Board President Kristin Tassin voiced “great pause” over the price increase and dipping into the district’s bond contingency fund, asking that the design teams “sharpen [their] pencils” and reevaluate the options before moving forward with a recommendation.
“At some point we have to draw a line, and we have to say this can’t cost any more, “ she said at the Nov. 4 agenda review meeting. “And I personally feel like I’ve kind of hit that.”
How we got here?
The $19 million aquatic facility, set to be located at 16707 Bissonnet St., Sugar Land, appeared in the 2023 bond proposal. However, the facility, along with several other projects, was later found to be underestimated due to unaccounted for inflation costs between November 2022 and the May 2023 bond election, Community Impact reported.
In June, trustees approved earmarking an additional $6.2 million for the aquatic facility.
The proposal
Nicola Springer, executive vice president and the director of pK-12 projects at Kirksey Architecture, said the estimated cost of the aquatic facility has risen from the district’s original $25.6 million budget to about $29.1 million, mainly due to unexpected site preparation work required for a pool comparable to the district’s current Nate Cook Natatorium, located at 6255 Lexington Blvd., Sugar Land.
“When we came on board, we realized that this was probably not going to be enough to provide a pool of an equitable size and standard as your current aquatic facility,” Springer said.
Although the bond proposition doesn’t require the district to include specific features, including deck size and a weight room, Deputy Superintendent of Operations Kathleen Brown said she believes voters expected the new facility to provide “the same opportunities” as the current one.
Springer proposed three options, adding that reductions in deck spaces would not inhibit anything swimming-related, including:
- Preferred option for $29.1 million, which includes a full 50-meter stretch pool with warm-up lanes, 20-foot deck space on both sides and a weight room, mirroring the district’s existing aquatic facility
- Optimized option for $28.2 million, which maintains the stretch pool and weight room but reduces deck space by 5 feet on each side
- Budget option for $25.6 million, which keeps costs within the original budget but eliminates warm-up lanes, shortens the decks and removes the weight room
Digging deeper
The total amount of available contingency across all relevant bonds is $46.4 million, with the district adding $1.6 million to the contingency fund this month from interest savings, Chief Financial Officer Bryan Guinn said.
The amount of unearmarked funds, after accounting for upcoming facility upgrade requests and the $6.2 million for the aquatic practice facility, the district is left with $21.7 million in unobliged funds.
However, the aquatic facility can only pull from the $13 million available between the 2014 and 2018 bonds since voters approved of the facility on a separate proposition from other projects on the 2023 bond, per state law.
Moving forward
Guinn said $6.2 million from contingency had already been designated for the aquatic facility to bring it from $19 million to $25.6 million, but the latest $3.5 million increase has not yet been accounted for.
The remaining contingency for the aquatic facility is up for recommendations in March 2026, per district presentation.
