Subscribe!
Cranston’s Finance Committee says size matters for Budlong Pool – not “bells and whistles”
In another long meeting regarding the future of the Budlong Pool in Cranston, estimated to be the 19th or so, the City Council’s Finance Committee passed an amended resolution choosing size over features proposed by Mayor Hopkins and the aquatics professional’s proposed plan.
The resolution was tweaked at last night’s meeting by Council Robert Ferri to half the size of the pool (from 22,000 sq. ft to 11,000 sq. ft) and keep it a “plain rectangle” with no splash pad, in-pool features such as a colorful shading feature and in-water seating and designated lap lanes. The new resolution was described as rectangular in shape with a deep end, a low end, handicap access, lap lanes, and access for all ages. A pool without all the bells and whistles. And bring the poolhouse up to code.
In presenting the resolution – which is non-binding on the administration, as pointed out by Councilor Nicole Renzulli – Ferri acknowledged that thousands will be opposed to this resolution but that no one is going to get everything they want – but they will get a pool.
Renzulli noted that the group should also be given the full operating budget of the pool, given the size changes, etc. The city’s finance director also noted that salaries will have to be increased to attract lifeguards, as cities are struggling everywhere to attract and retain certified lifeguards.
Councilor Aniece Germain encouraged sponsors be sought who could contribute to the project. The committee also noted that a splash pad could be added at a later time, if funding were found.
Here is the resolution changes as described in Ferri’s follow-up email to Cranston constituents:
Mayor Hopkins proposal:
The differences in the existing pool and the Hopkins proposal are self-explanatory, but include a 7-8,000 sq. ft. pool, a splash pad, added water features, the new clubhouse, and a colorful in-pool seating and shaded area. Since the proposal was presented the city has said they would amend it to be 6 feet deep.
In the proposal presented at the community meeting, “current missing programming” was identified:
The proposal’s vision and new programs are:
See the full proposal of the city, here:
The resolution will go to the full City Council. Mayor Hopkins, as of last night, has not responded to it.
Watch the full Finance Committee meeting here (pool discussion begins around 2:52 in the video below:
This is a developing story.
This is the better idea although I would suggest a 7 foot depth. This plan addresses all the needs of a community pool. It’s not a private pool. The original plan, despite being smaller, would require more maintenance. In-pool seating would need to be wiped down over the course of the day and would encourage people to gather as a hang-out instead of affording a spot for a quick rest stop. It would require a lifeguard just to keep an eye on that particular area. It would also need a non-slip finish. These things add up to more cost and more time to construct and maintain. The point is that we need an all-purpose pool. This plan fits the needs of everyone. That’s what the engineers miss – needs, not wants.
Great idea!!