Smithfield City staff briefed council on a multi‑city effort evaluating a valleywide recreation center during the May 13 meeting, and council members debated whether Smithfield should participate in a potential bond measure.
Brett (public works/recreation representative) described the steering committee process and three conceptual options studied: a single large center, two facilities (north/south), or three facilities distributed across the valley. He noted that prior study funding came from a county RAP grant and that the steering committee had recommended option 2 (two centers). He said the study indicates a county need for additional recreation capacity but warned that Smithfield is at risk of losing members and revenue if a nearby regional facility draws away users or if the school district assumes control of local facilities.
Council members raised three principal concerns: (1) whether Smithfield would receive a concrete, enforceable commitment to host or operate a facility in town if it supported the bond; (2) unclear governance and operating arrangements (who would run and staff new centers); and (3) potential tax impacts on property owners (staff referenced initial estimates that could amount to hundreds of dollars per property, though final numbers were not settled).
One councilmember proposed an approach for deciding local support: if the bond moved forward, evaluate support by city percentage of yes votes and award facility priority to cities that demonstrated the greatest support. Others said Smithfield should not participate if it would be asked to pay while receiving no direct facility benefit. Staff and council agreed that more information and specific commitments about location, governance and operating responsibilities are required before the council could endorse a bond.
No formal action was taken; Brett said he will represent Smithfield at upcoming steering‑committee meetings and return with more details.