Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks And Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants Recommend Multiuse Recreation Center after Green River Feasibility Study
Summary
Consultants presenting a feasibility study recommended a flexible, multipurpose recreation center for Green River, proposing several site options, cost ranges of $3.5–$9 million, and operating budgets of roughly $90,000–$150,000 per year; next steps include funding strategy and site selection.
Consultants who conducted a feasibility study for Green River on April 8 recommended the city pursue a multipurpose recreation center that could serve residents and visitors, support events and tourism, and integrate with existing outdoor amenities.
The recommendation came in a high-level presentation to the Green River City Council led by a consultant identified in the meeting as Holly of the Pathway consulting team. Holly said the study’s purpose was to “serve first and foremost the needs of the residents, support area visitation, and reflect Green River’s unique identity.” She told the council the team engaged hundreds of community members, surveyed peer cities and analyzed city budgets to arrive at the recommendation.
The consultants’ summary and why it matters
Holly told the council that community feedback strongly supported a recreation facility. “For the love of all things holy, please get us a rec center,” she said, summarizing respondents’ sentiment. The consultants presented the rec center as a flexible building that could host a range of activities from daily fitness use to tournaments and tourism-oriented programs. They said such versatility would help the city justify requesting tourism-related funding.
Design concepts and site considerations
The team presented three sizing schemes (single-court to multi-court) with a medium “two-court” model shown as the primary proof-of-concept. That design includes a perimeter indoor track, room for a basketball court or indoor turf, mezzanine meeting rooms, concessions, restrooms accessible from inside and out, and overhead doors to allow indoor-outdoor event flow. Heber (a consulting team member who spoke about code and site matters) told the council the museum site would trigger significant ADA, seismic and code upgrades if repurposed — a complicating factor if the city considered converting existing museum space.
Consultants emphasized central, infrastructure-ready sites to avoid significant utility extension costs. They flagged five top site options, including land near the softball fields, parcels adjacent to the public safety building, and a parcel near the state park; they noted each option would require further study of utilities, soils and access.
Costs, operations and funding options
The consultants estimated capital costs between about $3.5 million (small, single-court option) and $9 million (largest multi-court option), with soft costs (design, FF&E, utilities) of roughly 20–25% added separately. Estimated annual operating costs ranged from about $90,000 to $150,000 depending on staffing and programming; the medium model used in the materials was estimated at about $126,000 per year.
On revenue, the consultants offered a 2027-oriented projection: roughly $125,000 in annual revenue under their assumptions, composed of memberships, visitors’ day passes, event rental revenue, concessions, camps and sponsorships. They proposed a family membership priced at about $200 per year (the consultants later clarified that a family definition in their worksheet used up to five members), individual annual passes around $100, monthly passes of about $25 and day passes for visitors. The consultants estimated roughly 2,000 visitor passes a year in their baseline assumptions (about five visitor passes per day). They also identified roughly 42 grants or funding opportunities from foundations, corporate and government sources, with award sizes ranging from $5,000 up to about $1 million.
Operational considerations and risks
The consultants warned about competing grant demand nationally and advised a phased approach to development: pursue design funding first, line up certain capital commitments (county TRCCA/TRT, school district partnership) and phase construction as grants and financing allow. They said a partnership with the school district is common in peer cities and could enable shared use while respecting school-day exclusivity for some school-owned facilities. They recommended hiring or contracting for grant-writing and development support to pursue identified funding sources.
Council discussion and next steps
Council members asked about membership pricing and projected uptake; Holly and the consulting team pointed the council to detailed spreadsheets they will provide for review and adjustment. Consultants recommended the council prioritize a funding strategy that explores county tourism funds and TRCCA/TRT contributions, philanthropic and corporate sponsorships, and phased capital funding. Holly and Heber told the council the next design steps are (1) pick a preferred site and obtain geotechnical and survey work, (2) coordinate preliminary cost modeling with pre-engineered building suppliers, and (3) move into detailed engineering and design.
The consultants said they would finalize and distribute a written report with more detail for council review and feedback.
Ending
Council members did not take a vote on a specific project at the April 8 meeting; the presentation concluded with the consultants asking the council to consider the funding strategy and site-selection steps if the city wishes to move into design work. The team said they will deliver a final report and supporting spreadsheets for the council to review.
