Comments Made at Town Council Meeting and Well Worth Reading

Thank you, Mayor and Council members.

I want to be clear about my position. I support access to medical care in Springdale, and I support maintaining a clinic here. What I do not support — at least not based on what has been presented — is the assumption that our town requires a brand-new 4,000-square-foot medical facility on newly rezoned land

In my view, the Town moved too quickly to a preferred solution without adequately evaluating alternatives. Modifying the existing medical building, renovating it, expanding it, or even replacing it on the same site all appear to be viable options that were never meaningfully analyzed in a public, data-driven way. Instead, the Town appears to have decided first that a new facility was necessary, then moved forward with acquiring land, pursuing rezoning, and now amending Public Use zoning to allow additional uses. That sequence puts the cart before the horse.

I have not seen clear metrics presented publicly — such as resident utilization rates, projected resident demand, or cost-benefit comparisons between renovation and new construction — that would justify a permanent zoning change and a new municipal facility.

I am also concerned about who this facility is primarily intended to serve. Springdale is a small town. While we host millions of visitors each year, our residents should not be expected to bear the long-term land-use, financial, and policy consequences of facilities designed primarily to support tourism demand. That distinction has not been clearly addressed.

There is also a significant risk question that has received little public discussion. The Town is proposing to purchase land, rezone it, construct a new building, and lease it to a single medical provider. What happens if that provider — Family Healthcare — later determines the operation is not financially viable and withdraws? The Town would then be left owning the land, the building, and the ongoing obligations, with limited alternative uses justified by the rezoning. That downside risk deserves transparent discussion before irreversible decisions are made.

My concerns were reinforced by the Planning Commission’s review. Although the staff memo encouraged analysis of impacts, scale, alternatives, and long-range implications, the Commission’s discussion focused almost entirely on whether the proposal met a minimum legal threshold under the General Plan. There was little examination of whether a zoning change was necessary at all, or whether less permanent tools could achieve the Town’s stated goals.

A zoning map amendment is a permanent legislative act. It runs with the land and sets precedent, particularly when viewed alongside the Future Land Use Map, which designates multiple Valley Residential areas as Mixed Use. A Conditional Use Permit, or a phased, site-specific approach tied to demonstrated resident need and a secure operating agreement, appears to be a more proportional and responsible option, yet it received little to no consideration.

I respectfully ask the Council to slow this process down, to fully evaluate renovation or redevelopment of the existing site, to openly assess financial and operational risk, and to consider whether alternatives to rezoning better protect the Town and its residents. Regardless of the outcome tonight, I ask that these concerns be clearly reflected in the record.

Thank you.