The people of Cranston have spoken - Return Budlong Pool to its former glory

Will the Administration of Mayor Kenneth Hopkins listen?

In total over 75 people attended the meeting and 33 of them made public comments.

The hearing could have been held at Eden Park Elementary School, within easy walking distance of the neighborhoods around Cranston’s historic Budlong Pool. Instead, the meeting was held miles away, at the City of Cranston Senior Center. It could have been scheduled for 7 pm, instead of 5 pm, during rush hour traffic. The meeting could have had an adequate amplification system. Instead, people had to strain to hear speakers forced to use a barely functioning microphone. And the meeting started 15 minutes late.

In short, the meeting about the future of Budlong Pool, organized by the Administration of Cranston Mayor Kenneth Hopkins, could have been competently organized by people who care.

Instead, we got this:

Justin Mateus, Acting Department of Public Works Director: I apologize for yelling. [His microphone failed] We're going to start the meeting. I'm going to start by giving a bit of background and an introduction about how we all got here. Everyone is aware that the City is following up on a project to renovate Budlong Pool. Part of that project includes a $750,000 grant from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. As a part of that grant, we have to do an environmental review of the site. That environmental review recognized the site as historic. We then reached out to the state which said that this site is eligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places and we have reached out to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation - that's a federal agency that has triggered a process that involves public involvement. Public involvement is [limited to] suggestions on how we are going to preserve the historic nature of the Budlong Pool facility.

In that process, the city worked with the state to identify four items that we are going to use to preserve the historic nature of the site. The purpose of this meeting is to get suggestions from the public to add to those four items. Those four items are,

1. Preserving the facade of the Budlong Pool House’

2. Installing Granite bounds at the four corners of the existing pool to demonstrate the size that it once was;

3. Installing educational blocks at the site that will memorialize what used to be there, how it was built, and the historic nature; and,

4. The lettering on the building that says “Budlong Pool” will be a font from when the building was created.

Karen Rosenberg, Chair of Cranston Forward: What you're presenting is assuming that the historic commission is going to approve demolishing the building and the pool and replacing that. You're not going to be fulfilling your responsibility to get public input if you take things that have to do with the preservation of the pool, that are not yet resolved, off the table. I want to state that objection...

Cranston City Solicitor Christopher Millea: Can you step up the microphone?

Karen Rosenberg: Okay. So what I wanted to say...

Justin Mateus: Can I have you say your name and address, please?

Karen Rosenberg: My name is Karen Rosenberg. I'm also the chair of Cranston Forward, which has been designated by the city as a consulting party in this process. That gives us the ability to participate in the discussion and decisions about what happens with this historic preservation project. What I wanted to say, before you open up public comment, is that you're telling people that they're essentially restricted to talking about how to memorialize or demark the fact that there was a historic pool here after you've destroyed and replaced it. That's misleading.

People need to understand that it is not a foregone conclusion - that's what the State Commission for Historic Preservation and the United States Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are going to decide. That question is very much still open right now. So if the city...

Solicitor Millea: Respectfully, let's start the meeting. Everyone's going to have a chance to comment, including yourself.

Karen Rosenberg: You cannot limit the scope of this...

Solicitor Millea: Ms. Rosenberg! We'll address that, okay?

Audience member: But what was said was not accurate!

Solicitor Millea: Excuse me. This is a public meeting. It's being run properly. The agenda has been posted. Everybody, including yourself, including Ms. Rosenberg is going to have a chance to comment. This is not going to be a question-and-answer session, okay?

Karen Rosenberg: The city...

Solicitor Millea: Excuse me! Ms. Rosenberg! Ms. Rosenberg! Respectfully. Respectfully, Ms. Rosenberg. Ms. Rosenberg, respectfully.

The audience grumbles and objects.

Solicitor Millea: We are running the meeting, not Ms. Rosenberg. We've posted an agenda. We will follow the agenda according to law, okay? Please have a seat. We'll begin the and you'll have your time.

Karen Rosenberg: My objection is noted.

Solicitor Millea: Let us start the meeting, please.

Audience member: Can you identify yourselves, please?

Solicitor Millea: My name is Chris Millea. I'm the solicitor for the City of Cranston. We are going to follow the rules as they see fit, okay?

DPW Director Mateus: My name is Justin Mateus. I'm the city engineer and the Acting Public Works director. That's my title.

Audience member: And the person next to you?

Mark Saccoccio: Mark Saccoccio, Saccoccio Associates, architect.

DPW Director Mateus: I want to start this by saying that this can be a productive meeting and we can make some meaningful changes here if we want to proceed properly. This is an opportunity for the public to give their input to the city to make meaningful changes to the site. That's pretty big to me. In my mind, this is a good opportunity for everyone.

