Armstrong's public pool question: Saving an asset
Armstrong County is seeking a grant that will determine the fate of its swimming pool at the Belmont Complex in East Franklin Township. Fate, in this case, brings a range of possibilities — both good and bad for the community of swimmers the pool has served every summer since 1960.
The $60,000 state grant will cover costs for a company to study use of the pool and formulate a strategy for its future. The county hopes to receive the grant and hire a firm to conduct the study this summer.
On the positive side, the study may recommend improvements to the pool to attract more paying customers — the addition of splash and spray zones you might find at a commercial water park, for instance. On the negative side is the possibility that the pool would be made smaller — or perhaps closed — to reduce operating expenses.
There's no way of knowing what the yet-to-be-funded study will produce. What is known is the use of the only public pool in the county has declined dramatically. Last year, use dipped to 14,000 people — about 10,000 fewer than in 2010. It also is true that it costs the same to operate the pool each day whether there are 10 swimmers or 100.
The county must either attract more swimmers to pay entry fees and cover costs or find ways to reduce costs. The study will be key to determining which solution should be pursued.
We — and at last count 14,000 swimmers — hope that closing the pool doesn't end up being the best answer. Its use may be declining, but the pool remains a community asset still enjoyed by many.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Sunday pops
- The solar problem: Subsidized inefficiency
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- The Box
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The ‘green’ ruse: Germany’s poor ‘model’
- Volunteers’ contributions: Growing flowers & more in Connellsville
- Benghazi: The gun smokes
- Hybrid & electric vehicles: Unplugged logic
- Only in Ford City: More of the same