Tecumseh board hears three options for aging natatorium; cost estimates range from $1.7M to $28M

District staff and an outside project team presented three concept options for Tecumseh’s aging natatorium on Dec. 8, and trustees spent more than an hour exploring cost, risk and community funding pathways.

Josh Madison introduced the engineering team and asked them to walk trustees through options. Project staff described option 1 as selective demolition and reconstruction around the existing pool basin; presenters said hard construction costs in that scenario were roughly $10,000,000 and, including contingencies and soft costs, "totaling this option is about 15,000,000." Option 2 would fully demolish the natatorium, fill or backfill the basin and rebuild the affected exterior wall(s) for a concept total of about $1,700,000 plus associated soft costs. Option 3 — a new natatorium on a new site — was presented as a placeholder concept (roughly 18,000 sq. ft. on ~2 acres) with a ballpark cost near $28,000,000 once land development and full systems are included.

Engineers cautioned trustees that option 1 carries more unknowns because protecting and reusing the basin and foundations can introduce risks during selective demolition. "If ultimately, the worst case scenario . . . the pool basin cracks, collapses in it . . . then we're back to the drawing board," one presenter said, noting a full replacement could raise costs substantially. Trustees asked for more detailed basin inspection findings and mechanical assessments before making any capital commitments.

Members of the public told the board the community supports preserving a pool. Amber Gray, a parent and swim‑program advocate, told trustees: "What we're asking for is a pool. Doesn't have to be the best pool. The community did show support for the pool and that last bond that finally did pass had the pool in it." Several trustees and staff observed that the district’s existing quarter‑mill levy for the pool historically covered only operations (operator and chemicals) and that capital shortfalls have come from the general fund.

Trustees discussed funding options including grants for competition pools, community fundraising, bond proposals and possible partnerships with the YMCA or neighboring districts. The board noted $2,500,000 had been allocated in a prior sinking fund for the pool (trustee stated that amount) and a later comment referenced about $2,100,000 applied for Tecumseh Acres repairs; staff agreed to confirm current sinking‑fund balances. Several trustees emphasized the need for broad community engagement (town halls, surveys, MASB planning input) to determine what taxpayers would support and what should be included in any bond proposal.

Board members also flagged urgency: staff said the roof is in its third of a 2–3‑year window for replacement and that winter thaw/freeze cycles could accelerate deterioration. Trustees directed staff to obtain further engineering data on the basin and mechanical systems, confirm sinking‑fund balances, explore grant and fundraising options, and prepare community engagement opportunities and potential RFPs depending on the path the board selects.

Next steps: additional inspections of the basin and mechanical systems, verification of sinking fund balances, and design of public engagement to determine community willingness to fund repairs or replacement.