Chad Davis, a landscape architect with Park Hill, told the commission on Dec. 18 that Pflugerville is already turning away organized play and will need a multi‑decade plan to keep up with growth. “Right now, when we talk about unmet need … there’s about 860 hours” of requests denied in 2025, Davis said, citing city-supplied tracking of unallocated hours.

The consultant presented a demand analysis built from meetings with local leagues and national benchmarks from the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). Park Hill said league participation is predominantly local (examples cited: roughly 50% of one adult cricket league and 70–90% for several youth leagues), and that typical requests included dedicated rectangular fields, improved lighting, seating and restrooms.

The study converted demand to facility and land needs using NRPA ratios and consultant area plans. Park Hill reported deficits concentrated in baseball and softball (the consultant showed one city softball field versus an NRPA recommendation of about 15) and estimated current field and support-area shortfalls of roughly 31–41 acres for those sports. Aggregating needs across park types, Davis said Pflugerville is short about 95 acres today and could face a 123–177 acre deficit by 2030–2035 if current trends continue.

On costs, the consultant provided construction-only estimates (land excluded): about $80 million at 2025 prices, roughly $113 million by 2030 and about $147 million by 2035, with a long-range scenario above $230 million. Those estimates incorporate a 20% planning contingency and an assumed cumulative inflation adjustment used for long-range budgeting, the presentation said.

Staff framed the feasibility study as a planning tool to inform a phased approach to acquisition and development rather than a fixed bond ask. A staff member noted the department has tightened its budget and is pursuing higher cost-recovery levels for programs that primarily benefit individual users, while retaining subsidies for introductory, community-benefit programs.

After discussion about phasing, land availability and likely bond council adjustments, the commission voted to forward the staff recommendation to include the feasibility study in future council/bond discussions. A commissioner moved that the commission endorse the staff recommendation and advance the feasibility study for review by planning and council; another seconded and the motion carried by voice vote.

Next steps outlined by staff and consultants included finalizing the full written report and meeting notes from stakeholder interviews, identifying priority parcels for acquisition, testing phased cost scenarios for bond counsel, and returning to the commission with refinements.

The feasibility study and its underlying meeting notes will accompany any future bond or CIP proposal; the commission did not adopt a funding commitment at this meeting.