Brandon Leuallen, The Business Times

City Council workshop on Feb. 2 about the future of the Orchard Mesa Pool widened into a broader conversation about whether Orchard Mesa and south Grand Junction need a dedicated taxing structure to have better representation and to fund recreation and community amenities.

Multiple council members floated the idea of a “special district” that could extend beyond city limits and ultimately go to voters. The discussion comes as the city prepares for the planned 2026 opening of the new Community Recreation Center, whose voter-approved ballot measure did not reference the Orchard Mesa Pool, 2736 Unaweep Ave., and that its closure and user base were factored into the budget assumptions.

The discussion emerged as council reviewed four potential paths forward for the Orchard Mesa Pool, whose current operating agreement expires at the end of 2026 and after which demolition of the pool would proceed under existing agreements. While the pool itself was the immediate focus, several council members said the options raised larger questions about long-term investment, attention and how recreation services are funded in different parts of the city.

During the meeting, Grand Junction Parks and Recreation Director Ken Sherbenou said a consultant study commissioned by the city during the planning process for the new Community Recreation Center concluded that the Orchard Mesa Pool facility has reached the end of its useful life. The study found that nearly all major systems, including mechanical, electrical, plumbing and filtration systems are original to the 1983 construction and beyond expected service limits, meaning continued operation would require significant capital investment simply to maintain current conditions.

Financial pressures were central to the presentation. According to the consultant analysis, approximately 73 percent of Orchard Mesa Pool users live outside the Orchard Mesa neighborhood, raising concerns that the majority of those users would likely shift to the city’s new Community Recreation Center once it opens. That migration would leave the Orchard Mesa Pool with sharply reduced attendance while still requiring a substantial operating subsidy to cover the ongoing losses.

At the same time, the operating budget and revenue projections for the new Community Recreation Center were built on the assumption that the Orchard Mesa Pool will close. The consultant’s presentation shows the center’s operating model already includes approximately $1.3 million per year in dedicated tax revenue to support operations that won’t be covered by memberships or other fees collected. 

If the pool remains open, the city will face a dual financial impact: a higher per-user subsidy at Orchard Mesa as attendance declines; and additional pressure on the Community Recreation Center’s budget if some expected users and revenue stay in Orchard Mesa. 

During the meeting, four options were presented to council including the idea of a special district.

The four options outlined in the staff report included:

1. Allow the pool to close when the new Community Recreation Center opens, consistent with current operating assumptions.
2. Continue city operation of the pool beyond 2026, which would require significant capital investment and ongoing subsidy out of the city’s general fund.
3. Issue a request for proposals to seek a public-private partnership to operate or redevelop the facility.
4. Ask voters to approve a Title 32 special district in Orchard Mesa to take over ownership, operations and maintenance. 

After the meeting the city posted on Facebook that council directed staff to begin exploring next steps for Option C and to gather additional information on Option D. Staff will also speak with School District 51, which owns the land and building, before returning to the council with more information at a workshop next month. 

The pool issue was the trigger, but option D, the district concept, was discussed in depth as council members also described Orchard Mesa as an area that has been left behind, with fewer amenities and less visible investment than other parts of Grand Junction.

‘District’ idea evolves beyond the pool

As the conversation progressed councilmember Anna Stout, said a district approach could provide a broader recreation and community vision for the south end of Grand Junction rather than focusing narrowly on a single facility.

“It’s not just about the Orchard Mesa pool,” Stout said, pointing to long-standing recreation gaps on the south end of the city and the need for a larger planning framework that could include additional amenities and undeveloped parks.

Stout said a ballot measure to fund the pool could shift the decision away from seven council members and toward voters.

“I don’t see a better way to do it than literally asking the public for their input via the ballot box,” she said.

Stout cautioned that finding a partner or public private partnership to fund and/or manage the pool could be tough.

“Option C is looking for a unicorn,” she said, adding that informal efforts in the past by the city, Mesa County and School District 51 had not produced interest from a viable operator willing to take on the pool given the costs involved.

‘Double taxing’ concerns and a push to get creative

During the discussion, council member Ben Van Dyke, who said he also supports the city finding a solution, raised concerns about creating a special district specifically to keep the Orchard Mesa Pool open while those same residents are also paying increased taxes for the new Community Recreation Center. He said that approach could amount to “double taxing” residents who are already helping fund the Community Recreation Center through the citywide sales tax approved by voters in 2023.

Van Dyke framed Orchard Mesa as one of the city’s areas that seems to get less attention.

Robert Ballard, who represents Orchard Mesa on council, expressed frustration for the Orchard Mesa residents and said the city should not move toward closure without first exhausting all alternatives to preserve the site as a community asset. 

“I don’t think this facility is designed to be owned and operated just by the city,” Ballard said. “We’re looking at some major renovations that need to happen, and even if we were able to fix it up, we don’t have the ability to continue maintaining the operations costs.”

He said he is in favor of the city moving forward with the RFP process to potentially find a partner where both parties could benefit.

City limits, county involvement and who would pay

Stout raised one complication: Orchard Mesa is not entirely inside city limits, and the city’s parks and recreation funding is heavily tied to city sales tax.

“Lots of Orchard Mesa is not incorporated,” Stout said. “There are residents who live there and use city services, but they are not paying the city sales tax that funds Parks and Recreation. If we were to look at a district, it allows us to focus on the geography of service needs rather than just city boundaries, and to think about who is actually being served and how that should be funded.”

Jeremiah Boies, interim city attorney, said if council pursued a district that includes unincorporated areas, the process could shift into county territory. During the workshop, staff said the form of the district, boundaries and funding mechanism would determine whether it is primarily a city-led ballot issue or “actually a county commissioner issue rather than a city council issue.”

Timing and next steps

Council members asked whether a district ballot question could realistically be ready this year. Boies said if council moved quickly, it probably could reach the November ballot, but he emphasized it would be a heavy lift and would depend on the district structure and funding details.

Cody Kennedy, mayor of Grand Junction, cautioned against rushing the process. He said council would rather extend operations and be “really deliberate” with community communication than rush a near-term ballot measure.

By the end of the workshop, staff outlined potential next steps, including preliminary conversations with Mesa County about district formation, drafting and refining an RFP for partnerships, and opening discussions with District 51 about whether the current operating agreement could be extended to allow more time for public input.

Grand Junction City Manager Mike Bennett said staff will plan to return to council as early as March with more developed options.