An official $92 million — and the real number may be $113 million

The most recent official estimate puts the project at $92,175,349. A Parks Department memo costing all program elements together reaches $112,916,274. The estimate includes $10.8M in contingencies — and the soil under the site has never been tested.

A permanent subsidy is built into the plan

The City’s final feasibility study forecasts roughly 70% cost recovery — meaning 30% of operating costs must be subsidized by taxpayers forever. The competition pool alone is projected to recover only 40–45% of its costs.

The financial model was even built using an electricity rate of 5¢/kWh when the actual rate is 13¢/kWh — a 160% error discovered just weeks before key decisions.

A senior staffer raised the alarm — and was told to stay quiet

In December 2025, the City’s Park Planning Superintendent, Ted Jack, drafted a warning about the project’s financial risk, citing similar facilities that blew past their projected subsidies. His supervisor, Parks Director Alison Jumper, stopped him from sending it.

His suppressed analysis warned that industry pro formas “often underestimate operational costs by 20–40%, particularly for staffing and utilities.” He also noted the City’s own feasibility study put the indoor facility’s first-year subsidy at $750,000, and that an indoor aquatic center is “generally, the most expensive park and recreation facility to build and operate, based on cost per use.”

$2.6 million in required offsite work isn’t even in the estimate

An internal email chain identifies costs the $92M figure leaves out:

— From an internal city email among Project Director Wade Abernathy, Public Works Director Chris Brown, and Parks Director Alison Jumper

City staff didn’t trust the consultant’s own analysis

This was written just two weeks before the consultant produced the matrix that recommended Lewis Fields — the basis for a $92 million bond decision.

Lewis won because the City already owned it

A flat, developable 103-acre alternative site was identified and passed over. On the consultant’s own objective scoring, Lewis only tied for the top spot — it pulled ahead solely on the partnership and land-cost-avoidance factors. The “savings” simply shift costs — displacing soccer fields and forcing the school district and community to absorb them.

The public justification was written to fit the decision

When it came time to explain the choice to the boards, the consultant told the City the rationale would have to be reverse-engineered to support Lewis:

The public was never asked about Lewis

Neither of the City’s two public surveys ever named Lewis Park or Wilson Park as candidate locations. The second survey was “restricted to focus on proposed concepts,” and the concept images “did not include or reflect location.” The Fayetteville School Board — which co-owns 12.3 of the park’s acres — was never formally consulted before the site was locked in.

• The soccer fields. Lewis Fields serves Fayetteville youth leagues. The facility and its 492-stall parking lot need a 7.44-acre minimum — nearly the entire 8.5 acres the City controls at Lewis, spilling onto school-district fields.
• Permeable green space. Open land that today absorbs water will become impervious concrete — adding to the downstream flood burden.
• Wildlife habitat. An AGFC Stream Team leader noted “endangered birds in the tree canopy”; residents report a large bat population feeding along the creek. No habitat assessment appears in the record.
• A vulnerable neighborhood’s stability. The park abuts Washington Plaza public housing and serves families near Asbell Elementary — raising real concerns about amenity-driven displacement that the City has not addressed.