Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recreation Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverton council reviews feasibility study showing large construction and operating subsidies for proposed multi‑sport center
Summary
A feasibility study reports $14–$16 million construction costs for a 48,000 sq. ft. multi‑sport facility and shows annual operating subsidies between about $500,000 and $970,000 depending on option; councilors agreed to form a community committee to explore funding and next steps.
City staff presented a feasibility study Sept. 25 that examined options for a multi‑sport facility in Riverton and concluded construction costs of $13–$16 million and recurring operating subsidies that the city would likely have to cover.
City staff member Kyle Butterfield summarized the study, saying the cost to produce the report was $59,200 and that the city received a $20,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to offset roughly one‑third of that cost. Butterfield said Ballard King and Associates, with JLG Architects as subconsultant, completed the study and published the final report in June 2025.
The study modeled three core options: a Riverton Activity Center (programmed at about 48,000 square feet on 3–5 acres), a stand‑alone ice center (about 33,000 square feet on 2–3 acres), or a phased/combined facility. Butterfield told the council that the activity center construction estimate ranged about $14 million to $16 million (land excluded) and the ice center about $13 million to $15 million, depending on materials and design choices.
Butterfield also presented five‑year pro forma operating estimates. He said the activity center’s averaged annual expenses were roughly $775,000 with forecast revenue near $275,000, producing a subsidy need of about $500,000. For an ice center, he reported approximately $650,000 in annual expenses and $178,000 in revenue, a subsidy of about $472,000; combined, the two options produced a subsidy near $970,000 annually.
Mayor Tim Hancock emphasized the council must decide the city’s role. “If taxpayer funds are being used for something that’s limited in usage, people tend to have a hard time with that,” Hancock said, arguing that city operation would allow the council to set access priorities but would increase the city’s fiscal responsibility.
Council members debated funding pathways and governance. Options discussed included donor fundraising and grants (Butterfield noted possible funders such as the Hughes Foundation, Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Daniels Fund), municipal or county ballot measures (special purpose excise taxes or “SPET”), forming a recreation district funded by property tax mills, a joint powers board, or contracting daily operations to a third party.
Several council members voiced concern about the long‑term subsidy. Councilman Mike Bailey favored creating a stakeholder committee that would (1) pursue capital funding of $15–$30 million and (2) develop plans to fund ongoing operations. Councilwoman Rebecca Pearson Lewis suggested starting smaller — a basic community center that could generate revenue and expand over time — and emphasized avoiding additional city staff burdens. Councilman Eric Carr and others discussed state law limits on district mills and noted that a 1‑mill property tax on a $100 million assessed valuation would yield roughly $100,000 annually, far short of the subsidy estimate.
Butterfield and other councilors also referenced the city’s budget context: the adopted general fund operating budget is roughly $8.9 million, and the council has budgeted about $2.1 million in supplemental direct distribution funds this year (Butterfield said the council budgeted $1 million to operations and the remainder to capital). Councilors cautioned that using general fund dollars to cover a multi‑sport facility subsidy would require reducing or eliminating existing services.
Rather than take immediate action, the council coalesced around creating a community‑based committee (with city representation) to pursue funding options and stakeholder engagement. Mayor Hancock and other councilors asked staff to draft a committee proposal for council approval and to identify potential grant and partnership pathways. Butterfield agreed to work with mayor and council members on that proposal.
Votes at a glance from the Sept. 25 work session: the council approved the agenda and later approved a motion to adjourn; the council excused two absent members (Carla Borders and Kyle Larson). Those procedural motions were unanimous among the five members present.
