Prop 493: Should PV Build a Rec Center?
A 30-year-old outdoor pool is on its last summer. The Town wants to replace it with a year-round Aquatics & Recreation Center — paid for by a sales tax increase. Here's what's on the ballot, and what isn't.
60-Second Version
Mountain Valley Splash is 30 years old; its slide and splash pad are already shut down, and summer 2026 is its final season.POOL The Town wants to replace it with an indoor Aquatics & Recreation Center at the same site — pool, gym, fitness, indoor track, open year-round.FAQ To pay for it, Prop 493 asks voters to approve a dedicated sales-tax increase on Nov 3, 2026. If it passes, the facility opens late 2028 or early 2029. If it fails, the Town builds a smaller pool-only facility — no gym, no track, no rec center.FAQ
At a Glance
What You're Actually Voting On
Real talk: the question isn't whether Prescott Valley should have a rec center — there's broad agreement we need one. The real question is how to pay for it and what gets built either way. Most voters miss that second part.
A YES vote raises the sales tax (groceries excluded) to fund a full Aquatics & Rec Center — pool, gym, track, fitness, the works.FAQ A NO vote means the Town builds a smaller pool-only facility — no gym, no track, no rec center — funded through financing, Town reserves, and one-time construction taxes.FAQ Either way, Mountain Valley Splash is closing. The slide already closed. The splash pad already closed. Summer 2026 is its last season.POOL RIP 1995–2026.
Every row above reflects the Town's official Prop 493 FAQ. FAQ
The Amenities Behind the Vote
The Citizens' Recreation Facility Advisory Committee — community members appointed by Council — met from April through August 2025 and recommended seven key amenities for the facility.CMTE The Town FAQ lists all seven as "potential features under consideration" — the final mix gets set in the design phase if funding is approved.FAQ
Indoor pool for lap swimming, open swim, and a kids' play area — open year-round.FAQ
Space for basketball, pickleball, volleyball, gatherings, and events.FAQ
Weight lifting, strength training, and cardiovascular fitness — the everyday-workout space.FAQ
Open year-round for running, jogging, or walking. No more weather days.FAQ
Drop off children for up to 2 hours while using the facility. Makes the whole thing usable for parents.FAQ
For instructor-led classes like Zumba, yoga, and spin.FAQ
Rooms for community gatherings, classes, and programs — bookable by schools, leagues, and groups.FAQ
Final feature mix gets refined in the design phase after the vote. The Town FAQ describes these as "potential features under consideration."FAQ
The Money Question
Let's be real: voters are being asked to approve a tax increase before the Town has told them the total cost or the exact rate. That's a real gap. Here's what's confirmed, what isn't, and how this kind of funding actually works — every line checked against the Town's own FAQ.
What's known
- Funding is a dedicated Transaction Privilege Tax (sales tax) — not a property tax.FAQ
- Grocery sales are excluded from the increase under state law.FAQ
- Funds are legally restricted to the facility — design, construction, and ongoing M&O only.FAQ
- The dedicated tax "will reduce over time to a lower amount" for maintenance and operations after construction.FAQ
- PV has no property tax — current or proposed.FAQ
- If Prop 493 fails, the Town still builds a new Aquatic Center (no rec amenities), funded through financing, Town reserves, and one-time construction taxes.FAQ
What's NOT known
- Total project cost — the Town says it "has not yet been finalized."FAQ
- The exact TPT rate increase, as a percentage.
- Per-household dollar impact — the Town's answer is "varies based on personal spending habits."FAQ
- The full step-down schedule — only that the tax "reduces over time."FAQ
- Operator model — Town-run vs. external operator is still being evaluated.FAQ
- The final fee structure for residents, non-residents, and scholarships.FAQ
Cost context — what comparable facilities run
The Town hasn't published a total cost, so the honest reference point is industry benchmarking. Sports Facilities Companies, which builds and analyzes this type of project, puts comparable aquatics & recreation centers in the $30.7M–$37.5M range.COST That's a benchmark, not a quote — actual cost depends on final scope, site work, and 2027-era construction pricing. The number that matters is the Town's, and it isn't public yet.FAQ
Range: Sports Facilities Companies industry analysis. COST · A separately reported operating estimate of roughly $2.5M–$3.5M/yr appeared in local committee coverage — not a Town-confirmed figure. LIVING
The advisory committee's recommendation was to fund the project through a bond initiative supported by a dedicated sales tax.CMTE The measure that actually reached the ballot — Prop 493 — is the dedicated sales tax itself. That's what voters approve or reject on Nov 3.BALLOT How the Town structures any financing against that revenue stream is a Council decision that follows the vote — and one worth watching.
How We Got Here, Where We're Going
This isn't a fast process. The advisory committee worked five months before delivering a recommendation. From here, the path is straightforward — and slow.
"We're in a Drought. Why Are We Building a Pool?"
