Trophy Club council directs staff to advance pool renovation under $2.4 million, favors shaded design and slide option

The Town of Trophy Club’s council on Feb. 24 directed staff to advance a community-pool renovation design based on the parks consultant’s recommended concept (Concept C), with a budget cap of $2.4 million and a request to study whether a second (double) slide can be added within that limit.

Parks Director Chase Ellis summarized the phase‑two schematic work and outreach and said the project budget for phase two is $2,400,000.0. He told the council that Park Hill’s outreach identified top priorities including a body slide, additional shade and lounge/sundeck areas, public cabanas and a redesigned kid pool with a 0‑depth entry.

Nut graf: Council members and the Park Board prioritized more shaded public space, a modernized kid-pool design, and at least one body slide for older children and teenagers. Park Hill provided three schematic options: Option A (estimated $2,560,000), Option B (estimated $2,390,000) and Option C (estimated $2,470,000); Park Board recommended Option C while asking staff to investigate a two‑lane slide if the town can absorb extra cost without exceeding the project budget.

Ellis and Park Hill said the three options differ in slide configuration, shade distribution and the amount of green open space. Option C was presented as the balanced choice that keeps the project near the $2.4 million target and emphasizes shade and rentable cabanas; consultants estimated the slide in Option C at about $420,000. Park Hill also cited an alternate two‑lane slide that would add roughly $1,124,000 above the Option C slide allowance if selected.

Council members pressed on schedule, operations and long‑term maintenance. Ellis said the town aims to complete construction during the off‑season so the pool is not closed for a summer; the typical target is to finish construction within roughly nine months so the facility can reopen the following season. He said slide operations would require additional lifeguard staffing (he estimated one lifeguard at the top of the slide and another at the bottom or a combination of a lifeguard and slide attendant) and that the slide’s water will be recirculated rather than run in a separate pool, limiting ongoing water and chemical costs.

Councilmember questions focused on budget certainty and lifecycle costs: one member asked for more precise square footage and unit-price detail for specific items (for example, pump-house enclosures referenced in the cost table) before final design. Staff said the schematic phase intentionally provides high‑level figures and the design phase will produce construction documents that better define square footage, materials and hard costs. Councilmembers also asked staff to minimize discretionary items (for example, tree selection/quantity) where appropriate to meet the $2.4 million limit.

On insurance and maintenance, staff said slides require annual inspections (TML and industry-standard inspections for amusement devices) and routine preventive upkeep; slide maintenance was described as manageable but requiring a maintenance plan and inclusion in the town’s asset-replacement schedule. Councilmembers asked that staff fold annual maintenance and periodic inspection costs into long-range budgeting work.

After discussion, the council moved, seconded and approved a direction to staff to proceed with design development for Concept C with the constraints discussed (budget cap of $2,400,000, explore a second slide as an add alternate, tighten discretionary scope where feasible). The motion passed by voice/hand vote; individual vote counts were not specified in the meeting record.

Ending: Staff and Park Hill will proceed to the next design phase and return to council with construction documents, refined cost estimates and a timetable for bidding and construction; councilmembers asked staff to provide greater detail on enclosure sizes, pump‑house scope and lifecycle cost estimates before contract award.