Proposition 1 to place the Methow Aquatics District on the November ballot

[PAL]

Yes, this is who I am thinking of:

"that's a good point that has to be weighed against how valuable do you think the less wealthy people are to the community?

That includes retired elderly people on fixed incomes that recently had those fixed incomes devalued by historical inflation, young folks just starting out, and workers who dont make a lot of money in a seasonal rural economy."

As far as voters, I guess I missed that about the "no voters". The key is to advocate that everyone vote against the Prop 1.

I get it, you are talking about the people that are taxed on their property that don't live and vote here?

[pasayten]

OK... I will be building a new website the next few weeks... I bought the domain http://nopooltaxes.com

If anybody would like to submit content to post on the website (named or anonymous), post it here

[Jingles]

Very simple solution
Those that want and use the pool pay for the pool those of us that don't necessarily want or ever use a pool get a free pass from having to pay for something we don't want or use.
But then that is common sense and common sense has been laid to rest long ago.

[realoldtimer]

Ditto from other thread on this subject.
==================================
Just thinking, mister__coffee, that most area swim teams are not active year round.

And wondering, if the center is a viable financial proposition,why is tax money needed?

And in that regard, being taxed without even the opportunity to elect board members eho might spend my small contribution wisely smacks of taxation without representation -- right? Maybe time for a tea party??

Fun_CH , I am a retired senior citizen on a fixed income whose property has been assessed for way beyond actual value IMHO -- and I agree with you that added taxes will be painful. Most of my friends in the same situation agree.

[Fun CH]

I guess this all depends on how valuable you think a swimming pool is to the community.

that's a good point that has to be weighed against how valuable do you think the less wealthy people are to the community?

That includes retired elderly people on fixed incomes that recently had those fixed incomes devalued by historical inflation, young folks just starting out, and workers who dont make a lot of money in a seasonal rural economy.

The worst part of this to me, besides increasing rents and taxes to people who can ill afford it, is the nastiness directed at no voters. Those voters who I believe are looking after a greater community interest here then merely what's best for themselves.

Here's a quote from a MVN editorial dated June 22nd referring to the last time a Metropolitan Park District was successfully defeated, I don't know the author. Quote

"but their assurances could not overcome the suspicions and paranoia of some opponents (there was a fair amount of dis- and mis-information promoted at the time." End quote.

So no voters last time were"paranoid", right? What a terrible thing to say to people exercising their voting rights.

Also consider that according to law, when a metropolitan Park District is formed, that district is given the power of eminent domain no matter how that issue is represented to the voters by the proponents.

Lets Check the law.

"RCW 35.61.130
Eminent domain—Park commissioners' authority, generally—Prospective staff screening.
(1) A metropolitan park district has the right of eminent domain, and may purchase, acquire and condemn lands lying within or without the boundaries of said park district, for public parks, parkways, boulevards, aviation landings and playgrounds, and may condemn such lands to widen, alter and extend streets, avenues, boulevards, parkways, aviation landings and playgrounds, to enlarge and extend existing parks, and to acquire lands for the establishment of new parks, boulevards, parkways, aviation landings and playgrounds. The right of eminent domain shall be exercised and instituted pursuant to resolution of the board of park commissioners and conducted in the same manner and under the same procedure as is or may be provided by law for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by incorporated cities and towns of the state of Washington in the acquisition of property rights: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, Funds to pay for condemnation allowed by this section shall be raised only as specified in this chapter."

Also from the June 22nd MVN editorial quote.

"It’s vital for the community to be fully heard on whether a new special taxing district should be formed. Voting is an opportunity for expression — either in support of or opposition to a project that will have long-term implications for the valley’s resident and visitors." End quote

The voters have already been heard on this same issue which was defeated 78% to 22%.

Perhaps we're the ones who aren't being heard?

Peace out everyone

[realoldtimer]

Overseers not elected. Who's in charge?

