Survey Period 1 Summary
In this survey period, out of 1,729 contributors, 92% favored a new aquatics center. Both outdoor and indoor recreational pool options ranked highest at 69.72% favorability towards an outdoor recreational pool and 69.34% favorability towards an indoor recreational pool.
Deep water, lap lanes, moving water for fitness and recreation and a children’s area were the most preferred amenities based on the selection. Programming preferences ranked highest include recreational swimming, swimming lessons, lap swimming and aquatic fitness classes.
The Icabone pool ranked highest by a weighted margin of 0.59 followed by Abbey, the Pierce Property, and Mountain View Park. Funding preferences were also ranked with user fees and donations/fundraising ranked highest and tax revenue being the least supported option.
Sentiment levels were also calculated from responses to the following question: “Do you have any additional feedback that you would like to share about a future swimming pool in Canon City?” This optional question had over 100 responses and, in summary, included the below. Additional details can be found in slides below.
Sentiment Summary (ALL)
- Overall, sentiment towards the swimming pool project appears to be mixed, with both positive and negative feedback provided.
- There is a notable desire for a swimming pool within the community, with sentiments emphasizing its importance for health, community cohesion, and providing recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors.
- However, concerns regarding funding, tax increases, and past failed attempts to pass similar initiatives are evident, suggesting a level of skepticism and resistance among some members of the community.
Positive Sentiment: Summary
- A swimming pool is seen as a vital resource that enriches the community in numerous ways, including health, safety, social interaction, and economic development.
- There is strong support for a pool that accommodates various user groups, including youth, families, seniors, and special needs groups.
- Suggestions for funding mechanisms such as sponsorships, memberships, and tourism revenue are welcomed.
- The idea of an indoor facility is popular, with suggestions for a hybrid indoor/outdoor design to maximize usability year-round.
- Location preferences include central areas easily accessible to schools and amenities, with a preference for the current or nearby sites.
Negative Sentiment: Summary
- Concerns regarding tax increases and the burden on homeowners are prominent, with skepticism about the effectiveness of past tax-funded projects and a reluctance to support additional taxation.
- There is resistance to large-scale, expensive projects and a preference for more modest, cost-effective solutions.
- Skepticism towards the Recreation District to manage such a project and suggestions to explore partnerships with trusted organizations like the YMCA are expressed.
- Some feedback highlights the failure of previous attempts to pass similar initiatives, indicating a lack of trust in the ability to garner community support.
- Suggestions for alternative funding sources such as grants, sponsorships, and tourism revenue are raised, indicating a desire to explore options beyond taxpayer funding.
Stakeholder Group Meetings
On February 29, 2024 community representatives, residents, town council members, and community development representatives were invited to share their thoughts regarding a new aquatic facility for Canon City. Their feedback was gathered and summarized below:
- Emphasized the pool's importance to the community, particularly for families, kids, and seniors.
- Significant concern about the impact of property taxes on funding the project.
- The primary challenge is the cost and its impact on the community.
- Discussion on various pool options, ranging from a simple outdoor pool to a more complex indoor/outdoor facility with additional amenities.
- Strong preference for a 6-lane lap pool for school use and a warm water pool for seniors.
- Consideration of a phased approach to reduce the initial budget.
- Suggestion to focus on utilitarian design and indoor, year-round use to gain broader support.
- Advocated for a county-wide property tax but noted opposition to property taxes as the primary funding source.
- Importance of gaining senior citizen support and accommodating the swim team.
- Proposals to include amenities like a diving board, steam rooms, sauna, hot tub, and a sunset period for the bond to ensure public backing.
Stakeholder Group Attendees
Group | Location | Attendee | Attendee | Atendee |
Stakeholder Group #1 | Golden Age Center | Drop-in only. | Drop-in only. | Drop-in only. |
Stakeholder Group #2 | CCRD Board Room | Harriet Hogan | Cheryl Gould | Sandra Wimmer |
Brian Turner | Dave Lambert | Lance Tomar | ||
Zach Reynolds | David Laughlin | |||
Stakeholder Group #3 | CCRD Board Room | Marc Sindler | Tiffany Javernick | Chris Larson |
Kevin Brown | Jeff Mueller | Melvin Yohe | ||
Beth Katchmar | Patty Schlesinger | |||
Stakeholder Group #4 | CCRD Board Room | Dusty Majors | Amy Banker | Jennifer Vanlwarden |
Angela Evagash | Tom Evagash | Justin Grantham | ||
Dave Reynolds | Joe Rall | |||
Stakeholder Group #5 | CCRD Board Room | Ryan Gilbert | Shirley Baney | Brian Konty |
Jim Wallace | Gerg DiRito | Julie Wright | ||
Alex Ewers | Shantel Corl | |||
Stakeholder Group #6 | CCRD Board Room | Elizabeth Oberle | Josh Curliss | Taylor Edrington |
Kari Hitner | Chris Moffett | Jerod Post | ||
Pam Swisher | Debbie Bell |