Proposed City Gymnasium & Budget Amendment

Expressed concern that the facility is being called a gymnasium rather than a community center and questioned whether it would truly serve the public.

Argued that the limited usage hours and high cost do not justify spending $10-12 million on a gym or $500,000 on studies during tough economic times.

Stated that a gymnasium is a want, not a need like fire, police, or water, and pointed out that similar facilities in other cities require heavy ongoing subsidies.

Argued that only a small minority of the community would use the gym and suggested the city seek private donations before putting the burden on struggling taxpayers.

Criticized the city for pursuing a gym while raising utility rates and suggested exploring partnerships or building near the natatorium.

Questioned where the $500,000 for blueprinting would come from if it wasn't in the budget, noting that residents are already struggling with high utility bills.

Expressed skepticism about the recreation department's ability to run the facility and felt the city was building the cart before the horse.

Asked if the city had counted existing basketball courts in local schools and church stake centers before deciding a new facility is necessary.

Encouraged the city to pursue grants and partnerships (like the Kiwanis Club or corporate donors) rather than shouldering the cost alone.

Returned during general public comment to thank the council and remind them to consider flooring surfaces and avoid duplicating school district facilities.

Reiterated during general public comment that the gym is a desire rather than a need and urged a no vote.