June 9, 2026 Decision by Board of Directors
The Cañon City Council made its decision about pool operation funding at its meeting on June 1st - deciding not to participate through its budget or with fees from paid parking. The Recreation District is now back where we were on November 5th, with no operational funds for the proposed facility.
The City Council has a tight timeline to return to the voters, and the Recreation District needed to decide what to do about pool construction without any operational funding at their June 9th meeting or at least provide clear direction to the City.
In the past, the District has used around $50,000 annually from the General Fund and CTF to subsidize the pool ($30,000 from the general fund and $20,000 from CTF). We would still have that capability. However, all that did was fund the operational subsidy, it did not allow us to save funds for capital repair and replacement. There is also a question now of whether $50,000 is sufficient to subsidize a seasonal facility, given that the costs of labor, utilities, and materials have increased since our last year of operations in 2022. Based on recent discussions with other communities, this number has easily increased. One pool, smaller than Icabone, needed a subsidy of nearly $77,000 in 2025, and they expect that amount to be higher this year. Pueblo is planning to subsidize its four seasonal pools by $848,000 this year. It is not uncommon for pools in communities between 10,000 and 30,000 in population to have seasonal pools subsidized between $100,000 and $250,000 a year. For indoor facilities the number is $500,000 or higher.
The Board of Directors looked at three potential options for the pool moving forward.
If the District choose to create a single outdoor body of water using a similar footprint with a modern design, we estimate that the construction cost will exceed $12 million based on current projects. For operations, we would utilize our existing funds, as we did prior to the closure in 2023. However, this option does not include an indoor pool, as we lack the operational funding for it. If we were to pursue multiple bodies of water, the District's budget would not be able to support the operational subsidy required. Therefore, the design will consist of a single body of water along with potential recreational features.
Pros:
● We have successfully obtained construction approval and secured adequate bond funding for the project.
● Importantly, we will not need to seek voter approval for a tax increase in 2026.
Cons:
● A redesign would entail additional costs.
● The proposed design diverges from the preferences expressed by citizens in a 2024 survey, which culminated in a subsequent vote that same year. It's worth noting that the outdoor body-of-water only option received the lowest ranking in that survey.
● We may face challenges securing sufficient funding for capital replacements, a significant concern for the Icabone Pool. This could limit our ability to replace or repair key components, including the finish, filters, pumps, pipes, slides, and other major mechanical issues.
● A pool design reminiscent of Icabone might require an operational subsidy that exceeds $100,000, based on insights from similar communities. This figure does not account for capital repair and replacement needs, which may compel future boards to consider increasing the mill levy.
● To accommodate the project, a parking lot will be necessary, necessitating reimbursement to the school district in the range of $160,000 to $200,000 for the BEST Grant funding allocated to that aspect of their project.
● Additionally, maintaining a parking lot will introduce new responsibilities not currently reflected in the subsidy estimates.
● The designs proposed in 2024 and 2025 were intended for communities of around 10,000 residents, similar to those in Woodland Park, Rifle, Carbondale, and Fort Morgan. Given that our community has more than 28,000 residents, we opted for a financially feasible design. However, reducing the pool size might strain our services and limit programming options, potentially affecting cost recovery.
● Future expansions could pose challenges and may be significantly more costly, according to insights from our design and construction teams.
● The District has publicly committed since 2023 to building a facility that represents a progressive upgrade for our community. Constructing a facility similar to Icabone may be perceived as a step back from this commitment and could impact community trust.
● Many modern pool designs include multiple bodies of water to provide a broader range of programming options for the public. There has been an evolution away from traditional rectangular pools as best practices in community design.
● Due to the uncertainty surrounding our ability to allocate sufficient genral fund dollars to subsidze the pool, the potential sale of General Obligation Bonds could be negatively affected, leading to a possible downgrade in our bond rating. This may result in higher interest rates and diminished returns from bond sales. As noted by our bond underwriter, it is essential to manage public funds responsibly to maintain community trust and financial integrity. “You don’t gamble with public funds. That is what the private sector is for.”
Voters declined funding for pool operations in both 2024, when a proposed 4-mill increase was suggested, and in 2025, when an Excise Tax was proposed. While the capital construction component received approval in 2024, operational funds are essential for ensuring a successful and sustainable public facility. This funding gap is the reason construction has not yet begun. Due to rising costs, we must redesign the project and can no longer afford the proposed indoor/outdoor option, especially when considering the construction costs of other projects currently underway around the state.
Pros
● We have the opportunity to create two outdoor bodies of water, or we might consider options for an indoor development.
● Our current proposal will focus on securing funding for the pool only, with an amount that is less than the 4 mill ask in 2024.
● If this initiative is approved, we would be in a position to support both the subsidy and necessary capital repairs and replacements.
● We anticipate having ample funds available to ensure the maintenance of the parking lot.
● This proposal closely aligns with the intended design, offering a more favorable alternative compared to Option 1.
Cons
● We would need to approach the voters for a third consecutive year, which could potentially lead to increased voter fatigue and some concerns regarding the Recreation District's direction.
● Unfortunately, we may not be able to fulfill the pool project as initially presented to the community during the 2024 election.