Everyone, one at a time, can come up to the podium. Please state your name and address for the record and give your suggestion. I'm writing down everyone's suggestion and that will be forwarded to the state.

Audience member: I'm not sure her microphone's working

DPW Director Mateus: It's not very loud. Audio's working, but can you lift it and hold it close to your mouth maybe?

Karen Rosenberg: Hello? Testing...

DPW Director Mateus: A little closer. ...

Karen Rosenberg: I want to preface my remarks by making clear that the Historical Commission is revisiting its assessment of whether or not this pool could feasibly be rehabilitated rather than destroyed, and they will make the ultimate decision about what they think should happen. If anybody wants to speak to that, you should put your comments on the record. I've sent a letter to Mayor Hopkins that explains all the problems with the way that this process has been carried out because it hasn't been done inappropriately.

I'm here because I have owned a home, paid taxes, and voted in Cranston for 25 years. I'm the chair of Cranston Forward, a group originally started under a different name in 2017 out of the belief by a bunch of Cranston residents that we could have a stronger community if residents joined together to keep track of what was going on in our city, talk to one another about what is important to us and what kind of city we want for ourselves, and work together to make our city government responsive to the needs and priorities of the people who vote and pay taxes here.

I want to use my time to do what it is our mission to do: Share critical information about what's been going on with the pool, what this meeting is about, and that we continue to make the city responsive to the needs and the priorities of the people who live, vote, and pay taxes here.

Last year it emerged that Cranston's government had plans to destroy the beautiful pool that Cranston was given during the Great Depression, when the federal government used public infrastructure projects to put people to work, uplift struggling Americans, provide the country with electrification, dams, bridges, and places of culture and recreation. For nearly a century, Budlong Pool has stood as a living symbol of the magnificent works that Americans made and of the value we place on our communities having safe, fun places for our youth to socialize, exercise, get vocational skills, a summer job, and learn the lifesaving skill of swimming as a summer activity for our campers at a place for families and people of all abilities to get outdoors, have fun together, cool off after a hard day of work, or get gentle exercise or rigorous workout

Budlong Pool is a monument to all of this and it's worth preserving. When we heard about the city's plans for Budlong, we put the word out and the reaction that came back was that people do not want a smaller pool. They like the pool we have. Preserving the pool matters to them. I was initially confident that once people started raising their voices, the city would have to listen, but it didn't. Because there was no transparency about what was going on, we started gathering facts and have done our best to keep the public informed about what we found.

I want to be sure that everyone is clear about why this meeting is happening. The current administration has wanted, since 2021, to replace Budlong with their vision of a modern recreation area, which includes a much smaller, shallower pool surrounded by grass, picnic tables, and a splash pad. It would be a play area with water features for kids. In 2023, when the administration came out publicly with this plan, which had been developed over the preceding two years with no public input, they were already so invested in it that they were not willing to alter course in response to public demand.

It then emerged that the city, which got a federal grant of three-quarters of a million dollars for this project has to...

Audience member: Excuse me, Karen. It's very difficult to hear you...

Karen Rosenberg: The mic is not...

Solicitor Millea: Hold on one second.

Karen Rosenberg: This is as loud as it gets, so I'll do my best.

Solicitor Millea: It's obvious that the acoustics are not great here. If I could ask everyone to keep their voices down while people are speaking, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Karen Rosenberg: The city now has to do this historic review and fulfill certain conditions. It has to work with the agencies to ensure that our cultural heritage is not wantonly destroyed and that the public has a say - which the city has to respond to before the site is harmed. This process requires that the public be given meaningful input, which means the public is entitled to meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard - and the public's input is informed by first giving all relevant information about how the city's plan will affect the site and about the alternatives for avoiding and minimizing harm to the site.

Solicitor Millea: Ms. Rosenberg, unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut you off.

Tom Wojick, Cranston Resident: Excuse me, sir. My name is Tom Wojick I'm giving her my four minutes.

Karen Rosenberg: The city is also required to consult with any parties who request to be part of the process and who have a demonstrated stake in what happens. Because Cranston Forward has exhaustively investigated the situation with the pool, has endeavored to share everything we've learned with the public, and amplified the concerns that Cranston residents have shared with us, we have been legally designated as a consultant party and that gives us a right to participate in this process, to be consulted in the agreement and the resolution of the process.

And we haven't consulted at all with the city yet. They haven't included us in anything - including the planning of this meeting. I'm here to tell you that the city has not shared all of the relevant information and most importantly, it has not shared because it does not know if the existing pool needs to be replaced and whether, and at what price it can be preserved as it is.

