Developer outlines fast-track options for Chesapeake Beach water park; council weighs timing and budget risks

Mark Paddock, principal of Paddock Pool Company, told the Town Council on June 12 that a demolition and rebuild of the town’s closed water park is feasible on an accelerated timetable if the town starts demolition this summer.

Paddock said his team’s initial investigative work — including selective demolition, geotechnical and structural testing — shows the site’s timber piling foundation is largely sound and can support a rebuilt facility. He presented two concepts: “Concept A,” a close-to-original rebuild that Paddock described as the more affordable option, and “Concept B,” a larger layout with expanded slides, a spray ground and shaded adult seating. Paddock said demolition bids for the existing park were in the mid-$600,000 range and that faster construction could reduce price escalation and schedule risk.

Why it matters: the water park is a visible town amenity and has been closed because of safety and deterioration. The developer argued that starting demolition now preserves an outside chance of opening in June 2026, but several council members said they wanted a clearer, firm construction budget before committing to demolition.

Most important details

- Investigation results: Paddock said pilings are salt-treated and, where tested, solid; a geotechnical report found the existing foundation suitable to support increased loads for another 30–40 years. He said some deep foundation work will still be needed in concentrated areas.

- Demolition and schedule: Paddock presented three demolition bids he described as representative: about $625,000, $633,000 (his estimate), and $685,000. He estimated demolition would take six to eight weeks and that, if demolition starts this summer and design continues concurrently, his team could provide a priced design for a baseline concept within four to five weeks.

- Two concepts: Concept A keeps the park’s existing footprint with modest changes (larger pool shape, removed ramp, added lifts to meet ADA access, expanded deck and cabanas). Concept B includes larger slides, a spray ground replacing a waiting pool, more adult seating and added mechanical upgrades such as variable frequency drives to change lazy-river speed.

- Mechanical and reuse items: Paddock’s team identified electrical switchgear in good condition that could be reused, potentially saving procurement lead time. He said pumps, filtration, piping and the mechanical room would be replaced or modernized and that measures would be taken to prevent future pipe settlement and leakage.

- Operations and capacity: Paddock said the old park’s licensed capacity was about 1,300 but that the rebuilt park’s capacity is likely to be reduced to roughly 750; he said the project is grandfathered under Maryland State Health Department rules so the water volume cannot increase by more than 10% without losing that grandfathering.

Council reaction and next steps

Council members asked detailed operational questions: how many lifeguards would be required, whether the design meets ADA access standards, how the project would affect fees and whether the town should demo before getting a firm construction price. Several council members, including at least one who said they were unwilling to commit additional funds without a fixed cost, urged caution and recommended the council receive the firm estimate Paddock promised before authorizing demolition.

Paddock said he would provide a qualified order-of-magnitude price for Concept A before the next council meeting (he gave a five-week target) and would produce a more detailed budget for Concept B as an add-alternate. He emphasized a fast, contractor-driven approach that Paddock says reduces administrative time and construction escalation. Paddock described efficiencies if his crew could begin demolition this summer because that preserves a small chance of opening a rebuilt park the following June; he said the town could elect not to proceed to build at any point after demolition but warned partial demolition decisions are “surgical” because the existing deep foundation and building will be retained to reduce cost.

Quotations (verbatim)

- “We opened up the floor, exposed the pilings... The pilings were solid. They’re salt treated pilings.” — Mark Paddock, Paddock Pool Company

- “We’re not in the the right step, but I will probably be making a motion to bump this a month just because some of the language... it could make it seem like, if your pool is not in use at any point in time, you have to have it covered.” — Stuart (former councilman) during public hearing on a related ordinance

- “If I lose the 2 months, the answer is no.” — Mark Paddock, on the likelihood of opening the park next summer if demolition is delayed

Ending

Paddock committed to deliver a detailed estimate for Concept A prior to the council’s next meeting; the council directed staff to review the materials and pursue follow-up questions about procurement, permit paths and grant/finance options. Council members stressed they want a construction cost estimate in hand before committing to major demolition spending; several said they will discuss procurement and charter requirements in a subsequent session.

