Council debates Island Oasis improvements vs. possible Good Life District aquatic center

The City Council discussed whether to proceed with planned improvements at the Island Oasis water park or to rethink investment while the Good Life District develops.

Todd, a parks staff member involved in design, told council the Island Oasis master‑plan design work is nearly complete and that the city is contracted for about $1 million of design services. Brown and staff presented three improvement options from an earlier 2022 master plan: immediate repairs (about $200,000, already completed), a mid‑level package ($2.2–2.7 million adjusted for inflation; modeled at about $3 million), and a significant reconfiguration (previously estimated at $12–17.5 million; the higher scenario would cost more with inflation). The enhanced financing scenario for the water park was modeled at $16 million under some options.

Council members noted Island Oasis’s central location and earlier success: staff said the park currently averages about 45,000 swimmers per summer (down from a peak near 100,000 years earlier). Council President Sheard and others recalled large attendance increases when the water park opened. Some councilors argued an updated Island Oasis could quickly deliver new features (miniature golf, split pools, splash areas) and attract visitors for the coming season. Others, including Mayor Steele, floated studying whether an aquatic center at the Good Life District (an indoor/outdoor facility) could achieve efficiencies and avoid duplicating services.

Concerns raised included walkability to a potential north‑side aquatic center, particularly for children who may not be able to walk or bicycle there; the council asked staff to research access and community needs. Parks staff said a neighborhood pool on the west side and an indoor lap facility remain needs identified in the master plan and that building an aquatic center could be possible but would require further study. Councilors agreed not to “scrap” Island Oasis without careful analysis; several said they preferred proceeding with Island Oasis improvements while continuing to evaluate the Good Life District option.

Staff said some Island Oasis upgrades could be completed within a year if the council moves forward, while larger enhanced rebuilds would be financed over longer terms. Brown’s financing scenarios included the basic Island Oasis package in a list of near‑term projects, and he suggested carving out the Island Oasis debt for longer amortization while keeping shorter terms for components with shorter lifespans (for example, turf on ball fields). The council asked staff to return with more refined phasing and cost breakdowns before finalizing financing plans.