OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Payson Town Council Work Session on Proposed Recreation and Aquatics Center - August 20, 2024

Town Council & Planning and Zoning — Tuesday, August 20, 2024
BodyPayson, Arizona
SessionTown Council & Planning and Zoning
DateTuesday, August 20, 2024
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 2:09:45

Transcript — Verbatim
0:00

Public comment allowed.

0:02

You don't have to fill out a form, but anybody that would like to give a public comment after the presentation and council discussion is welcome to do so.

0:12

So I just want to make sure, and that will be also true for tomorrow night as well.

0:16

So there will be public comment, but it will be after the presentation and council discussion.

0:22

So at this time, Mr.

0:23

Town Manager, could you please give the presentation?

0:26

Thank you, Mayor.

0:27

And just a moment, I'll introduce our project team and Mr.

0:31

Rob Buchanan, who will be doing the presentation this evening.

0:34

As you mentioned, the purpose of tonight's meeting is to present to you our latest community outreach effort related to the construction of a recreation amenity in TASIN.

0:46

The outreach included a second hosted public workshop, a statistically valid community survey, and a web-based community survey.

0:56

Based upon all the available information, the project team will present you a recommendation tonight based on the input of all of those different factors, a recommended facility for our conceptual design.

1:11

At the conclusion of the presentation, council's welcome to ask questions and offer feedback.

1:17

Staff is not requesting any council action be taken tonight.

1:23

Thank you.

1:24

With that, I would like to introduce Rod Buchanan, our program management office director.

1:31

Thank you.

1:32

Good evening, Council.

1:33

Nice to see you all.

1:35

Tonight, um, we're going to present the findings from the outreach efforts that we've been doing since January.

1:44

So it's been about eight months or so.

1:47

And we'll cover some, then we'll cover some of the financial and economic projections for our recommendation.

1:53

And then finally, we'll present the recommend recommended concept design, and this will be followed by some next steps.

2:03

So here's our agenda, some summary of community input.

2:07

This is a very important process because uh this is very involved, and we have a number of touch points for the community to give input.

2:16

Planning concepts and operational evaluation.

2:19

In other words, if something was a highly desirable item, we still took it through an evaluation for cost and return on investment basically.

2:28

Um then we're gonna go over the recommended concept and the next steps, and then open it back, uh turn it back to the mayor for discussion questions.

2:39

So the first thing we're going to do, I'm gonna introduce John.

2:42

John is the project manager from LPA for the design team, and he's gonna take us through the beginning of our community input, and Winston will follow him.

2:54

Thank you, Rod.

2:56

Um, as Rod indicated, uh, we did start this process uh back in January, the first week of January.

3:02

Um so we've covered a lot of territory since then.

3:05

Um, and this slide shows you the wide array of community input that uh was planned for this project and then executed.

3:13

Uh we walked into it.

3:15

I want to make it really clear.

3:16

We walked into this with no preconceived notions, uh no design that was hooked up in a design studio somewhere.

3:24

We we came to the community um to gather ideas and to develop uh really what the needs of the community were and and engage with with your community members in a multitude of different settings, um sizes of groups, um, and then essentially let that inspire the vision for the project.

3:44

Um, and so you'll see the progression through the whole slide uh show here that we're gonna we're gonna present to you.

3:50

But this slide summarizes summarizes the community input that we did.

3:54

So we started at the very beginning uh right before January with the plan the plan meeting to set the schedule uh for the project.

4:01

Uh it was a pretty aggressive schedule, and I'd like to to um to thank Rod for keeping us on schedule and for us for actually executing everything that we said that we would do.

4:14

Um, so the next thing was an in-house staff workshop where we got together with uh staff who were gonna uh who operate the existing facilities and who would be tasked with operating anything that we knew to brought uh to the town.

4:27

Um we developed number three um a series of stakeholder meetings, those are one on one.

4:32

So I talked about scale.

