurpose indoor center; ice rink raises additional costs

The Riverton City Council heard a presentation July 15 on a feasibility study that recommends building a 48,000‑square‑foot indoor activity center as the highest‑priority recreation project and evaluates a separate community ice rink as a second, more costly option.

The study, prepared by Ballard King and Associates with JLG Architects and funded in part by a U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development grant, says the activity center would serve broad community needs — gym/court space, a walking track and multiple multipurpose rooms — while the rink would add specialized programming but substantially increase capital and operating costs.

Consultant Janice Ballard told the council, “your survey had 1,140 responses,” noting that 87.6% were residents and that response volume indicated strong local interest. JLG Architect Adam Barnett summarized program sizing: “the indoor activity center…roughly 48,000 square feet” and the ice option at “about 32 to 33,000 square feet.”

Key findings and figures from the report include: the activity center would likely sit on a 3–5 acre site and is estimated to cost $14–16 million to build; the standalone ice center was estimated at $13–15 million. Consultants modelled year‑one operating deficits of roughly $500,000 for the activity center, $465,000 for the ice center, and about $963,000 if both facilities were opened simultaneously. The team projected a conservative annual direct economic impact of about $328,000 from out‑of‑town tournament and event activity and modeled a larger total economic ripple effect approaching $1 million under modest multiplier assumptions.

Consultants described several delivery options: build the activity center first and phase in an ice facility later to spread capital and operating risk; use different building systems to influence up‑front costs (tensile fabric versus fully clad metal building); and pursue grants, public funding mechanisms (the report notes past local experience with an economic impact tax), partnerships with the school district and Central Wyoming College, and philanthropy. Ballard King emphasized that smaller communities often must rely on a mix of user fees plus public subsidy.

Council members asked about site preferences, regional demand and whether dividing facilities across neighboring towns might work. Janice said respondents most commonly suggested the area near Walmart as a suitable location; consultants added that partnerships with nearby jurisdictions could improve feasibility but would require community education and coordination on cost‑sharing.

The presentation and the nearly 100‑page report are intended as a planning tool: they provide program definitions, cost estimates, operating scenarios and economic impact modeling for the council and staff to use in next steps, including site selection, fundraising and formal capital planning. The report’s authors and city staff encouraged further local discussion and study of funding options before any formal commitment.

The consultants concluded by urging phased, conservative planning and more community engagement to confirm priorities and funding approaches. City staff thanked the consultant team for the work and said the report would be used to inform future budget and grant activity.