Trousdale County parks committee deadlocks on pool repair; seeks fresh cost estimates

The Trousdale County Parks and Recreation Committee discussed the deteriorating condition of the county swimming pool and failed to pass motions that would immediately commit the county to repairs or to replace the facility.

Mr. Saleem, a parks and recreation staff member who led the report, told the committee that “the pool is in terrible shape. We’ve had to leave a water hose running in it most of the year.” He said the pool had been drained below skimmer and return levels, that some plumbing lines were likely leaking underground, and that tile and perimeter stones around both the main and kiddie pools are loose or broken. Saleem provided participation figures showing an average of 45 visitors per day and 3,214 total visitors for the season, with a busiest day of 231 on July 4 and a low of three on Aug. 1.

Committee members considered a contractor estimate first presented in late 2019 from a vendor identified in staff materials as Madison Pool. Saleem and other staff reported the earlier quoted amount—$138,500—did not include the kiddie pool and that, based on age of the quote, the vendor warned the cost would almost certainly be higher now. Staff described additional likely costs for decking, fence replacement, and upgrades to the pump/chemical system; staff estimated a standalone pavement/track replacement elsewhere in the park at about $46,350.

A motion by a committee member to authorize staff (Cliff) to solicit updated bids to “fix what we have there now without expanding it” was seconded and put to a show-of-hands vote; the motion failed on a 3–4 vote. Later, a separate motion to not reopen the pool and to explore replacing it with an alternative facility was made and seconded; that motion tied 3–3 and failed. After those votes the committee asked staff to obtain fresh, current quotes and to return with updated cost scenarios, including the option of limited repairs, full renovation, or alternatives for the site. Members also asked staff to check legal and safety requirements for lifeguard staffing and whether limited or weekend-only hours would be permissible under applicable pool inspection rules.

Several members expressed safety concerns and budget trade-offs. One committee member said they would not vote to open the pool next year in its present condition. Another member urged caution about spending a large capital sum for what the committee characterized as a short operating season. Committee discussion also identified potential funding sources to explore, including grant opportunities already pursued by staff (the Blue Cross Blue Shield grant) and federal ARPA funds; members raised the possibility of community fundraising but suggested a legal review might be needed before accepting donations earmarked for a county facility.

The committee set a follow-up: staff was directed to solicit updated bids for multiple scenarios, to research regulatory requirements on lifeguard staffing and limited-hours operation, and to report back at the next parks committee meeting. A motion to postpone further final decisions until a future meeting was made and seconded; the transcript records the motion and second but does not capture a formal roll-call vote on that procedural motion. The committee scheduled its next meeting in September to review updated estimates and additional information.

Votes and formal actions tied to the pool discussion are recorded below.