Feasibility study outlines renovation, outdoor replacement and indoor facility options, but questions remain about costs and the long road ahead
The future of swimming in Golden could come with a price tag of anywhere from $13 million to nearly $26 million, depending on whether the community chooses to renovate its existing outdoor pool, build a new outdoor facility or finally pursue a year-round indoor aquatic centre.
Those options were presented Aug. 18 during a well-attended public meeting that drew residents from both Golden and the surrounding rural Area A, representing a broad range of ages and perspectives.
The turnout underscored how important the issue remains to the community. It also reflected the frustration many residents feel after years of discussions, planning and public spending on aquatic facilities, only to find the conversation once again circling back to a basic question: What kind of pool can Golden actually afford?
The feasibility study, prepared by Carscadden Architects and a team of engineering, construction and operations specialists, examined three possible paths forward.
The least expensive option would involve renovating the existing outdoor pool at an estimated total cost of approximately $13.05 million. The work would include upgrades to the pool itself, repairs to the pool deck and a reconfiguration of the existing change facilities.
But even at that price, the result would remain a seasonal outdoor pool with several limitations.
Consultants identified concerns about compromised building-code upgrades, constrained program space and the possibility of unexpected complications once construction begins. Depending on the scope of the work, the existing pool could potentially be unavailable for two summer seasons.
A second option would replace the existing facility with a new outdoor pool, change facilities and support spaces at an estimated cost of approximately $18.8 million.
A new facility would meet current codes and could offer more efficient operations, improved staff facilities and better energy performance. However, it would still operate seasonally, leaving Golden without a public swimming facility for much of the year.
The third option, a new indoor aquatic centre, carries an estimated total project cost of approximately .78 million.
That proposal includes a new indoor lap pool, change facilities and support spaces. Unlike the other options, it would provide year-round swimming, expanded opportunities for lessons and training, and more consistent employment for aquatic staff.
The difference between building a new outdoor pool and constructing an indoor facility is approximately $7 million, a gap likely to factor heavily into the public discussion.
If the community is prepared to spend nearly $19 million on a new pool that would still be limited to the summer season, some residents may reasonably ask whether the additional investment required for a year-round facility represents better long-term value.
Others may question whether any of the options are affordable without substantial financial support from senior levels of government.
And construction costs tell only part of the story.
The presentation also examined operating costs at comparable facilities, making clear that public pools typically require ongoing taxpayer support.
Outdoor pools in Armstrong-Spallumcheen and Oliver reported annual operating deficits of approximately $259,000 and $164,000, respectively. A newer outdoor pool in Enderby reported a deficit of approximately $155,000.
Indoor facilities generally face higher costs.
Revelstoke’s aquatic centre reported an annual operating deficit of approximately $707,000, while comparable facilities in Merritt and Fernie reported deficits of approximately $725,000 and $942,000. Cranbrook’s larger aquatic facility reported a deficit of approximately $1.52 million.
Those figures are not direct forecasts for Golden. The communities differ in population, facility size, amenities and programming, and the consultants noted that a reliable operating projection for an indoor facility would depend on defining the level of service the community wants to provide.
Still, the comparisons illustrate an important reality: Building a pool is only the first financial hurdle. Operating it, maintaining it and planning for future repairs would create ongoing costs for years to come.
The consultants also considered whether a covered, open-air structure could provide a middle ground between a conventional outdoor pool and a fully enclosed indoor facility.
Their assessment suggested that approach would offer limited benefits.
An open-sided cover would not meaningfully extend the swimming season, would leave users exposed to things like wildfire smoke and could create challenges related to shade, water temperature and lifeguard visibility. It would also require foundations, engineering, permits and ongoing maintenance, without necessarily making a future conversion to an enclosed facility straightforward.
The project timeline presented at the meeting suggests the process is still in its early stages.
Further direction from Golden council and the Columbia Shuswap Regional District would be needed before moving into more detailed design, project refinement and funding discussions. The timeline identifies the possibility of a referendum around winter 2028.
For residents who have followed the aquatic centre debate through earlier proposals and years of discussion, that extended timeline may be difficult to hear.
But the latest study does establish something important: Even the least ambitious option is no longer a modest repair job, and the cost of preserving seasonal swimming is substantial in its own right.
The decision ahead is not simply whether Golden wants an indoor pool. It is what level of aquatic service the community wants, how much taxpayers are willing to support, and whether town and rural residents can agree on a realistic path forward.
For more information, download the full presentation here.
