District operations staff presented three options for the Upper Darby High School natatorium at the Finance and Operations Committee meeting: (1) maintain (repair as needed and operate), (2) renew (a comprehensive renovation that an engineering estimate put at about $12.4 million), or (3) “reimagine” the space (repurpose roughly 20,000 square feet for student mental‑health services and other uses). The presentation and more than 40 public commenters prompted the board to ask administration for more concrete costings and procurement options before taking action.

What the district said: Marvin Lee, director of operations, said the natatorium requires major investment to continue operating. He described the facility as aging, with mechanical systems — including the pool HVAC/“pool pack” — past typical useful life, concrete walls and piping showing signs of deterioration, shower‑room needs and ongoing chemical costs. The district presented an external condition assessment that produced a line‑item scope with 67 items and a budget estimate of about $12,400,000 for a full renovation.

The administration also provided an operating baseline: roughly $30,000 in fixed annual costs plus $25,000–$35,000 in ongoing maintenance and repairs (total about $55,000–$65,000 per year); an estimated $6,400 per month (presenter’s figure) to heat the pool to ~78–82°F year‑round; and an approximate pool volume of 200,000 gallons. The district said the pool generates limited rental revenues (the presentation cited about $9,000 in rental revenue in one year from outside organizations) while outside users — local university teams, the Lansdowne YMCA and others — still rely on the facility for practices and rentals.

Reimagine option: administration proposed repurposing the space for an intentional student mental‑health suite and complementary uses (indoor athletic space, technology hub, shower/laundry for students experiencing homelessness). The district presented Pennsylvania Youth Survey data showing elevated student mental‑health needs and noted that roughly 338–546 students were classified as homeless in recent years; the reimagine option would, administrators said, allow programming designed to address those needs. The administration added that the conceptual images shown were AI‑generated mockups, not final designs.

Board direction: members expressed strong community concern for preserving the pool and its programs. Several board members asked the administration to obtain more concrete, short‑term cost estimates and to solicit competitive bids/RFPs for (a) limited, near‑term repairs that would allow the pool to operate safely for a defined short term (committee discussion suggested a five‑year horizon), (b) a full renovation scope and cost, and (c) a repurposing option with operating and staffing models. Directors also discussed revisiting facility‑use policy (policy 707) to permit revenue generation from outside users. The administration said they would return with more detailed estimates and RFP outcomes.

Community response: more than 40 public commenters — including current and former swimmers, coaches, parents, alumni and YMCA and Marlins representatives — described the pool as central to student opportunities, life skills (swim lessons, lifeguard training), youth development, college access and community recreation. Many speakers urged the board to prioritize options 1 or 2 (maintain or renovate) and cautioned that relocating practices to college pools would create transportation, scheduling and equity issues for student athletes.

What was not decided: no formal vote to close or convert the pool was taken. The committee directed staff to return with more detailed cost proposals and procurement documents; the board asked that the pool remain part of planning discussions rather than be assumed lost to repurposing without full cost comparisons.