Consultants recommend multi‑use recreation center in Green River feasibility study

Holly, a consultant presenting the Pathway feasibility study, told the Green River City Council on April 8 that community input strongly favors a centrally located, multi‑use recreation facility that could serve residents and visitors.

The study — summarized at the meeting — analyzed existing assets (museum, senior center, library, schools and several private gathering spaces), identified gaps (youth programming, indoor fitness, indoor track, meeting rooms and arena/rodeo capacity) and tested three schematic building sizes ranging from a single‑court plus track to a multi‑court/turf configuration. Holly said the community repeatedly asked for “gathering spaces for events of all sizes,” and cited peer examples such as Nephi’s “The Hive” and an Emery County armory as models for heavy day use and tournament bookings.

The consultants presented a capital cost range of about $3.5 million for the smallest scheme to roughly $9 million for the largest, and recommended budgeting 20%–25% in soft costs for FF&E, design and utilities. Estimated annual operating costs ranged from approximately $90,000 to $150,000 depending on staffing and programming, with a mid‑model operational estimate near $126,000. On the revenue side, the study assumed a mix of memberships, daily visitor passes, event rentals, concessions, camps and sponsorships; the presenter cited a near‑term revenue projection of about $125,000 per year under baseline assumptions.

Holly said membership pricing in the draft budget used a family pass at about $200 annually (the presenter later clarified that their model used a family of five), individual annual passes near $100 and monthly passes around $25. The revenue model assumed roughly 100 family pass buyers and about 2,000 visitor passes per year as conservative baselines; detailed Excel worksheets will be distributed to council members for review.

On siting, the team recommended central, infrastructure‑ready parcels to limit utility extension costs and ensure convenient access for residents and tourists. The presenters flagged the museum site as problematic because repurposing it would likely trigger extensive code, ADA and seismic upgrades. They also noted opportunities near existing softball fields, adjacency to school facilities and potential negotiation for state‑owned land closer to Main Street.

To reduce capital and operating risk, consultants recommended a phased delivery (design and fundraising now, build later), early commitments from local funders (county TRT/TRCCA allocations were highlighted), pursuing a mix of grants (the team identified roughly 42 potential grants), hiring grant‑writing/development capacity and forming partnerships with the school district and private donors. The presentation also described a pre‑engineered metal building approach (a kit‑of‑parts) as a lower‑cost, flexible option that many peer communities have used.

Council members asked clarifying questions about membership pricing, visitor projections and revenue assumptions. Holly said she will send the full report and accompanying spreadsheets for council review and comment. The consultants recommended council consider a funding strategy that begins by securing a partner funding commitment to strengthen grant applications and exploring phased financing options.

The presenter concluded by asking the council whether to proceed to site selection and design; formal direction from council was deferred pending review of the full written report.

Next steps: consultants will deliver the final report and data files; the council may choose a preferred site and pursue surveys, geotechnical work and preliminary cost models before authorizing design or solicitation.