The Recreation District owned and operated the Icabone Swimming Pool for 57 years before it had to be closed in May of 2023.  Once that happened, the City of Cañon City approached the District to see how they could help in getting the pool replaced.  The District, City, and several local businesses partnered for a feasibility study to determine what type of facility the community wanted, where it would be located, and determine how much it would cost to construct and operate.  Cañon City Schools also asked how they could assist in this effort.  They agreed to give land in front of the high school, said they would have a boys and girls swim team, and were interested in PE classes and swim lessons during the school year.  In August 2024 the Fremont County Commissioners offered $100,000 in ARPA funds if a ballot question was passed to construct the pool.  Local government is working together to bring a pool facility to Cañon City.

From the beginning this has been about the community.  Every decision during the feasibility study was made by the citizens, not a government entity.  They participated in surveys, provided feedback, participated in stakeholder groups, and left comments on social media.  All the data was collected and provided to the consultants to develop facility options and operational plans.  The government agencies simply listened and let the community lead the way. 

• In all, the study website had 8,284 unique visitors who participated in three surveys and left comments. 
• Another 1,027 registered voters participated in a scientific survey through Magellan Strategies. 
• 70 people participated in small group stakeholder meetings.  This featured the opinions of people in favor of a project, against the project, and people on the fence.  The consultants stated it was one of the most balanced stakeholder groups they have seen organized and it matched the demographics of the community.
• There were four public presentations which were attended by a combined 350 people. 
• A pool committee of 12 local citizens was formed to help the consultants examine the data and speak for the community.  
• The Recreation District Board of Directors and Cañon City Council had three joint meetings. 
• Over the past 15 months there have been numerous stories in the local paper, monthly radio interviews, seven different videos explaining the process, and numerous social media posts by the Recreation District, City of Cañon City, Daily Record, KRLN, and Citizens for a Pool on multiple platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Nextdoor. 
• On the Recreation District social media accounts there were over 200,000 impressions viewed and nearly 800 comments.  If you consider the other entities’ platforms, those numbers climb significantly higher. 

The community has had every opportunity to participate in the process and become informed on the issues in multiple ways.  Every decision has been based on public feedback, not on what any government entity desired. 

The proposed $24.8 million facility would be located where the existing Icabone Swimming Pool is located, 12th and College in Cañon City.  The City would vacate the north part of 12th Street between the pool and the front lawn of the high school. Cañon City Schools is donating land in front of the high school so the pool footprint can expand, and a parking lot can be added.  In surveys, the community overwhelmingly wanted the location of the pool to remain where it is; thanks to our fellow government partners, we have been able to make this happen.  The community made their voice heard and we listened.

It is true the Recreation District went to the voters in 1989, 2000, 2006, and 2021 to address the replacement of the Icabone Swimming Pool.  In three of those elections the swimming pool would have become an indoor facility and there would also be a recreation center attached to it.  In the other election the District would have finished the other phases of Pathfinder Park and made needed repairs to the existing facility, but it would only have been good for 20 to 25 years.  Each time the voters said no.  This time we are only proposing a swimming facility.  One other key difference is the support of other government entities in our community.  We have the support of the City of Cañon City, Cañon City Schools, and Fremont County.

Pools are extremely expensive facilities, which is why we must ask the community for support.  In 2014 the standard, outdoor, seasonal commercial public pool was being built for $180 to $200 per square foot.  In 2024 the cost is $480 per square foot.  Early estimates show this will rise to more than $770 by 2034.  For indoor facilities, the cost today is more than $800 per square foot.  The indoor facility needs a building that can manage high humidity and treated water.  This means different decking, pool structure, liner, filtration system, pipes, gutters, skimmers, HVAC systems, upsized locker rooms, and bathrooms for non-swimmers. Furthermore, existing codes must still be complied with.  There are numerous codes which must be met from ADA to the Model Aquatic Health Code, to State requirements, and local regulations.  There are also only a handful of companies in the United States which design commercial public pools.  This also drives the cost up.  We are not happy with the cost of commercial public pools, but that does not mean the price is not correct.  These facilities will only get more expensive over time and their costs are rising faster than inflation.  The price of this proposed facility is in line with other projects around the state and country.   