4:33

We started small and built bigger and bigger as uh as the iterative process went along in the schedule.

4:40

Um so we met with those groups and summarized all those comments.

4:44

Um we developed a the initial community workshop based on all the things that we learned from those stakeholder meetings and from the focus groups.

4:52

Um, and that workshop um over 200 people attended.

4:56

It was a it was a really fun evening.

5:00

We gathered really good input from everybody from the community.

5:02

Um, there were families there, so we got input from children and from adults, all ages, all abilities, um, and it was a very eye-opening process for everyone.

5:12

Um, we uh we made pretty large presentation at the beginning of it, and then it was a very interactive process from there on out for the evening.

5:21

Um, we did a series of focus groups.

5:23

Um, these are uh folks like um business leaders in the community, the school district, um, people would who would have an interest in in the project and how it would get uh planned and designed and what what would happen in the building.

5:39

Um we met with staff and got input from them again on their um their operational concerns, um, and then we took all the all the things we learned from all those meetings to a second community workshop where we actually presented some uh some rough concepts to get feedback from everybody.

5:59

Um then we took the the last step really, which was the statistically valid um scientific survey, which was issued in a random format to people's text, there's their cell phones, and that you'll hear here uh a presentation from Kevin on this.

6:16

The random part of it is very important because that makes it statistically viable.

6:22

Um, you can rely on it to represent uh be a representative sampling of what the entire community would prefer.

6:30

And so you'll see through this presentation how that all unfolds, so that the final conceptual design that we're going to show you responds to everything that we've heard, um, and it's very thoughtful and considerate.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Parks and Recreation█████████████████████████████29%
Aquatic Facilities███████████████15%
Public Engagement██████████████14%
Capital Improvement█████████████13%
Community Engagement███████████11%
Procurement████████8%
Economic Development██2%
Transparency██2%
Grant Management█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Payson Town Council Work Session on Proposed Recreation and Aquatics Center - August 20, 2024

The Payson Town Council held a special work session on August 20, 2024, to receive a presentation on the proposed recreation and aquatics center. Staff and consultants presented results from eight months of community outreach, including stakeholder meetings, workshops, and a scientific survey with 519 responses (95% confidence, ±4% margin of error). The recommended conceptual design, Concept 1B, includes a multipurpose indoor gym, a recreation pool with six lanes and a slide, and an outdoor walking trail. Estimated construction costs range from $44 to $49 million. Public comment was taken, and no formal action was requested; a follow-up special meeting on August 21, 2024, was scheduled to consider bond funding.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Tom Dunning expressed full support, calling the project "wise" and forward-looking.
  • Carol Fagen questioned the survey demographics and whether it included areas outside Gila County.
  • Vick Conner warned about other aquatic centers closing due to operational costs and recommended delaying the decision for a week to develop a detailed operational budget.
  • Ann Doyle voiced concerns about insufficient community engagement, lack of operational cost projections, funding sources, median age usage, and the outdoor trail instead of an indoor track.
  • Kenneth Murphy expressed disappointment that Taylor Pool was not considered and questioned competing with existing gyms.
  • Becky (last name not given) advocated for water sports, swim lessons, youth recreation, and competitive swimming, urging the council to act without delay.
  • Barbara Hepburn noted that only 10% of those surveyed responded and asked for more planning before committing to a large-scale project.
  • Charlie Seraphin described the cost-efficient Hodag Dome in Rhinelander, Wisconsin, and encouraged exploration of alternative construction.
  • Steve Montgomery asked for a definition of "cost recovery."
  • Robert Hershberger supported the project but cautioned that planned maintenance must be included.
  • Dee (last name not given) pointed out that previous youth amenities (batting cages, mini golf) failed due to lack of usage.
  • Kathy McCulken questioned why the town was not building a smaller outdoor pool, noting that Queen Creek's aquatic center cost about $60 million.
  • Dave Wilkerson questioned why Taylor Pool was not repaired and suggested the recent election results reflected community opposition to the project.
  • Michael Wall questioned voting on bond funding the next day without answers to all questions.
  • Pat Gill advocated for more transparency and education, and for broadening the vision to appeal to youth.
  • Janell Salizar expressed concerns about escalation projections, survey outreach beyond Payson, costs for young families, and the need for more information before a budget vote.
  • Vick Conner (second comment) supported a pool for children but reiterated concerns about the budget and future interest payments.
  • Mike McCullen argued that if costs increase due to inflation, wages and tax revenue will also increase, offsetting the impact.

