To the editor:
In regard to the letter to the editor written by Dr. Graves last week, I felt it personally necessary to point out some points in the assumptions he made. I do not blame Dr. Graves for being passionate about this project. I’m sure his conclusions are more likely a combination of the word on the street combined with the city’s lack of reporting the recent developments on the project.
The city never intended to have the pool wait until the total $3.5 million was raised to begin construction. The council went on record after the closing of the outdoor pool that we felt it necessary to replace the facility for the citizens. To that end we have been discussing the merits of several funding options — fundraise, save on budget items or raise taxes. I am of the mind that the first two will be sufficient to cover the cost of the facility.
The cost to finance the project can also be partially covered by the savings on the more efficient modern pool. Remember that during the summer months the old pool also was out of operation regularly due to the need to change the water to make it safe to swim in. The cost to change 800,000 gallons several times a summer was also high. It also caused the facility to be closed on some very nice days. We also had to replace water lost though leakage. This was about another 100,000 gallons a week. All of these savings along with a smaller staff that would be needed all can contribute to the overall cost.
The timeline for construction was set out during our recent budget talks and finished during the early part of spring (2014). Our intention then and now was/is to have the design team at the architectural firm bring a number of proposals back to the committee. This is currently being done. They have several options to look at now. Then select one and have a build design done and RFP for construction. That is slated for the next couple of months. Then begin digging with the idea it would be usable by next summer.
It is my hope that this will do two things:
• To get more people to see that we are serious about both of these projects and donate to them.
• To get our aquatic summer rec activities up and running again, and then with the addition of the building allow the department to build on the programs year-round with all ages of activities.
In regards to the costs cited in the letter saying that approximately $500,000 could cover the rehab of the old facility is simply not accurate. The old pool has several factors that figured into the decision to close it and then to move it.
• Originally it was a clay/dirt bottom in 1935. When it was paved in 1956 it was not upgraded with a better underlying material. As such today the brook and the wet holes/springs under the site have created voids and soft spots. The center floor area of the deep end would routinely float up because of water pressure. It was measured to be over a foot in some places. This float would displace water under the pavement and has further washed the base. To fix this problem we have been advised that the entire floor would have to be removed and a new base installed. Then it would need a new floor material.
• The drain pipe that leaves the pool at the base of the wall has collapsed somewhere under the ball field. This has caused the exiting water to flood the soil behind the wall and under the field. The pool can hold upwards of 800,000 gallons and this water will eventually cause a significant wet hole in the field. Over the course of the summer the pool usually was drained four times. The engineer we consulted said that his worry was two-fold. One, the field could become wet enough to make an underground mud pit and cause people on the field to be hurt by the ground giving way or two, the mud could build pressure on the back wall to push it back into the pool. To fix this we would need to dig and put in a new pipe back to Kennedy Brook.
• The EPA/DEP both want the pool water to be processed and not dumped into the brook. Through understandings and some grandfathering they did not strongly push the issue, but they cannot any longer. To fix this the pool drain would have to be connected to the sewer system. On site there are no sewer lines. To accomplish this, a pump station would need to be installed to push the water to the Main Street line. The cost of this pump would be significant. We didn’t even approach the possible need to increase the size of the lines “downstream” of the site to handle the volume of that pool.
So to pull this all together in order to reopen a pool at that old location we would in essence need to build a new pool at that location and then address the sewer problem. The cost of replicating this size of pool would be far in excess of the modern pool that is being proposed, and then the pump station would be another cost on top of that.
For these reasons the new location next to the eventual Community Center building and next to existing water and sewer lines was chosen to be the best site to consolidate the various facets of the program including the ODP. Parents can more readily monitor multiple ages and interests. With the gym, activities rooms, pool, splash pad, ball field, soccer field and park all in close proximity they can go to one place and “do it all”.
I, like many of you, love the idea and the feel of nostalgic places and things. I totally understand the motivation and sentiment of keeping one of New England’s largest outdoor pools open … but like many things of days gone by; this structure has come to an end. The future of the proposed pool and splash pad are very exciting and I hope you will embrace the project. It stands to be a very unique attraction to our community and provide many years of lessons and recreation for a whole new generation of children.
Craig Green
City Councilor
