Council adopts $238,000 one‑year fee for South Davis Recreation District after debate over discount

The Bountiful City Council voted to renew its interlocal cooperation agreement with the South Davis Recreation District for one year, approving a modified pricing option that applies a 5% discount but converts that calculation to a rounded flat administrative fee of $238,000.

Tyson, a city finance staff member who led the presentation, told the council staff estimates administrative costs by surveying employees who provide services to the recreation district, then applying each employee’s fully loaded compensation (wages plus benefits) to the estimated percentage of time spent on district work. "I try and gather an estimate from each of those employees on how much of their time they estimate they spend on anything district related," Tyson said, adding that the process relies on estimates because staff do not track hourly, billable time for the district. He estimated that the proposed fee would recover about 95% of the city’s costs under the chosen option.

Gary, another staff member, and former rec‑district board members described the discount’s origin. Gary said the 10% courtesy discount was not part of the original contract and was introduced roughly a decade ago to address concerns from partner cities that Bountiful might be overcharging; the discount is therefore historical rather than contractual.

Council members debated fairness to Bountiful taxpayers, value to the recreation district, and the benefits Bountiful receives as host of the facility (regional visitors, tournaments and associated local business). Some council members favored removing the discount entirely; others supported a modest reduction. After discussion, a council member moved to adopt an option that applied a 5% discount; the motion was amended on the floor to present the fee as a rounded $238,000. The motion carried on an affirmative voice vote.

Council members said they expect staff to send the agreed figure and the draft interlocal language to the recreation district for their consideration. The renewal was framed as a one‑year arrangement that will be reevaluated in future budget cycles.

Council members and staff noted that the agreement preserves the same staffing and services to the recreation district regardless of which discount option is chosen; the decision focused on how the city bills for administrative time.