Fair question, and we hear it. Drought in Yavapai County is real, the Prescott Active Management Area has a state mandate to reach safe yield,ADWR and PV draws its water from groundwater wells.WATER Here's the honest math on what this specific facility actually adds.
PV pumping (2.07 billion gal): PV Consumer Confidence Report 2024. CCR The rec-center figure is a Together Strong estimate — the Town has not published a projected number. The math, and how we got it, is right below.
Here's the honest calculation. PV pumped about 2.07 billion gallons in 2024.CCR An indoor aquatics-and-recreation facility uses water in three places: pool makeup (replacing evaporation and filter backwash), domestic use (showers and restrooms), and irrigation. For scale on the pool: the EPA's WaterSense program reports that pool covers alone save roughly 575,000 gallons a year at a heated indoor commercial pool.WSENSE So even an uncovered pool's evaporation is on that order, and a covered, efficiently-filtered pool uses well less. Add domestic use and landscaping and a facility this size plausibly lands somewhere around 1 to 3 million gallons a year. That figure is a Together Strong estimate — the Town hasn't published a projected number, and a precise one isn't possible until the facility is designed. But the conclusion holds across the whole range: 1 to 3 million gallons is roughly one-tenth of one percent of what PV already pumps. Put the other way around — for the rec center to even reach 1% of town pumping, it would have to use 20.7 million gallons a year, far more than any indoor facility of this size does. The rec center isn't the lever that moves PV's water future. Per-capita home use is. Regional groundwater policy is.
That doesn't mean conservation doesn't matter for this project. It absolutely does — every drop counts in a drought, and a public facility should model the standard we'd want every new building to hit. Here's what we think should be required in the design RFP, not just "considered":
Conservation measures that should be requirements, not aspirations
This checklist is Together Strong's recommendation for the design RFP, not a Town commitment. The pool-cover savings figure is from EPA WaterSense; the other measures reflect standard water-efficiency practice.
11-Point Scorecard
Together Strong rates every issue against the EPA's 10 Smart Growth principles.EPA But those principles were written for land-use and housing decisions — not for evaluating a single civic building on existing parkland. So we use the ones that genuinely apply (6 of 10) plus 5 civic-facility-specific criteria. Here's how Prop 493 scores.
Part A principles: US EPA Smart Growth framework. EPA Part B criteria are Together Strong's own civic-facility adaptation; ratings reflect TS's assessment.
Every Major Argument, Honestly Examined
No organized opposition has filed yet (argument deadline is August 5, 2026).BALLOT But these are the strongest arguments against Prop 493 floating around town. We're not going to pretend they don't exist. Click any claim to expand.
THE FACTS
It's true the Town will build something either way — but what gets built is very different. With Prop 493: a full Aquatics & Recreation Center including gym, indoor track, weights/fitness, group exercise rooms, child watch, and multipurpose spaces. Without it: the Town's FAQ says it would "still construct a new Aquatic Center without the additional recreation spaces and amenities."FAQ No gym, no track, no fitness center, no rec programming infrastructure.
There's also a fiscal honesty question buried in the "vote NO and save" pitch. The FAQ states the no-vote facility would be funded "through financing and current Town sources including the Town's available reserves and one-time construction taxes."FAQ Using reserves means those dollars aren't available for roads, emergency services, or other Town needs. The dedicated TPT, by contrast, also collects from non-residents shopping in PV — spreading the cost beyond current PV taxpayers.
"It's not 'pool either way.' A NO vote gets a smaller aquatics-only facility funded by financing and Town reserves. A YES vote gets the full rec center funded by a dedicated, restricted, partially visitor-paid revenue stream."
THE FACTS
Sales taxes are regressive — that's an empirical fact, not a debate. Lower-income households spend a larger share of their income on taxable goods, so as a percentage of earnings a TPT increase costs poorer residents more than wealthier ones. That's real.
What softens it: state law excludes groceries from the increase — the single biggest category of unavoidable spending for low-income families.FAQ PV also has no property tax, so the alternative funding mechanism isn't on the table without a separate ballot fight.FAQ Visitors and non-resident shoppers also contribute, spreading the load beyond PV residents.FAQ
The honest gap: the Town hasn't published per-income-bracket impact modeling. We're pushing for that before the August argument deadline.
"Sales tax regressivity is a fair concern. Grocery exclusion helps. Visitor share helps. But voters deserve to see actual per-income impact before they vote, and the Town hasn't published it."
THE FACTS
Drought in Yavapai County is real. The Prescott AMA has a state safe-yield mandate.ADWR PV draws its supply from groundwater wells.WATER All true. But the framing magnitude doesn't match the project magnitude. Against PV's roughly 2.07 billion gallons of annual pumping,CCR an indoor facility of this size — even with no conservation measures — works out to a fraction of one percent, on the order of a tenth of a percent (Together Strong estimate; see Section 05 for the full math).
The levers that actually move PV's water future are per-capita home use and regional groundwater policy. A single civic facility isn't the variable to optimize. That said, the rec center should still be built to high conservation standards — every drop matters, and a public facility should model the standard.
