My wife and I have been members of a local gym in Payson for more than 10 years. We really do not understand why the town has embarked on a plan to subsidize the YMCA to directly compete with the three currently operating gym facilities in town.
As we tried to follow the progress, it appears to us, the first plan was just to give the YMCA five acres of prime park property. Next, the plan was to lease the land to avoid looking like a gift, but at a token amount, it was clear this was still a gift.
Now, the plan is to enter into some sort of management agreement where the town gets to pay for some portion (40 percent to 60 percent) of the operating costs and at the end of lease we will own a 50 to 80-year-old building. How does that make sense? We still give the YMCA the property, we pay to operate it: there is no real benefit to the Town of Payson. Further, exactly what services must we reduce to pay for this?
We are not anti-YMCA, in fact we are Christians, but we oppose using tax funds to support this endeavor.
May we suggest that, as a council, you put this on the ballot before you commit the town resources? At the very least, an independent poll should be conducted by the town to determine the support for subsidizing this project.