Murray considers bigger, feature-rich redesign for downtown outdoor pool; council signals appetite to raise budget

Jeff Martin introduced a conceptual rebuild of Murray's outdoor pool and Andrew Nathan Levit, the architect at BCBO Architecture, who presented the design and rationale for replacing the 2000-built facility. "I'm Nathan Levit, an architect, principal at BCBO architecture," Levit said, explaining the firm's experience with similar municipal pool projects.

Council members and staff described the current pool as aging and prone to leaks and repeated resealing; staff said previous repairs have been temporary and that continuing to patch the structure risks a future catastrophic failure if underlying voids grow. Aquatics manager Julie Konishi noted operational realities: "If you add a lane to that five lane pool, it's about another $100,000," and that public pools typically do not operate at a profit.

Why it matters: The pool sits on a heavily used city site and staff say the bath house infrastructure (built in the 1970s) and pool shell (opened 2000) need replacement to meet safety and programming goals. The council framed the decision as long-lived: a high-quality rebuild could set the facility's character for decades and affect downtown attraction and programming.

What was proposed: BCBO's concept keeps the pool on the same site but reconfigures the layout to include a zero-depth entry area for young children, an activity pool, a 25-yard, five-lane program pool for lessons and lap use, a lazy river and a ninja-course obstacle aimed at teens, and indoor party and support spaces. Renderings showed more deck space, family single-occupancy changing rooms, and relocated filtration and chemical storage to permit safer chlorine deliveries.

Costs and tradeoffs: The concept shown to the council was budgeted at about $14 million in construction costs. Presenters compared that figure to other recent BCBO projects, saying a 2006 pool that cost $9.5 million would equate to roughly $22'$24 million in today's dollars. Levit and staff said certain attractions carry high incremental costs: a commercial "flow rider" has been quoted by vendors in the millions (presenters suggested roughly $1'$3 million for the feature and associated infrastructure) and adds annual maintenance (presenters cited roughly $30,000/year maintenance at a comparable site). Staff also cautioned that increasing pool area raises restroom and accessibility requirements, which increase project costs.

Council direction: Several council members urged a larger, more competitive facility with "wow" features to attract countywide users rather than a like-for-like replacement. Members asked for a clear set of options tied to a dollar limit (for example, "good / better / best"), but staff noted designing multiple full options would add design costs and recommended that the council instead set an explicit top-line budget to guide a single refined design. Council members discussed increasing the project budget above $14 million, with figures of $16 million to $20 million discussed during the workshop and laughter noting a $20 million "best" target; councilors asked staff to return with revised plans that reflect the council's spending appetite.

Unresolved items and next steps: No formal vote or bond decision was made. Staff said the city has roughly $6 million in CIP and about $6 million in park impact fees (two distinct pots) available today, and that additional funding or bonding would be required to reach higher price points. The council asked staff and the architect to come back with design options tied to an explicit budget direction and to provide more precise cost breakdowns, occupant/fixture impacts (restrooms, deck area), and lifecycle/maintenance estimates.

Ending: The council directed staff to return with a revised design and clearer budget scenarios; no binding appropriation or bond was authorized at the meeting.