By Bryan Gegg
STE. GENEVIEVE – I’d like to speak about the County’s agreement with the Gateway Region YMCA and its long-term financial impact.
This is not about being for or against the YMCA. This is about whether the structure of this agreement is sustainable for taxpayers.
Based on the County’s 2026 budget, the Community Center Sales Tax Fund generates about $1.9 million annually, while projected expenses exceed $2.4 million, resulting in an estimated annual deficit of $600,000 to $800,000 when factoring in payments of the IGA which was hidden in the County’s General Fund.
For context, the largest deficit the Community Center had ever experienced prior to this agreement was $365,000 which includes payments made to the Library according to the IGA.
That means the County is now facing losses that are potentially double what we’ve ever seen before.
That appears to be a structural deficit, not a one-time issue.
Looking at the agreement itself, the County only benefits from revenue growth under very limited conditions. The YMCA must first be profitable, and both the Operating and Maintenance reserve funds must be fully funded before the County receives any share and those profits then are split 50/50.
In practical terms, that means:
The County has very little opportunity to benefit from increased usage or revenue.
At the same time, the County remains responsible for major costs—including debt, insurance, and maintenance—and there are no clear caps on the maintenance expenses the County could face each year.
So the structure creates an imbalance:
The County carries ongoing and potentially increasing costs, while having limited access to any financial upside.
To offset the current deficit, the County is relying on a $1.35 million transfer from the Capital Improvement Fund.
That fund recently saw a large increase tied to revenue from an ICE detention facility. That is not a traditional or guaranteed long-term funding source, and its future stability is uncertain.
Additionally, the budget includes a transfer of $500,000 from the Community Foundation. In prior years, Commissioners indicated that this fund was not intended to be used in this way. If that position has changed, the public deserves a clear explanation.
There is also an ongoing lawsuit involving approximately $326,000 in requested reimbursements from the Community Foundation. As I understand it, many of the expenses in question were paid from Community Center funds rather than the County’s General Revenue Fund. This request was made to reimburse the County for expenses the County allegedly incurred for reimbursement of staff payouts, repayment of the 2025 IGA payment & repayment of money borrowed by the CC from the County earlier in the year. The Commissioners have never made it clear that all of these payouts to the staff, to the Library & back to the County came from CC funds prior to the end of 2025.
If that is the case, it raises a reasonable question:
On what basis is reimbursement being requested, and how does that align with how those funds were originally allocated?
Additionally, the County may still be responsible for up to $175,000 annually related to the library agreement, further increasing financial pressure. This doesn’t include the $255,000 in Renovations as hopefully this isn’t some type of ongoing commitment. (YMCA isn’t pay for the upgrades to the facility)
Meanwhile, residents are seeing:
Higher membership and program costs
And increased demand on facilities, with over 165,000 Gateway YMCA members having access to both the Community Center & River Rapids Waterpark for FREE.
So taxpayers may now be paying more both through taxes and out-of-pocket, while the County takes on greater financial exposure.
I would respectfully ask for clarity on a few key points:
How often does the County realistically expect to receive any share of revenue under the current structure?
Why are there no caps on maintenance costs?
What changed regarding the use of Community Foundation funds?
And what is the long-term plan to address a recurring deficit of this size without relying on uncertain funding sources?
This is about transparency and long-term financial stability.
Right now, the agreement appears to limit upside, increase risk, and depend on funding sources that may not be sustainable.
If the best case outcome is that taxpayers pay more while the County loses more than ever before, then we have to ask—who exactly is this deal working for?