Proposition 1 -- What Are We Actually Voting On??

[PAL]

It's the usual suspects that want the mega spa. I say usual because, even though people who have lived here a fair amount of time, have not lived here to see what it was like in the very early nineties, when I landed here. (And those that came before me, saw it even in its more "pure" form)
People moved in realizing what a gem the Methow is, but they brought the city amenities in to make changes. It gained momentum and here is where we are now.
It has to be stressed over and over and people need to be educated that this vote is about a Metropolitan Park District being created.
If passed it will be a burden on their children and generations beyond, not to mention those struggling to make ends meet. This has not been throught through at all. Selfish interests are at work here.

[Fun CH]

I saw the first vote yes on prop 1 sign in front of Methow cycle and sports. Unfortunately the sign they choose makes people believe that prop 1 is about a pool.

Sad that they have to use misinformation to garner votes. Even the FOP stated that a yes vote on prop 1 doesn't guarantee that the mega pool/spa will be constructed.

Once again, Proposition 1 is about the creation of a Metropolitan Park District which allows any type of recreational facility to be constructed with out voter input or control and uses a forever regressive property tax structure to fund those prijects. The goal is to create tourist attractions that support commercial Enterprises such as Methow cycle and sports and Commercial Mountain Guiding in the North Cascades. Oh and a few locals will also use the facilities and service the tourist industry.

If it was simply about a repairing or replacing a pool, that goal could easily be accomplished without need to form a Metropolitan Park District.

Many who don't support formation of a Metropolitan Park District with all its negative consequences, also support a pool.

So to Joe and Julie I say, why the misinformation? Why not tell voters what proposition 1 is really about?

[Fun CH]

And they want an aquatics center when there is this?This most probably goes into a different topic or category, but I couldn't resist asking what is more important.

https://theraven.substack.com/p/we-shou ... dium=email

no doubt a massive construction project using vast amounts of concete steel, and pavement has a huge carbon footprint. And they want to impose a regressive tax on low-income people in order to pay for their year round dream Recreation that can't support itself.

No wonder public pools are dying out as people explore other recreational opportunities. Pools are just a big tax drain that cities can no longer afford.

Even people who support the pool don't support the FOP proposal to create a Metropolitan Park District.

[PAL]

I can try. I think I would copy and paste and post a new topic under a different heading. I figured most people may not want to see or talk about something so...terrible or hopeless? Here goes.

[mister_coffee]

And they want an aquatics center when there is this?This most probably goes into a different topic or category, but I couldn't resist asking what is more important.

https://theraven.substack.com/p/we-shou ... dium=email

Can we please fork that whole discussion into a different thread? There really ought to be such a discussion.

[pasayten]

Of special note is that we are all welcome to give feedback on their Facebook page. Hear that Ray?

I did awhile back and they blocked me on my main account! I have to use my wife's account or my old grandpa account I used for the kids to even view their page now. Go figure...

[Fun CH]

It is worthwhile to remind folks that the language of the measure implicates the proponents' intention to pursue an indoor aquatic center. True, voters are not asked to decide a specific project, but there should be no mystery what the objective is.

The objective is to create a Metropolitan Park District. Don't forget the language of the ballot measure that says tax money will be used for related existing and future recreational facilities.

A Metropolitan Park District is allowed by law to create other recreational facilities besides a pool and they intend to do just that.

I've mentioned here that future recreational facilities may include a climbing wall gym. Read the article below and you will see why multiple recreational facilities are being consided. There's no way a small local population of swimmers can even come close to cover the cost of operations much less build the dam thing. It's not financially responsible hence the MPD structure of an imposed regressive tax on people who will never go to Disneyland for their Recreation.

Of special note is that we are all welcome to give feedback on their Facebook page. Hear that Ray?

"Public forum to offer look at swimming pool replacement ideas
MARCH 16, 2022 BY ANN MCCREARY

Earlier feedback supports year-round facility

Community members will get their first look at concepts for a new year-round swimming pool in the Methow Valley during an on-line community forum on March 24, hosted by Friends of the Pool.

The community meeting, to be held via Zoom, will describe options for different types of swimming pool facilities developed by consultants hired by Friends of the Pool, which is spearheading planning for the pool project. The meeting begins at 6 p.m. and people can join via a link on the Friends of the Pool website at: foptwisp.org/events.

The consultants will also present findings of a market analysis conducted over the winter that evaluates the Methow Valley’s potential to support a year-round pool to replace the aging Ernest O. Wagner Memorial Pool in Twisp.

The community forum is the next step in a planning process that began last October when Friends of the Pool hosted a community meeting to launch its “Big Splash” campaign for a new swimming facility. At that meeting, local residents shared their ideas about a future swimming pool with consultants from Ballard*King & Associates, a Colorado-based recreation consulting and planning firm hired by Friends of the Pool.

With feedback from the community, consultants have developed three preliminary alternatives to consider for a pool facility, said Sarah Schrock, president of Friends of the Pool.

