Pools Committee Approves Draft RFP, 5-1

Other Committee · Meeting of July 27, 2026

Newington's pools committee approved draft RFP language 5-1 but said it still lacks the $120,000 needed to send it out. Committee Chair AJ said the vote approved only draft wording for a request for proposals covering conceptual designs for both town pools, not its release, after a $60,000 capital budget line meant to fund the work was cut this year. Member Ted argued "it's not our job to find the money, it's the council's job to find the money," pointing to a 2024 referendum failure and two years of inaction since.

Resident Dana Havens disputed the chair's $15 million cost figure, citing an earlier Weston and Sampson estimate of $11.2 million for both pools. The committee voted unanimously to draft a letter asking the Town Council for written direction on funding priority and timeline.

In the full story:

• Who Was There
• Organizations And Documents Referenced
• The complete report — 2,065 words

Source: the Other Committee meeting of July 27, 2026, reported from the official video recording and transcript.

Checked against the record: before publication this article was automatically compared with the meeting transcript.

The Full Article

Roll Call, Minutes and Public Comment

The committee opened with roll call confirming six members present: Parati, Conway, Tiniakis, Frankelino, Capello and a sixth member recorded in the roll call as Bankey (the same member is referred to later in discussion as Mackey, the committee's vice chair; the spelling discrepancy could not be resolved from the transcript alone). Members approved the minutes of the March 23, 2026 meeting without discussion. During the first public comment period, resident Dana Havens, 113 Stoddard Avenue, relayed a request from the Parks and Recreation Commission chair that the committee ask Parks and Recreation staff to power-wash and otherwise clean the pool bathhouses even while the larger rebuild remains unfunded, describing cobwebs and deteriorated walls.

A Year in Review: How the Committee Got Here

Background and stakes: with new members needing context and the committee stalled on funding, the chair and a member identified as Jim prepared a meeting-by-meeting recap running from August 2025 through March 2026, the full period since the committee commissioned a structural analysis of both pools.

The recap, delivered by the chair (referred to in the meeting as AJ), traced the following sequence: in August 2025 the engineering firm Weston and Sampson was already on site finding "hollow spots" and large cracks at the Churchill pool; in September 2025 the committee approved a $15,800 geotechnical and ground-radar testing proposal and confirmed the pools were safe to use; in November 2025 Weston and Sampson's Patrick Bates (so identified by the chair, who added "I believe is his name") presented findings the firm itself characterized as "opinion costs" rather than firm estimates, with a rough figure of $15 million to rebuild both pools under the longest-duration option; in December 2025 the committee received Weston and Sampson's final 149-page report and learned for the first time that it lacked sufficient funds to advance to design; in January 2026, meeting by Zoom, the chair was elected chair and Mackey vice chair, and the committee informally but unanimously agreed it wanted two pools rather than one, while the town manager reported no legal or insurance objection to keeping the existing pools open; and in March 2026, with the chair absent recovering from knee surgery, Mackey ran the meeting as the panel was told it should be able to bond for the project and discussed additions to a draft RFP.

During the recap, resident Dana Havens corrected the chair's $15 million figure, telling the committee the Weston and Sampson concrete-liner estimate for rebuilding both pools was actually $11.2 million, not $15 million. The discrepancy was not formally reconciled during the meeting.

A member raised whether a planned firehouse referendum could affect the town's bonding capacity for pools. The chair said he was "not terribly concerned" given the timeline, and member Ted said bonding capacity "is not our issue," framing the committee's charge narrowly as reviewing the pools and reporting findings to the Town Council.

RFP Cost and Funding Shortfall

The question before the body: how much would the RFP for conceptual pool designs cost, and does the committee have the money. A staff member referred to as Jonathan, who helped draft the RFP, told the committee the rough estimate was $120,000 total, or about $60,000 per pool, a figure Weston and Sampson itself had proposed. Jonathan explained the RFP's purpose in practical terms: "We're throwing it out into the ether ... we're saying, hey, we have a project coming up, this is the scope of that project, tell us how much you would charge us to do that project." A member confirmed that a $60,000 capital improvement program line item that had been earmarked for the committee was removed during this year's town budget process, meaning the panel effectively never had the full $120,000 available.

Resident Dana Havens also raised a separate funding question, telling the committee a town document she found suggested the committee's roughly $15,000 state grant balance may actually be closer to $30,000 if the town received the grant in two consecutive years. Committee members did not confirm or dispute the figure.

Revising the RFP: Pool Scope, Wading Pools and Splash Pads

Background and stakes: the draft RFP, as emailed to members and discussed in open session, asks a future design consultant for conceptual designs and cost estimates to rebuild both pools using the concrete liner option "as outlined in the 2025 Weston and Sampson report," along with wading pools, splash pads, bathhouses and related infrastructure, with pricing broken out so the town could later eliminate individual elements from a referendum on an "a la carte" basis.

The question before the body: whether the draft language clearly conveyed the committee's intent, particularly on whether it wanted a wading pool, a splash pad, or both, at each site.

One member said the existing paragraph was confusing on first read, asking "do we want a wading pool and a splash pad and a pool?" and said the committee had intended an either/or choice at each site rather than all three elements everywhere. Another member argued for keeping the language broad so a future design consultant could propose options, saying getting too specific risked limiting what proposals would come back. The committee discussed whether splash pads would need fencing and separate entrances, how standalone splash pads operate in other towns such as Plainville, South Windsor and Cromwell, and whether one pool should be designated for competitive swimming with the deeper water and starting blocks that requires. Members agreed informally that one pool, likely Mill Pond, would stay more recreational while competitive features would be concentrated at the other, Churchill, but acknowledged "we haven't like made a call" formally. The committee also debated adding this year's pool-attendance figures to the RFP's background section; members agreed the 2025 numbers were not yet available from staff and opted to proceed without them.

