Residents press Saint Mary's council for transparency and options after community pool closure

Residents packed the public comment portion of the Dec. 15 Saint Mary's City Council meeting to challenge the process and numbers that led to the citys decision to close the community pool and to press for alternatives that might allow swimming next summer.

Molly Redinger, who said she had collected documents from the Saint Mary's Library, told the council she had found the pools 2025 tax support listed as $30,762 and challenged widely circulated figures such as a $400,000 annual operating cost and a study citation that the pool lost “2 inches of water daily.” She said documents and public access to the feasibility study were difficult to obtain and requested clearer communication and transparency (SEG 542–622).

City staff and the city manager responded that the feasibility study — performed by aquatic specialists — reported substantial water loss, rust and corrosion on metal walls and recommended that reuse of the existing pool is not advised; staff said the most recent studys findings and safety concerns prompted the closure (SEG 254–281). City staff also confirmed they have pursued grant funding (including an LSA fund application that could contribute up to $1 million) and that demolition estimates are roughly $250,000 within preliminary project estimates.

Technical residents including Tony Demore, a corrosion specialist (SEG 1246–1373), and Richard Phillips, a professional engineer (SEG 3200–3314), urged the council to authorize targeted engineering checks—pressure testing of lines, camera inspection, ultrasonic wall-thickness measurements and other diagnosticsto determine whether repairs could safely extend use while the city pursues grants and fundraising. Demore described visible rust and a non-compacted dirt substrate beneath the steel pool floor and said some leaks had been patched; he offered to serve on a review committee.

Other speakers raised operational concerns: former lifeguards and teenage staff described how shortened hours and staffing affected membership and attendance, and highlighted supervision and crowding risks for smaller rectangular replacement designs (SEG 1738–1799). Jennifer Bish, speaking for parents and rec-board members (SEG 1374–1453), urged clarity about the $2.8 million figure and pointed to 2026 budget lines that show $0 for a pool project while a 2027 line item lists $129,000 in a PLGIT account placeholder.

The council and staff said the $2.8 million figure was a starting point for grant applications and fundraising and that PLGIT entries represent capital-account placeholders rather than a firm commitment. Council members encouraged residents to organize a fundraising campaign and to partner with civic organizations (Kiwanis, Rotary, Lions) and to pursue grant avenues simultaneously. Staff said grant applications are ongoing and that the city is trying to limit the local tax impact of any new pool project.

No formal action to reopen the pool or to require a new engineering inspection was taken at the meeting; many residents asked the council to commission or allow a targeted technical inspection in spring as an interim measure to ascertain whether limited repairs could allow safe operation while fundraising and grant applications proceed. The council announced it is continuing planning and fundraising efforts and encouraged community groups to form an organized campaign.

Next steps: Council said staff will continue grant outreach and financial planning and residents said they would organize to pursue fundraising and technical review possibilities.