There are some similarities in that the two pools in Louisville were constructed in 1960’s and had to shut down due to multiple mechanical issues, much like the Icabone Swimming Pool in Cañon City.  However, this is where many of the similarities end. 

First, even though all three pools were constructed around the same time, they all have different issues which is why you have an engineer look at the pools separately to evaluate them.  We had numerous engineers look at the Icabone Pool and all came to the same conclusion separately, it must be replaced.  Experts have looked at our pool and all come to the same conclusion.  What they determine for the projects in Kentucky might be something completely different.  Each pool must be evaluated on their own merits as to what their condition is.  This is why the two pools closed five years apart from each other in Kentucky, despite being built around the same time.  We also have different climates, elevations, UV issues, and soils which impact the life of a pool.    

Second, you cannot compare construction costs for pools in Colorado to a different state.  Things such as minimum wage will impact how much a construction project will cost.  Colorado is double Kentucky when it comes to minimum wage, and this drives up the expense for any capital construction project.  You also will have additional costs when it comes to shipping and materials because of this.  This is why when the consultants determined the cost to replace the Icabone Pool we used other pool projects in Colorado, not Kentucky.  That makes it an apples-to-apples comparison. Pool projects in rural communities such as Woodland Park, Rifle, Carbondale, and Eagle were used to provide a fair comparison.  This makes the data factual and accurate for the community we live in.

Third, the projects in Kentucky are being funded with ARPA money.  ARPA fund allocations were based off population for municipalities and counties.  Louisville would be the second largest city in Colorado behind only Denver.  It is urban, not rural.  Also, Special Districts were not allocated ARPA funds in Colorado.  Louisville, KY received $388 million in ARPA funding, while Cañon City received $4.2 million and Fremont County an additional $9.2 million.  If you combine the two that is 3.4% of what the City of Louisville received.  If you would like to see where the City of Cañon City allocated those ARPA funds, you can find it on page 197 of the 2024 City Budget.  There have also been numerous stories on the use of these funds for both the City and County.  Thankfully the county commissioners did allocate funds to numerous special districts in Fremont County.  The Recreation District used $300,000 to help upgrade the infrastructure at Rouse Park and have received a commitment of an additional $100,000 if the three measures pass. We have continuously thanked the commissioners for this.  However, comparing Louisville to Cañon City is a large stretch.

We know the cost of the project is high.  Pools are expensive and there is no getting around it.  However, it doesn’t mean the data collected since November of 2018, the cost comparisons, and operational analysis isn’t correct.  The numbers are very accurate when comparing this project with other rural communities in the state and looking at the operations of the Icabone Pool over its 57-year life.  Both things are true, we don’t have to like the price, but the price is accurate.        

No.  What is being proposed through community feedback is an indoor/outdoor combination facility.  This creates year-round use.  By no means is it extravagant.  The design is a standard, modern pool facility being constructed today in communities our size all over America.  There are commercial public pools being built which cost over $60 million.  They are extravagant and have similarities to a water park.  Our design is standard for basic community public pools today.

Most commercial public pools are funded through tax dollars.  According to our consultants from Counsilman-Hunsaker, 99.7% of the swimming pool projects they have worked on were funded through local taxes.  We are constantly looking at grant funding for a swimming pool.  The reality is there are very few options available to us.  We are exploring opportunities from Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Great Outdoors Colorado, and El Pomar Foundation.  All would require the passage of a tax question to be considered.  Grants would cover less than 5% of the total project.  We will continue to look and apply where we can, but there are limited options.

