Residents urge city to save Orchard Mesa pool; volunteers say rec district not feasible

Residents and members of the Save the Pool Committee urged the Grand Junction City Council to reopen talks about preserving and upgrading the Orchard Mesa pool and to consider city ownership and capital planning to keep the facility operating beyond a short‑term commitment.

Mary Anne Teichman, an Orchard Mesa resident who identified herself as part of the Save the Pool Committee, asked the council to add the Orchard Mesa pool to the city’s priorities and to include pool upgrades in the city’s capital outlay plan. Teichman said the school district is willing to transfer the pool and adjacent property to the city, and that a potential medical clinic on adjacent property could provide upfront rent to offset construction costs — a financing approach she said was used in Palisade.

Teichman told the council that the committee supports the city accepting ownership, maintaining the facility, and including it in future budgets so upgrades could be paid over time. She said the group believes the pool is a ‘‘need, not a want’’ and said parks amenities increase property values and support business recruitment.

Speakers who followed reinforced accessibility and community‑use concerns. Rhonda Bates thanked the city for repairing a boiler at Orchard Mesa Hall and cited survey data the committee has collected: of about 170 responses to a question asking whether a single recreation center is sufficient for a city population the speaker described as 160,000, 88.2% said one facility is not enough. On a separate survey question about a possible tax initiative to keep the OM pool open the committee had 173 responses with 93.6% indicating they would support a tax measure, Bates told the council. Carol Rathburn and other residents highlighted that OM pool serves toddlers, people living with mobility limitations and veterans who cannot use other facilities because of accessibility barriers.

At a previous meeting with city staff and the city attorney, Carol Ward said city staff had suggested a recreation district as a possible model but that the Save the Pool group researched Title 32, Colorado Revised Statutes and concluded that creating a district was not feasible for volunteers. Ward said the group believes the city itself functions as the appropriate recreation district and asked the council to take on the pool.

No formal council action on the pool was taken at the meeting. Council members acknowledged the public comments and one councilmember offered to connect with staff and the speaker to consider agendaing a roundtable discussion. The city manager previously negotiated a two‑year commitment (the speaker described it as such) to keep the pool open while the community and the school district explore long‑term options.

Why it matters: speakers described the OM pool as a primary accessible aquatic resource for parts of the community that cannot readily use the new CRC or other facilities, and urged the city to prioritize equal amenities across the city. The Save the Pool group requested re‑opening conversations at city workshops and placement of the pool in capital planning for phased upgrades.

What the council heard: residents presented usage and survey figures, emphasized accessibility for veterans and people with limited mobility, and said volunteers do not have the capacity to form a recreation district under Title 32. Council did not vote or direct a formal next step beyond offers to continue discussions.

"Pools are part of the city's budget, just like parks," Save the Pool member Mary Anne Teichman told council.