$10 million Swimberley proposal under review – is it viable?

Swimberley Welcome Website

Note: An alert citizen sent this report to the RoundUp. The Swimberley proposal has been floating around for quite some time and has finally come up for review, in line with several other projects, by the county's parks and open space panel. Final scoring of the projects, we are informed, was completed Wednesday night. Carl Owens, a Wimberley resident and a chief advocate for the estimated $9.5 million 10-acre swim park, butted heads with county commissioners this summer, claiming the review and approval process for county parks and open space projects ($30 million total) was fraught with political favoritism for projects hand-picked by commissioners. His criticism caught their attention and now his project has become a contender for a portion of the $3 million remaining in the park bond fund. While the project has some merit and positive community aspects to it, serious questions remain as to the project's long term financial viability and sustainability, its water supply source and others noted in the report below. We welcome responses from the project's coordinators and supporters.

Send your comments and news tips to roundup.editor@gmail.com, to Mr. Owens at Swimberley, to Commissioner Will Conley at will.conley@co.hays.tx.us, to County Judge Liz Sumter at lizsumter@co.hays.tx.us, or click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story

Dick Whipple, on the Board of Directors of Swimberley, gave a Power Point presentation about the proposed Wimberley Aquatic Recreation Park at the Wimberley Community Center Wednesday night, Nov 17. Presentations were also scheduled at 10:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, Nov. 18.

The WARP was incorporated as a non-profit 501(c)3 entity on November 1, 2005. It has an eight-member Board of Directors and an Advisory Board.

They propose to build a recreation center on 10 acres near the intersection of Jacob's Well Road and FM 2325, on the south side of 2325. The land would be far enough south of 2325 that noise from cars would not be heard at the center, stated Whipple. He was not willing to state from whom the land would be purchased or donated.

The total project includes far more than merely swimming pools. There would be pavilions which could be rented for private events, horseshoe pits, concessions, 3/4-mile walking/jogging trail, and a 3,000-square foot "fitness area," plus bleachers from which spectators would watch swim meets.

The entire project seems designed to be a swimming venue for the high school swim team primarily. Indeed the Power Point program included a voice over comment from Wimberley school Superintendent Dwain York about how beneficial the Aquatic Center would be for the high school. The center would be used for area swim meets. And obviously as a practice venue for the high school swim teams.

To make the swim center more palatable to the public, Swimberley has added the other amenities. Whipple stated that "pools lose money, traditionally," and that Swimberley needs the other features to rent out and otherwise bring in more revenue. (Based on the non-success of the Wimberley Community Center as a money-producing entity, it's hard to see how WARP believes it can do better.)

One audience member who regularly swims at Barton Springs in Austin stated that the proposed dome-covered, 8-lane indoor pool doesn't seem very appealing. There are very few windows in the building, by design. Those who envision swimming in the open air and getting a tan will be disappointed.

The main building will be 41,000 square feet. There will be an elevator in it. The center will be open 7 days a week. The cost of the project will be over $9.5 million, not including the land. Whipple stated that the land could cost $1 million more ($100,000 an acre).

Though the project's website (www.swimberley.com) states that the project will provide construction jobs, how likely is it that a local builder will be chosen to put up the unusual domed, round building?

If the center should open, Whipple stated that there probably would be 4-5 salaried employees, 5-6 full-time hourly employees, and 25-35 part-time hourly employees. Some of the hourly employees might be high school students, he said.

The water supplier for the center would be Aqua Texas. That fact alone is troubling, in that Aqua Texas already is committed to process more wastewater than its facilities can handle.

(Remember the frac tank at Woodcreek North? And with Wimberley Springs Partners' proposed new subdivision near the new elementary school on tap, Aqua's well pumps are going to be going full speed around the clock.)

There will be daily use fees and monthly-plan fees at the center. To visit the center one day will cost $6 for adults and $4 for each child. Monthly passes will cost $40 a month for an individual and $74 for a family pass (up to 5 people).

Swimberley has asked Hays County Commissioners Court for $2 million from the Parks Fund. Commissioners have not yet decided whether to allot the money to Swimberley or to other projects. The project is under review by the county's parks and recreation panel. Even if commissioners decide to award Swimberley a $2 million grant, that still leaves at least $7.5 million more to raise to complete the project. And will the county have to spend more of our tax dollars each year to keep the project afloat?