After the permanent closure of the R.C. Icabone Swimming Pool in May of 2023, the Recreation District was looking to replace the facility.  After 56 years of service the District was hoping to open the pool for a 57th, but the facility could no longer operate.  To quote numerous pool engineers, “It has outlived its useful life.”  A myriad of pool issues influenced this decision, and they were highlighted in a report by Counsilman-Hunsaker.  The District operated a facility that was supposed to last 25 to 30 years through 56 years of service in our community.  That fact was also highlighted by the engineers from Counsilman-Hunsaker.  Now it was time to replace it.

The Recreation District was never alone in this endeavor. The City of Cañon City and Cañon City Schools both showed great interest in replacing the Icabone Pool, saying our community needed a pool.  An organization known as Citizens For A Pool formed as a 501c3 non-profit, with the goal of bringing back a pool.

With the help of consultants, a plan was made through a feasibility study.  This time the study was conducted by OLC Architecture, Counsilman-Hunsaker, and Ballard*King.  There were multiple public meetings, focus groups, an independent pool committee, and four surveys to help the consultants come up with the final plan for the facility.  The community strongly favored a year-round option so an indoor/outdoor pool hybrid proposal was created.  This was a more expensive option than a seasonal pool, but less expensive than a full year-round facility.  Also during the study, it was determined through public feedback that the current site next to the high school was the preferred location for the pool.  Through an Intergovernmental Agreement the City, School District, and Recreation District all partnered to make this location work. 

The primary concern was how to pay for the facility, as the community had been hesitant to approve a property tax increase.  The City of Cañon City offered a .3% sales tax for capital construction of the facility with a maximum 25-year debt service to avoid asking for a property tax measure.  The Recreation District would still have to ask for permission to go into debt for the General Obligation Bonds.  This left the issue of operations.  As a public service, a subsidy is needed for ongoing operations. The Recreation District proposed doing this through a property tax increase, one of the only tools available to a special district.  The proposed mill levy increase was 4 mills for both pool operations and District operations.  This meant only one property tax measure, rather than two on the ballot. However because of the debt question three questions were on the ballot to meet TABOR requirements.

The breakdown of the questions looked like this:

            Question 2A: City of Cañon City .3% sales tax for pool construction and capital reserves.

            Question 6A: Recreation District 4 mill increase for operations of the pool and District.

            Question 6B: Recreation District permission to go into debt for General Obligation Bonds, using the sales                                                tax revenue to pay off the debt instead of using property tax.

To build and operate the pool all three questions needed to pass.  Questions 2A and 6B were married and could not exist without one another.  So, the only way to pay for construction was a yes vote on both.  If one or both failed there would be no capital construction.  Question 6A could stand on its own for operations. Asking for a mill levy increase  was the only method the Recreation District had to pay for the operational subsidy of the pool.

On election day the voters passed two of the three questions.  For question 2A a total of 8,801 votes were cast.  4,706 (53.47%) said yes and 4,095 (46.53%) said no.  For question 6A a total of 14,688 votes were cast.  7,615 (51.85%) said no and 7,073 (48.15%) said yes.  For question 6B a total of 14,695 votes were cast.  7,392 (50.3%) said yes and 7,303 (49.7%) said no. 

The results created a grey area.  With the passage of 2A and 6B capital construction of the pool was authorized.  However, with the failure of 6A , operations of the pool were not authorized.  In other words, the pool could be constructed but there was no operational subsidy to open it.  After multiple meetings the City and Recreation District decided to collect the sales tax revenue for capital construction, begin the planning phases of the project, and go back to the voters in 2025 to address operational funding.