The Full Picture

Eyes Wide Open

We're not just selling a rec center. We're asking Twin Falls to make a decision — and you deserve the full picture.

Every advocacy campaign tells you why their project is great. We're going to do something different. Below is an honest accounting of what Twin Falls gains AND what it costs to build a $65 million recreation center. We believe the case is overwhelming — but we respect you enough to let you see both columns and decide for yourself.

Before we start — “aren't we too small?”

When Nampa committed to its recreation center, the city had about 28,000–33,000 residents — roughly half Twin Falls' size today. Canyon County then (~90,000) was about the size of Twin Falls County now (~97,500). If Nampa wasn't too small at half our size, neither are we.

Column One

What the community gains

Reliable, all-ages courts a private youth facility can't provide

Twin Falls' city recreation basketball league has no home of its own — it scrounges court time at school gyms across the district, where school athletics get first priority and the floors are largely unavailable during the school day and sports seasons. The Boot-Check Sports Ranch coming seven miles south of town doesn't solve this: it's private and youth-only (ages 24 and under), set to a nonprofit's own mission and calendar. Four convertible courts in a public rec center give 57,000 residents of every age reliable, affordable, scheduled access — and flex to volleyball and pickleball at low cost per square foot. League play is recurring-billing revenue, not a frill: Jerome's adult leagues fill 100% (7 of 7), and youth/adult leagues are among the top revenue programs at both Jerome and Provo. Out-of-town tournament hosting fees are conservative upside on courts that exist for residents anyway.

The amenity that helps Twin Falls compete for talent

Chobani is investing $500 million in expansion and actively recruiting professional talent. St. Luke's Magic Valley competes nationally for physicians, nurses, and administrators. Glanbia recruits globally. The absence of a public recreation center is a documented competitive disadvantage. 86% of adults say parks and recreation factor into where they choose to live (NRPA American Engagement Index). A world-class recreation center makes every major employer in the region more competitive in recruiting the people who keep Twin Falls growing.

Somewhere for kids to go — year-round

The survey data tells this story clearly: youth activity center and indoor sports courts tied as the #1 missing facility. There is currently nowhere in Twin Falls for a youth basketball league to practice indoors during winter without begging schools for gym time. After-school programs, climbing walls, indoor playgrounds, and supervised youth spaces give Twin Falls families something the city currently cannot provide. Every community in America that builds a recreation center reports the same outcome: youth who have constructive, supervised activities are less likely to engage in destructive ones.

The generation that votes most gets the amenity it needs most

Seniors are Twin Falls' fastest-growing demographic and the most expensive to the healthcare system when sedentary. A dedicated senior wellness suite with Silver Sneakers-eligible programming, a walking track, and social gathering space addresses both physical health and the isolation epidemic that drives depression and cognitive decline in older adults. The CDC estimates physically active adults cost $1,500 less annually in healthcare than sedentary peers. At even 1,000 active senior members, that's $1.5 million in annual community healthcare savings.

Homes near recreation facilities are worth more — the data is clear

The National Recreation and Park Association and the Urban Land Institute have documented that proximity to quality recreation facilities consistently increases residential property values by 5–15%. This isn't speculative — it's measured across hundreds of communities. For Twin Falls homeowners within a half-mile of the facility, a 5–10% value increase on a $315,000 home is $15,750–$31,500 in equity — more than paying for any indirect costs over the life of the facility.

The cheapest healthcare is prevention

Physically active adults cost the healthcare system $1,500 less per year than sedentary peers. At 8,000 rec center members, theoretical community healthcare savings reach $12 million annually. Even at conservative 10% attribution, that's $1.2 million in real annual health value. Aquatics programming is a life skill issue, not just recreation. Drowning is a leading cause of death for children aged 1–4. A modern aquatics facility with swim lessons, competitive swimming, and water safety training serves a public health function that goes beyond recreation.

The only city its size in Idaho without a rec center

Jerome (population 13,000) has a recreation district. Shoshone (population 1,500) has a recreation center. Kimberly has a recreation district. Burley is building a $20–25 million center right now. Nampa — an Idaho city that committed at roughly half our current size — built a recreation center (≈90,000 sq ft original core, grown to ~140,000 sq ft with later additions) that returns money to the city today. Twin Falls — population 57,000, the regional hub of the Magic Valley — has none of these. Our residents drive to smaller towns for basic recreation. That's lost revenue, lost time, and a gap in community infrastructure that grows more conspicuous every year.

