Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears three‑option plan for Veterans Memorial Pool: spray path, wave pool or full build‑out
Summary
City staff and consultants presented three conceptual options for expanding Veterans Memorial Pool — a spray‑path/play area, a wave pool to increase capacity, or a full build‑out combining elements — and sought council direction on scope, phasing and funding.
City staff and consultant Kimberly Horn and Associates presented three conceptual options for expanding Veterans Memorial Pool and asked the Cedar Park City Council for direction on scope and funding pathways.
Paul Naughton, engineering and capital projects, and Mike DeVito, director of Parks and Recreation, led the presentation with Austin Powers, a consultant with Kimmy Horn, detailing the concepts: a spray‑path (non‑standing water play path and racer slide), a standalone wave pool of roughly 8,000 square feet that staff said could hold more than 500 people by bather‑load measures, and a full build‑out combining the spray path, slides, cabanas and other amenities.
Why it matters: Veterans Memorial is the city’s busiest municipal pool, staff said, and council members cited recurring capacity constraints on weekends. A wave pool option would materially increase bather capacity but also raise capital and operational costs; staff described the wave pool concept as the option that would most increase capacity and multi‑generational programming.
Key details from the presentation and council discussion - Concept descriptions: The spray‑path concept adds a play path with ground sprays, a 4‑lane mat racer and cabana rentals; it does not increase bather capacity because it contains no additional standing water. Staff said operational impact would be small (4–5 additional positions) with $75,000–$100,000 annual operating cost. - Wave pool concept: Staff described an approximately 8,000 sq. ft. wave pool that could double facility capacity, noting a staffing impact of about 7–9 additional lifeguards and an estimated operating cost increase of $125,000–$150,000 (staff did not present a final business plan or payback analysis). Staff remarked the wave pool could enable programming such as “movies in the pool” and concerts with a stage/screen feature. - Full build‑out/phaseability: Consultants recommended designing for future add‑ons (slides, cabanas) so that elements can be phased. Staff also noted the existing play structure (installed 2007) is nearing the end of its useful life and would likely need replacement or removal as part of any concept that fills the zero‑entry area. - Parking and infrastructure: Staff said all concepts include additional parking (about 100 spaces on the northwest side of the site) and that utility/equipment work for a wave pool requires significant underground piping and mechanical systems. - Budget context and funding: The pool expansion was scoped in the 2022 bond program; staff said cost escalation since the bond scope means the wave pool or full build‑out would likely need additional funding sources such as future bond proceeds, Type B funds or other funding strategies.
Council feedback and direction Council members repeatedly emphasized balancing stewardship of existing assets (replacing the aging play structure) against the desire to increase capacity and add unique amenities. Several members expressed a preference for the wave‑pool option because of capacity and multi‑generational appeal but asked staff to return with funding options, an operational pro forma and phased design that would allow incremental implementation while preserving future expansion choices.
No formal vote was taken; staff said it would continue design and funding analysis and return with refined cost and operational projections.
