Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seabrook presents three municipal pool options, residents question season length and privatization
Summary
City staff showed three conceptual designs for a new municipal pool with estimated costs of $3 million, $4 million and $5 million and said repairing existing piping to meet code was previously estimated at $800,000; residents asked about season length, heating, fees and whether privatization was an option.
City staff presented three conceptual designs for a new Seabrook municipal pool and described an assessment that put repair-to-code costs for the existing facility at roughly $800,000. Staff sought public feedback on which option—ranging from a 6-lane lap pool to larger designs with beach-entry and play features—residents prefer before the council considers bond placement.
Brian Craig, director of public works, described the existing pool: staff recently removed an old slide for safety reasons and earlier engineering work estimated about $800,000 to bring the pool piping and related systems up to code. "Back in 2022, there was analysis done and the cost estimate to get the pool back up to code was 800,000," he said.
The three conceptual options carried estimated capital costs of about $3 million (Option A, a six-lane, 25-yard lap pool), $4 million (Option B, lap pool plus play features and sunbathing ledge) and $5 million (Option C, larger beach-entry and expanded sunbathing area). Staff said these figures are conceptual and that the city would solicit competitive construction bids before any contract award.
Residents raised recurring concerns about limited season length and programing, potential fee changes, lifeguard recruitment and whether a heated pool could extend the use season. Some suggested privatizing the facility, selling the city parcel or seeking a private operator to extend hours and shift operating costs; others urged the city to retain control to preserve resident access and local swim-team use. One speaker proposed deed restrictions if the city sold the parcel to guarantee community swim access.
Staff said a survey of roughly 300 respondents informed the preliminary design work and indicated residents were the primary users; daycares were also noted as significant users in some years. Staff did not present a final rate structure and said no changes to user fees had been decided.
Ending: Staff asked residents to review display boards, tour the site and submit feedback through a QR code, online form or paper comments before council deliberation on Feb. 4.