Please know that the historic commission made an initial finding that the existing pool was broken and not fixable at a reasonable cost based on information from interested parties already working under a $350,000 contract to design a new pool. The commission subsequently became informed about how defective and questionable the information it had been given was. The commission then asked the city to respond to some very specific questions and the city's responses made it clear that the city does not have a good faith independent expert assessment...

Ms Petrone: [to Solicitor Millea, who was chatting during Rosenberg's testimony] Can you show the same courtesy that you've asked for?

Solicitor Millea: Thank you, Ms. Petrone. I appreciate that.

Karen Rosenberg: ... of the condition of the pool or the cost or feasibility of restoration. The Historic Commission and Advisory Council are right now reexamining their initial conclusions based on this new information. As a consulting party, Cranston Forward is advocating that the city not be permitted to proceed with destroying and replacing the pool until it has gotten a valid assessment so that decision-makers and the public can make an informed decision about what is possible and what is best for the pool and for our city.

This could have and should have been done three years ago. It can still be done now before irrevocable damage is done to the existing historic site. Know also that if replacing the pool is necessary, minimizing the harm to the historic site could mean building a new pool that is faithful to the historic intentions and uses of this nearly century-old city institution - a capacious pool big enough for everyone and for all the different ways the pool is enjoyed by people with mobility impairments, small children, campers, teens, adults, and senior citizens.

If that is what you, the public, prioritize, then the city must listen and if it chooses to ignore this public input, it's going to have to explain why. Take your opportunity. Public consultation should have been the starting point, not an afterthought, sham, or chore that you perform so a box can be checked and officials can go about implementing an agenda they developed years ago.

We are very concerned that not enough voices will be included. We think there should be more meetings and more time for members of the public who didn't know about this meeting, couldn't make it, or haven't had an opportunity to review all the documents inform themselves and have their say. It is not too late for the city to change the path it is on if it does its due diligence about the options, is truly responsive to the priorities expressed by the public, and is required to explain its policy choices. Then, whatever happens to this pool, Cranston will be better for it.

You can watch the entirety of the meeting below.

“As a data person listening to the people who showed up today - 100% answered your question,” said Dr. Katherine Saragosa, the 33rd and last person to address the organizers, summing up the meeting perfectly. “We don't want the new vision of Cranston’s Budlong Pool to have a bright and shiny golf club-oriented look. 100% of the people said that.

“The meeting intended to find out what the residents want and it is clear that the residents want the pool to be restored to its historic nature. The residents want a large pool that will accommodate all of the age groups that can come to it.”

---

Karen Rosenberg and Cranston Forward sent a letter to Mayor Hopkins carefully outlining their objections and objectives:

Dear Mayor Hopkins,

On behalf of Cranston Forward, I am writing regarding the City's $750,000 United States Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant for the restoration, rehabilitation, or adaptive reuse of the Budlong pool and bathhouse, completed in 1940 by the Works Progress Administration, and determined by the Rhode Island Historic Preservation Commission (RIHPC) to be eligible to for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. I would like to share our observations about the Section 106 historic review now underway.

Public Engagement

Absent an intelligent and orderly public engagement process, Cranston Forward objects to your administration's predetermining that the historic pool should be demolished. Federal Section 106 Historic Preservation review requires a process for public input:

“The views of the public are essential to informed Federal decision-making in the section 106 process. The agency official shall seek and consider the views of the public in a manner that reflects the nature and complexity of the undertaking and its effects on historic properties, the likely interest of the public in the effects on historic properties, confidentiality concerns of private individuals and businesses, and the relationship of the Federal involvement to the undertaking.”

Since announcing at a March 27, 2023 press conference your decision to demolish the pool, the City has done little to invite or consider public input, nor was the City's own Historic District Commission consulted. At a July 24 2023 Council meeting the Administration provided a project update but indicated you would not consider other options. The public meeting scheduled for today, called a “Budlong Historic Consultation,” is the City's first effort to invite public input since the RIHPC determined the pool to be a historically significant site. However, the City is limiting individual public comments to four minutes each and has stated that written comments must be signed, dated, and submitted no later than 4:30 pm today. [Ating] DPW Director Justin Mateus has also confirmed that the City intends to exclude comments that do not relate to measures to mitigate the demolition of the pool.

Consultation

Cranston Forward also objects to the City's historic consultation process. On March 20, 2024, the City designated Cranston Forward a “consulting party.” As such, Cranston Forward cannot be excluded or marginalized without risking the integrity of this process and approval by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation and Heritage Commission and the United States Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

Omission of Pertinent Information From the Public Record

The City has excluded pertinent facts and documents from the record available to the public. Of particular importance are March 21, 2024 letters to the City from State Historic Preservation Officer Jeffrey Emidy and US Advisory Council on Historic Preservation official Maxwell Sickler, the City's March 29 responses, and Cranston Forward's April 1 responses. The City represented that the pool was leaking millions of gallons of water and the site had defects that would cost $9,200,000 to repair. Based on these representations, RIPC sent a letter with a preliminary finding that it did not appear prudent or reasonable for the City to preserve the pool and accordingly, RIHPHC would be open to allowing the pool's demolition, on the condition that commemorative plaques and the like would be installed.

