Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects Aquatic Center topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pueblo West board debates whether to prioritize aquatic center or new administration building
Summary
District staff briefed new board members on a five-year strategic plan and recent capital moves. Directors debated optics and fiscal timing for advancing an aquatic center and a civic/administration building; no board-level reordering was approved, but members asked for a future discussion item.
District Manager Christian J. Hine delivered a review of district accomplishments and the newly approved five-year strategic plan Wednesday, highlighting water-rights purchases, reduced turnover, completion of Fire Station 2 and steps toward acquiring an administration building at 63 Spaulding.
Hine told the board the purchase of 63 Spaulding and other actions have closed much of a prior projected budget gap and moved the district closer to financing major projects such as an aquatic center. “Because of our solutions and our approach towards the administration building and the funding that's available in the capital project funds, now we're about $7,000,000 out of that $9,000,000 just in this year,” Hine said, describing how progress on the admin site affects aquatic center funding.
Board members expressed different views on sequencing. Director Axworthy said the district should attempt to break ground on the aquatic center this year if possible. Director Potter argued the aquatic center should be moved ahead of the fifth item on the priorities list to improve public optics. Other directors and staff explained how the district’s fiscal ratings and the “6A” fire sales tax permanence factor into how aggressively the district can pursue an aquatic center: until the fire sales tax is made permanent, staff said, a new aquatic facility could increase general-fund risk.
Hine said the strategic-priorities ranking reflected a board-approved evaluation using three criteria — fiscal responsibility, community focus and inclusivity — and that the administration building scored highly because it reduces long-term lease costs. He recommended any change to project ranking be a board action and suggested a future discussion on sequencing once the board had more details on the fire-sales-tax permanency and funding options.
No formal reprioritization was adopted. Several directors requested a dedicated agenda item to weigh simultaneous progress on both the civic/administration building and the aquatic center and to model financial and timing scenarios, including the fiscal effect if the fire sales tax is not made permanent.