Procedural steps and outcome: the chair moved to approve the updated RFP language for conceptual design and cost estimates covering both pools; the motion was seconded and passed 5-1, with the chair noting explicitly that the vote approved only the draft language, not release of the RFP, which awaits funding.

The One-Pool-at-a-Time Debate

The question before the body: should the committee seek a design and construction plan for one pool first, then the second, to make costs more manageable, or pursue both simultaneously.

One member argued for sequencing, saying "I feel like it would be easier and more palatable to the public if we put out this, we got our design for one, we built one." The chair disagreed, citing the failed 2024 referendum, which covered one pool, as evidence that leaving a second pool's future ambiguous unsettles the public: "I think you run the risk then of the second pool just deteriorating." A third member said Weston and Sampson's assessment found both pools "just as in need," including both bathhouses. No motion was made on sequencing; the approved RFP draft retains the request for designs covering both pools.

Next Steps: Asking the Town Council for Written Direction

Background and stakes: the committee has met sparingly since January 2026 because it lacks funds to act, and members disagreed over whether the committee or the Town Council bears responsibility for securing money.

The question before the body: what, if anything, should the committee ask of the council now.

One member, identified as Ted, argued the committee should request that the council provide written direction, saying he was told during the 2024 referendum push that delay risked pool collapse and endangered lives, yet "we're two years down the road and nothing's happened." He added, "frankly, I think it's not our job to find the money, it's the council's job to find the money," and proposed the committee ask the council in writing whether it wants the committee to keep waiting, and for how long. The chair, who described himself as "very flexible," said his preference was to focus committee energy on securing RFP funding through informal advocacy with the town manager's and finance offices, and to hold off on frequent meetings until funds materialize, checking in roughly every three to four months. A councilor-member cautioned that asking the council for a specific funding timeline was likely not feasible, since the finance department does not provide monthly funding updates and budget transfers are limited under the town charter to after January 1, with two supplemental appropriations allowed per year.

Procedural steps and outcome: the committee voted unanimously to have a draft letter to the Town Council, requesting funding priority and direction, prepared for review and a formal vote at next month's meeting.

Second Public Comment Period

Three residents spoke a second time. Rose Lyons, 46 Elton Drive, who described having followed the pools issue since the original pool was built decades ago, recounted a history of stalled committees and failed votes and said she wants the current committee to present directly to the council and confirm councilors' support before drafting another referendum question. Scott Kruskowski, 46 Miami Avenue, argued splash pads are inexpensive relative to pool construction and that Mill Pond Park already has wiring and plumbing in place for them, so the town could build splash pads without waiting for a referendum; he also asked whether the committee still intends one pool for recreation and one for competition, calling that distinction important to the RFP's scope. Lou Boyd, 21 Hartford Avenue, questioned the need for competitive swim features given the town already has a high school swim team, suggested a swim club could fundraise for starting blocks, and urged the committee to keep its letter to the council simple.

Committee Comments and Adjournment

One member thanked pools operations staff, saying keeping the pools open "is not easy," and credited staff for allowing her child to continue swim lessons. The chair closed by saying the committee has "a solid vision" and "a solid plan" but needs funding, and the meeting adjourned after a unanimous vote.

WHO WAS THERE

Committee members present (per roll call): Parati, Conway, Tiniakis, Frankelino, Capello, and a sixth member recorded as Bankey in roll call and referred to elsewhere as Mackey, the vice chair. Chair AJ ran the meeting; members referred to in discussion only by first name included Ted, Jim and Nancy. No roster document was supplied for this committee, so surname spellings rely solely on the transcript and should be verified against town records.

Staff in attendance: Jonathan, who helped draft the RFP and provided cost estimates (no surname given in the transcript); a staff member referred to as Scott, described as a town official with knowledge of pool attendance figures (no surname given); Tom Lapiero (phonetic spelling uncertain), described as in charge of day-to-day pool operations.

Outside parties: Patrick Bates, identified by the chair as a representative of the engineering firm Weston and Sampson who presented the 2025 structural analysis (name given with a hedge, "I believe is his name"); an unnamed owner of the vendor Connecticut Custom Aquatics, who met with the chair to discuss the draft RFP.

Public commenters: Dana Havens, 113 Stoddard Avenue; Rose Lyons, 46 Elton Drive, who also serves as Parks and Recreation Commission chair; Scott Kruskowski, 46 Miami Avenue; Lou Boyd, 21 Hartford Avenue.

ORGANIZATIONS AND DOCUMENTS REFERENCED

Weston and Sampson — engineering firm that conducted the 2025 structural analysis of both pools and proposed the roughly $60,000-per-pool cost for conceptual design work cited throughout the meeting.

Connecticut Custom Aquatics — local vendor whose owner met with the committee chair to discuss the draft RFP and pool operations.

2025 Weston and Sampson structural report — 149-page final report delivered in December 2025, cited as the basis for the RFP's concrete liner option and the source of the committee's cost estimates, including a figure disputed between $15 million (chair's recollection) and $11.2 million (resident Dana Havens' correction).

2024 pool referendum — a prior single-pool referendum that failed, cited repeatedly by members and residents as a cautionary precedent for the committee's current scope and sequencing decisions.

Draft RFP for conceptual pool designs and cost estimates — the document approved in draft form at this meeting, covering both pools, wading pools, splash pads and bathhouses, awaiting roughly $120,000 in funding before release.

Town Council — the body the committee voted to formally petition in writing for funding priority and direction on next steps.