Mount Pleasant officials weigh parks impact-fee study as recreation staff outline pool finances

Mount Pleasant City Council members reviewed a consultant's proposal for a parks-and-recreation impact-fee study and heard a presentation from recreation staff on pool operations and finances during a regular meeting.

The council considered whether to pursue a roughly $49,000 master-plan and impact-fee study that would inventory parks, trails, cemeteries and historic resources and calculate a level-of-service benchmark to justify any per-unit charge on new development. The consultant, Nate Wallontyne of the St. George office, said the original proposal was "about a $49,000 study," and that the scope could be narrowed to focus on the council's priorities.

Why it matters: an impact-fee study establishes the maximum justifiable fee a city can charge developers for growth-related park and recreation needs; commissioners said such fees could fund capital improvements to the main park and to future facilities but could also increase the cost of building housing in Mount Pleasant.

Study scope and cost

Wallontyne told the council the study typically measures existing level of service'for example, acres of parks per 1,000 residents'and then estimates the capital needed to maintain that service as population rises. He said the full master-plan-plus-study proposal includes public outreach and optional colored renderings, and that the council could narrow the work to reduce cost.

"The original proposal was for about a $49,000 study," Wallontyne said, adding that the city could decide to adopt a fee lower than the maximum the study might justify.

Comparables and timing

Council members asked for examples from other Southern Utah communities. Wallontyne said other jurisdictions he had recently reviewed were charging in the neighborhood of $4,200 per new home for parks and recreation, and that he would follow up with specific figures for Saint George. Council members noted that Mount Pleasant currently issues roughly 15 to 20 building permits a year, and asked how quickly a study-funded fee would recover its cost under current growth rates.

Wallontyne said impact fees must be spent or allocated to a specific project within six years, a legal timing constraint he summarized this way: "They have to be spent within six years or allocated to a specific project more than, like, four years out." That timing will inform whether the council focuses its 10-year outlook on improvements to the existing main park rather than planning an additional park.

Concerns from council members

Some council members expressed concern that a new recreation impact fee could push builders and residents to develop outside city limits. One council member said the fee could discourage in-town construction and urged exploring alternatives first such as grants, intergovernmental cost-sharing and donations.

Council members discussed continuing work with neighboring jurisdictions and the school district on a shared recreation center as a way to expand facilities without relying solely on local impact fees. Several members said they would prefer to refine the consultant's proposal and talk with nearby cities before committing to the full study.

Pool operations and finances

Following the impact-fee discussion, Recreation staff member Britney (presenting slides the council had been emailed) summarized 2024 operations at the city pool and described the facility's usage, revenue and maintenance costs.

Britney said facility rentals generated revenue but that some programs, notably water aerobics, operate at a loss when direct staffing and utility costs are included. She provided a usage count aggregated from door scans and program data and concluded, "Total patrons... was 22,056 people," indicating high year-round usage that includes seniors, swim teams and visitors from outside the city limits.

She also outlined concessions and back-stock inventory, noting that bulk purchases keep per-unit costs down but leave substantial on-hand inventory. Britney said recent boiler upgrades reduced annual heating costs by about $7,500 and highlighted recurring maintenance needs and periodic failures (for example, a melted electrical component and a leaking roof) that require capital repair.

On partnership and cost sharing

Council members and staff discussed existing grant support for the current park project; Britney said the park improvements are being funded in part by a National Park Service grant. Members said the council should pursue cooperative funding arrangements with neighboring cities, the school district and other partners before imposing a new local impact fee.

Next steps

Council members asked staff and the consultant to return with a narrowed scope and cost estimate if the council wants to target only improvements to the existing park and related amenities. Wallontyne said he would revise the proposal based on the council's direction and provide comparative fee examples. Staff also offered to pursue additional meetings with neighboring municipal leaders and the school district to explore cost-sharing options for any expanded recreation facility.