Parks board favors open-access design for Blue Hole Nature Center, asks for itemized costs and phased plan

Parks Director Richard told the board that City Council awarded the architect/engineering and project management services RFP for the Blue Hole Nature Center to Lake Flato and Lionheart and that the project team held a kickoff meeting. Staff reported they have toured comparable facilities, including the Austin Nature and Science Center, and plan additional visits to inform design choices.

Richard asked the board two preliminary design questions: whether the center should be configured for controlled paid entry (one in/one out) and whether the project should be designed and built in a single phase or be phased according to available funding. Board members advised against configuring the entire campus for gated entry, citing the value of an open, exploratory visitor experience. Instead members favored keeping the center accessible to casual visitors while charging fees for specific programs, field trips, rentals or timed experiences and using suggested donation points and QR codes to accept voluntary contributions.

“An open concept feel is a really special attribute of this place, and I think it would feel uninviting” if the design required a paid, controlled entry, one member said. Other members pointed to models such as the Meadows Center and the Austin Nature & Science Center where general access is free but specific programs or tours are ticketed.

Staff confirmed $3,000,000 in county funding for the project and said MHS is under contract to pursue grant funding opportunities, including an outdoor recreation grant from TPWD; staff also said an indoor recreation grant that was anticipated (referred to as TBWD in the discussion) is not being offered this year. The project team will prepare an itemized cost analysis of the concept drawings and present both a full-construction budget and a phasing option so the city can determine what elements can be funded now and what might be staged.

Board members requested that Lake Flato provide line‑item costs and a phased plan, that architect/owner fees be clarified in contract negotiations (staff noted typical RFQ responses indicate design fees can be 25–30 percent of project cost), and that operating and maintenance cost estimates be included in the project deliverables. The board reached a clear consensus: do not design the facility as a limited‑access, pay‑entry campus; instead pursue an open site with revenue through programming, rentals, donations and targeted admissions.

Next steps include receiving the itemized cost analysis and phasing options from Lake Flato, pursuing grant opportunities in the next application cycle if available, and continuing tours of comparable facilities to refine programming and exhibit choices. The board emphasized that any future proposals for fees should include revenue projections showing net benefit after collection costs.