Future of Pueblo City Park Bathhouse is uncertain
(PUEBLO, Colo.) — At a recent Pueblo City Council meeting, a Friends of City Park representative used public comment to express frustration with the City's decision not to award a management agreement for the City Park Bathhouse facility.
'Forget about the time we spent, countless hours of the city staff wasted preparing this, answering questions related to it, conducting multiple site visits, and ultimately evaluating,' George Koncilja, President of Friends of City Park, explained. 'All a complete waste if we were set up to be rejected all along.'
The bathhouse, constructed during the Works Progress Administration (WPA) era around the time of the Great Depression, has suffered from significant structural issues related to groundwater infiltration and unstable soil conditions. These issues, combined with the need for modern amenities and ADA accessibility, led to the City's decision to seek updates to the bathhouse to serve future generations.
After many failed funding attempts, the city created a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to find a partner who could take full responsibility for restoring and operating the bathhouse without additional burden to taxpayers.
'Ultimately, we were the only ones to respond,' Koncilja said. 'We exceeded what was asked of us. We were rejected, however, because of four specific points.'
The proposal wanted historical designation for the facility, which the City Council had previously rejected.
It also failed to meet restroom requirements, something Mayor Heather Graham explained on her podcast, 'The Mayor's Mixtape.'
'The city asked for a certain amount of restrooms to be provided based off capacity in the area with the tennis courts, with the state tournaments that come down,' Mayor Graham said. 'That was not met.'
The President of Friends of City Park said he attended the most recent tennis tournament at the facility, where he claims there was never a line of people waiting for the restrooms.
'There's absolutely no need to have 15 toilet fixtures in that facility,' Koncilja explained. 'Our proposal would more than double what they currently have for fixture count to five men's and five women's. Far more than enough for the average day.'
Pueblo Mayor responds to failed bath house funding
City staff said that while grassroots efforts of the community are welcome and encouraged to preserve the bathhouse facility, adherence to the requirements of the RFP is essential for the responsible operation and ongoing maintenance of the building. After the latest funding attempt, where the Steel City goes from here is uncertain.
'It's really going to be up to the City Council if they want to dedicate general fund dollars,' Mayor Graham explained.
While one Pueblo City Council Member said he is ready to move on entirely.
'I think there are many more productive things we could be focusing on, much more important issues in the City that we could be focusing on.' Brett Boston, Pueblo City Council, Representative at Large, said.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
33 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Homes for sale in Westford and Newton with accessory dwelling units
LOT SIZE 0.71 acre BEDROOMS 4 BATHS 4 LAST SOLD FOR $200,000 in 1993 PROS This expanded 1963 Cape with radiant-heat floors sits across from Jack Walsh Field. From the farmer's porch with swing, enter into a living room with hardwood floors and a fireplace. The dining room is open to a kitchen with Caesarstone counters, low breakfast bar, and nearby bath. A breezeway with window bench connects to an enclosed porch and a primary bedroom where sliders open to the patio and big backyard. There's a bedroom and bath above the two-car garage. Two more bedrooms and a library with vaulted ceilings share a bath on the second floor. The attached 2007 ADU has an open living area with tiled kitchenette, bedroom with ADA-compliant bath, and a deck. CONS Rambling layout; dated bathrooms in main house. Advertisement 2 Texas Road, Westford Handout Lilia Flores, Barrett Sotheby's International Realty, 774-245-7690, Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up $1,080,000 1224 BOYLSTON STREET / NEWTON The 2017 ADU has a full kitchen, bath, and bedroom with vaulted ceilings and patio. Handout SQUARE FEET 1,628 LOT SIZE 0.29 acre BEDROOMS 4 BATHS 2 full, 1 half LAST SOLD FOR $208,000 in 1994 PROS Once a stagecoach stop on the Old Worcester Turnpike, this 1825 Cape sits on a spacious corner lot in Upper Falls. From the back door, enter into a dining room with picture window. The adjacent living room features original exposed wood beams and a massive brick fireplace. Past a bath with laundry, the primary bedroom has a fireplace and walk-in closet. The kitchen has butcher-block counters and a breakfast nook, and an adjoining family room features a cathedral ceiling, recessed lights, and glass sliders to a flagstone patio and yard. Upstairs, find two more bedrooms, one with a private half bath. Across the lawn, the 2017 ADU has a full kitchen, bath, and bedroom with vaulted ceilings and patio. CONS Boylston Street is Route 9. Advertisement 1224 Boylston Street, Newton Handout KC Chinitz, Engel & Volkers, 617-529-2777, Jon Gorey is a regular contributor to the Globe Magazine. Send comments to
Atlantic
37 minutes ago
- Atlantic
A Victory for Separation of Powers
