How a Rec Center Gets Funded Without Raising Taxes

TL;DR: The most common objection to a Twin Falls recreation center is "we can't afford it." But the assumption behind that objection, that building a rec center means a property tax increase, is not how most comparable facilities have been funded. Nampa built its recreation center using Certificates of Participation, donated land, a cable franchise fee, charter memberships, and business donations. No bond vote. No tax increase. Other communities have used naming rights, federal opportunity zones, state grants, and public-private partnerships. The funding tools exist. The question is whether Twin Falls chooses to use them.

When the conversation about a Twin Falls recreation center reaches the money question, it usually stops in the same place: "Who pays for it?"

The assumption behind the question is that a recreation center means a bond election, which means a property tax increase, which means voters either approve a higher tax bill or the project dies. In Idaho, where a bond requires 66.67 percent supermajority approval, that threshold has killed more public projects than voters have approved.

But a bond election is not the only way to fund a recreation center. It is not even the way the closest, most successful example was funded. Nampa built its recreation center without a bond vote and without a property tax increase. The facility has operated at 100 percent self-sufficiency for more than thirty years.

The funding tools that made Nampa possible are not unique to Nampa. They are available to any Idaho city willing to assemble them. This post explains what they are.

The funding tools, explained

Recreation centers across the country have been funded through a range of mechanisms that do not require voter-approved tax increases. Each tool works differently, carries different levels of complexity, and contributes a different piece of the overall funding puzzle. No single tool typically covers the full cost. The model works when multiple tools are layered together.

Here is what each one does and how it has been used.

Certificates of Participation (COPs)

Certificates of Participation are a financing mechanism where investors purchase certificates that are repaid from the facility's operating revenue. Unlike general obligation bonds, COPs do not require voter approval and do not pledge the city's full taxing authority. They are backed by confidence in the project's revenue projections rather than by a promise to raise taxes if revenue falls short.

Nampa used $6.5 million in COPs as the primary capital funding mechanism for its recreation center. The COP debt was paid off in November 2003, nine years ahead of schedule, entirely from facility revenue.

COPs are legal in Idaho and have been used by multiple municipalities for public facility construction. They are the most directly relevant funding tool for a Twin Falls recreation center because they have already been proven in an Idaho city of comparable size for this exact type of project.

Charter memberships

Charter memberships are pre-sold memberships purchased by residents before the facility opens. They serve two purposes: they generate upfront revenue that contributes to construction costs, and they demonstrate community demand to investors, lenders, and elected officials.

Nampa pre-sold more than 13,000 charter memberships before the recreation center opened in 1994. That number proved to investors that the community would use the facility, and it provided early revenue that supported the project's financial viability.

For Twin Falls, a charter membership campaign would also serve as a public engagement tool. Every membership purchased is a household publicly committed to using the facility, which strengthens the political case for the project.

Land donations

Land is one of the largest capital costs in any facility project. When a landowner, hospital, university, or developer donates a site, the project's upfront cost drops substantially.

Nampa's recreation center was built on a 13-acre site donated by Mercy Medical Center. That donation eliminated the land acquisition cost entirely and gave the project a viable site without spending construction dollars on real estate.

Twin Falls has institutional landholders, healthcare systems, and developers who may see strategic value in hosting a public recreation center on or adjacent to their property. The precedent for donated land exists in Idaho and has been used for exactly this type of facility.

Franchise fees and dedicated revenue streams

A franchise fee is a fee paid by utility or cable companies for the right to operate within a city's boundaries. Cities can dedicate a portion of these fees to specific capital projects without raising taxes on residents.

Nampa dedicated a 2 percent television cable franchise fee to the recreation center project from its opening until 2003. This provided a steady, predictable revenue stream during the facility's early years that supplemented membership and program revenue.

Similar dedicated revenue streams, whether from franchise fees, hospitality taxes, or other existing municipal revenue sources, can be structured to support a recreation center without creating a new tax.

Business donations and corporate sponsorships

Local businesses that benefit from a healthier, more active community, or that see marketing value in association with a major public facility, contribute through direct donations or ongoing sponsorship agreements.