“The options will range from a modest replacement that achieves some of the needs for expansion we know we have, like another lap lane, to a year-round indoor aquatics facility with room to expand ‘dry side’ amenities,” Schrock said.

Dry-side amenities include things like climbing walls, workout equipment, sport courts and social spaces. The consultant’s market analysis says that these amenities “are proven to help swimming pools pencil out better” financially by expanding options for users, Schrock said.

“Users will do more than one thing in a visit, or families will split up. Mom goes to the gym while kids have a swim lesson. … That is why we often see recreation centers with other amenities,” Schrock said. “Our first priority is a pool, but we’d be foolish to overlook the potential for growth.”

Conceptual alternatives

The alternatives presented at the public forum will be conceptual, but will provide baseline capital costs, operating costs and revenue projections, Schrock said. The consultants will also summarize their market analysis, including possible creation of a special recreation district to support the pool facility, she said.

“After these are presented to the public, we will take these options and do a deeper dive with focused stakeholder groups to finalize a preferred option,” Schrock said. “The preferred option will then be fine-tuned and it will be the basis for moving forward to securing both operational revenue and capital costs for the project. We hope to have the preferred option by May 31.”

People attending the online forum will be able to comment or ask questions during the meeting, said Bo Thrasher, a Friends of the Pool board member. “And then of course people are always welcome to go to our website and give feedback there or to any of the board members,” she said.

Friends of the Pool was formed in 2005 to support the Wagner Memorial Pool, which is owned and operated by the Town of Twisp, but is used by residents from throughout the Methow Valley and visitors. Over the years the nonprofit group has raised and given more than $400,000 for pool repairs and operating expenses.

After a pool engineering firm determined that it would cost more to repair the 55-year-old pool than it would to replace it, Friends of the Pool began hosting meetings in 2020 with valley residents to explore ideas for a new pool. A gift from an anonymous fund of the Philadelphia Foundation, which supports community-based philanthropic causes, enabled Friends of the Pool to hire the consulting firm last year to conduct a feasibility study on building and funding a new swimming pool facility.

Ballard*King consultants are working with a ECONorthwest, a finance, policy and planning firm, to evaluate the feasibility of a special recreation district to support a new pool facility.

“One of the critical pieces to making a new pool a reality, regardless of scale of the facility, is securing operating funds,” Schrock said. It is very uncommon, she said, for pools to cover their operating costs through income from lessons or passes.

“A pool should be considered a public good or service, providing safety, health, and general well-being to the public,” she said.

The need for a swimming pool that is open year-round was a common theme expressed by people at the community meeting held last fall. The pool in Twisp is only open in summer, less than three months a year. Last year it closed after only a month due to unhealthy air caused by wildfires. Community members also emphasized the need for more activities in the valley for teens and older residents."

[PAL]

And they want an aquatics center when there is this?This most probably goes into a different topic or category, but I couldn't resist asking what is more important.

https://theraven.substack.com/p/we-shou ... dium=email

[SOulman]

Thank you, Ray for getting clarification about the language of Proposition 1.

It is worthwhile to remind folks that the language of the measure implicates the proponents' intention to pursue an indoor aquatic center. True, voters are not asked to decide a specific project, but there should be no mystery what the objective is.

Proposition 1 says, in part, to "provide ongoing funding to develop, construct, operate, and maintain the Methow Aquatics Center." The Methow Aquatic Center does not exist in a vacuum. Much work has gone into the proposal.

The proponents' website and social media says this --

"The Methow Aquatics Center (MAC) is a multi-purpose aquatics facility that can be used ALL year by EVERYONE in the Methow Valley. It will replace the Wagner Pool in Twisp at a new location. The center will support youth swim lessons, competitive swimming for all ages, leisure swim, rehabilitation, and water related safety programs in an indoor facility safe from wildfire smoke and harsh weather.

"Friends of the Pool hired Ballard*King and Associates in 2020 to conduct a feasibility and inform our decision-making for a new pool with a goal to serve the valley for the next 50 years. The study is complete and there is resounding public support for a year-round, indoor pool that will accommodate athletes, young children, and our aging population."

There is more than enough reason to oppose Proposition 1 because of the vagueness of establishing a district with an unelected governing board with the power to levy significant, regressive property taxes.

People need to keep in mind that the ultimate objective is an expensive indoor aquatic center. The proponents' feasibility study, their social media representations and local media reporting have been clear about this point.

Pick your concern. There are plenty of them. Vote NO on Proposition 1.

[pasayten]

I received a preview ballot from the auditor…

Comforting to see it is very clear that the vote is for formation of the District and not a pool….

00561-BEAVERCRE_Style62_English_8.5x11_Paper.pdf

(307.52 KiB) Downloaded 683 times

[Fun CH]

Another letter to the Editor as it gets closer to remind people what they are voting for. FOP wants people to think if they vote no on a taxing district they are also voting yay or nay for a pool.

