History of past Recreation Center Efforts
In 1965 the voters in Cañon City formed the Cañon City Area Metropolitan Recreation and Park District, a Title 32 Special District, to build and operate a pool. In the summer of 1967, the R.C. Icabone Swimming Pool opened as a seasonal, outdoor pool. The pool had a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years. In 1989, 22-years after the pool opened, the Board of Directors for the Recreation District and community members felt there was a need for a year-round facility. The new construction would take place on the current site of the R.C. Icabone Swimming Pool, in the 1100 block of College Ave. The facility would be 11,800 sq. feet in size and use the current pool footprint for the lap pool, diving board, and slide. They would add a small, warm body of water for young kids and therapy, and have two hot tubs. The proposed facility also included a 2,400 sq. foot multi-purpose area and room for childcare, locker rooms, a sun deck, and small area for future growth. In order to make this facility fit, three properties would have to be purchased on 11th Street, adjacent to the existing pool. The current sand volleyball court and basketball courts would have been in the footprint of this facility.
A group of citizens called the Splash Committee led the charge to make this facility a reality, citing a tremendous movement by the community to build a center. The early survey results showed 63% of the citizens were in favor of a year-round facility and would be willing to pay additional taxes. However, the committee never quantified in the survey how much additional taxes would be. To pay for the project the mill levy would have to have increased from 3.029 mills to 6.279 mills. This would cover the bond to construct the facility and provide an annual subsidy to operate it. In other words, one tax to cover both expenses. On May 2, 1989, 3,686 people showed up at the polls to vote and 67% of them said no to the proposed project and tax increase.
Eleven years later, in 2000, the Recreation District decided to go try once again to look at replacing the aging pool with a Recreation Center. Keep in mind the pool had now been used for 34-seasons and was only projected to last between 25- and 30-years. There was still a large amount of people in the community that didn’t want to pay for another seasonal pool but preferred a year-round facility. Unlike the 1989 proposal, which included the bond and operational expenses in one question, the 2000 proposal would break it out. Question 5-A would be no more than a 2.2 mill levy increase to raise $250,000 annually. Question 5-B was the bond question for construction in the amount of $9.445 million dollars, which worked out to a mill levy increase of 4.2843. 5-B would sunset in 20-years, while question 5-A would not sunset. In total the District mill levy would increase from 3.662 mills to 10.1063 mills for a period of 20-years, then drop to 5.862 mills starting in 2020.
This proposed facility would be designed to support the recreational needs of all age demographics in the community. The amenities included a teen activity center, a warm water therapy pool for seniors and others who need it, an indoor pool with a family water play area and lap swimming, a childcare center, a one court gym, a weight room, a cardio exercise area, a climbing wall, and an outdoor activity area. The facility would have been constructed on 6.2 acres of land on the grounds of the Holy Cross Abbey. The planning for this took two years and included two phone surveys and 12-public meetings.
Election day was November 7, 2000 and there was optimism that both questions would pass. The results would be closer than the election of 1989, but once again the recreation center failed. The difference this time was 55% to 45% for both questions.
The Recreation District did have one other ballot question in 2006, but it was for the construction of Pathfinder Park and small percentage going to needed repairs at the swimming pool. This question did not include a recreation or aquatics center. Like the previous two questions, it failed. This time by a much larger margin 70% to 30%.
A group of citizens called the Splash Committee led the charge to make this facility a reality, citing a tremendous movement by the community to build a center. The early survey results showed 63% of the citizens were in favor of a year-round facility and would be willing to pay additional taxes. However, the committee never quantified in the survey how much additional taxes would be. To pay for the project the mill levy would have to have increased from 3.029 mills to 6.279 mills. This would cover the bond to construct the facility and provide an annual subsidy to operate it. In other words, one tax to cover both expenses. On May 2, 1989, 3,686 people showed up at the polls to vote and 67% of them said no to the proposed project and tax increase.
Eleven years later, in 2000, the Recreation District decided to go try once again to look at replacing the aging pool with a Recreation Center. Keep in mind the pool had now been used for 34-seasons and was only projected to last between 25- and 30-years. There was still a large amount of people in the community that didn’t want to pay for another seasonal pool but preferred a year-round facility. Unlike the 1989 proposal, which included the bond and operational expenses in one question, the 2000 proposal would break it out. Question 5-A would be no more than a 2.2 mill levy increase to raise $250,000 annually. Question 5-B was the bond question for construction in the amount of $9.445 million dollars, which worked out to a mill levy increase of 4.2843. 5-B would sunset in 20-years, while question 5-A would not sunset. In total the District mill levy would increase from 3.662 mills to 10.1063 mills for a period of 20-years, then drop to 5.862 mills starting in 2020.
This proposed facility would be designed to support the recreational needs of all age demographics in the community. The amenities included a teen activity center, a warm water therapy pool for seniors and others who need it, an indoor pool with a family water play area and lap swimming, a childcare center, a one court gym, a weight room, a cardio exercise area, a climbing wall, and an outdoor activity area. The facility would have been constructed on 6.2 acres of land on the grounds of the Holy Cross Abbey. The planning for this took two years and included two phone surveys and 12-public meetings.
Election day was November 7, 2000 and there was optimism that both questions would pass. The results would be closer than the election of 1989, but once again the recreation center failed. The difference this time was 55% to 45% for both questions.
The Recreation District did have one other ballot question in 2006, but it was for the construction of Pathfinder Park and small percentage going to needed repairs at the swimming pool. This question did not include a recreation or aquatics center. Like the previous two questions, it failed. This time by a much larger margin 70% to 30%.
1989 Recreation Plan
|
2000 Election Flyer
|