A place where Twin Falls becomes a community, not just a population

Twin Falls is growing 10%+ with newcomers from across the country. A recreation center becomes the place where longtime residents and newcomers meet on common ground. Where the retired farmer walks the indoor track alongside the Chobani engineer. Where the senior group gathers every Tuesday morning. This is hard to quantify, and we won't pretend otherwise. But every community that has built a recreation center reports the same thing: it becomes the town's living room.

Column Two

What the community should prepare for

We believe the benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the costs. But you deserve to see both sides before deciding. Here's what changes if Twin Falls builds this facility.

2–3 years of city budget allocation before the facility earns revenue

This is the most significant financial tradeoff. During construction, the recreation center generates zero membership revenue. COP lease payments of approximately $2–4 million annually come from the city's existing $101 million budget. That's 2–4% of the budget committed before the building opens. Pre-sold charter memberships, corporate sponsorship commitments, and grant funding can offset a significant portion — Nampa pre-sold 13,000 memberships before opening. But some general fund contribution during construction is likely. The layered funding model significantly reduces the construction-period budget exposure. We won't pretend it's zero.

2–3 years of noise, traffic, and dust near the site

Construction of an 80,000–110,000 sq ft facility is a major project. Neighbors within a quarter mile of the site will experience increased truck traffic, noise during work hours, dust, and visual disruption for 2–3 years. This is temporary but real, and it should be planned for with traffic management, dust mitigation, construction hour limits, and proactive communication with adjacent residents and businesses.

Tournament weekends will bring 500+ vehicles

A facility hosting 15–28 tournaments per year with 24–40 teams per event means periodic spikes of 500+ vehicles. Even with structured parking, surrounding roads will feel the impact during peak events — primarily weekend mornings. This is why site selection matters. The ideal location absorbs event traffic through existing commercial corridors rather than routing it through residential neighborhoods. The tradeoff: those 500+ vehicles represent families spending money at Twin Falls hotels, restaurants, and stores. Tournament traffic is economic activity, not just congestion.

Some gym members will switch — but the markets are different

Private gyms — Planet Fitness, Gold's Gym, local studios — will see some membership overlap. National research shows that municipal recreation centers and private gyms coexist because they serve different markets (rec centers attract families, seniors, and youth; private gyms attract individual adults seeking specialized training). Some crossover is inevitable. We won't pretend otherwise. Our position: a rec center fills gaps the private market hasn't — tournament courts, senior wellness, youth programs, aquatics, community space. The goal isn't to replace private business — it's to provide community infrastructure that private business can't or won't.

If membership falls short, the city covers the gap

The feasibility study's conservative scenario projects 81% cost recovery in Year 1, rising to 110% by Year 5. That means in the early years, the facility may not fully cover its operating costs from user fees. The gap would be covered by the city's general fund. Nampa achieved full operational self-sufficiency — 100% of operating costs covered by user fees for 30+ years, with a ~$3 million reserve fund (though the original construction was still financed with city-backed COPs). But Nampa is not guaranteed to be Twin Falls' outcome. Our mitigation: the Community Tier Model with premium tiers generates 37% more revenue than flat-rate pricing. Charter membership pre-sales validate demand before opening. The enterprise fund model separates rec center finances from the general budget.

This conversation will be uncomfortable sometimes

Advocating for a $65 million project in a city of 57,000 people creates strong opinions on all sides. Facebook comment sections are already heated. Council members will face lobbying from both supporters and opponents. This is the cost of democracy. We believe it's worth having the conversation — even the uncomfortable parts. Our commitment is to keep the advocacy positive, data-driven, and respectful. We don't attack people who disagree. We address their concerns with evidence and we keep the focus on what's best for the community.

Money spent here isn't spent elsewhere

$65 million in city financial capacity directed at a recreation center isn't available for roads, water infrastructure, fire stations, wastewater upgrades, or other pressing needs. Opponents will frame this as 'choosing a gym over essential services.' Our response: COP financing doesn't compete with the general budget the same way a traditional bond does — the annual lease payment is one line item in a $101 million budget, and the facility's own revenue offsets the cost over time. But we acknowledge that the construction-period payments do consume budget capacity. The council's job is to weigh competing priorities. Our job is to demonstrate that the community has spoken about this one.

Site Selection

Where should it go?

