Carroll County public hearing on $3.5 million pool appropriation draws divided public comment; board tables vote

A public hearing on a proposed $3,500,000 appropriation for a new Carroll County public swimming pool opened at 7:50 p.m., where residents offered sharply different views on whether the county should prioritize a seasonal pool or other county needs.

Philip McCraw told the board he was troubled by reports of the county’s tight budget and said he would prefer county funds be spread across needs that benefit residents year-round rather than concentrated on a pool. Janice Crocs, who said she owns a pool at home, called a new pool a “bottomless money pit” and recommended the county consider a year‑round community recreation hall that could serve seniors and youth throughout the year. Vanessa Vault, a Cana resident and parent, asked whether pool funds were restricted by grants and suggested the $3.5 million could instead be used to recruit and retain EMS personnel and purchase ambulances and equipment.

The board also heard that a number of written comments support the pool. A board member said 14 emails had been received, all in support; two written public comments read aloud — one from Laura Sumner urging a pool to keep recreation dollars in Carroll County and create summer jobs for teenagers, and another from Shannon Smith asking for an affordable option for families.

Nut graf: The appropriation touches on competing priorities — youth recreation and potential economic and community benefits from a local pool versus county concerns about emergency medical coverage and long‑term operating costs. In response to the volume of public input and requests for more time to collect letters, the Board voted to table further action on the appropriation and reconvene discussion at the next meeting.

Board action and next steps: After discussion, a motion to table (and to recess or revisit at the next meeting) was made and seconded; the board took a roll‑call vote and approved tabling the appropriation to allow additional public input. The board did not adopt the appropriation at this meeting; the item will reappear on the agenda for further consideration.

Context and details: During the hearing residents raised several practical questions that the board may need to address in future deliberations: whether the appropriation uses restricted grant funds or general county dollars; anticipated operating and maintenance costs for a seasonal pool; accessibility for seniors and low‑income families; and whether alternatives such as leveraging existing facilities (for example the county-supported wellness center) or building a year‑round community center would serve more residents. One citizen specifically contrasted the pool appropriation with recent, separate discussions about fire and EMS leadership and asked whether the same funds might be used for recruitment and retention of EMS staff.

Ending: The board closed the public hearing and tabled the appropriation to allow staff and supervisors time to gather additional public comments and information. No appropriation was executed at this meeting; the item will return for further deliberation and a possible vote at a future meeting.