The funds do not belong to any local government entity, it is a separate issue.  The $50 million investment in Fremont County through The Water Resources Development Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to work on projects in Fremont County which address water resources challenges and will improve our waterways, water infrastructure and stabilization, and/or flood and storm protection. Money is not given directly to the City, County, or Recreation District. The City, County, and Recreation District also cannot ask the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to use this money to build a pool as that project does not fall within the parameters of appropriate projects under The Water Resources Development Act. Find out more information at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/8812/text 

This is something that is simply not done.  When you build a backyard pool there is one code to meet.  For a commercial facility, there are as many as ten different codes you must meet and they don't always play nice with each other.  You need a commercial pool designer and builder to get you through this process to have a facility that will meet code and last 50+ years.  This is not a project that can be done with a community build mentality.  The one part of the project which can be done by local contractors is demolition.  This is where some cost savings could come in to play.

The goal from the beginning was to not put the entire project on the backs of property owners with a large mill levy increase.  The voters have previously made clear, as recently as 2021, that they do not want a large mill levy increase to fund the pool.  As a special district, the Recreation District cannot ask a sales tax question, only property tax.  The City of Cañon City felt a pool in our community was an essential service and decided to partner with us.  This partnership means three questions need to pass.  They are:

1)      A 0.30% sales tax increase to pay for capital construction and capital reserves for the swimming facility.  This will be collected through city sales tax and passed through to the Recreation District to pay off the bonds.  It will sunset once the bonds to construct the pool are paid off in 25 years.  This is a City of Cañon City question, and you must live within city limits to vote on this question. 

2)      A debt financing question from the Recreation District.  This question is not a tax increase.  It is the District asking the community for permission to go into debt to acquire general obligation bonds to construct the facility and build some capital reserves.  The bonds are paid off by the sales tax and will sunset once the debt is repaid.  The estimate is that it will take 25 years to do this. You must live within the boundaries of the Recreation District or own property in the District to be eligible to vote on this question.

3)      A four mill increase in the Recreation District’s mill levy.  This would go to both the operations subsidy of the new pool facility and for current Recreation District operations.  This increase will not sunset as the expenses of the Recreation District are ongoing.  This would be voted on by residents of the District. You must live within the boundaries of the Recreation District or own property in the District to be eligible to vote on this question.

All three questions, one from the City and two from the Recreation District, would need to pass to have a swimming pool facility.

Standard commercial public pools are not, and never will be, 100% sustainable.  In the United States there are five publicly owned facilities that are profitable; but they are water parks, not a standard commercial public pool.  Two of them are in Colorado: Water World and Pirates Cove.  Public pools are a service.  They provide needed recreational opportunities to the citizens and their fee structure must meet the socioeconomics of their community.  The Recreation District subsidized the Icabone Pool around $40,000 to $50,000 every year by using both the general fund and Conservation Trust Fund (lottery) dollars.  In our region of the state, pools in Florence, Pueblo West, Pueblo, Woodland Park, Walsenburg, Trinidad, and Colorado Springs are subsidized by local government.  To operate a commercial public pool, you must have the funding to provide the subsidy.

Yes.  Public pools have admission fees to help offset the cost of day-to-day operations.  The Icabone Swimming Pool has operated this way since it opened in 1966.  However, the fees to swim in the public facility must meet the socioeconomic needs of the community.  You must have a balance between cost recovery and price points.  In the case of the proposed facility, you must factor in that over 60% of the students in the local school districts would be on free and reduced lunch, and Cañon City is above the state average for the percentage of people below the poverty line.  In 2022 the Icabone Pool had a $4 entry fee for children and seniors, and a $5 entry fee for adults.  When factoring in a budget for operational expenses as part of the Feasibility Study, we used a $5 daily entry fee to use the facility.  There will also be memberships for singles, couples, and families, as well as rates for seniors.  In many cases the cost for a single membership would be around $20 per month.  There will be multiple levels for memberships, but this should provide you with a baseline.  

