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

City presents $14.5 million concept to replace 1954 Johnson Pool; covered option would raise costs, staff say

July 12, 2025 | Cheyenne, Laramie County, Wyoming


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

City presents $14.5 million concept to replace 1954 Johnson Pool; covered option would raise costs, staff say
City staff presented a plan to replace the 1954 Johnson Pool and asked the council to consider placing the project on the next "6p" ballot, saying the existing facility has reached the end of its useful life. Jason Sanchez, Community Rec and Events, and Will Byers, project manager for The Design Studio, walked the council through a 65% design that would move the pool to the south side of Lincoln Park and include an enclosed structure with operable roof and wall panels.

Why this matters: The current Johnson Pool is citing frequent water loss and facilities that do not meet current ADA standards, staff said. Officials said the replacement would address safety, access and programming limits at the existing site and that community input favored a covered, year-round-capable facility.

Staff said the proposed covered building would yield about 10,000 square feet of structure, with a roughly 5,600-square-foot water surface area and supporting spaces for bathhouses, family cabanas, offices and mechanical systems. Will Byers said the community’s top priorities from an August public meeting were "a pool structure with an enclosure with operable wall and roof panels, 0 depth entry with play features, lazy river, children's slide, and lap and climbing wall." Byers noted the design includes three lap lanes, a lazy river, 0-entry play areas and a climbing wall.

Cost and schedule: Byers said an all-in cost estimate for the covered structure — including design, engineering and contingency and assuming a March 2026 bid date — is about $14.5 million. He said that if the bid date slips to March 2027 the estimate would rise to roughly $15.3 million. Byers added that the enclosure components (glazing, mechanical systems, ventilation and lighting) represent about $3.5 million to $4 million of that total; he said an outdoor-only option would reduce the overall project cost to about $10,475,000.

Operations: Jason Sanchez said staff estimate an annual increase of about $450,000 for staffing and maintenance if the facility is covered, with projected additional revenue of about $150,000. For an outdoor facility, Sanchez said the estimated annual increase is about $85,000 with roughly $15,000 in projected revenue. Sanchez also said the current Johnson Pool has been leaking daily despite resealing efforts and could require shutdown if water loss worsens.

Design next steps: Sanchez and Byers said the project is at 65% design. Byers said the additional design work to reach 100% would cost about $375,000 and that staff intentionally paused full design until there is certainty the project will appear on and pass the 6p ballot. Sanchez framed the presentation as a request that the council consider placement on the next 6p ballot and noted staff would complete remaining design only if the ballot measure advances.

Site changes and reuse: Benjamin (staff) said the plan would remove the existing pool shell and building, convert that footprint to a basketball court, turf the current basketball-court site and place the new building on the southeast corner of Lincoln Park. On equipment reuse, Sanchez said staff have not purchased a new boiler for Johnson Pool and have performed repairs, but the existing facility is still leaking and may be forced to close.

Council questions covered alternatives, inflation risk and staffing. Councilwoman Aldrich asked whether staff had developed a design and cost difference for an open (outdoor) facility versus the enclosed option; Byers confirmed the enclosure is removable from the design and provided the alternate cost figures above. Council members also pressed staff on ongoing maintenance estimates, timing of bids, and how the replacement would affect programming and rentals (staff said the new facility would allow additional rentals now concentrated at the municipal aquatic center).

What happens next: Staff presented the concept for council consideration and asked to be authorized to pursue placement on the next 6p ballot. No formal motion or vote was recorded at the session; staff said they will complete 100% design only after a successful ballot placement and funding.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee