Council debates but does not authorize RFP for Wave Water Park; council endorses community engagement and recent $3.5M upgrades

The Vista City Council debated the future management and funding of the Wave Water Park on Sept. 9 but did not authorize a request for proposals (RFP) for private operation. Council members heard staff reports on recent and planned capital investments, operating subsidies and attendance, and members of the public and council suggested forming community advisory groups to explore options.

Staff and finance context Finance staff and the parks director reported the city had previously budgeted an allowable subsidy of about $400,000 in pre-COVID years but that subsidies rose after the pandemic. Angela (staff) said the city has provided subsidy support since the pool’s opening and that recent seasons required larger subsidies that have decreased over time. Staff noted the council recently approved $3.5 million in capital investments to repair infrastructure, and that additional work will continue through the next off season with some projects extending into winter 2027.

A consultant study referenced a deferred-capital estimate of about $15 million over 10 years; council members and staff discussed the effect of deferred maintenance on operations and rentals. Staff reported the wave typically operates about 90 days per season and that capacity is roughly 1,500 patrons per day; average season attendance recently has been about 80,000 visits.

Council and public positions Mayor Franklin and Council Member Fox argued for soliciting proposals from private operators, saying outside operators could bring marketing, staffing resources and capital and might be able to reduce the city’s annual operating losses. Mayor Franklin said the city had unsold seasonal capacity and that professional operators could help monetize that demand.

Council Member Contreras, Council Member O’Donnell and others expressed caution. Contreras favored keeping the facility public, citing equity and community access, and said he did not support issuing an RFP while the city is completing recent upgrades. O’Donnell asked staff whether all grant and funding opportunities had been exhausted; staff said they had pursued some grant avenues and would continue to pursue energy-efficiency and other grants but had not secured recent major grants for capital. Several council members supported forming a “friends” or advisory group and amplifying community fundraising and grant-seeking before moving to an RFP.

Outcome and next steps No council action to issue an RFP was taken at the Sept. 9 meeting; the council heard public comments, received staff updates on budget and upcoming capital work and directed staff and council members to further explore community-engagement options and potential grant funding. Staff said the operating budget as presented covered the wave for the next two fiscal years, but that the larger deferred capital needs remained.

Ending Council members asked staff to continue grant searches, report back on the $3.5 million upgrades’ effectiveness and pursue community advisory mechanisms; several members invited potential private operators to meet informally with council members and staff.