Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Council weighs options for aging Leon Valley community pool; staff to return cost estimates for repurposing
Loading...
Summary
Council discussed repair, full renovation, demolition and repurposing options for the 1968 community pool at 6600 Strawflower. Staff presented repair and replacement cost estimates and the council directed staff to return with cost specifics for repurposing options including pickleball, dog park and other recreational uses.
Leon Valley’s City Council discussed the future of the Leon Valley Community Pool facility (6600 Strawflower) on Feb. 4 after staff presented repair and replacement estimates for the aging pool built circa 1968.
The nut graf: staff outlined three broad options—make targeted repairs and ADA updates, fully renovate, or demolish and repurpose the site—and councilmembers and residents debated costs, usage patterns and maintenance implications while asking staff for detailed cost comparisons for alternative recreational conversions.
Public Works Director Melinda Morts presented estimates: a set of necessary repairs (pump room repairs, replacement of skimmers and plumbing repairs and related work) was presented at about $205,000; an estimated replaster to address leaks was cited at about $68,000 but Morts said full plumbing, coping and tile repairs add materially to costs. A manufactured concession building and broader site work raised a conceptual package cost to about $455,800 in the materials presented. Earlier conceptual designs for a full replacement including a spray pad and expanded parking were shown at roughly $2.5 million, though Morts said components could be scaled back.
Council discussed alternatives that residents and staff raised: converting the pool basin to a dog park (staff estimated roughly $7,000 for minimal conversion features and water access and suggested community donations for equipment), adding pickleball courts (staff referenced about $15,000 per court from prior conversions but said final costs require site measurements), or installing a splash pad (previous estimates cited in discussion were around $750,000 and higher when including pump and water‑treatment systems). Morts noted demolition could be performed largely in‑house by public works and the primary cost would be filling the hole and minor site work.
Council members exchanged usage data for the seasons when both pools operated and last summer when the other pool carried more attendance; staff said that attendance at Forest Oaks rose when the older pool was closed and that complaints were limited. Several residents said the pool site’s shade, parking and proximity to Raymond Rimkus Park make it an attractive location for other recreation if the pool is removed; others raised concerns about maintenance challenges and potential problems with dog parks (litter, dumped animals) in that location.
Action and direction: the council did not take a formal vote to close or demolish the facility at this meeting. Instead, staff were directed to return with specific cost estimates and site plans for possible repurposing options including pickleball and dog park configurations. Morts also was asked to include maintenance cost estimates tied to any proposed conversion and to provide more precise demolition cost figures.
Ending: staff will present detailed cost comparisons and site‑specific designs at a future council meeting to allow a budget‑informed decision.
