Preservation or demolition? Originally built in 1938, The City Park Bath House in Pueblo has a rich history, but its future is stirring controversy.This is just something that should not be torn down, said Laurel Campbell who is part of Pueblo's Historic Preservation Commission.George Koncilja is also a part of Pueblos Historic Preservation Commission. Campbell, Koncilja and Bret Verna are fighting to save the tennis building.We need to save (it) because when they're gone, they're gone, Campbell said.She said the tennis building, made from sandstone, also known as The City Park Bath House, was built in the New Deal-Era by Works Progress Administration Laborers.The history of the building is basically WPA, which put men to work and a lot of grandpas around here worked on it, and people will tell you that it put people to work rather than starving, Campbell said.Koncilja said the building has a long and significant history to the City of Pueblo. He decided to fill out the application to make the building a local historic landmark.I grew up playing tennis over here, and this building's always been particularly, you know, attractive to us. I saw this building as an opportunity to see it repurposed and reused in a positive way for the community, Koncilja said.At their last meeting, Pueblo City Council voted four to three to make the bath house a local historic landmark. A few days later Pueblos Mayor, Heather Graham vetoed that decision saying the city already has plans to tear down the bath house and build a new one.So making a historical landmark wouldn't allow us to demo it and start this project. This project has already gone out to bid for the city. Today, I think we have spent a little over $135,000 on project, design and architecture work, Graham said.She said the new building is being funded by APRA funds the city received two years ago. She said the total is $1.7 million. The new facility will have upgraded bathrooms, storage area, pro shop, concessions and a conference room.The tennis community is really excited to have a new facility. The people that travel here from out of town to play, the people that play six days a week, they've reached out and they're very thrilled that the city is going to make this investment into the tennis facility in the city park, Graham said.She said it is cheaper to build a new building then try to restore the existing one.So, it's really about being responsible with taxpayer dollars, Graham said.But Koncilja argues their proposal to preserve the building would result in a cheaper and faster construction of the new facility.Preservation will not be a burden on the city's budget or taxpayer dollars, Koncilja said.He said the Historic Commission plans to fundraise and use state historic grant funds to pay for the building's upkeep.Koncilija wrote the following statement to News5: So there's money out there that is not taxpayer dollars that can be used and should be used towards the preservation of this building, Koncilja said. Our team of experts, with experience on over 100 historic structures, has given us the confidence that this structure is not crumbling, and the full preservation project can be completed for approx. $650k. Up to $500k per year is attainable through State Historic Grant Funds, and through community fundraising efforts we confidently believe we can raise the remainder within the time frame of constructing the new facility so we can begin preservation immediately. Without the landmark designation, those grant funds cannot be raised."Graham states that the building's condition is beyond repair.We can't use it. It's warped with water. The building is very, very old, and it would just cost double the price to go in and renovate the building and bring it back up to code, Graham said.Verna, who isaA long time historic preservation construction expert, said the building is in great shape.I spent about two and a half hours crawling through every cubby hole, crawl space throughout the whole bottom of the building because of my experience to look at the significance in what the structural integrity was of this existing structure, Verna said.Mayor Graham said if the city's plan goes forward, they would use the stone from the original bath house on the new one to preserve its history. She said the best option moving forward is demolition.If we could have, we would have, but we couldn't save the building. It's just not cost effective. It's not efficient for the space that's there, Graham said.But Koncilja and Campbell are proposing the building stands and the stones stay where they are.We just love the architecture of this building and the rock and it coordinates everything all through the park that was done. We need to make a deal of it and make it understood, Campbell said.Our proposal is that by preserving this, you'll result in a cheaper building for the new facility, a faster construction of that building, and ultimately a preservation of a local landmark that's obviously very important to the community, Koncilja said.Campbell said they did not know about this plan and wished the city was more transparent.This is something we are trying to correct, if not right now, for the future so that these things dont happen, Campbell said.Because of the mayor's veto, Pueblo City Council will reconsider making this building a local historic landmark at their next meeting this upcoming Monday, September 23. It will require a five to two vote to overturn the mayor's veto.