Nampa received donations from several local businesses during the planning and construction phase. At other facilities nationally, corporate sponsorships take the form of naming rights for specific rooms or features (the "Smith Family Gymnasium," the "First Federal Aquatic Center") in exchange for multi-year financial commitments.

Twin Falls has a business community that has already publicly supported the recreation center effort. Converting that support into financial participation is a standard step in the funding assembly process.

Naming rights

Naming rights agreements give a business, family, or organization the right to name the facility or a specific feature within it in exchange for a significant financial contribution. These are common in recreation centers, performing arts centers, and public buildings nationwide.

A naming rights agreement for the overall facility can generate $500,000 to $5 million or more depending on the market and the term. Naming rights for individual features (the aquatic center, the gymnasium, the fitness studio, the climbing wall) generate smaller but cumulative contributions.

For Twin Falls, naming rights represent a revenue source that costs the city nothing, requires no tax, and provides the naming partner with decades of community visibility.

Federal and state grants

Multiple federal and state programs provide funding for recreation infrastructure, particularly in communities that demonstrate need, serve underserved populations, or promote economic development.

Idaho-specific funding sources include: Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation grants (approximately $10 million distributed annually for recreation facilities), Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) for public facility improvements, the Idaho Tax Reimbursement Incentive (up to 30 percent refundable tax credit for projects creating jobs), and federal Opportunity Zone incentives for qualifying investments in designated areas (Idaho has 62 federally designated Opportunity Zones).

At the federal level, the Bipartisan Youth Sports Facilities Act would create SBA-administered grants specifically for sports facility development, with priority funding for rural and underserved communities.

No single grant covers a full facility. But grants layered with other funding mechanisms reduce the amount that needs to come from COPs, donations, or operating revenue.

Public-private partnerships

Some communities partner with private developers, healthcare systems, or educational institutions to share construction costs in exchange for shared facility access or co-located services.

A hospital that co-locates a physical therapy clinic inside a recreation center benefits from the foot traffic and the facility's therapeutic pool. A university that partners on a shared athletic facility gains practice space for its teams. A developer that builds a recreation center as the anchor of a mixed-use development benefits from the property value increase and commercial traffic the facility generates.

These partnerships reduce the public cost of the project while giving private partners a tangible return on their investment.

Facility-generated revenue

Once operational, a well-managed recreation center generates its own revenue through memberships, program fees, facility rentals, day passes, and event hosting. This revenue covers operating costs and, in the best cases, builds reserves for future capital improvements.

Nampa's recreation center generates approximately $3 million per year in revenue and carries roughly $3 million in reserves. It has funded nearly $1 million in renovations from its own fund balance. The campaign website's feasibility projections estimate $1.8 to $2.8 million in annual revenue for a Twin Falls facility, with approximately 89 percent coming from memberships and day passes.

This is not a funding mechanism for construction. It is the mechanism that sustains the building after it opens, ensuring taxpayers are not subsidizing operations year after year.

How these tools work together

No single funding source builds a recreation center. The model works when multiple tools are assembled into a layered funding structure where each source covers a piece of the total cost. Here is how the layers typically stack.

The column on the right is not hypothetical. Every example listed has been used in Idaho or in comparable communities for recreation center construction.

What Nampa's funding model looked like assembled

The most relevant example for Twin Falls is the one 130 miles west on I-84.

When Nampa committed to its recreation center, the city had approximately 28,000 to 33,000 residents, roughly half the size of Twin Falls today. The funding came together as follows:

$6.5 million in Certificates of Participation (no bond vote, no voter approval required). A 13-acre site donated by Mercy Medical Center (no land acquisition cost). A 2 percent cable franchise fee pledged to the project (existing revenue, not a new tax). Donations from local businesses (community investment, not taxpayer money). More than 13,000 charter memberships pre-sold (revenue and proof of demand). A city inner-fund loan (internal budget management, not external borrowing).

Total property tax increase: zero. Total bond elections: zero. Total voter-approved tax measures: zero.

The COP debt was paid off in November 2003, nine years ahead of schedule. Since then, the facility has covered 100 percent of its operating costs from user fees, built $3 million in reserves, and funded major renovations from its own fund balance.

