Arrowhead board approves $80,000 repair for aging pool, contingent on air-quality test and written warranty

The Arrowhead School Board voted at its meeting to approve a repair of the high school pool’s climate/dehumidification unit at an estimated cost of $80,000, contingent on a written one‑year warranty from the vendor and completion of pending air‑quality lab results. The board’s decision followed committee updates and multiple public comments urging preservation of the pool as a community resource.

The repair recommendation came from Bill King, a district facilities staff member, after a second vendor disassembled the pool’s Dectron unit and identified a faulty valve as the likely root cause. "The repair quote was $80,000 to get a new compressor, clean the unit, and refill with the R‑22 refrigerant," King said. He said a full replacement quote for a like‑size unit was $600,000 (not including any additional costs required to relocate or roof‑mount a larger unit).

Why it matters: the pool supports Arrowhead High School swim teams, community lap swim, water‑safety lessons and jobs for lifeguards and coaches. Public commenters said the costs and disruptions of training and renting alternative pools would be substantial. Parent and community speaker Heather Haneline noted that a season of relocating practices could cost roughly $25,000 for bussing and rental; King estimated about 70 practices would be affected. Board members also noted a current rental partnership brings about $38,000 in revenue.

Most important facts: King reported the pool is currently operating with higher‑than‑ideal humidity — measured locally at about 80 percent while optimal pool humidity is roughly 50–60 percent. An independent air‑quality firm has collected samples (chlorine compounds, CO₂ and humidity) and is awaiting lab results; King said he expected those results to be available by the end of the week. The vendor told the district the compressor would have roughly a three‑week lead time to order, and verbally described a warranty but the board required written confirmation. King described a vendor breakdown: approximately $32,000 for the compressor and $25,000 for about 200 pounds of R‑22, with remaining costs for cleaning and labor.

Board deliberations and public comment shaped the final motion. Multiple public speakers — including Kirsten Newman, Jane Owen and Heather Haneline — emphasized community uses beyond high‑school athletics: learn‑to‑swim programs, open lap swim, water‑aerobics and jobs. Newman told the board, “the pool also provides an opportunity for young children to learn how to swim, creates water safety, provides jobs for lifeguards and swim coaches.” Jane Owen urged transparency about costs and longer‑term planning. Administrators provided a scenario that relocating both boys’ and girls’ teams for practices and meets could impose recurring transportation and rental costs and less convenient practice times for student‑athletes.

The board considered two main options: proceed with the $80,000 repair and increased monitoring, or pursue full replacement at roughly $600,000 (plus additional installation costs). Members noted a long history of incremental repairs to an aging facility and warned that larger capital needs could arise later; one board member quoted an earlier threshold used by a prior board for when replacement rather than repair made fiscal sense. After discussion, a motion to authorize the $80,000 repair, conditioned on receiving the written one‑year warranty from the vendor and satisfactory air‑quality lab results, was approved. The board also approved a previously presented Lake Country Swim rental agreement and advanced the district’s 10‑year capital improvement plan in the same meeting.

Next steps: administrators will obtain the vendor’s written warranty, share the air‑quality lab report with the board, and coordinate timing around the three‑week lead time for the compressor part. The district also said it will continue to monitor structural and humidity indicators in the pool space; administrators reported no visible accelerated rust on the roof structure during current inspections.

The vote: the amended motion to proceed with repair if the air‑quality results were acceptable and the vendor provided a written one‑year warranty carried (board recorded voice vote: “Aye”; no roll‑call tally provided in the meeting record).