There will be fees for swimming lessons as well.  Remember with lessons they are normally done in sessions with a total of nine classes.  In 2022 the fees were about $48 for each swim lesson session.  We also had a scholarship program for families in need that reduced this expense by 50%.  The Recreation District will look to continue this type of program.

The school district will also provide a fee for operational expenses during any physical education classes or swim team activities.  All of this has been factored into cost recovery.  Please know the Recreation District will benchmark with other rural communities such as Montrose, Gunnison, Eaton, Meeker, Fairplay, and Rangely in determining the cost of entry into a facility.  With an opening date most likely in 2027 we cannot completely provide a firm number, but the ones shared earlier in this answer are the goals.  

Citizens of the Recreation District will pay a lower fee to use the pool than those who are not in the District. This facility is being funded with public dollars and we must meet the socio-economic needs of the community first.  The proposed pool will not be a "country club," rather a facility that everyone in the community will have an opportunity to use and enjoy.

The Recreation District was created in 1965 to construct and operate a swimming pool.  The Icabone Pool opened in 1966.  Later that year, the citizens of Cañon City asked the Recreation District to expand its services to add parks and programs.  The Recreation District did exactly that and added multiple parks, trails, open spaces, and programs through the years to meet the growing needs of the citizens.  In all, 300 acres of parks, open spaces, and trails, and over 50 different programs have been added – all without a mill levy increase.  The District listened to the citizens and responded.  Not only were facilities added, but they were further improved thanks to donations, contributions, and grants.  Nearly sixty years later, the Recreation District needs additional funding to maintain these facilities, build a capital reserve to replace aging infrastructure, address the rising cost of day-to-day operations, replace outdated equipment, and hire additional staff as the needs and workload have increased.  The District has been forced to pull from reserves to balance the annual budget. We have proven to be excellent stewards of public dollars.  Without the dedicated management of District funds, more than half of the facilities the Recreation District owns would not exist.

As far as the swimming pool goes, there would need to be an operational subsidy to run the facility.  This subsidy is estimated by Ballard*King, one of the consultants, to run between $320,000 and $360,000 annually.  When compared with similar facilities in Colorado, these numbers are in-line with like facilities.  Yes, there will be revenue collected through admissions, lessons, programming, and swim team use, but it will not completely cover the cost of operations because the facility must be affordable for all.  We must meet the socioeconomic needs of the community, much like our existing programs do.

The proposed mill levy increase would go toward existing operations of the District and the subsidy for the operations of the proposed swimming facility.   

Yes, in Colorado property values have risen over the last decade.  This is based on demand for homes and businesses on a statewide level.  This does not mean your property tax has increased at the same level as your property value.  How property is assessed in Colorado is determined by the Legislature on a statewide basis.  Although property values increased, especially in the metro areas, there have been recent reductions in the assessment rates.  While your property values have increased, the amount of property tax you pay has not increased at the same rate due to the State Legislature making four adjustments to assessment rates over the past sixteen months.  Even if your property value has doubled in the last decade or less, the amount of revenue the Recreation District has received has not doubled in more than 25 years.  Has our revenue gone up?  Yes, but not nearly as much as you would think.

We are the second lowest funded recreation district in the state of Colorado, per capita.  We have never had a mill levy increase and there is no existing revenue stream to replace a swimming pool.  From 2020 to 2023 we made improvements at Rouse Park totaling $750,000.  These included replacing the playground, stadium lights, adding covered dugouts and shade structures, and replacing a backstop.  To do this we received numerous grants, ARPA funding, donations from local businesses and organizations, and Recreation District public dollars.  Without the help we received, none of the improvements would have been possible.  The District stretches every dollar we have and leverages it to try and improve existing facilities.  In all, the assets of the District equal a little more than $6 million.  The addition of a pool facility would more than quadruple our existing assets.  There is simply no existing revenue stream now, or in the past, to construct a commercial swimming pool.   

There are two different taxes involved with this project, sales tax and property tax.  Here is what that will mean to you.