Wednesday's unanimous ruling against President Donald Trump's expansive 'Liberation Day' tariffs by the United States Court of International Trade wasn't merely a victory for the businesses and consumers opposed to the policy. The decision was much more than that: a victory for the constitutional system of separation of powers—and, even more broadly, for the rule of law in America. The decision came in a case filed by the Liberty Justice Center and me on behalf of five American businesses harmed by the tariffs, and it also covers a similar case filed by 12 states led by Oregon. Our suit challenged Trump's attempted use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to impose 10 percent Liberation Day tariffs on imports from almost every nation in the world, plus additional 'reciprocal' tariffs on many more countries. We argue that the IEEPA doesn't grant Trump the virtually unlimited tariff authority he claims, and that, if it did, it would be unconstitutional. Earlier, the president also used IEEPA to impose 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, plus additional tariffs on China, under the pretext that they would somehow curtail importation of fentanyl into the United States. (Our case challenged only the Liberation Day tariffs, while the Oregon case also targeted the fentanyl ones.) In combination, the IEEPA tariffs kicked off the biggest trade war since the Great Depression. The Tax Foundation estimated that Trump's IEEPA tariffs would have imposed some $1.4 trillion to $2.2 trillion in tax increases on Americans over the next decade. They also would have severely slowed economic growth, inflicted grave harm on many businesses—including our clients, who depend on imports—and raised prices on consumers. Fortunately, the court ruled that Trump does not have the 'unbounded authority' he claims 'to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country.' The British overthrew King Charles I in part because he tried to impose 'ship money' taxes without legislative authorization. The president of the United States is no king, and he does not have the power to impose taxes in the form of tariffs whenever he feels like it. The court's decision upholds this fundamental principle of the Anglo-American constitutional tradition. The IEEPA doesn't even mention tariffs as one of the emergency powers it grants the president. No previous president ever used it to impose them. In addition, the law can be invoked only to address a 'national emergency' that amounts to an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to America's economy or national security. The administration claimed that the president has unlimited discretion to decide what qualifies as an 'emergency' and an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Thus, the Liberation Day tariffs were supposedly justified by the existence of trade deficits with various countries, even though such deficits have persisted for decades; there is nothing 'unusual' about them; and, as most economists recognize, they are not a threat at all. As Judge Jane A. Restani put it during oral argument, the administration's approach would allow the president to impose sweeping tariffs for virtually any 'crazy' reason, such as a peanut-butter shortage. The court ruled that the 'IEEPA requires more than just the fact of a presidential finding or declaration,' because 'it does not grant IEEPA authority to the President simply when he 'finds' or 'determines' that an unusual and extraordinary threat exists.' Otherwise, he would have virtually unlimited tariff authority, which the Congress that enacted the IEEPA carefully sought to prevent. The court also emphasized that 'the Constitution assigns Congress the exclusive powers to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises' and to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.' For that reason, 'any interpretation of IEEPA that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional.' It would 'constitute an improper abdication of legislative power to another branch of government.' The Supreme Court has been relatively lax in enforcing what is called the 'nondelegation doctrine,' which limits the extent to which congressional authority can be delegated to the executive. But both conservative and liberal justices have held that there must be at least some limits to delegation. And if anything qualifies as excessive delegation, it would be a transfer of unlimited power to impose tariffs amounting to trillions of dollars in tax increases. The court ruling also cites the 'major-questions doctrine,' which requires Congress to 'speak clearly' when authorizing the executive to make 'decisions of vast economic and political significance.' According to the major-questions doctrine, if the law isn't clear, courts must reject the executive's assertions of power. If Trump's sweeping use of the IEEPA is not a major question, nothing is. The magnitude of the IEEPA tariffs exceeds that of any of the measures ruled to be 'major questions' by the Supreme Court. Not even President Joe Biden's $400 billion student-loan-forgiveness plan (which the Court in my view rightly invalidated under the doctrine) compares. And, as the Court of International Trade decision explains, it is anything but clear that the IEEPA grants Trump the immense authority he claims; indeed, it clearly does not. