Bastrop council, EDC cancel proposed $30 million sports-complex project after feasibility study

At a joint City Council and Bastrop Economic Development Corporation meeting on Jan. 27, 2025, council members and the EDC voted to cancel the sports-complex project as presented after Hunden Partners summarized a feasibility study and financial modeling. Council member Plunkett moved to cancel the project; Council member Meyer seconded the motion. The council roll call showed Plunkett, Meyer, Fosler and Lee voting yes; the motion passed unanimously. The EDC separately voted by voice to cancel the project as presented.

The study presented by Hunden Partners modeled a multipurpose outdoor sports complex with eight multipurpose turf fields and related tournament-support amenities. Ryan, a Hunden presenter, told the bodies that the firm estimated a phase‑one capital cost “roughly $30,000,000” and projected that, by stabilization in year five, the facility would generate a modest net operating income of about $72,000.

The consultant framed the project’s long‑term economic impact under conservative utilization assumptions. “By stabilization in year 5 of the project, we projected roughly 25 events,” Ryan said; Hunden’s model estimated about 50–54,000 annual event visitors from tournaments by year five and, over a 30‑year horizon, roughly $823,000,000 in net new spending and about $52,000,000 in wages and earnings. Hunden also estimated net new city sales taxes of about $7,400,000 and hotel taxes of about $6,200,000 over the study period, but warned those fiscal benefits would not close the gap on debt service without ongoing public subsidy.

City officials and council members pressed Hunden on market timing and competition. The consultant repeatedly noted a significant pipeline of competing sports‑tourism projects across the Interstate 35 corridor and surrounding markets, and said that the volume of nearby developments increases revenue risk. Mike, another Hunden representative, said the project would need to be a “premier facility” in the $30 million-plus range to win top tournaments and that a smaller or locally focused facility (for example, with grass fields instead of premium turf) would likely draw fewer major events and therefore produce a smaller economic return.

Several council members expressed frustration that the extent of regional competition was not emphasized earlier in the process. One council member said they were “disappointed” that the competitive market picture did not become clear sooner in the study. City staff and Hunden responded that the competitive landscape had emerged during the consultant’s operator and market interviews and that the team had taken conservative financial assumptions for that reason.

The formal action recorded in the meeting packet and minutes is a council motion “to cancel the project as presented (as an economic development project).” The EDC motion mirrored the council action, with the EDC chair calling for cancellation; the EDC’s vote was recorded by voice and the motion carried.

Council and EDC members directed staff to retain the study’s data for future use and to consider alternatives that would be more locally focused or lower cost. During the discussion members suggested options such as scaled‑back community facilities or other uses of the land, but no specific new project scope or funding commitments were approved at the meeting.

The land identified for the sports complex remains EDC land designated for economic development; council members noted that if the city later wished to pursue a community recreation center or other municipal use, the city could seek to acquire the site from the EDC at fair market value. No such transfer was voted on at the Jan. 27 meeting.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Cancel the sports-complex project as presented (as an economic development project). - Mover: Council member Plunkett; Second: Council member Meyer. - Council vote (roll call): Plunkett — yes; Meyer — yes; Fosler — yes; Lee — yes. Motion passes unanimously. - EDC: Voice vote to cancel the project as presented; motion carried.

What’s next City and EDC staff were asked to hold the consultant’s materials for possible reuse and to explore lower‑cost alternatives and other development strategies for the industrial park acreage that had been under consideration for the sports complex.