Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Orchard Mesa Pool topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Junction council directs staff to seek District 51 input, explores funding options for Orchard Mesa Pool
Summary
At a March 2 workshop the Grand Junction City Council instructed staff to approach Mesa County School District 51 about sale, donation or an option on the Orchard Mesa Pool site and consider an extension so the city can evaluate funding options — including a recreation district, public‑private partnership or city ownership — after staff reported updated cost and operating estimates.
At a March 2 Grand Junction City Council workshop, staff briefed the council on next steps for the Orchard Mesa Pool and the constraints that limit immediate action: Mesa County School District 51 owns the land and building, and staff said they cannot issue an RFP without an ownership interest or an option to purchase.
City staff member Mike told council members the city was asked to verify prior cost estimates and explore district and public‑private partnership options. He said a 2024 study estimated rehabilitation costs of $5.7 million–$6.2 million, while a high‑level review by FCI updated the range to about $7.6 million–$8.1 million; he added a focused inspection by FCI would cost roughly $18,188 but recommended such a detailed inspection only as part of an RFP process.
The significance: the pool serves residents outside city limits and sits adjacent to Eagle Rim Park, so how the city proceeds could affect future park programming, budgets and whether county or city taxpayers would carry long‑term costs.
Council members pressed staff on sequencing. Multiple members, including Jason, said the obvious first step is to seek an extension from District 51 to preserve options while the city gauges user demand and funding. "Extension preserves the most optionality," Jason said, noting the current agreement runs through Dec. 30. Mike confirmed staff will ask District 51 whether they are willing to sell, donate, or provide an option to purchase and to clarify how much county escrow remains and how those funds might be used.
Members debated who should own or operate the facility. Anna said she did not see a scenario where it made sense for the city to become the long‑term owner: "Operator, sure. Contracted, absolutely. But owner, I don't see it," she said, arguing that a countywide recreation district would be a more appropriate owner if the user base is predominantly non‑city residents. Other council members said city ownership would secure strategic options, including potential integration with adjacent park and recreation assets.
On operating costs, staff presented the 2026 net operating baseline of $476,005.43 and noted total expenses of roughly $674,500 against roughly $198,495 in revenues; staff warned recent unplanned repairs (about $35,000 this week and prior boiler repairs) show the facility requires ongoing subsidized spending. Councilmembers observed that an escrowed county fund originally earmarked for demolition might reduce downside risk if used for rehabilitation, but staff said the exact remaining amount must be confirmed with county officials.
Outcome and next steps: the council coalesced around asking staff to contact Mesa County School District 51 and Mesa County to determine (1) whether District 51 would sell, donate or provide an option to purchase the land or building; (2) whether an extension to the current agreement is available and for how long; and (3) the remaining balance and allowable uses of county escrow funds. Staff will return with those facts and options before the council pursues an RFP or more definitive commitments.
No formal motion or vote was taken during the workshop; staff characterized the council direction as a request to investigate ownership, funding and timing and to report back.
