Feasibility study finds new Lake County recreation center with larger aquatics program feasible with voter support

Lake County staff presented results of a feasibility study for a new recreation center and aquatics facility, recommending a build rather than a renovation of the Lake County Intermediate School (LCIS) pool and adjacent facilities.

The study and selection Consultants and county staff examined multiple alternatives, including extensive renovation and asbestos abatement at LCIS and several new‑build scenarios on county‑owned sites (Community Field or Harrison Ballfield). After public meetings and technical review, the team recommended Option 3 — a recreation center paired with an expanded aquatics center — as matching community priorities while offering the most programmatic value for the county.

Cost and operating estimates - Capital cost: The study’s conceptual estimates place construction and associated site work in the range of approximately $18,000,000 to $20,200,000 (2023 baseline; final estimates to be updated for current escalation). - Annual operating outlook: The projected annual operating cost and required subsidy were presented; study authors estimated an annual operating subsidy in the range of roughly $400,000 under the Option 3 scenario and projected the facility could earn up to about $250,000 in fee revenue, producing a per‑visit subsidy estimate shown in the study materials (example figure cited by staff: about $12.50 per visit before certain local revenue sources).

Funding options discussed Commissioners and staff reviewed a range of financing approaches discussed in the feasibility work: countywide sales‑tax increments dedicated to the facility (a municipal/county sales tax structure would capture visitor spending), Certificates of Participation (COPs), a bond measure, and philanthropic or grant funding. County staff noted that a recently passed city sales‑tax initiative (the “4A” item described in the session) alters the funding conversation and could be coordinated with county plans to minimize operating subsidy pressure.

Site and program decisions County staff recommended Community Field as the preferred site because it is county‑owned, adjacent to school facilities and already a recreation hub. Program elements that returned consistently in public meetings included lap lanes, a zero‑depth leisure area and play features for children, separate warmer leisure water for kids, group‑exercise rooms, a child‑watch area (not licensed childcare), locker rooms and administrative space. Staff also noted community requests for features such as a sauna or spa; commissioners asked staff to identify incremental cost estimates for those add‑ons.

Board direction and next steps - Staff were asked to update capital escalation and operational pro‑forma figures and to circulate full feasibility materials to commissioners and the public. - Commissioners were given options for timing: the board may refer a sales‑tax measure to voters in the November election; if that passes staff could pursue COPs or other financing to begin construction in 2026. Staff also described that a local sales‑tax approach spreads costs across residents and visitors but that ballot language and campaign work will be decisive in voter support.

What the study does not decide The feasibility work is a planning and cost‑estimating exercise and does not obligate the county to borrow or to place any tax measure on the ballot. Commissioners asked that staff and partners (city, school district and CMC) coordinate a public outreach and communications strategy if the board elects to pursue a referendum or bond question this year.