● It will be necessary to provide compensation to the school district for the land associated with the BEST Grant.
● Due to time constraints, there may not be sufficient opportunity to develop a comprehensive design and pro forma to accurately assess the number of mills required for operations. The pool design significantly impacts the subsidy costs in the pro forma, meaning we may need to rely on assumptions in our planning.
Given the consistent rejection of pool subsidy funding by voters and local government entities for 2024, 2025, and 2026, we must make a decisive move. While capital construction for the pool was authorized, we currently lack the budgetary capacity to operate the facility within the District’s constraints. Therefore, we will forgo the sales tax and debt financing at this time, and we’ll explore pool options in the future. We will restart the process at the feasibility study level and move forward from there.
Pros
● From the outset, we highlighted that all three questions on the November 2024 ballot needed to receive approval for the successful construction and operation of a pool. Unfortunately, despite our efforts to address operational aspects twice, they did not achieve the necessary support.
● We understand that trust is a concern for some members of our community. By honoring the will of the voters, we believe we can take meaningful steps toward rebuilding that trust.
● It is important to note that we are not proposing a tax question for the third consecutive year.
● By maintaining the District's budget as it is, we can avoid the challenges associated with introducing a pool that lacks a dedicated funding source for subsidies and capital repairs (which would likely put considerable pressure on our financial resources.)
● This situation provides an opportunity for the District Board and staff to reflect and collaborate on developing a thoughtful new plan moving forward.
Cons
● We cannot provide a pool for the community at this time, but we are determined to explore alternative engagement options.
● Capital construction has been approved. We would need to restart and actively address the challenges to ensure successful implementation moving forward.
After receiving public comment from citizens who attended the meeting, hearing the District staff recommendation, and having a board member discussion, the Recreation District Board of Directors chose to go with Option 3 by a vote of 3-2. This decision places us back at square one, in what was labeled as a heartbreaking decision by multiple board members. The District will look at options to replace the Icabone Swimming Pool in the future and recommended that City Council stop collecting the .3% sales tax for capital construction.
Below is the recommendation from Receration District Staff
The process of replacing the Icabone Pool has been ongoing for several decades, dating back to 1989 when the District first considered its replacement. There have been unsuccessful votes in 1989, 2000, 2006, 2021, 2024, and 2025. In each case, the message from the community has been to find a way to keep the Icabone Pool operational within the existing budget. Unfortunately, the pool has surpassed its useful life and cannot be repaired; it must be replaced.
In 2023, following the closure of the pool, efforts commenced to replace the facility. To construct and operate a new pool, three measures were required to pass in 2024, but only two were successful. A subsequent attempt in 2025 to secure funding for operations also did not succeed. In response to these challenges, a group of concerned citizens formed, and the City established a pool committee to explore options for operational funding; however, no viable solutions emerged. As a result, we still lack the necessary funding for operations, and the construction project is now over two years behind schedule. This delay means that the original concept presented to the voters in the previous years is no longer affordable nor feasible. Consequently, redesigning the facility will be necessary, but it is important to note that our budgeted amount remains unchanged due to TABOR regulations. This development places the project in a challenging position moving forward.
After a thorough review of the pros and cons of each option, the Recreation District staff firmly supports Option 3 and to focus on the Recreation District's current programs and amenities. The reasons for this decision are as follows:
- In 2024, we presented a plan, which we slightly modified in 2025. Now, we are faced with a major redesign that does not align with what the citizens voted for and approved. This is unacceptable and resembles a bait-and-switch. We must stay true to the original commitment made to our community.
- The bond rating would not be good. We have heard from the underwriter that this type of situation does not occur when construction is approved, but operations are not. Moving forward with any construction would be a risk, and we do not gamble with public funds.
- We don’t have the operational funding to support the pool as designed. We also do not have the operational funding for a redesigned facility. Based on the examples of the subsidies other communities are currently experiencing, it is becoming increasingly expensive to offer this service.
- There was never funding available for capital repairs and replacements at the old Icabone Pool, let alone for a new facility, given our current funding levels. So, if something breaks down in the new facility, we will not be able to afford the repairs.
- The voters have clearly expressed their position on the operations, which is a significant component of the project. We have consistently communicated to the community that their input is vital in shaping the design of the facility, and we have actively incorporated their feedback. It is crucial for us to continue listening, even when the results may not match our initial vision.
- Engaging with the voters again may not be the best approach at this time. We have sought their input three times over the last five years, and it's important to recognize that the community may be feeling worn out by this ongoing issue. Instead of asking another question for the third consecutive year, we should focus on addressing the concerns raised and exploring alternative solutions that can foster a sense of progress and community involvement.
- The District must rebuild trust in the community. We have been honest and transparent, but not everyone sees it that way. Some believe we have lied by going for a second bite of the apple in 2025. Redesigning the facility to something different would be a breach of trust and could have long-term consequences for the District. Let us listen, reset, build trust, and produce a new plan.
- Rebuilding trust will greatly enhance our chances of reaching an agreement in the future.
Going back to the drawing board happens now and then. This is one of those times.
This is the staff recommendation. The Board of Directors holds the vote, and no matter what they decide, we will work hard to follow their direction.