[PAL]

"A significant number of outdoors days being lost"? We did have about 3-4 weeks due to smoke in past years. The heat...well go early in the morning or later in the eve. Or like today, we biked in the Rendezvous early. Not bad at all. For the smoke we discovered the Loup was not as bad in 2018 and 2021. Clearer up there. So yes, one may have to travel a bit to find outdoor activities. A summer pool would be great. An indoor winter pool-yes, it would probably get used, but how much? So many people ski in the winter.
You bet, Omak, Brewster, Pateros would come up here. Property owners from there won't be paying for it. Can they afford that $250 rental? With alot of use it would be divied up, so maybe.
I still don't want my taxes to go up because of an indoor facility that has an upkeep budget like that. Or near $21 million to build. Why should property owners always be footing the bill?

[mister_coffee]

Just throwing out some ballpark figures here.

There is a lot of money available for rural economic development these days. If they had a grant that covered 50 percent of the cost of the pool that might change the equation a lot.

500k/year is a lot of money. But it seems reasonable that basic pool rentals to swim teams, for physical therapy, seniors groups, and the schools could bring in 250k per year, assuming around $250/hour for renting the entire facility. Note I said swim teams, because if there was truly a better pool here the swim team in Omak would probably also train in the pool here. Don't think for a second that parents wouldn't drive their kids over the Loup to train in a better pool. If two teams were training ten hours per week all year in the pool that would be around $250k/year right there by itself.

One reason I don't think this whole idea should be brutally dismissed out of hand is the climate and environmental trends here. We are losing a significant number of active outdoor days to either heat waves or wildfire smoke, so having some safe indoor alternatives for physical activity might well be a good idea. What might seem like a ridiculous and extravagant luxury in 2023 might be a necessity in 2030. And if we waited until we really, really needed that indoor exercise facility we probably would need to wait another five years or more for any solution.

And yes, a pool is a luxury. But so are public parks. And if you look at our schools, a pretty significant portion of their budget is spent on school sports -- in most schools more funds are budgeted for sports than for math or science or english. Yes, participants also have to pay but the school still subsidizes things like football teams to a remarkable degree.

[realoldtimer]

If only property owners -- the folks who will bear the burden -- could vote on this, and based on the feedback I hear and read, it would be defeated.

Unfortunately, all registered voters ballots are included.

[PAL]

Ok, so they have the signatures. We just have to make sure enough property owners vote that don't want their taxes to go up.
Thanks for posting Blue's letter. "they are just community members trying to find the most equitable way". And imposing an additional tax on property owners is equitable? Yes, they will go for the maximum even though they don't want their taxes to go up either. What a load.
Also there was some discussion with the Housing Action Plan of creating a tax for affordable housing. About 1-1.5%. Now I am more inclined to pay for that, but not a close to $21 million aquatics center. And the yearly maintenance bill of close to $500,000. It is calculated that Twisp will grow and there will be enough revenue from taxes for upkeep. What a burden on us and what a burden on future generations that may try to live here.
I support a new pool and I doubt it will cost $20 million. People are equating a pool with an aquatics center. The two are separate.
The County Commissioners listened to a presentation Tues. Andy Hover was expressing concern. I suggest writing our county commissioners or at least Andy to urge him not to support this.

This from the feasibility study:
2. Revenue adequacy might frame district extent. The districts are limited in the type and level
(e.g., tax rates) available to it to fund services. Depending on the cost to build and operate the
facility, the tax bases in Twisp and Okanogan County may not be adequate to sustainably fund
services. Alternatively, funds could be adequate, and there may be a need to "right-size" the
district to better align funding and usage of the facility among taxpayers.

And even though the study is 79 pages long, I urge all to read it. There's some graphs and stuff but find the wording on the Park district, page 60 or so.
Oh and schools and roads are essential services as is the fire district and hospitals.

[pasayten]

I guess this all depends on how valuable you think a swimming pool is to the community.

Yes, this is true... Affordable housing comes to mind... but not a new pool...

[mister_coffee]

I guess this all depends on how valuable you think a swimming pool is to the community.

There is a viable swimming pool that could be rehabbed and enclosed for a lot less money.

Beyond that, as an oldtimer I believe enterprises should be self supporting, not leach off the backs of property owners. If an aquatic center were a viable enterprise, able to support itself, it would have been built by the private sector.

