Recreation centers are on the public agenda in Provo, Eagle Mountain, Alpine and other Utah Valley towns -- which makes this the perfect time to ask whether taxpayers should fund such facilities, which are also abundant in the private sector.

Rec centers in towns such as Orem, Provo and American Fork are popular, and new ones are sprouting up. Pleasant Grove's $7 million recreation center opened this summer. It offers workout facilities, an art gallery, a running track and more, with a pool planned for the future.

Some towns that don't have them apparently want these amenities. Eagle Mountain polled residents on its Web site. Out of 462 responses, only 18 expressed opposition -- and maybe that's a clue to whether public funding is appropriate, though it's unscientific. The city plans to hire an outside firm to do a more scientific study of public opinion, including asking residents how much they'd be willing to pay in increased property taxes for such a center. It's possible the idea could come before the public to vote on as early as next year.

Some towns that have recreation centers want better ones. In Provo, for example, there is pressure to build a new center because the buildings are in bad shape and don't meet today's standards for earthquake safety or access.

In a survey, at least two-thirds of the Provo residents responding said replacing the old rec center was at least a medium priority for them; 72 percent said they'd visit at least once a month.

Before the bandwagons build too much steam, local officials should take a fresh look at whether they should be in the recreation center business, or perhaps whether they should be in it right now. Funds are limited, perhaps more than in the past. And money for the centers is taken from other needs. Last year, for example, American Fork began looking into modernizing its popular rec center. But some council members noted that its resources aren't infinite.

"We have peanuts invested in the arts," Councilman Dale Gunther said at a meeting then. "Do we want to be the sports capital of the world? Or do we want to be more into the arts, which can lift and bless the spiritual aspect of life? We can't do it all."

He makes a good point. It's important for cities to consider all the amenities that make for a pleasant community, and to weigh each one appropriately. Recreation facilities have always been a part of a healthy mix, whether in the form of an outdoor park, a public swimming pool or a recreation center. It's up to each city to decide for itself.

Some, like Alpine, take a chillier view than others toward expensive recreation buildings. Its city council on Tuesday rejected a proposal to build a joint recreation center with Highland and Cedar Hills. The $15-30 million project might raise taxes up to $300 per year per household, according to estimates.

And that's part of Alpine's problem. It's an estimate, and so it could cost more. "They are asking us to spend money without knowing how much it is going to cost," said Alpine Councilman Thomas Whitchurch about the Cedar Hills proposal.

He's right, of course. Civic projects almost always cost more than first estimated. And it's important for government to take a cautious approach to spending. As Provo discovered with its venture into a city-owned fiber-optic system, overly optimistic estimates can lead to financial trouble down the road.

Councilman Kent Hastings noted that a new fitness business is being built in Highland, and he wondered if a government-funded recreation center would interfere with private enterprise.

"I still feel we should not force the entire community to raise funds for this," Hastings said.

That's the crux of the issue. Should government focus on helping people with essential services and stay away from competition with private enterprise in supplying community amenities? The answer isn't easy.

We don't expect municipal government to supply us with, say, televisions. They are not essential to a community's welfare. And people can and should make their own decisions about what to buy and when. No one forces anyone to buy one. And certainly you'd be aghast if government tried to make you buy a TV for someone down the street.

At the same time, it's really up to the people. The people of Orem, for example, voted three years ago to approve a sales tax increase that would support arts and recreation programs in the city. This year, the city distributed nearly $2 million to a variety of worthy causes, including SCERA, Utah Regional Ballet and Timpanogos Storytelling Guild. The grants were on top of money that was allocated for development and maintenance of city parks.

The idea can be taken too far, obviously. Perhaps it's just a matter of balance. After all, the notion that government's proper role should be strictly limited to basics like police and fire services, roads and such may overlook what it takes to create a total environment that makes a city a terrific place to live.

In the end, we think each city should be free to respond to its own particular needs, based on the depth of its pocketbook and the desires of its residents.

And this is where voting comes into play. Cedar Hills, for example, has put an Orem-style tax hike on the November ballot. It's a golden opportunity for city residents to weigh in on the recreation issue.

That's as it should be.

Do you agree?