Discussion Items

  • Presentation Overview: Troy Smith (Town Manager) introduced the purpose: to update council on outreach and financial projections. Rod Buchanan (PMO Director) led the presentation, covering community input from January 2024 through workshops, stakeholder meetings, focus groups, and surveys. John Courtney (LPA) described the transparent, iterative process. Winston Boa (LPA) summarized how strategies evolved into two concept families (aquatic-focused vs. hybrid with gym).
  • Survey Results: Kevin Lyons (FlashVote) explained the scientific survey methodology: 5,600 random text invitations, 519 responses (8–9% response rate) from a defined area including Payson and surrounding communities (Gila and part of Coconino County). Key findings: preferences split evenly between group fitness and water play; projects with a gym were preferred two-to-one over aquatics-only; top choice among large add-ons was an indoor walking track (later replaced by an outdoor trail for cost savings); 70% of households expected to use the facility, with highest usage in the 36–50 age group. Out-of-town respondents were as likely to use the facility as Payson residents.
  • Concept Selection: Concept 1B (multipurpose indoor court, recreation pool with 5 lanes, slide, outdoor trail) was consistently preferred in workshops, online surveys, and the scientific survey (30% chose 1B). Ken Ballard (Ballard & King) explained operational evaluation criteria: cost recovery, economic impact, optimization, constructability, and survey preference. Concept 1B scored highest. Rod Buchanan noted that six lanes (recommended additive) allow greater programmatic versatility, including competitive swim meets.
  • Cost and Escalation: John Courtney presented historical construction cost escalation (doubling every 15 years) and projected future escalation. Current estimate for Concept 1B with additions is $44–49 million. Time is a key cost factor; delays increase costs by roughly $100,000 per month. Cost recovery is not yet set; council will later set a target percentage (e.g., 80%). One $1.5 million annual operations and maintenance funding has been set aside from the 1% sales tax increase.
  • Council Questions and Comments:
    • Council Member Mona asked about the CMAR delivery method; Buchanan explained it guarantees a maximum price and reduces change orders.
    • Council Member Schinstock asked about cost reduction measures; Smith noted value engineering and pursuit of donations/grants.
    • Council Member Tubbs sought clarification on survey response rates; Lyons explained statistical confidence.
    • Council Member Nossek asked if any site work could start before design completion; Buchanan confirmed rough grading can begin after schematic design.
    • Vice-Mayor Underwood asked about current facility constraints; Richardson and Smith highlighted limited indoor and outdoor space shared with the school district.
    • Council Member Mona estimated construction timeline of 9 months to 1 year based on 2026 completion.
    • Mayor Higgins clarified that the outdoor trail was chosen over an indoor track to reduce costs ($6.5 million savings), and that two swim teams already exist in town.
    • Council Member Mona expressed confidence in the process despite personal preferences differing from survey results.
    • Council Member Schinstock recalled that a previous capital improvement survey showed community desire for an indoor pool over an outdoor pool due to year-round usability.
  • Public Comment Follow-up: Town Manager Smith addressed points: the facility will not compete with private gyms; more than 50% of excise tax comes from non-residents, and out-of-town users will pay higher fees. The $1.5 million O&M set-aside is conservative. Mayor Higgins noted that a YMCA was previously voted down and that the space dome concept warrants research, though the facility must also serve as an emergency shelter.