Subsequent documentation has revealed that the $9,200,000 cost estimate the City had given to RIPC was not based on competent evidence and specifically that the City lacks reliable evidence that the pool is cracked and leaking; that the City did not follow up with the manufacturer of a custom pool liner installed by the City in 2018 for $250,000 that had a 15-year warranty and 30 to 40-year life-expectancy; and that Chief of Staff Anthony Moretti informed City Council members in correspondence in June 2021 that the City was aware of no major maintenance or repair issues and would have opened the pool that summer but for a failure to allocate funds for doing so. This information has caused RIPC to re-evaluate its initial conclusions.

The City also acknowledged performing no maintenance on the pool at least during your term of office. Failure to maintain the pool over the past four years is a classic case of “demolition by neglect” and should not be a justification for the demolition of this historic site.

Mr. Emidy posed the following questions and received the following responses:

• Please clarify why the pool has remained closed since 2019 and summarize maintenance that was undertaken during this time.

  • The City acknowledged performing no maintenance on the pool but claimed the pool had been deemed inoperable and unsafe after 2019, despite Mr. Moretti's June 21, 2021 correspondence to the contrary.

• According to the Cranston Forward email, at an unknown date possibly in 2021, New England Aquatics estimated that the pool could be repaired for $90,000 (not provided to our office). In April 2022, Federal Hill Group reported that it would cost $2.5-2.8 million to repair the pool (not provided to our office). In 2023, Weston & Sampson determined it would cost $9.2 million to replace the pool in-kind and upgrade the pool house to accommodate 1,200 people. Please provide these reports and account for these changes in cost over an approximately three-year period. What was the maximum number of people permitted to use the pool before closing? Please provide a detailed cost breakdown for all referenced figures.

  • The City produced the NE Aquatics and Federal Hill Group documents but falsely represented that only Weston & Sampson's scope of work included an assessment of the condition, feasibility, and cost of re-opening the pool. Of all of the referenced assessments, Weston & Sampson's did NOT include performing such an assessment. The City did not address the maximum pool capacity permitted by the City; Cranston Forward has provided evidence that it was 300. Cranston Forward also provided state regulations that show the maximum legal capacity to be not 1,200 but less than 900. The City did not provide a detailed breakdown of its cost estimate.

• Please provide more information on the cracks and leakage of the pool. It is stated in the reports submitted to our office that the liner leaks. The Cranston Forward email indicates that there is a warranty for this liner, has the warranty been explored? One would think that 15-20 GPM [gallons per minute] of leakage (Weston & Sampson, August 2023, page 1) would manifest itself on the surface surrounding the pool. How was it determined that the pool leaks and the amount of water added per day/year? Were any repairs undertaken to the pool before the installation of the liner?

  • The City admitted it did not explore the warranty, did not address whether repairs occurred before the liner installation, and revealed no competent evidence for the asserted leaks.

• Please provide a summary of public outreach and meetings to date. Please include a summary of public input. Cranston Forward states that Tony Liberatore provided written testimony about the pool to the City Council in March 2023. Please provide this document.

  • The City acknowledged doing no public outreach in connection with the Section 106 process. Cranston Forward clarified that Mr. Liberatore did not provide written testimony but provided his written criticism and public statements concerning flaws in the Weston & Sampson assessment.

• Please provide an assessment of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliance issues at the current pool and how the pool could be updated to address these.

  • The City provided an inaccurate description of modifications it would be required to make to the pool to meet ADA-accessible design requirements; Cranston Forward forwarded applicable regulatory guidance.

• Of the issues outlined in both Weston & Sampson memorandums, which can be addressed with a variance?

  • The City acknowledged having declined to explore the availability of variances which, under state regulations supplied by Cranston Forward, are available for a major facility expansion and other changes that are assumed to make up a significant part of the Weston & Sampson cost estimate for rehabilitation of the existing pool.

Based on the foregoing, as a consulting party, Cranston Forward maintains that an expeditious independent expert assessment of the pool's condition and the cost and feasibility of preserving it is the only way to adequately inform the public debate and decision-making by the parties to the historic review process so that the rehabilitation or replacement of the pool be accomplished a timely fashion, a goal which I believe is shared by all concerned.

I thank you in advance for your consideration and look forward to working with you and your staff on a restoration and adaptive reuse project for which we all can be proud.