Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Recreation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parks & Rec committee urges county to pursue joint indoor recreation center with retractable pool at fairgrounds
Summary
The Parks & Recreation Committee recommended an indoor recreation center (multiuse courts) with an aquatic facility—favoring retractable‑roof options—and proposed siting the project at the fairgrounds; the court received the recommendation but did not take final action, asking staff to research funding and partnerships.
Mark Morgan, chair of the joint Parks & Recreation Committee, presented the committee’s recommendation to the Boyle County Fiscal Court on a new indoor recreation center that would combine multiuse courts and an aquatic facility. The committee reviewed several options and “had consensus” for a facility that would be built jointly by city and county and sited at the fairgrounds, Morgan said.
The committee presented cost estimates drawn from a recent template project: a stand‑alone indoor recreation building (four convertible courts, meeting rooms and office space) was estimated at about $12.9 million; a combined indoor recreation facility with an enclosed aquatic center was estimated at about $21.6 million. Committee members also described a retractable‑roof aquatic option during the briefing and listed outdoor add‑ons including pickleball courts and a skate‑park expansion.
Why it matters: presenters said the county faces a clear operating shortage for organized youth sports and community recreation. The committee noted 61 organized youth basketball teams and 10 cheer squads in Boyle County and described losing scheduled gym nights at multiple school sites. “That has emerged as a burning need for the reasons you’ve heard today in our community,” Morgan said, summarizing the committee’s view that a consolidated facility would create efficiencies for staffing, referees and scheduling while leaving courts available for public use.
Court members and committee volunteers discussed funding routes including grants, sponsorships and possible ballot measures; no tax or bond was approved at the meeting. Multiple magistrates urged exploring grants and sponsorships first and requested further work: the court agreed to accept the committee’s report and committed staff to research funding options and potential partnerships rather than take immediate action.
The committee recommended siting the project at the fairgrounds (rather than Millennium Park) to redevelop underused fairground property and preserve park sightlines elsewhere. Morgan said competitive bidding and a clear design package would help reduce costs and attract donors. Presenters stressed that final budgets, funding sources and governance arrangements remain to be determined.
Next steps: the court did not adopt funding or a specific design. Members suggested forming a task force or joint city‑county working group to explore grant opportunities, naming rights, competitive bids and community funding options before presenting an ordinance, bond question or referendum.