The sales tax would be within the City of Cañon City.  For every $100 worth of taxable goods you purchase, there would be a $0.30 charge.  This tax will sunset once the capital construction is paid for, in 25 years or less.

The average home within the boundaries of the Recreation District is valued or assessed at $285,000 by the County Assessor.  If you round that up to $300,000, your tax increase would be $80 per year (or $6.67 per month).  If you are a commercial property owner, you would multiply that number by four.  In Colorado, property tax is calculated at the state level, not locally.  Commercial property is assessed at a higher rate because the owner can make revenue off their property.  There have also been four different measures passed by the Colorado Legislature over the past 16 months to lower the amount of property tax you pay.  If these would not have passed, citizens would be paying more in property tax now.  Please look at the chart on this website to see what the proposed increase would mean for you.  Remember it is based on what your home or business is valued at by the assessor, not what you bought or could sell your property for.  Because this is for ongoing operations, this tax would not sunset.

The amount of property tax you pay is determined by the assessed actual value of your property, not what you paid for it or what it can be sold for.  For example, here are some recent purchases of homes in the Recreation District and City of Cañon City.  We will show you what they sold for and what their assessed actual value is. 

1)      Sold for $315,500, Assessed Actual Value is $193,840 (tax increase of $4.32 per month)

2)      Sold for $319,310, Assessed Actual Value is $273,979 (tax increase of $6.10 per month)

3)      Sold for $324,660, Assessed Actual Value is $238,267 (tax increase of $5.31 per month)

The property owner is not taxed on what they paid for the house, but for what the Assessed Actual Value is.  In each case the Assessed Actual Value is the lower number.  When trying to determine how a proposed property tax increase will affect you, you must go to Fremont County Assessors website and look up your Assessed Actual Value.

No it does not.  As a requirement of TABOR, the use of General Obligation Bonds to pay for a capital project is financially backed by levying mills, an increase in property tax.  The mills are assessed on an annual basis to pay off the annual repayment, similar to a mortgage.  Because of this we are allowed to get the best credit rating possible and have a lower interest rate.  It makes this a better investment for the taxpayers.  It is illegal to assess more mills than what is needed to make the annual payment according to TABOR, and the specific condition in the ballot measure itself that a mill levy, if any, would be “ONLY AFTER THE APPLICATION OF DEDICATED SALES AND USE TAX REVENUES RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF CAÑON CITY”. We are required by TABOR to put language in the ballot question that mills can be assessed. 

In the case of question 6B, given the historic levels of the City sales tax collections we are not going to levy mills for the repayment of the General Obligation Bonds.  Instead, we are going to separately account for and report the sales tax revenue received from the City and use the revenue from the sales tax for the annual payments for the bonds.  Historically the sales tax returns for the City of Cañon City have increased year over year going back to 2000.  There was only one year where there was a drop.  Using that historical information, we know sales tax continues to be on an upward trend and would cover the GO Bond repayments based on the proposed plan. 

The Recreation District Board of Directors cannot even consider levying any mills unless the sales tax was inadequate to make the bond repayment based on the wording of the question.  In this case the District cannot levy mills more than what was needed for the annual payment.  Anything above that is illegal.  This is a requirment of TABOR.  However, this situation is highly unlikely considering the history of sales tax revenues.  It is more likely we will have more sales tax revenue than needed for repayment and this could be saved for capital reserves, to pay down the debt faster, or be used to pay off any shortfall.  This way the Recreation District would not be in a position to levy mills.  There is no “blank check.”  In the ballot language we must mention property tax due to TABOR and get the citizens the best returns on their tax dollars, we can mention the use of sales tax, but are required to add the mill levy language in order to receive the GO Bonds.

The reason the language says the District can levy mills needed is to give a "blank check," rather it is to protect the taxpayer.  TABOR is always looking to protect the taxpayer, not the taxing entity.  It forces the mill levy to drop as values rise.  This way the taxing entity is not keeping more revenue than they are supposed to in order to pay off the GO Bonds.  