I don't know. We don't apply those same standards to schools, parks, and roads. I also don't know what the cost figures on rehabbing the existing wagner pool would be. Those should be spelled out somewhere, preferably by the people advocating for the pool. And the vast majority of competitive swimming pools in the wealthy King County area are public pools.

I do agree that this plan is premature and not sufficiently specific to know if it is worthwhile to support. If there was a concrete business plan in place I'd be a lot more sympathetic. You can't go out and ask people for money when you have no specific idea what something is going to cost and only a vague discussion of the benefits.

Also part of the business plan would be lining up anchor customers who would commit to rent the pool. Competitive swim teams (and I'll emphasize teams, because if they build the facility they are talking about kids in Omak would likely be training here) would be one anchor customer.

There are also federal matching grants for pools (though not as generous and abundant as in the past). Again I'd be a lot more sympathetic if that were part of the proposal.

[realoldtimer]

I guess this all depends on how valuable you think a swimming pool is to the community.

There is a viable swimming pool that could be rehabbed and enclosed for a lot less money.

Beyond that, as an oldtimer I believe enterprises should be self supporting, not leach off the backs of property owners. If an aquatic center were a viable enterprise, able to support itself, it would have been built by the private sector.

[mister_coffee]

I guess this all depends on how valuable you think a swimming pool is to the community.

[pasayten]

Read between the lines!!!

• We are community members just trying to find the most equitable way to support a pool here long term. We don’t want our property taxes to increase either, so we will try to keep them as low as possible. The tax is not known yet, as we don’t know the exact costs of the pool yet. The Methow Aquatics District would be a type of Metropolitan Park District (MPD) under the RCW laws. That type of rec district is beneficial for many reasons including you don’t have to return to the voters every two years like the other types of Washington rec districts. This ballot measure would simply create it and allow the commissioners to set a property tax up to the maximum of 75 cents per $1,000 of property value for the pool, but hopefully the full amount would not be needed. The Methow Aquatics District would own and run the MAC, and decide the final tax amount.

"Tax is not known yet"... What???? This is ridiculous... Of course is will end up being the max... "hopefully the full amount would not be needed"... That doesn't cut it in my book... Let's see... $400K house... $300 per year!!! $700K house... $525 per year!!!

"That type of rec district is beneficial for many reasons including you don’t have to return to the voters every two years like the other types of Washington rec districts."... Jeez... a FOREVER and UNELECTED taxing authority... NOT what I want to have have to suffer under living here...

NO NO NO to Proposition 1


From the Methow Valley News...

My turn – Support for a Methow Aquatics District is essential
JUNE 29, 2023 BY METHOW VALLEY NEWS

By Blue Bradley

I’ve been on the Friends of the Pool board since 2018 and I want to keep a pool in the Methow Valley. It is a complicated issue to build a pool, and we have learned a lot over the years. I wanted to share a few things:

• We do not have a final design nor a final cost for the future pool. We did a feasibility study to figure out what the community wants and came up with some preliminary plans to figure out some numbers to start working with. This is not the final design. If the Methow Aquatics District forms in November, then the commissioners running that would decide on the final design, most likely with a citizen advisory panel’s help.

• We hope to form the Methow Aquatics District to ensure operational funding for the next 50 years for a future pool. It would be irresponsible to build a pool without a plan for the future. We have a team of local volunteers meeting weekly as a “Rec District Taskforce” under Friends of the Pool, who have been working hard to figure this out. Proposition 1 will be on the November ballot if we get enough signatures by Aug. 1, and is specifically for the formation of the Methow Aquatics District.

The Methow Aquatics District would be the school district boundaries and only support the future Methow Aquatic Center (MAC) facility. It is not for recreational trails in the valley, not for any other facility or recreation maintenance in the valley at this time (the commissioners could possibly change that in the future with a new ballot measure to the voters), nor will it take anyone’s property away by eminent domain. We will legally purchase property for this pool and have a couple options we are considering.