"Drought is real, but this facility's water use is statistical noise next to total Town pumping. The water conversation that matters is regional policy and per-capita home use. Push for pool covers and reclaimed water — don't kill the project."
THE FACTS
The concern is legitimate. The Town has not published a final cost estimate or a specific TPT rate. Its official answer on per-household impact is that it "varies based on personal spending habits."FAQ We agree this needs to change before voters fill out ballots.
What's not blank-check: the funds are legally restricted to designing, building, operating, and maintaining this specific facility — they cannot be redirected to general Town spending.FAQ The FAQ also states the dedicated tax "will reduce over time to a lower amount" for maintenance and operations once construction is done.FAQ So it's a restricted-use tax with a step-down structure — but the specific numbers should be public, and aren't yet.
"The funds are restricted by law. The tax reduces after construction. But voters absolutely deserve to know the actual rate and cost before August arguments are filed. Push the Town to publish."
THE FACTS
Findlay Toyota Center is an event arena built for concerts, sports tournaments, and large gatherings — not daily community recreation. The James Family YMCA is in Prescott, a different town, and is a private membership-based nonprofit. The need for a recreation and aquatics facility was identified as a high priority through PV's Parks & Recreation master planning and community outreach — within PV town limits.FAQ SURVEY
Whether that demand justifies a tax-funded public facility versus expanding private options is a values question, not a facts question. Together Strong sides with public-access civic infrastructure for daily-use recreation — especially when day passes and scholarship options are designed to keep it accessible across income levels.FAQ Reasonable people can disagree.
"Findlay is an arena, not a daily rec center. The YMCA is in Prescott — a different town and a private membership model. The Town's own master planning showed clear demand for a public facility here in PV. Whether tax-funded public is the right answer is a values question — and we think yes."
THE FACTS
Operating a year-round facility is a sustained obligation, not a one-time spend. The Town FAQ confirms the dedicated TPT reduces but continues after construction to provide an ongoing funding source for operations and maintenance.FAQ Fee income — memberships, day passes — is also expected to contribute.FAQ Local committee coverage has put a rough operating estimate at $2.5M–$3.5M/yr, though that is not a Town-confirmed figure.LIVING
The legitimate risk: if fee income undershoots projections, the reduced TPT may not cover full M&O and the General Fund could backfill. The flip side: this is true of every public pool, library, park, or community center. The real question is whether the operating model is realistic — which is why we're asking the Town to publish a multi-year financial projection.
"Yes, public facilities cost public money to run. That's how libraries and parks work too. The legitimate version of this concern is whether the operating model is realistic — push the Town to publish a 10-year financial projection."
Where Together Strong Stands
Together Strong supports a YES vote on Prop 493 — with conditions.
Prescott Valley has outgrown a 30-year-old outdoor pool, and the Town has identified a year-round recreation facility as a high priority through master planning and community outreach.FAQ The process to get here has been transparent — a five-month citizen committee, study sessions, a public ballot.CMTE The funding mechanism is reasonable: a sales tax spreads cost across residents and visitors instead of just property owners, groceries are excluded by state law, and funds are legally restricted to the project.FAQ The water impact is negligible. The Smart Growth alignment is strong on the principles that fit a civic facility.
But supporting this vote doesn't mean we let the Town off the hook. Six real questions remain unanswered — and they need answers before August 5, 2026, when arguments are filed and the publicity pamphlet is locked.
Disclose the final cost before the vote
"Not yet finalized" is not a campaign answer. Voters deserve a defined range — even if it's a range rather than a fixed number.
State the actual TPT rate increase
What's the percentage? How does it compare to PV's current TPT? Publish it before August.
Publish equity analysis
Sales tax is regressive. The Town should model per-income-bracket impact and publish it. The grocery exclusion isn't enough on its own.
Clarify operator selection
Town-run vs. external operator — pick a path or commit to a transparent selection process with public criteria.
Show the multi-modal access plan
A signature civic facility needs more than a pathway connection. Transit, bike, walking — please.
Bake conservation into the design RFP
Pool covers, xeriscape, reclaimed water — not "considered," required. The Town has the infrastructure; use it.
Verify It Yourself
Every claim on this page carries an inline source chip — tap it to go straight to the document. This library is the full list, filterable by type.
Terms You'll Hear
Frequently Asked Questions
This took hundreds of hours.
Every fact on this page was checked against primary sources — the Town's official Prop 493 FAQ, the Citizens' Advisory Committee record, ballot filings, state water documents. Every single claim carries a source chip that links straight to where it came from. Nothing here is "trust us."
We don't sugarcoat and we don't hide the gaps — the things the Town hasn't answered are flagged as plainly as the things it has. If you find something wrong, tell us and we'll fix it and say so. That's the deal. This is civic work done in the open.
This is your ballot. This is your town.
Together Strong supports Prop 493 with conditions. But your vote is yours. Read the official FAQ. Verify the sources. Make the call that's right for you and your neighbors.