We're often asked: “Where would you put it?” We think the right answer starts with criteria, not a pin on a map. The location question has stalled the city's committee for nearly a decade. We believe that's because the conversation jumped to specific sites before agreeing on what makes a site right. Here's our framework.

1

Minimize traffic impact on residential neighborhoods

Event traffic from tournaments (500+ vehicles on peak weekends) should flow through commercial corridors, not residential streets. The site should be accessible from major arterials without routing visitors through neighborhoods. Sites that require southbound traffic from the freeway through established residential arteries score poorly on this criterion.

2

Maximize proximity to the hotel and dining corridor

Daily resident use is the revenue engine, but tournament hosting is real incremental upside on courts that exist for residents anyway — and when out-of-town teams do come, they need hotels within a 5–10 minute drive. Twin Falls' hotel concentration along Blue Lakes Boulevard and the north commercial corridor makes northern locations more practical for that incremental tournament revenue than southern sites. Every extra mile between the facility and the nearest hotel cluster is friction that reduces Twin Falls' competitiveness when it does host.

3

Be accessible from Highway 93 and major arterials

Regional visitors — from Jerome, Kimberly, Filer, Burley, and beyond — approach Twin Falls primarily from Highway 93 (Blue Lakes Boulevard) and I-84. A site accessible from these routes without navigating residential streets serves the regional population that the facility is designed to attract.

4

Have adequate acreage (8–12 acres minimum)

An 80,000–110,000 sq ft facility with structured parking, outdoor features (memorial walkway, splash pad, potential outdoor courts), and future expansion capacity requires meaningful acreage. Constrained sites can work with structured parking, but the total footprint must accommodate the full programming vision.

5

Avoid displacing existing businesses or residential properties

The ideal site is undeveloped, underutilized, or voluntarily offered by a willing landowner. Eminent domain or forced acquisition would undermine the campaign's community-first positioning and create political opposition.

6

Be accessible to all Twin Falls residents

While the criteria above favor northern locations for practical and economic reasons, the site should still be reasonably accessible to residents across the city. A 10–15 minute drive from any neighborhood in Twin Falls is the target. No part of the community should feel excluded by geography.

7

Support surrounding economic development

The recreation center will drive foot traffic, restaurant visits, and retail spending. A site with adjacent commercial zoning or undeveloped commercial land allows the surrounding area to benefit from that activity — and potentially generate TIF revenue that helps service the facility's financing.

Why we don't name a site

We've deliberately chosen not to publicly advocate for a specific parcel at this stage. Site selection has been the single biggest stall point for the ad hoc committee since 2017 — and we've watched the conversation collapse into arguments about specific locations before anyone agreed on what the facility should be or how to pay for it.

Our approach is different: build community support for the concept, establish the funding model, prove the demand, and define the criteria. Then evaluate specific sites against those criteria with full transparency. When we're ready to discuss specific sites, we'll do so publicly with data — traffic studies, acreage analysis, and accessibility mapping — not backroom deals.

A note on north vs. south

We'll be direct about one thing: our criteria strongly favor locations in the north commercial corridorof Twin Falls, generally along or accessible from Blue Lakes Boulevard between the freeway and downtown. This area already handles high-volume commercial and visitor traffic, contains the city's hotel and restaurant concentration, and offers direct highway access for regional visitors.

Routing tournament traffic and daily visitor traffic through the southbound residential arteries from the freeway to reach a southern location would create the exact neighborhood disruption that our criteria are designed to avoid. We don't believe a southern location serves the tournament hosting, sports tourism, or regional accessibility goals that make this facility financially viable.

This isn't a criticism of south Twin Falls — it's a recognition that an 80,000–110,000 sq ft facility generating 85,000+ annual visits needs to be located where the infrastructure already supports that volume.

Our Conclusion

The verdict

The benefits of a recreation center are economic, social, and health-related — and they compound over decades. The costs are real but manageable, temporary (construction disruption), or addressable through smart design (traffic, parking, private gym coexistence).

The $65 million price tag sounds enormous in isolation. But spread across layered funding sources — COPs, pre-sold memberships, naming rights, grants, legacy giving, and visitor-funded revenue — no single source bears the full weight. And the facility's own revenue covers its costs once operational, as Nampa has proven for 30 years.

We believe this decision comes down to one question: Is Twin Falls a city that builds its future, or one that studies it for another decade?

Sign the PetitionSee the Funding Options

Now you have the full picture.

Benefits, costs, and tradeoffs — nothing hidden. If you believe the case is strong, add your name.

Add Your Name