After months of waiting and speculation about what it might cost to use Mountain Home’s new community and aquatic center, city officials finally began floating numbers during this week’s Parks and Recreation Committee meeting.
And the numbers might not be what the public wants to hear.
The meeting touched on a growing tension between two competing priorities: the need for the community center to fund itself financially and concerns about keeping fees affordable so all residents can access the facility.
Parks and Recreation Director Daniel Baxley presented preliminary pricing structures that immediately prompted pushback from committee members who worried the proposed rates might be too steep for many local families.
“These are proposed prices. These are not anything that has been approved,” Baxley told the committee, seeming to anticipate the concerns. “It’s just the numbers that I’ve been working off of to give us an idea of what I feel like we can make.”
Under the initial proposal, a family membership for five or fewer people would cost $60 per month, while an adult couple would pay $50 monthly. A single adult membership was set at $40 per month, with senior couples at $35 and individual seniors at $20. Youth memberships for ages 15-17 would cost $20 monthly.
Committee members quickly voiced concerns about the family and couple rates, suggesting they might be too high for many local residents.
“I understand that we want to have this thing pay for itself, but I’d love to just make every effort we can to make it as affordable for everybody as we can,” said Mountain Home City Councilman Philip Frame.
Mountain Home City Councilman Nick Reed was more direct: “I think you’d possibly get more memberships with the family starting with five instead of six, and more memberships could be more money in the long run.”
When asked what would be more reasonable, Reed responded, “I think if it was at $50 or $55 as a family, I think that would look a lot better personally, and a couple like $45 or something.”
Baxley was receptive to the feedback, acknowledging that his initial numbers were based on comparisons with facilities in Benton, Batesville, and Harrison, Arkansas.
“I’m not stuck on these numbers,” Baxley said. “I was looking at it more of a business and not more of a community-minded deal. That’s how I looked at it.”
The director noted that at $50 for a family membership, with other rates adjusted accordingly, the facility could still generate sufficient revenue with appropriate membership numbers.
“I think we’re going to be in a situation where we’re going to be okay,” Baxley said, indicating that lower rates could still provide adequate funding for operations.
The committee also discussed various discount options, including those for military personnel, first responders, teachers, and seniors. Baxley explained they would offer up to a 10% discount, but members would only receive one discount category even if they qualified for multiple.
“We’ll give you the largest discount,” Baxley said when asked about military discounts applying to both active and retired service members.
Safety concerns were also addressed, particularly regarding teenagers’ access to certain areas of the facility. Baxley explained that while members aged 15 to 17 could join, they might have restricted access to parts of the facility like the weight room.
“The age 15 to 17 can be a member, but then they aren’t necessarily allowed to be in all of the facility,” Baxley said. “Insurance wise, things like that, we’ll have to figure out if they can be in the weight room.”
He explained the reasoning behind potential restrictions: “I don’t mind them being in the weight room. They’re 15 years old, they’re gonna be in the weight room at the high school, but that’s supervised. And we won’t be, we’re not going to have staff in the weight room at all times. The parents may not be there, so that’s why we probably will keep them out of the weight room.”
For residents who don’t want to commit to monthly memberships, Baxley outlined day pass options. A single adult day pass would cost $10, while seniors would pay $7.50, and children 14 and under would be charged $5.
“That’s pretty typical just about everywhere you go,” Baxley noted about the day pass rates.
Alternative options were also discussed, including a 10-punch pass for $70 that would be valid for one calendar year. Baxley explained that this pass could be used by either individuals or families.
“The 10-punch pass can be used by one person, or can be used by a family of 10, and they can all come in one time,” Baxley said, though he noted that everyone using the pass would need to be registered when purchasing it.
For those wanting something between day passes and annual commitments, Baxley proposed a three-month pass option priced at $185.
“The three-month pass has to be used up within three consecutive months,” Baxley explained, suggesting it could serve as a summer membership option for residents who might want to use the facility seasonally.
The 65,000-square-foot facility will feature multiple amenities across several spaces. Plans include a 30,000-square-foot convention center with multipurpose rooms and fitness equipment, a 35,000-square-foot gymnasium with an indoor track, and both indoor and outdoor aquatic centers.
Beyond membership fees, the committee reviewed potential rental rates for the facility’s various spaces. The gymnasium would cost $25 per hour for half a court or $50 for a full court. Athletic tournaments using all three courts would run $1,200 per day, while non-athletic events would cost $1,500 because of additional setup requirements.
The outdoor aquatic park would be available for exclusive rental at $1,100 for two hours, with pool party rooms costing $250 for 90-minute blocks. The competition pool with all lanes would be $350 for two hours, while a full natatorium rental for a swim meet would cost $1,500 for a day.
Baxley noted the local swim team and high school would have separate, more favorable arrangements: “We’re wanting to partner with them, not necessarily charge them to come in and use our facility.”
Committee members also asked about access to the therapy pool, concerned it might be restricted to those with medical requirements.
“There will be blocks of hours there during the day where the therapy pool would be open to just members,” Baxley explained. “It’s not like if you don’t have a physical therapist prescription, you can’t get in the pool.”
He added that if the therapy pool becomes overcrowded during open sessions, they might implement a reservation system without extra charges.
The discussion was part of a larger review of the Community and Aquatic Center’s operations manual, with the committee examining two chapters of the document during Tuesday’s meeting.
“I’d rather do it now and get us going right away,” Baxley said about finalizing the pricing structure well before the facility’s planned Summer 2026 opening. “I don’t want to be doing it in January and February of next year, trying to get it ready for April.”
The project, funded by both temporary and permanent sales tax measures approved by voters in 2021, represents one of the largest public works projects in Mountain Home’s history. Initial estimates placed construction costs at $36.2 million.
Committee members will continue reviewing the operations manual at future meetings, with pricing recommendations expected to be finalized in the coming months before being presented to the full City Council for approval.
“I’ll try to come back next time with some numbers for you on the revenue side of what it would potentially make at different membership levels,” Baxley promised as the meeting concluded.