The campaign website notes that Nampa committed to this project at approximately 28,000 residents. Twin Falls today has 57,000. If Nampa could assemble the funding at half the population, the structural question is not whether the tools work. It is whether Twin Falls chooses to use them.

What Idaho's 66.67% supermajority means for the conversation

Idaho requires a 66.67 percent supermajority to approve a general obligation bond. That is one of the highest thresholds in the country. As the campaign website observes, the Provo, Utah recreation center was funded with a general obligation bond that passed at 59.6 percent, a level of support that would fail in Idaho.

This threshold is precisely why alternative funding mechanisms matter. A city that waits for a supermajority bond vote to fund a recreation center in Idaho may wait indefinitely. A city that assembles COPs, charter memberships, donated land, franchise fees, naming rights, grants, and business donations can build without ever putting a tax measure on the ballot.

Nampa proved this path works in Idaho. The campaign's feasibility study is built around this same approach: construction funding that does not require a bond vote and operating revenue that does not require a taxpayer subsidy.

Where the conversation stands

A recreation center committee within the Twin Falls Parks and Recreation Department has been studying this question since 2017. In June 2025, the City Council voted to advance the long-stalled feasibility study. Parks and Recreation Director Wendy Davis said the council's vote "breathed a little bit of life into what I thought was a dying initiative."

A grassroots advocacy campaign has proposed naming a potential facility after U.S. Army Specialist Troy Carlin Linden, a soldier with the 54th Engineer Battalion who was killed in action on July 8, 2006, in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. The proposal comes from a Twin Falls resident who served in the same unit.

Closing

The question "who pays for it" has an answer. Multiple answers, in fact, each one documented, each one used in Idaho or comparable states, and each one designed to avoid the property tax increase that most residents assume is inevitable.

Certificates of Participation. Charter memberships. Donated land. Franchise fees. Business donations. Naming rights. Federal and state grants. Public-private partnerships. And once the doors open, a facility revenue model that covers its own operating costs the way Nampa's has for thirty years.

No single tool builds a recreation center. All of them together can. The question for Twin Falls is not whether the funding mechanisms exist. They do. The question is whether the community assembles them.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a recreation center really be built without raising taxes?

Yes. Nampa built its 140,000-square-foot recreation center using Certificates of Participation, donated land, a cable franchise fee, business donations, and charter memberships. No bond vote. No property tax increase. The model has been operating successfully for more than thirty years.

What are Certificates of Participation?

COPs are a financing mechanism where investors purchase certificates repaid from the facility's operating revenue. Unlike general obligation bonds, they do not require voter approval and do not pledge the city's taxing authority. They are legal in Idaho and were used by Nampa for its recreation center.

What are charter memberships?

Charter memberships are pre-sold memberships purchased before the facility opens. They generate early revenue and demonstrate community demand to investors and elected officials. Nampa pre-sold more than 13,000 charter memberships before its recreation center opened in 1994.

Why can't Twin Falls just pass a bond?

Idaho requires a 66.67 percent supermajority to approve a general obligation bond, one of the highest thresholds in the country. This makes bond elections extremely difficult to pass. Alternative funding mechanisms like COPs, naming rights, and grants allow construction without a bond vote.

Are there grants available for recreation centers in Idaho?

Yes. The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation distributes approximately $10 million annually in recreation facility grants. Federal programs include Community Development Block Grants, Opportunity Zone incentives, and the proposed Bipartisan Youth Sports Facilities Act. No single grant covers a full facility, but grants layered with other funding sources reduce the overall cost.

Does the facility pay for itself after it opens?

At Nampa, yes. The recreation center covers 100 percent of its operating costs from memberships, program fees, and facility rentals. It carries roughly $3 million in reserves and funds its own capital improvements. The campaign's feasibility study projects $1.8 to $2.8 million in annual revenue for a Twin Falls facility.

Where can residents follow the conversation?

Twin Falls City Council meetings are open to the public, and the Parks and Recreation Department posts updates on the city's official website. A community advocacy group is also tracking the issue at twinfallsreccenter.com.