Speakers (attributed in article)

- Mark Paddock — Principal, Paddock Pool Company (business) - Mayor — Mayor, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government) - Stuart (Stuart Campo) — former councilman and water park committee participant (citizen) - Jay — Public Works director, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government) - Eric — Councilmember, Town of Chesapeake Beach (government) - Jan Ruttke — Resident, 7624 Bayside Road (citizen)

Authorities

- Maryland State Health Department (regulation) — referenced regarding grandfathering and water-volume rules - Americans with Disabilities Act (federal regulation) — referenced as ADA access requirements to be met - Calvert County permitting (county-level regulation) — county review/permits for demolition and construction

Actions

- kind: "other" identifiers: { "agenda_item_id":"waterpark-presentation" } motion: "Presentation and request for budget estimate; no vote requested at this session" mover: "" second: "" vote_record: [] tally: {} legal_threshold: { "met": false, "notes": "No formal council authorization for demolition or construction passed; presentation provided information only." } outcome: "no_action" notes: "Paddock will provide a budget estimate for Concept A before the next council meeting; council requested follow-up on procurement, permits and timing."

Discussion vs decision

- Discussion-only: All design options, demolition estimates, schedule, capacity and ADA/operational concerns were discussion items. - Direction/assignment: Council asked staff and the water park committee to review Paddock’s estimate and procurement options, and Paddock agreed to deliver a budget estimate in 4–5 weeks. - Formal action: None taken on demolition or contract award at this meeting.

Clarifying details (extracted from meeting)

- demolition cost estimates: approximately $625,000; $633,000 (Paddock estimate); $685,000 (local contractor bid) - reported demolition duration: 6–8 weeks, likely 6-day workweeks, with some road/sidewalk impacts for up to 2 weeks during stockpile/parking repairs - capacity: previously >1,300; Paddock said rebuilt park estimate ~750 - water-volume grandfathering limit: cannot change water volume by more than 10% or risk losing grandfathered status - electrical panels: locally inspected and described as NEMA 4, potentially reusable, reducing lead-time risk

Proper_names

[{"name":"Paddock Pool Company","type":"business"},{"name":"Keller Brothers","type":"business"},{"name":"Maryland State Health Department","type":"agency"},{"name":"Calvert County","type":"agency"},{"name":"Chesapeake Beach Water Park","type":"facility"},{"name":"Collins Field","type":"facility"}]

Community_relevance

geographies: ["Chesapeake Beach","Calvert County"] funding_sources: ["not specified; potential mix of town capital, grants, and reimbursements"] impact_groups: ["residents","seniors","families","water park staff/lifeguards"]

Meeting context

engagement_level: { "speakers_count":18, "duration_minutes":210, "items_count":1 } implementation_risk: "high" history: [{ "date":"2025-06-12","note":"Presentation by developer, Paddock Pool Company; council requested detailed estimate before taking action." }]

searchable_tags:["water park","Paddock Pool Company","demolition","ADA","Maryland State Health Department"]

provenance:{ "transcript_segments":[ { "block_id":"947.975","local_start":0,"local_end":183,"evidence_excerpt":"As you know, I was here, this is my visit, I believe. And my, intent is to say where we were and where we are, what our challenges are.","reason_code":"topicintro"},{"block_id":"6723.125","local_start":0,"local_end":86,"evidence_excerpt":"Yes. Okay. Yes. That's a big exercise for me. I wanna make sure it's clear. Yes. Okay. Yes.","reason_code":"topicfinish" }]}

salience:{ "overall":0.78,"overall_justification":"Large capital project affecting a visible town amenity, with substantial first-cut cost estimates and schedule risks; potential budget and procurement implications.","impact_scope":"local","impact_scope_justification":"Physical amenity and municipal budget implications limited to Chesapeake Beach and immediate users.","attention_level":"high","attention_level_justification":"Developer presentation and council budget deliberations drew extended public comment and council focus.","novelty":0.45,"novelty_justification":"Rebuild has been discussed previously but detailed technical estimates and a contractor-driven fast-track schedule are new.","timeliness_urgency":0.72,"timeliness_urgency_justification":"Developer emphasized narrow summer window to begin demolition to preserve chance of a June opening next season.","legal_significance":0.40,"legal_significance_justification":"Procurement and demolition raise charter and permit issues; no formal legal decisions made at this meeting.","budgetary_significance":0.83,"budgetary_significance_justification":"Demolition and rebuild would involve multi-hundred-thousand to multi-million-dollar capital decisions and could affect FY26 budget allocations." }