• We are community members just trying to find the most equitable way to support a pool here long term. We don’t want our property taxes to increase either, so we will try to keep them as low as possible. The tax is not known yet, as we don’t know the exact costs of the pool yet. The Methow Aquatics District would be a type of Metropolitan Park District (MPD) under the RCW laws. That type of rec district is beneficial for many reasons including you don’t have to return to the voters every two years like the other types of Washington rec districts. This ballot measure would simply create it and allow the commissioners to set a property tax up to the maximum of 75 cents per $1,000 of property value for the pool, but hopefully the full amount would not be needed. The Methow Aquatics District would own and run the MAC, and decide the final tax amount.

• We need to prove that the community supports the effort to build a new pool and that it is a public facility in order to qualify for state and federal grant funding for site acquisition (buying land) and building it. By voting to form the Methow Aquatics District, it shows community support and creates the public infrastructure to show it is not a private entity. It’s the next critical step in this process.

• The current pool is failing and too old to maintain for much longer. Ask anyone who works there. The longer we wait, the more likely we will have no pool for kids to learn to swim, and adults and elders to move their bodies. We are doing our best to keep this project moving forward so we don’t have a summer without a pool. A pool is not a luxury, it’s a lifesaver.

We want a new pool for all ages, all year, into the future. We are an all-volunteer board, who also live here, and are doing our best to determine the best pathway forward for our community to achieve this goal. We would love your help. Please email your questions, or let us know if you want to join our effort, at info@foptwisp.org. And please, support Proposition 1 to create the Methow Aquatics District by signing the petition to get it on the ballot in November.

Blue Bradley has been a full-time valley resident since 1995, and is the mother of a Killer Whale swimmer, a swimmer, and a volunteer Friends of the Pool Board member.

[PAL]

I have yet to see any of the petitions in any businesses.
We will be voting NO as well. It's pointed out that levy's are used to pay for other services why not a pool. These are Essential services. Who pays for these? Property owners.
And also renters will pay as the rents will increase even more. With the 30% increase in assessments it will put a strain on people.
I am for a pool, but not a year round aquatics center. Originally the quote was $20 and I noticed in the paper it is now around $21 million. It could cost even more, plus yearly maintenance.Those people that don't have rentals will bear the brunt. There is no offset or renters paying for that tax.
A letter last week said a few people could only exercise in a pool. The key word is "few". They do make in home pools that are small and create action and resistance. Let them have a pool like that in their homes. Oh, I know, too expensive.
This may get on the ballot but it has to be defeated. Are we going to be priced out of the Valley?
No indoor pool. Yes to a pool.

[pasayten]

Looks like they may have enough signatures to put Prop 1 on the ballot... Jeez... a Park District with an unelected Board and the power to tax us regular property taxes up to 75 cents per $1,000 assessed value... Funds for operation and maintainence...

Let's see... $400K house... $300 per year!!! $700K house... $525 per year!!!

To show the magnitude of the project... $23 million cost of construction... Population of 6000 in the Park District... That's a cost of $3,833 per every man, women, and child in the Valley just to build it...

Ridiculous plan and district taxing authority with an unelected Board... NEVER a good deal for the local tax payers...

If it's on the ballot, I will be voting a big NO...

https://www.foptwisp.org/themac

Petitions are now circulating for filing Proposition 1 to place the Methow Aquatics District on the November ballot. Petitions can found at public gathering and various public spaces through July 15th. The Proposition reads as follows:

A petition of the voters has been submitted concerning formation of a metropolitan park district. If approved, this proposition would create a district under chapter 35.61 RCW, to be known as the Methow Aquatics District, to provide ongoing funding to develop, construct, operate, and maintain the Methow Aquatics Center and related existing and future facilities. The District would have the powers provided under chapter 35.61 RCW, excluding eminent domain, but including, among others, to levy regular property taxes up to 75 cents per $1,000 assessed value, and its boundaries would be coterminous with the boundaries of Methow Valley School District 350. The District would be governed by a five member board appointed by the Okanogan County Commission and the Twisp and Winthrop Town Councils as provided by interlocal agreement approved by the three jurisdictions.