Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Sportsplex Renovation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves 60% design, directs phased approach for Buda Sportsplex renovation

3624649 · May 20, 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

After reviewing options and costs, the council authorized 60% design of the Sportsplex renovation and signaled preference for a higher-capacity, revenue-focused Phase 1B build path while asking staff to return with contractor bids and budget options.

The Buda City Council authorized the city manager to proceed with 60% design work for the Buda Sportsplex renovation and signaled support for a phased plan that would pursue the more comprehensive Phase 1B option if funding can be secured.

Darren Shojzewski of DCS Engineering and Parks Director Tony Houst presented an “ultimate vision” for the Sportsplex that would expand and modernize softball fields, add concessions and batting cages, improve drainage with sand-based athletic turf, create rental lockers and ticketing kiosks, add pickleball and sand-volleyball courts, and provide a larger maintenance building and increased parking and RV spaces. The consultants provided three implementation paths: Phase 1A (a lower-cost, stripped-down set of field upgrades, $6.1 million all-in), Phase 1B (an upgraded, tournament-ready facility that opens early monetization opportunities, $16.4 million all-in) and Phase 2/3 (additional build-out to reach a full “ultimate” facility; cumulative cost would reach about $32 million).

Council discussed the relative merits of a lighter, lower-cost Phase 1A that would deliver eight usable fields quickly versus Phase 1B, which would install higher-capacity fields, drainage systems that allow fields to be playable within minutes of rainfall, concession and refrigeration facilities, batting cages, and more parking—features staff and consultants said are necessary to host larger tournaments and increase revenue generation.

During the discussion City Manager Don Gough noted the city’s current FY2021 bond set-aside for the Sportsplex is about $6.65 million (approximately $5.3–5.4 million estimated available for construction after design costs). He told council that Phase 1B exceeds currently budgeted funds and that additional funding or bond authorization would be required to complete the more extensive option. He also described the revenue potential but cautioned that debt service on a large bond would not be fully covered by incremental Sportsplex revenues alone.

After questions from council and a review of schedule constraints staff said the city could advertise for construction proposals on June 2, open bids July 2, and issue a notice to proceed in mid-July to meet an April 1 target to have initial fields ready for play—if council preserved the timetable and if bids and funding align. Councilmember Smith and other members urged caution about spending funds that would later need to be reworked; Parks Director Houst warned that some work done under Phase 1A would be largely incompatible with Phase 1B requirements (noting removal of installed features to add necessary drainage and infrastructure later would be costly).

The council voted to authorize the 60% design as presented and indicated a preference for pursuing Phase 1B conditions (tournament-ready fields with drainage, concessions, and revenue-generating amenities) while directing staff to seek competitive sealed proposals and to return with firm contractor bids and funding options. City staff and the city’s finance team said they will present funding scenarios, including possible bond options and phasing alternatives, and will further evaluate cost-saving value engineering that could preserve tournament-quality fields while sequencing other features.

Next steps staff listed include: finalizing construction documents to 60%, issuing an RFQ/CSP for a construction manager/contractor in late summer, returning to council with contractor bids and a funding recommendation, and continuing community engagement about phased construction timelines. Council’s authorization was limited to design authorization; no construction contract was awarded at this meeting.