Key Outcomes

  • No formal action was taken. Staff did not request a vote at this work session.
  • Recommended next steps: If the council approves the funding resolution at the August 21 special meeting, staff will proceed with schematic design, topographic survey, geotechnical report, renderings, CMAR solicitation, and rough grading by November 2024.
  • Future actions: A detailed business plan will be developed, including operating plans, fee structures, and cost recovery targets. User groups will be involved in design. Construction and operating costs will be refined during design.
  • Public comment period will continue at the August 21 special meeting, where council is expected to consider bond issuance.

Meeting Transcript

Public comment allowed. You don't have to fill out a form, but anybody that would like to give a public comment after the presentation and council discussion is welcome to do so. So I just want to make sure, and that will be also true for tomorrow night as well. So there will be public comment, but it will be after the presentation and council discussion. So at this time, Mr. Town Manager, could you please give the presentation? Thank you, Mayor. And just a moment, I'll introduce our project team and Mr. Rob Buchanan, who will be doing the presentation this evening. As you mentioned, the purpose of tonight's meeting is to present to you our latest community outreach effort related to the construction of a recreation amenity in TASIN. The outreach included a second hosted public workshop, a statistically valid community survey, and a web-based community survey. Based upon all the available information, the project team will present you a recommendation tonight based on the input of all of those different factors, a recommended facility for our conceptual design. At the conclusion of the presentation, council's welcome to ask questions and offer feedback. Staff is not requesting any council action be taken tonight. Thank you. With that, I would like to introduce Rod Buchanan, our program management office director. Thank you. Good evening, Council. Nice to see you all. Tonight, um, we're going to present the findings from the outreach efforts that we've been doing since January. So it's been about eight months or so. And we'll cover some, then we'll cover some of the financial and economic projections for our recommendation. And then finally, we'll present the recommend recommended concept design, and this will be followed by some next steps. So here's our agenda, some summary of community input. This is a very important process because uh this is very involved, and we have a number of touch points for the community to give input. Planning concepts and operational evaluation. In other words, if something was a highly desirable item, we still took it through an evaluation for cost and return on investment basically. Um then we're gonna go over the recommended concept and the next steps, and then open it back, uh turn it back to the mayor for discussion questions. So the first thing we're going to do, I'm gonna introduce John. John is the project manager from LPA for the design team, and he's gonna take us through the beginning of our community input, and Winston will follow him. Thank you, Rod. Um, as Rod indicated, uh, we did start this process uh back in January, the first week of January. Um so we've covered a lot of territory since then. Um, and this slide shows you the wide array of community input that uh was planned for this project and then executed. Uh we walked into it. I want to make it really clear. We walked into this with no preconceived notions, uh no design that was hooked up in a design studio somewhere. We we came to the community um to gather ideas and to develop uh really what the needs of the community were and and engage with with your community members in a multitude of different settings, um sizes of groups, um, and then essentially let that inspire the vision for the project. Um, and so you'll see the progression through the whole slide uh show here that we're gonna we're gonna present to you. But this slide summarizes summarizes the community input that we did. So we started at the very beginning uh right before January with the plan the plan meeting to set the schedule uh for the project. Uh it was a pretty aggressive schedule, and I'd like to to um to thank Rod for keeping us on schedule and for us for actually executing everything that we said that we would do. Um, so the next thing was an in-house staff workshop where we got together with uh staff who were gonna uh who operate the existing facilities and who would be tasked with operating anything that we knew to brought uh to the town. Um we developed number three um a series of stakeholder meetings, those are one on one. So I talked about scale. We started small and built bigger and bigger as uh as the iterative process went along in the schedule. Um so we met with those groups and summarized all those comments. Um we developed a the initial community workshop based on all the things that we learned from those stakeholder meetings and from the focus groups. Um, and that workshop um over 200 people attended. It was a it was a really fun evening.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com