Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Facilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Gunnison staff warn of escalating pool maintenance costs; short-term patch vs. full roof/heating replacement debated

Gunnison City Council · February 5, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Pool staff reported repeated failures of HVAC/heating elements and rising maintenance costs; staff proposed short-term repairs (≈$9,000) and to solicit bids for full replacements (≈$45,000 per unit), while discussing more expensive bubble-cover options.

Jeremy, identified in the meeting as pool staff, briefed the council on pool operations, staffing and facilities. He said the pool has had a run of equipment failures dating from boilers to a roof-top heater and requested additional line items for special programming. "We have 1 heating element on the South side and 1 on the North side...to replace the heating system, it's $45,000," he said, and added that a temporary repair to get the heating system running could be about $9,000.

Council members discussed options including patching, phased replacement and installing a seasonal "bubble" cover for winter use. Jeremy said previous estimates for a bubble and related work were high (he described figures in the low-to-mid hundreds of thousands when discussing bubble and major roof options), and he agreed to solicit updated bids and follow up with written estimates. The pool currently operates in a way that keeps the facility warm and humid for morning users but has faced criticism from some lap swimmers; staff said the patch approach will buy time to evaluate long-term options.

Staff also reported revenue pressures: daily swim fees are coming in lower than expected and some unanticipated maintenance costs increased pool expenditures. The city had set aside $200,000 for a roof reserve; staff described reallocating some of that to cover urgent maintenance needs but flagged this as a budget pressure that informed the proposed midyear amendment.