York Suburban board weighs new pool vs. renovation; approves $300,000 repair fund

The York Suburban School District Board of Directors on Jan. 27 heard more than two hours of testimony and technical briefings about a planned high‑school renovation that includes the district natatorium, and the board approved an assigned fund of $300,000 for immediate pool repairs.

Why it matters: the board must decide this winter whether to pursue a renovated pool in the existing footprint or build a new pool that would shift building layouts and increase the project budget; architects told the board the new‑pool option runs about $8 million more than renovating in place, while a full mechanical/electrical/plumbing upgrade for the building was estimated at roughly $30 million.

Superintendent David Krausser opened the discussion by repeating the administration’s request for direction so staff can return Feb. 10 with a formal action item. “Is that a new pool or a renovation to our existing pool?” Krausser said, framing the board decision as essential to civil‑engineering work and sketch‑plan reviews required by the township.

Mister Michael Wentz, the district’s lead from design firm Crabtree, presented two high‑level options: Option 1 would renovate the existing natatorium in its current location and preserve more of the science wing; Option 2 would demolish approximately 25,800 square feet (including the science wing) to add a new pool with at‑grade spectator seating and a new science/administrative suite. Wentz said the design team’s estimates consistently showed a roughly $8 million “delta” between building a new pool and renovating the existing one.

“Every single option still comes out…for that new‑pool option to be about $8,000,000 more than renovating the existing pool,” Wentz said. He cautioned the figures are preliminary and depend on the civil engineering step, zoning relief (if required) and updated pricing.

Board members and members of the public pressed on schedule, accessibility and long‑term maintenance. Wentz described a schedule that assumes civil scope is contracted in March, sketch‑plan review in spring, then land development and bid documents through the following fall and winter; he said construction start would be roughly this time next year with a 30‑month construction window in the baseline schedule.

On ADA and program constraints, Wentz said a renovation could meet accessibility requirements but would have important compromises: the pool deck has limited clearance, most spectator seating sits on a mezzanine that cannot be made fully ADA‑compliant without significant rework, and the existing pool would remain a four‑lane facility unless expanded.

Parents, students and local residents urged a new pool. Josh Carney, a parent and licensed structural engineer, told the board the existing pool has been a foreseeable problem for years and urged long‑term planning: “We stop playing the game of band‑aiding,” he said. Several students and parents described lost senior nights and early/late practice schedules while the team uses off‑site pools.

Other speakers pressed the board to be transparent about funding and to seek outside partners. The superintendent and athletic staff said York College has agreed to host the team through the end of the season and that college leadership indicated willingness to discuss longer term access; the district noted the college also makes an annual payment in lieu of taxes of $100,000 that has been paid for 14 years.

Board debate split. Board members including Dr. Steve Sullivan and Rich Robinson said they favored building a new pool to create an asset for future generations; Dr. Sullivan said a new facility “sends a message to our community” and would improve programming and air‑handling at the water level. Other board members said current fiscal uncertainty and rising state/federal pressures counsel caution. One board member said she would support only MEP (mechanical/electrical/plumbing) work and renovate in the existing footprint because of broader budget risks.

The board also considered the short‑term needs of the swim team. The administration brought a consent‑agenda item recommending a rental agreement with the Graham Aquatic Center to host practices; that agreement was approved as part of the consent items the board adopted.

Votes at a glance - Allocation for pool repairs and maintenance: motion to place $300,000 into an assigned fund for pool repairs and maintenance — approved (recorded as 7 yes, 1 no; the board member identified in the meeting as voting no was Dr. Nicole Hessen). Notes: the motion passed after public discussion; the board discussed thresholds and whether contracts for repairs would still require separate approval. - Consent agenda (items 1–10), which included the Graham Aquatic Center rental agreement: approved (unanimous).

What’s next: Administration will return Feb. 10 with an action item after receiving board direction on new vs. renovation and following additional civil‑engineering proposals. Wentz said civil proposals were due in early February and that town sketch‑plan review and land‑development permitting will determine whether zoning relief or variances are required.

Budget context and clarifying details - Wentz provided the design‑phase cost context: a building MEP-only baseline estimate of approximately $30,200,000 for a comprehensive mechanical/electrical/plumbing upgrade (this estimate is based on a study package roughly 2½ years old and will require reconfirmation). The study package estimate for a larger renovation/addition previously was about $63.3 million; current options produced totals in the low‑to‑mid‑$60 million range with the new‑pool option about $8 million higher. - The administration reported roughly $20 million of funding currently available and that the original financial plan had anticipated an Option 1 pool renovation; changing scope or schedule could alter borrowing priorities.

Community context: dozens of residents and parents attended and several spoke during two public comment periods, pressing for faster action, better communication and clarity about funding sources and the college’s role. The district said it will continue communications and pursue civil‑engineering proposals so the board can take a formal vote at its next meeting.

Provenance: transcript excerpts from the Jan. 27 board meeting (topic introduction: superintendent remarks about York College support and earlier context; topic finish: vote on the $300,000 allocation and concluding pool discussion).