Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council for transparency after Saint Marys pool closure; city says manager makes operational decisions
Summary
Residents criticized the process behind the closure and proposed demolition of the Saint Marys community pool, saying no stamped engineering report, Department of Health closure order, or audited financial impairment entry has been shown; city staff said a health inspection was performed and that the city manager is responsible for operational decisions.
Residents filled the public-comment period to press council for answers about the future of the Saint Marys community pool and to urge alternatives to demolition.
Molly Redinger told the council she had reviewed the feasibility study conducted by Councilman Hunsaker and said the scope did not include a stamped structural engineering report or the tests required to declare a facility unsafe. "If that was true, then where is the stamped engineering report stating so? Where is the Department of Health order to close it?" she asked, adding that the last available public audited financial statement she found (2022) lists the pool as an active capital asset with no impairment or demolition authorization.
Redinger asked the city to stop demolition plans and to reopen the pool in 2026, and she urged officials to solicit a pool-renovation firm such as Aquatica rather than only demolition-focused engineering consultants. She said Aquatica's renovation projects have ranged, by online estimates she cited in public comment, from about $1.2 million to $3.5 million depending on scope.
City manager Joe and other staff replied during the meeting that a health and safety inspection was conducted on Jan. 9 and that the city is awaiting the assessment results. Council members clarified that the city manager, not the council, makes day-to-day operational decisions such as closing or reopening facilities, and staff noted that while council can remove a city manager, it does not direct daily operational choices. Several residents expressed frustration with that distinction and asked what steps the public can take; staff and council suggested residents submit materials to city hall and that staff would be willing to review information.
During later public comment, Sonny Moore and other residents disputed whether $170,000 had been transferred from a pool allocation to an amphitheater project; the manager and council disputed the interpretation of budget documents. Warren Stewart and others called for greater transparency and suggested a charter or referendum to change how the manager's authority is structured; council members reiterated the Home Rule Charter separates legislative and executive roles and that citizens can pursue charter changes via referendum if they choose.
No formal vote on the pool's disposition occurred at the meeting; council members and staff asked to receive documents from residents and to follow up as inspection and audit materials become available.
