Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Center Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board hears $799,675 pool repair estimate, debates scope and long-term plan
Summary
Town staff reported two bids (one valid) totaling $529,000 for pool repairs plus $220,000 for a new pool HVAC 'pack' and $11,000 in sprinkler repairs; Select Board discussed budget sources, operational model and alternatives before agreeing to place the article on the Fall Special Town Meeting warrant for voter consideration.
Town staff presented an updated estimate and operational plan for repairs and upgrades to the Community Center pool during the Select Board meeting on Oct. 14.
Assistant Town Manager Kim Foster and Recreation Director Jen Kirkland told the board that bid openings produced one valid bid of $529,000 to repair the pool tank and associated work; the town separately quoted a pool-pack HVAC unit at about $220,000 and sprinkler repairs at roughly $11,000. With a recommended 7.5% contingency included, staff said the Town Meeting article would request $799,675 drawn from available funds (overlay surplus/free cash), not through a property tax levy. Foster said relining the pool tank and replacing equipment would materially extend useful life (liner/tank: 20–25 years; equipment: 10–15 years).
Staff described an operational model in which the town would contract a private vendor to provide daily pool operations, lifeguards and instruction and—depending on usage and the vendor fee—anticipate monthly operating expenses on the order of $7,800 and potential revenues that could roughly cover those costs. The board asked whether the bid included contingency (staff said it did not) and pressed on whether a smaller-scope “plan B” to make the pool usable at lower cost had been developed. Board members expressed differing views: some said investing for a longer useful life made financial sense; others asked for clarity on the minimum work necessary to reopen safely and how facility size/depth changes would affect programming and revenue.
The Advisory Finance Committee had voted 6–2 to defeat the article at its meeting; town staff said the packet for Town Meeting will include updated life-cycle and operating assumptions. Select Board members emphasized that Town Meeting, not the board, must decide appropriations; staff reiterated the funding source would be available funds/overlay surplus. The board left the article on the warrant for Town Meeting consideration and encouraged further refinement of the presentation to better explain useful-life estimates, options and the revenue/operating model to voters.
What’s next: The article will appear on the Fall Special Town Meeting warrant and voters will decide whether to appropriate the funds. Staff will finalize presentation materials and include life-cycle and operating assumptions for Town Meeting.
