Payson council directs staff to draft RFP to repair Taylor Pool, include expansion options

The Payson Common Council voted unanimously on Jan. 14 to direct town administration to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to repair Taylor Pool and to include alternate proposals for expanded competitive configurations.

Staff member (Speaker 3) told the council it would publish one RFP containing two internal proposal options: one to repair and modernize the existing facility (new pumps, showers, ADA upgrades) and a second to convert the facility to an eight‑lane competitive pool with the same base replacements. "We would like to do 1 request for proposal and put it out there…inside that RFP, we would like to put 2 requests for proposals," Speaker 3 said. Staff and the council agreed the draft RFP would be provided to council members for review and redlines before issuance.

Why it matters: council members framed the decision as a way to get accurate, vendor‑provided cost information before committing to a long‑term design or added amenities. Several members emphasized balancing speed with getting stakeholder input — noting that broader community engagement could add 60–90 days to the schedule, while staff estimates indicated about 4–6 weeks to produce an initial draft. Speaker 6 warned the RFP is effectively a "one shot" design choice and urged care in specifying requirements.

Debate and priorities: council discussion centered on two competing aims. Some members, including Speaker 1, urged a straightforward fix to reopen Taylor Pool for community programming: "I ran on fix what we have," Speaker 1 said, listing priorities such as swim lessons, water exercise, Special Olympics access, ADA family rooms, outside showers and a minimum water depth near 6 feet. Other council members pushed to include an expanded competitive option (8 or even 10 lanes) to attract events and additional revenue, but Speaker 8 noted that earlier public outreach for a new facility had ranked year‑round coverage and therapy/rehab higher than competitive swimming.

RFP scope and technical points: council asked staff to include three discrete pricing options in the RFP — baseline 6 lanes, 8 lanes and 10 lanes — so the council can compare incremental costs. Members also requested the RFP consider structural footings or allowances so a future cover could be added without major rework; staff cautioned that a cover would add HVAC and operational expenses.

Formal action: Speaker 6 moved "to give our town administration, our town manager direction to go ahead and start preparing for an RFP." Speaker 1 seconded the motion. After voice votes in favor, the mayor/proceeding officer announced "Motion carries 7 to 0." The council did not formally dissolve the existing advisory committee at this meeting because that action was not on the agenda; staff advised the council it can provide direction now and take formal committee‑dissolution action at a later agenda if desired.

Next steps: staff will draft the RFP and distribute it to council members for review, with time for council redlines and targeted stakeholder input before final issuance. The timeline discussed in the meeting estimated roughly 4–6 weeks for an initial staff draft, with additional time if the council elects extensive stakeholder meetings or public outreach.

The meeting adjourned after the vote; one proclamation remained on the agenda.