District details condition and cost of four school pools; staff urges city partnership or hold plan pending SPLOST

District staff told the finance committee that four district pools need repair and that options range from city partnership to a hold‑pattern pending broader public funding votes.

Miss Davidson, a district facilities staff member, said the district owns four pools — Brock, Haven and Schuman (elementary sites) and Jenkins (high school) — and described significant maintenance and safety problems at three sites. “We currently have some significant challenges with the conditions of 3 of our 4 pools,” Davidson said, showing photos and noting that Haven fills with rain when drained and that some pools reach 15 feet in depth, raising liability concerns.

The pool discussion is consequential because fixing and operating the sites would require a multi‑hundred‑thousand‑dollar investment and ongoing operating costs; the district asked the board whether to budget for repairs, seek city/county partnership, or pause while the city explores a SPLOST referendum.

Davidson provided line items and rough estimates: repairs and systems work for the two primary pools were estimated in the range of about $600,000 to $1 million total; staff estimated roughly $975,000 to bring Brock and Haven to operating condition and listed per‑pool estimates that included about $300,000 for draining/clean/replace plaster, roughly $150,000 for pumps/chlorinators/plumbing, and annual maintenance on the order of $102,000 per site (presenters also cited an $8,500/month operating figure). Seasonal lifeguard wages were estimated at $50,000–$75,000 per site depending on length of season; Davidson noted the estimate did not yet include health‑department certification, utilities, or additional liability insurance costs.

The district currently has one pool in the best condition (Jenkins), which staff said could be opened quickly pending board approval and a lifeguard contract with a third‑party operator. Staff said Jenkins had received prior investment and could open as soon as Memorial Day if the board approved contracting for lifeguards and operations; the other pools require substantial capital work before safe public use.

Staff presented several options for Brock and Haven: continue advocacy and negotiation with the city to resume day‑to‑day management; pursue lease or sale to a third party (with legal counsel cautioning about restricting future use if sold without covenants); or delay inclusion of those pools in the FY26 budget while the district explores options and awaits city outreach, including a potential SPLOST referendum. Several board members urged that the city be invited back to the table to share responsibility; others warned about the liability of leaving empty, deep pools uncovered and asked staff to seek a liability‑insurance quote before committing funds.

Board members and staff also discussed alternatives such as partnering with third‑party operators for lifeguard staffing and investigating CTAE (career and technical education) program alignments that could support pool operations (for example, hospitality or recreation tracks and certifications). No formal decision was reached at the meeting; staff said they will pursue the planned May 27 city meeting, try to obtain insurance quotes and cost breakdowns, and return to the board with options for the June timeline.