The Jersey Village City Council and numerous residents spent more than an hour discussing next steps after the city demolished the community pool. No formal action was taken; council members agreed to continue discussions during the budget process and to explore lower-cost options and private fundraising.

Residents at public comment criticized the decision to demolish the old pool without an approved replacement. Ben Blumenthal told the council he was "angry" that the pool was demolished and said he believed tests that could have informed repair decisions had not been completed. Other speakers, including former users and parents, asked the council to expedite a replacement.

Council members and staff outlined possible paths forward. Mayor and other council members said engineering assessments showed renovation would not be cost-effective and that replacement was necessary. Mayor described a proposal, brought forward by Councilmembers and community members, to build a new pool that would closely resemble the previous pool but defer new buildings to lower the total cost; staff estimated a conservative range of $5 million to $6 million for a replacement-only option (pool, piping and mechanical systems, but not new clubhouse-type buildings).

A resident, Brian McCauley, proposed forming a community crowdfunding committee to raise private funds and solicit business sponsorships for a smaller, volunteer-driven campaign. McCauley pledged $3,000 personally and suggested incentives such as naming rights, lifetime memberships for major donors, and plaques. Council members asked staff to research legal and operational constraints and to clarify whether crowdfunding donations could be accepted and how they would be handled.

Council emphasized that the city has limited grant options for pools and that most funding would likely be through bonds or private funds. Staff noted that any bond proceeds must be spent on authorized bond purposes and warned about timing: projects planned for the bond program could be delayed if cash flow or reserves are constrained.

Votes and motions: No formal motions were made on a replacement plan at the meeting. Council asked staff to include the pool discussion in upcoming budget work and to explore a lower-cost replacement-only option and crowdfunding/donation legal constraints.

Why it matters: The pool serves many families and youth programs; replacing the facility quickly is a priority for many residents. However, funding choices could influence whether a replacement is feasible this year or is delayed for several years.

What comes next: Council will revisit the pool during the May budget meeting and later budget work sessions; staff will investigate donation/crowdfunding legality and costs for a replacement-only design to produce cost estimates.