RIO GRANDE COUNTY - The Rio Grande County Board of Commissioners again unanimously denied, 3-0, a request to put a $24 million aquatics center before voters on a special election ballot in the fall.  

The boardroom was standing room only on Wednesday, May 7, for the decision. 

The proposed aquatics center has been making headlines for well over 10 years and this past attempt to pass the project was from SLV Aquatics. The proposal included a $24 million aquatics center mostly funded by a perpetual tax increase of 8.5 mills. 

This was the second attempt by SLV Aquatics in the past six months to get the project on a ballot. Each time the group tried to garner public support by hosting public informational meetings and making presentations to impacted governing bodies. 

Though the group raised some support, most people that spoke were against it citing tax increase and large mill levy proposed by the project. Also, towns that were in the proposed special district for the project did not get behind the project when the group asked for their support. 

Rio Grande County Administrator Skip Schoen addressed the crowd during the May 7 meeting, explaining the state statute guidelines that the Rio Grande County commissioners would have to follow to either pass or decline the project to be placed on a ballot in November. 

“In compliance with state statues, the board shall review the proposed service plan on the following authority; you can either approve without condition or modification, disapprove the service plan or you can conditionally approve the service plan subject to modification. Also in compliance with state statute, it clearly states that the board of county commissioners shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the board each of the following is presented; is there sufficient, existing and projected need for the organized service to be served by the special district, the existing service inherited to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present or projected needs, the proposed special district is capable of providing the economical and sufficient service to the area of its proposed boundaries and the area to be included of the proposed special district has or will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.” 

After Schoen read the options and guidelines to the board, Rio Grande County BOC Chairman Tyler Ratzlaff said, “I have a few thoughts. Statute 31-1-203CRS is ‘We shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the board is presented.’ I actually have a couple problems there. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries and the area to be included in the proposed special district has or will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. Knowing that South Fork has water and sewer issues coming up, Del Norte has water and sewer issues coming up, and Monte Vista has water and sewer issues coming up, I don’t feel that we have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.” 

Rio Grande County Commissioners Gene Glover and Scott Deacon agreed with Ratzlaff and voted to disapprove the proposed aquatic service plan under those stipulations. 

SLV Aquatics Board Director Grace Young spoke after the unanimous vote stating that the board had anticipated the outcome and had prepared a letter which was given to commissioners. 

The letter stated, “We came together not for profit or recognition, but because we believe our community deserves access to the kinds of opportunities found in healthier, more vibrant places: a place for children to learn to swim, for seniors to stay active, for families to gather and for all of us to build connections and wellness year-round. 

“We recognize and respect that not everyone agreed with the proposal. Civil opposition is not only expected in a democracy - it's healthy. What was not healthy, and what we do take issue with, was the level of toxicity that emerged during this process: the spread of misinformation, personal attacks, and intimidation created an environment that silenced supporters and discouraged honest conversation. And perhaps most troubling, the elected leaders of our towns, city and county made no visible effort to call for civility or uphold a standard of respectful public discourse. 

“While we are saddened that this project won’t be on the ballot, and we won’t have the opportunity for deeper discussion, we will continue to advocate to have nice things for our families in the community we care about.”