Exactly. The FOP puts out a lot of misleading information. For example: Quote from FOP website. Note Twisp is never mentioned as the location for the Mega pool/spa. That's because it will be built in Winthrop.

"What is Proposition 1?
Proposition 1 will create the Methow Aquatics District responsible for the leadership and management of funding for a new pool for the Methow Valley. "

While they do go on to say that the Methow Aquatics District is a Metropolitan Park District, what they do not say is that new tax dollars from our property taxes under a new MPD taxing district can be used to fund other recreational projects. That can be anything from a climbing gym in Mazama to a developing concert venue builds in Winthrop. Even an amusement park can be developed, all without any say from the voters.

Oh boy, I moved here so I could live right next to Disneyland West.

RCW 35.61.130 section 3.

"The board of park commissioners shall have power to improve, acquire, extend and maintain, open and lay out, parks, parkways, boulevards, avenues, aviation landings and playgrounds, within or without the park district, and to authorize, conduct and manage the letting of boats, or other amusement apparatus, the operation of bath houses, the purchase and sale of foodstuffs or other merchandise, the giving of vocal or instrumental concerts or other entertainments, the establishment and maintenance of aviation landings and playgrounds, and generally the management and conduct of such forms of recreation or business as it shall judge desirable or beneficial for the public, or for the production of revenue for expenditure for park purposes; and may pay out moneys for the maintenance and improvement of any such parks, parkways, boulevards, avenues, aviation landings and playgrounds as now exist, or may hereafter be acquired, within or without the limits of said city and for the purchase of lands within or without the limits of said city, whenever it deems the purchase to be for the benefit of the public and for the interest of the park district, and for the maintenance and improvement thereof and for all expenses incidental to its duties:"

[PAL]

Another letter to the Editor as it gets closer to remind people what they are voting for. FOP wants people to think if they vote no on a taxing district they are also voting yay or nay for a pool.

[pasayten]

Yes... that matches the text I saved from their older version of the website...

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.

[Fun CH]

Here is a photo of the ballot petition header. The photo is from a copy that the Okanogan County auditors office gave me about a month ago. It's the same language that the FOP had up on its web page until recently.

And below is a screenshot from the FOP website that shows more misleading information. We are not voting for or against a pool.

We are voting whether or not to establish a Metropolitan Park District within our school district. That's a big difference.

Vote No on Proposition 1. Vote no on establishing a Metropolitan Park District.

[Fun CH]

This quote below is the structure on the ballot that defines how the MPD board commissioners are seated (chosen).

Quote

"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."

Below is the quoted languge presented on the FOP webpage which states 3 elected officials will serve on the MPD board.

Quote:

"The MPD provides a governing structure for local jurisdictions to partner together for a shared value. The Methow Aquatics District, once formed via voter approval, will be governed by a five member board of commissioners comprised of 3 elected officials, representing the jurisdictions within the district and 2 members at-large appointed by the Towns of Winthrop and Twisp." End quote

The structure we will be voting on does not state that 3 elected officials will serve on the MPD board.

The FOP goes on to state:

"Using our elected officials in the governance structure makes them accountable to the public as well. Using appointed members at large provides the opportunity to appoint well qualified and committed board members who value the purpose of the district."

I see this as just another FOP attempt to mislead voters using a false narrative. The ballot language clearly states that all 5 MPD board members will be appointed by officials in the 3 jurisdictions.

Note that state law does allow voters to elect MPD Board commissioners or have them appointed by the relevant Town Council. The FOP choose not to allow voters to elect the MPD board members.

The non ballot language (false narrative) gives the appearance that the MPD board will be accountable to voters. But they are clearly not. Voters don't elect them.

This discrepancy has already been pointed out on this forum. The honest path to take should have been for the FOP to remove their false narrative and leave the ballot language up on their website.

[pasayten]

This may be the language... It was on the old version of their website...

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.

In any case, the auditor will be sending the text next week in response to my email

[PAL]

Thanks SOulman. I wanted to see what the Prop language was and it seemed to be wiped off their FB page. I searched and searched. When it said to see Prop 1, it wasn't there. Why is that? Justin why? It's believed there is nothing nefarious going on. I'd like to believe that. But the language on the FB makes it sound like we were born yesterday and don't know what they are up to.
The language will come out in the Voter's pamphlet.

[SOulman]

Ray posted earlier that the actual ballot language has disappeared from public review.

I admit that along with Ray as the committee writing a voters pamphlet statement against the proposal, we were not provided with the language submitted to the county auditor. My bad, and I take responsibility. It was common knowledge was the ballot measure was.

Nevertheless, the ballot language no longer appears on the webpage of the measure's proponents. I cannot find the language on the county elections website.

I don't question that the statement submitted for signatures differs from the one on the November ballot, but it is curious why the statement is no longer in the public realm. As Don Nelson, MVNews publisher, correctly notes in his editorials -- focus on the ballot language, not all the peripheral issues.

Ray has requested official language from the elections division. This is an issue that is worth pointing out to the community.