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines are related, but distinct. The former categorically bans excessive delegations of legislative power to the executive because they undermine the constitutional separation of powers, while the latter merely requires that broad delegations be clearly indicated by Congress. In combination, they aim to constrain executive power grabs, such as that attempted here by Trump. In addition to vindicating constitutional principles, the decision is a win for the rule of law. Major legal rules should be clearly stated, and not instantly changeable at one person's whim. That is what differentiates the rule of law from the 'rule of men.' Trump's claim to unlimited tariff authority and his repeated gyrations in imposing and lifting tariffs are a blatant affront to this principle. After imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, he soon suspended them for certain electronic goods, struck an ad hoc temporary deal to suspend some tariffs on China, and then proceeded to threaten new tariffs on such products as foreign-produced movies and Apple iPhones. Such one-man rule wreaks havoc on the rule of law—to say nothing of the stable legal environment that investors and businesses need to make plans. The court's ruling imposes a nationwide permanent injunction blocking the IEEPA tariffs, thus granting relief to all Americans, not just our clients. Still, the litigation is not over. The administration appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking it to stay the injunction in the meantime. Yesterday, that court granted a brief 'administrative stay' that delays the ruling for a few days as the parties litigate the issue of whether a longer stay should be granted. The case may yet reach the Supreme Court. A second decision against Trump's IEEPA tariffs was issued yesterday by Judge Rudolph Contreras of the federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Unlike the Court of International Trade ruling, it applies only to tariffs imposed against the two toy manufacturers that brought the case. But notably, Contreras concluded that the IEEPA doesn't grant the president the power to impose tariffs at all, thereby going further than the Wednesday decision did. If the law did grant the sweeping authority claimed by Trump, Contreras—like the Court of International Trade panel—noted, that would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, and 'render IEEPA unconstitutional.' While the impact of the district-court ruling is very limited, it further bolsters the case against Trump's tariffs. The legal fight over the IEEPA tariffs will continue. But these decisions make me guardedly optimistic. The Court of International Trade ruling was joined by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, including one (Timothy M. Reif) appointed by Trump. Judge Restani was appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the third judge who joined the decision, Gary S. Katzmann, was appointed by Barack Obama. This shows that the legal case against these sorts of sweeping, unilaterally imposed tariffs cuts across liberal-conservative lines. The nondelegation and major-questions doctrines on which our case—and this decision—are largely based have been championed by conservative Supreme Court justices. Americans across the political spectrum have an interest in preventing the president from wielding monarchical powers, undermining the Constitution, and starting ruinous trade wars. It's good to see that courts seem to agree.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Man City chief urges club to stay patient over charges decision
Manchester City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak said his club are being "patient" as they wait for the verdict on charges of alleged breaches of Premier League financial rules. City were referred to an independent commission in February 2023 over the charges, which the club strongly deny. Advertisement The case was heard between September and December last year but no decision has yet been announced. City could face a points deduction, a heavy fine or even relegation from the Premier League if they are found guilty. "Well, I suppose the only thing I can say is we still don't have a ruling," Khaldoon said this week. "Once there's a ruling, I'll be able to speak about it. Until then we just have to be patient, and it'll come, and we will talk about it, I promise you, once we have the ruling." The investigation, which resulted in more than 100 charges being made against City, started back in 2018. Advertisement City were charged with failing to report accurate financial information for nine seasons stretching from 2009-10 to 2017-18, as well as failing to provide full details of former manager Roberto Mancini's pay between 2009-10 and 2012-13. They are also charged with failing to provide full details of remuneration in contracts with players between 2010-11 and 2015-16, and with failing to co-operate with the investigation over a period from 2018 to 2023. The club said at the time the charges were laid that they welcomed the opportunity for a commission "to impartially consider the comprehensive body of irrefutable evidence that exists in support of our position". City won the Champions League at the end of the season the charges were laid, securing themselves a place in FIFA's expanded 32-team Club World Cup which starts next month. Advertisement World players' union FIFPRO has criticised the scheduling of the competition amid player welfare concerns and, along with Europe's domestic leagues organisation, has filed legal complaints against FIFA over a lack of consultation around the international match calendar. Despite that, Khaldoon insists the club are taking the competition seriously and treating it as the official start of next season rather than an extension of the current one. "This is a very, very serious competition. In the summer, the whole world will be watching this," he said. "A big number of the top teams in the world will be competing in this tournament and I can assure you, we're going to give it our best shot." smg/bsp
