Springdale council rejects plan for new purpose‑built clinic, will pursue modular and alternate uses for town parcel

The Springdale Town Council voted May 29 to stop pursuing a new purpose‑built medical clinic on town‑owned parcel S‑137‑Z and instead explore lower‑cost modular options and other uses for the two‑acre site.

The decision came after a staff presentation, lengthy council discussion and public comment. Tom Danzy, the town’s staff contact on the project, told the council the town had acquired the parcel and secured a planning grant from the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity to develop construction plans and a master site plan. "We are at a critical crossroads," Danzy said, warning that "the next steps ... would be very difficult to reverse" once the town finalized design and began contracting.

Councilmembers and residents raised questions about how much local demand would justify large capital spending. Councilmember Pat Campbell urged a data‑driven approach, asking the staff to obtain de‑identified patient origin data from regional providers to determine how many Springdale residents rely on the clinic. "You start with the data," Campbell said, arguing that the town needs a clear numerator (how many Springdale residents use local services) and denominator (how many Springdale residents seek care) before committing to construction.

Staff and council discussed operational numbers supplied by Family Healthcare, the current provider. The town reported roughly 800 patient visits to the clinic in 2025 (about 180 Canyon residents, 500 visits attributed to them, and about 304 non‑resident visits). Danzy said the current clinic’s space limits provider throughput to roughly 12 patients per day in the existing modular facility and that, with a larger clinic and pharmacy, capacity might increase to 18 patients per day. He said Family Healthcare had told staff it could not afford the fully amortized rent estimate the town modeled for a purpose‑built building (staff estimated an illustrative $5,000 per month amortized over a 40‑year life), noting the provider currently pays about $1,170 per month and has said it could not pay $5,000 monthly.

Council members expressed a common theme: they want to keep a clinic in town but were not convinced the expense and long‑term commitment of a new, purpose‑built 2,700–4,000 sq ft building were justified given available data, projected debt service, and the risk that a specialty medical building could be difficult to repurpose if the provider left. "If that’s what the data pencils out to, fine," Campbell said. "But I think you start with the data."

Public commenters were split. Several longtime residents and patients said they value the convenience and continuity of care at the local clinic; others questioned whether the town should underwrite what they described as a convenience amenity that regional providers already offer within reasonable driving distance. A volunteer suggested treating the parcel as a multiuse campus—potentially dedicating a small footprint to a clinic while using the remainder for interim parking to generate revenue that might help subsidize clinic operations.

After discussion, Councilmember Randy Eton moved, and Councilmember Pat Campbell seconded, a motion that the council "not build a new medical clinic building as shown in the VCBO sketches (4,000 and 2,700 sq ft options) on the property next door," with findings that projected costs and likely rents did not justify the investment. The motion included an authorization to pursue other options, specifically exploring modular clinic units or other concepts on the existing campus. The council recorded a yes vote by Pat Campbell, Randy Eton, Barbara Bruno, Jack Burns and Kyla Topam; the motion carried.

Danzy said the town’s planning grant (applied to an anticipated $3.3 million project) included approximately 10% of that estimate (about $335,000) and that the grant can be used for design or construction tasks. He also confirmed the grant has a timeline but the governor’s office contact is willing to work with the town on timing. The council noted the existing lease (entered in 2024) keeps Family Healthcare in the current modular building for the near term and that the town can use the grant and master plan work to evaluate less permanent or smaller footprint alternatives.

Next steps the council directed staff to pursue included additional data collection on local demand and patient origins, evaluating modular or reconfigurable clinic options that reduce long‑term town exposure, and a public engagement effort (survey or in‑person exercises run through the newly forming community engagement committee) to solicit resident priorities for use of the parcel, which has also been analyzed in a prior master plan that included civic and resiliency components. The council also discussed longer‑term campus needs such as a civic meeting space and town hall functions but made no decision on those uses at this meeting.

The motion to decline the VCBO‑designed new building was memorialized in council findings and approved; staff will return with follow‑up analysis and public engagement outcomes.