Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developer pitches $60 million 'Jubilee Park' water-park and sports complex for Mobile Sportsplex

2960370 · April 11, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Leisure Sports and Recreation, a private developer group that operates Gulf Islands Water Park, presented a conceptual plan April 10 to the Mobile County Commission to create “Jubilee Park,” a mixed-use leisure and sports destination at the county-owned Sportsplex.

Leisure Sports and Recreation, a private developer group that operates Gulf Islands Water Park, presented a conceptual plan April 10 to the Mobile County Commission to create “Jubilee Park,” a mixed-use leisure and sports destination at the county-owned Sportsplex.

The presenters said they are seeking a nonbinding letter of intent from the county so they can proceed with master planning, feasibility and design work. “Our goal is to sign a letter of intent within the next couple of days, and that will allow us to complete master planning, economic and feasibility studies and get more specific,” said Glenn Haggerty, identified in the presentation as head of marketing, technology and development for the developer group.

The proposal described six components: a 20-acre outdoor water park (the only seasonal element), a 5-acre year-round events ground with an amphitheater, a 15,000-square-foot indoor water attraction and zip-line tower, a 60,000–100,000 square-foot indoor multiuse sports center, accommodations including a 100-site pull-through RV park and 30–50 bungalows (with an 80– to 120-room hotel site reserved for future expansion), and a central “Jubilee Square” with restaurants, retail and a boardwalk linking the components.

Why it matters: presenters said a larger, multipronged development anchored to the Sportsplex would be more economically viable than a stand-alone water park, boosting year-round visitation, tournament bookings and local hospitality revenue. “We believe it’s a great location to expand what we’ve been doing,” Paul Reese, a principal with the developer group, said in the presentation.

Economic and operational estimates delivered to the commission were presented as ranges pending formal studies. They include a developer estimate of roughly $60,000,000 in capital investment; about 300 construction jobs during build-out; about 50 full-time operational positions and 300–400 seasonal or part-time positions once open; and annual payroll estimated between $3.5 million and $4.5 million. The presenters estimated combined sales, payroll, lodging and property tax revenues in a range they gave as $3.75 million to $4.9 million annually.

The plan’s athletics element would focus on soccer to complement the existing outdoor soccer complex and would provide additional court surfaces for volleyball, pickleball and basketball, plus a sports-performance and wellness center with pro shop and rehab services. Programming ideas for the events grounds included 5K runs, holiday festivals, concert series and food festivals.

Site and timeline: presenters highlighted the Sportsplex site’s highway visibility at I‑10 and I‑65 and described an 18–24 month lead time for ordering major water-park equipment. Haggerty cautioned that equipment lead times mean components would be phased: “If we place an order today for equipment, it is easily a 18 to 24 month turnaround before it gets on property, and then it has to be built.”

Next steps and county role: the developer representatives said they want the county to sign a nonbinding letter of intent to allow the developer to fund market studies and master planning (they named DDG Engineering as a planned master‑planning partner). County commissioners in the meeting expressed support for continued conversations; no formal development agreement or vote to approve incentives was recorded in the conference discussion.

What remains uncertain: the presentation used conceptual imagery and ranges for many figures; the developers repeatedly described numbers as preliminary and dependent on upcoming feasibility and economic analyses. Presenters said they would pursue available tax incentives but did not identify specific incentive programs or amounts.

The commission did not record a formal approval or vote during the April 10 conference; the developers asked for county support and a letter of intent to advance planning and study work.