There is an extensive list of requirements for a YMCA to come into a community.

1) For the YMCA to come to Cañon City they require the TAXPAYERS to fund/pay for the capital construction of the pool. Capital construction is the entire cost to build the pool and associated facilities is estimated to be around $24.8 million.

2) The YMCA charges management fees in addition to operation fees, which are paid for by the TAXPAYERS.

3) If the YMCA does not generate enough income to cover the annual budget, TAXPAYERS must pay the difference. Example: The YMCA contracts with the Cañon City Area Recreation District (CCRD) to operate on a $500,000 budget and the memberships and activities only generated $250,000 for the year.  CCRD must pay $250,000 to the YMCA that year to make up the deficit.  Pools operate at a deficit every year so CCRD would have to find other ways to generate the income to pay the YMCA. 

4) The YMCA organization keeps all revenue generated and none is returned to the community

Additional facts about YMCA and funding:

1. For the YMCA to balance their budgets in both Colorado Springs and Pueblo, both municipalities and counties provide them with a subsidy.  In the case of the partnership between the City of Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak YMCA, the city provides $700,000 annually (from TAXPAYERS) in maintenance services to make sure the five pools are operational and open. 
2. The programming, staffing, and day-to-day work is handled by the YMCA, but the maintenance, liability, and utilities are handled and paid for by the city (from TAXPAYERS). 
3. The YMCA is a fee-based organization.  It is not uncommon for YMCA recreation centers and pools to be more expensive than similar facilities operated by municipalities or districts.  This means you will be paying taxes for the facility and paying more than necessary for membership.
4. The swimming pools operated by the YMCA in Colorado Springs are TWICE the admission cost of publicly owned facilities operated by the communities in Pueblo, Florence, and Cañon City. 
5. If the YMCA felt they could operate in Cañon City, they would already be here. They were approached and discussion occurred in 1999, 2009, and 2017.
6. The YMCA in Pueblo was struggling to operate their pools and have returned operations back to the City of Pueblo.

Yes, schools, first responders, and roads are essential services to any community; however, some do not think about parks and recreation as an essential service.  A phrase which applies here is, “You don’t know what you have until it’s gone.”  In 2010, Colorado Springs made the choice to cut their Parks and Recreation Department by 85%.  Parks, trails, pavilions, and playgrounds were not maintained, some programs were eliminated, and many staff members were let go.  It did not take long for the community to get upset because the facilities they enjoyed using were no longer maintained.  Not only did the citizens of Colorado Springs learn the value of recreation, but so did the government.  People complained about an increase in crime and the fact they no longer wanted to use facilities in disrepair.  Fast forward to now and not only did Colorado Springs reinstate the budget for parks and recreation but have continued to look for ways to invest in additional parks, trails, facilities such as pickleball courts, and programs.  “You don’t know what you have until it’s gone,” is a lesson the community learned and now they continue to invest in recreation because it is an essential service.

Parks and recreation are taken for granted in many communities.  The question is not, is recreation a luxury; rather, do you want to live in a community without parks, trails, open spaces, and programs?  Imagine Cañon City with no parks, trails, playgrounds, courts, open spaces, and no adult or youth programs.  Is that a community you would want to live in?  Parks and recreation improve the quality of life in our community 365 days a year.  You can go for a walk on the beautiful Riverwalk, take your dog to the dog park, use the archery range, take your kids to a playground, have a family gathering at one of the many pavilions, participate in one of many sports programs, or attend one of our special events.  There is tremendous value in that.  Recreation is not a luxury; it is an essential service.

No.  The Recreation District offices will remain exactly where they are, 575 Ash Street in Cañon City.  There are two office in the proposed pool facility.  One for the pool manager, and the other for the lifeguards.  That is it.  The District did not want to increase the cost of the facility, which would happen if the offices moved.  This is why we are staying right where we are currently located.