Nibley survey finds broad support for indoor recreation center; officials weigh cost, partners and district options

NIBLEY, Utah — Consultants presented preliminary results from an indoor recreation feasibility survey Wednesday as residents urged the city and its South End neighbors to pursue a community recreation center that would include aquatics and indoor courts.

The lead consultant, Whitney Ward of BCBO, told the combined meeting that the survey had drawn about 4,700 responses and that "the vast majority of respondents do find value in recreation," with aquatics, adult sport fitness and youth sport programs ranking highest. Ward said 75 percent of respondents said they would probably support a property tax increase, with a mean willingness to pay of about $20 per month and a median of $15.

Why it matters: The South End of Cache Valley currently relies on facilities in Logan and North Logan, and consultants and staff said local demand and limited access at those facilities create pressure for an additional center. A new facility could affect youth sports scheduling, senior programming, recreation access in winter months and the local tax base.

Consultant findings and community priorities

"Right now, we're at, 4,700 responses," Whitney Ward of BCBO said during the presentation. The survey results Ward summarized showed indoor court space (basketball/volleyball/pickleball), open access cardio and strength equipment, weightlifting and indoor walking/jogging areas as top recreation priorities. For aquatics, lap swimming and learn-to-swim programs were first and second priorities, followed by zero-depth entry play areas and slides.

Ward told the committee that of the roughly 1,500 respondents who prioritized an indoor year-round pool, more than 700 said they would use it weekly and about 1,200 would use it more than a couple times a month. Ward said roughly 7.6 percent of survey respondents did not support a taxpayer-funded recreation center.

Public comment: residents press for pool and courts

Several residents told officials the South End needs indoor sports and pool access. Heather Godfrey, who identified herself as a Nibley-area parent and business owner, said her family and others travel for training and competition. "We need this rec center," Godfrey said. "I fully support it. My family supports that I support. I would support a bond and I will support the tax increase for it." Ben Madsen and Adria Davis, who both identified themselves as local residents with children in swim and water polo programs, described constrained pool time and said they would back public funding.

Costs and facility scale discussed

Consultants and staff gave high-level cost ranges to frame what elements could be supported. Ward and staff cautioned these were conceptual numbers. Chad (city staff) summarized the rough scale discussed by consultants: a baseline indoor recreation facility without aquatics near the envisioned programming might target about $25,000,000; adding an indoor pool could bring a conceptual total nearer $35,000,000.

"If we add a pool, an indoor pool component to that, we're probably looking at about a $35,000,000 facility for upfront construction," Ward said.

Officials and consultants emphasized that pools have higher upfront and operating costs, and that Ballard and King — a market/operational consulting firm engaged to run market analysis and a pro forma — will refine estimates on what the population base could support and what operations would cost.

Governance and funding options: city-only, multi-city district or county-wide

City staff led discussion of possible governance and funding approaches. Chad said his recommendation was to explore a South-End special service district to pool resources from multiple neighboring cities. Nick Kinska, who said he works at the Utah State Tax Commission, outlined how a recreation special service district (a 17D-type mechanism referenced in the meeting) generally works: formation requires legal steps, registration and a public vote, and it enables bonding and a defined property-tax levy for the district.

Sandy Goodlander, a Cache County Council member in attendance, reminded the committee that even if residents vote to support a tax increase, most publicly owned recreation centers also charge membership or usage fees. "Do the residents really understand that if they pay for it with their property taxes, they're still going to have to pay a membership fee to use it?" she asked, noting some family memberships at other Utah facilities run several hundred dollars a year.

Officials noted tradeoffs among options: a Nibley-only approach could be faster and maintain local control but would likely require a higher tax burden per household and could produce a facility smaller than regional demand would prefer. A multi-city special service district could support a larger facility and spread costs, but formation and coordination take longer and may reduce single-city control. A countywide solution would offer the most resources but the longest timeline and additional governance questions.

Timeline and next steps

City staff and consultants said the survey would remain open briefly and that the study would continue with Ballard and King producing market demand and pro forma analysis. Chad outlined a tentative timeline: refine concept(s) in April, narrow to a preferred concept in May, complete pro forma and cost estimates over the summer, and — depending on the governance route — prepare ballot language by mid-August for the November municipal election cycle if the governing bodies decide to pursue a bond.

Officials also described planned stakeholder outreach meetings in neighboring towns (Wellsville, Hiram, Mendon) and said a statistically valid voter survey would likely be advisable before placing a bond measure on the ballot.

Discussion points and outstanding questions

Committee members pressed consultants and staff on site selection, the potential for combining indoor and outdoor pools, how school district teams might use a community pool, and how membership and nonresident fees would be structured. Ward said outdoor pools generally are treated as separate facilities and that if funding is constrained, an indoor-only pool would be prioritized.

Chad and other officials repeatedly cautioned that several key items remained to be resolved before a ballot question could be drafted: which neighboring jurisdictions would opt into a district, the tax base created by participating jurisdictions, operational pro forma from Ballard and King, and legal steps to form any proposed district.

Ending

Officials and consultants presented a large body of community feedback and initial financial framing while leaving core governance and exact scope unresolved. Staff recommended continuing outreach and technical analyses and said the next formal steps would be a detailed market and operations study by Ballard and King, follow-up community briefings, and further meetings with potential partners and the school district.

Votes and procedural actions taken at the meeting

The combined committee approved the minutes from February and the March agenda by motion and consensus; those routine procedural motions passed without recorded opposition. The meeting also adjourned by motion at the end of the agenda.

(Reporting note: quotes used above are taken directly from the meeting transcript and are attributed to speakers recorded in the meeting.)