Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2023 8:50 am
Pool blank check$
Post by Friends of the Pool » Wed Sep 27, 2023 5:10 am
If you’ve seen a certain No Pool Taxes website or posters around town you’d think Prop 1 will create “unlimited, unchecked spending.” To quote a poster in town, “You will be giving the District a BIG BLANK CHECK for construction and operations!”
This is false.
One of the most defined and inflexible aspects of Prop 1 is spending.
The levy by law CAN NOT be more than $75 per $100,000 of assessed value. No more. That is maximum. The proposition language LIMITS the funds to an aquatic facility, so that scope creep can’t happen. In a year, the increase could only be 1%.
If you want a pool in the Methow, please vote YES.
Friends of the Pool
Here is my rebuttal to the newer post on the Methownet BB.
Re: Pool blank check$
Post by Reapward » Wed Sep 27, 2023 6:39 am
Understand something. It's not that some of us don't want a pool. We do not want a taxing district at a time like this. There are other needs. This is a want. This is a regressive tax. This is a permanent tax, I don't care how much yousay you will be responsible on how our hard earned dollars are spent. And an excess levy could be proposed in the future. You're gonna need all the money you can get your hands on for a project of this magnitude. It would be the most expensive building in the Valley to build and maintain. Think about it.
Right, no open checkbook, literally, but figuratively, that's what it feels like.
Pearl Cherrington
Methownet BB - The purpose of Proposition 1?????
-
PAL
- Posts: 1936
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
- Contact:
Re: Methownet BB - The purpose of Proposition 1?????
Pearl Cherrington
-
pasayten
- Posts: 2978
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Methownet BB - The purpose of Proposition 1?????
The purpose of Proposition 1?????
Post by Friends of the Pool » Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:35 am
The purpose of Proposition 1 is not to build a $20 million pool.
The purpose of Proposition 1 is to create a recreation district (to be called the Methow Aquatics District) responsible for the leadership and management of funding for a new pool for the Methow Valley.
If you are for a pool, but not a $20 million pool, vote yes on Prop 1.
If you are for a pool, but not a fancy pool, vote yes on Prop 1.
There is no $20 million pool. There are no designs or drawings. This was an idea based on community feedback from 2019-2022.
The authority on what pool is built will be held by elected officials through an inter-local agreement, appointed electors, and a citizens advisory council. Prop 1 offers you the opportunity to be involved in these positions of authority.
Please vote yes on Prop 1 if you want a pool.
Friends of the Pool
Post by biglakejudy » Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:36 am
Because the facts were muddy, the approach less than straight forward and the whole package pretty tangled, I will be voting no. How difficult is it to be honest? And its not very smart to encourage people to commit voter fraud. Is artgirl going to stand up for what she proposes and identify herself? That is another part and parcel of this mess in a box.
Judy Brezina
Post by Ed S » Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:56 am
"There are no designs or drawings. This was an idea based on community feedback from 2019-2022.
The authority on what pool is built will be held by elected officials through an inter-local agreement, appointed electors, and a citizens advisory council. Prop 1 offers you the opportunity to be involved in these positions of authority."
Exactly why I will be voting no. Although the opportunity to be involved is possible, a very small number of people will be "in these positions of authority". And as I understand it the "community feedback" was a biased group of pro pool folks. I am for a pool but there is no way I would ever commit to this structure. I will vote NO. Also, for transparency.... who are the name(s) behind this post.
Ed Stockard
Post by Mike K » Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:12 am
You want the people to trust you, but you don't trust the people to vote for the district every 6 years with a levy. If Friends of the pool stand behind your post list their names.Is this not a violation of BB rules?
I'm a solid no vote and will continue to speak against this outrages plan to drive up my taxes. Remember our tax appraisals went up like 30% this spring.
Mike Kedrowski
Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:32 am
People will be basically voting for a taxation district. A permanent one, with appointed electors.
The $20 million came up in the feasibility study and also by various people in the newspaper.
People want to know the true costs of an indoor aquatics center. The true maintenance costs. The feasibility study showed plans and Mike Millikan talked in front of the County Commissioners about the proposal. Talked about big glass doors that could open in the summer.
The consultant that did the feasibility study and held a Zoom meeting, of about 40 people, said he was hearing overwhelming support. Then the MV News wrote an article about what he said. That was misleading as it indicated "overwhelming" suppport.
This has been a fiasco from the start. What part of NO MPD does FOP not understand.
As Mike said our assessements have gone up and we are already paying regressive taxes.
Vote NO on Prop. 1. This is a regressive tax. No more!
Pearl Cherrington
Post by rockchuck » Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:01 am
Here are some quotes -
Methow Valley Aquatic Center Feasibility Study, February 2023, Ballard*King Associates
"The desired program for a new indoor aquatic center includes a six-lane pool, a recreation pool and a hot tub supported by administrative offices, a multi-purpose room, locker and restroom facilities and various support spaces." p. 39
"The projected capital cost for the project is estimated to be $20,085,723 based on 2022 costs." p. 43
"The following figures summarize the anticipated operational expenses and projected revenues for the operation of the Methow Valley Aquatic Center.
Expenses $ 895,285
Revenues $ 332,190
Difference (563,095)
Recovery % 37%" p. 49
"The pool will likely be funded through a range of public, private, and philanthropic funding sources, but it is likely that debt issued by the MPD will be a prominent source of capital." p. 70
Methow Valley News, August 3, 2023
The county auditor’s certification that the proposition had received enough signatures to bring the proposal to a vote was a pivotal step for supporters of the Methow Aquatics Center, said Justin Porter, who is leading a Friends of the Pool task force on the aquatics center.
“It was a goosebumps kind of moment to know we got the signatures,” Porter said. “Our work was to get to this moment … after thousands of hours of work and thousands of dollars spent.”
Now that the proposal will appear on the ballot, Friends of the Pool will be working to convince voters that the benefits of a year-round indoor swimming pool will be worth the taxes that property owners will pay to fund it, Porter said.
“It is so valuable to have us make a decision as a community. So many decisions in our community are made by a select few. This is our opportunity as a community to say we value aquatics, we value the safety and opportunities a pool brings to our community,” Porter said.
“We know we’re asking the voters a lot in approving this district, but it’s what’s required to replace the Wagner Pool with a year-round indoor facility,” Porter said.
- Steve Oulman
Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:09 am
Thank you Steve.
Pearl Cherrington
Post by mamab » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:20 am
I will be voting NO ON PROP 1. This creates a forever taxing district on the backs of property owners, many of which are working class families at a value up to .75 per $1000 of assessed value. Most properties in the valley recently had new valuations of anywhere from 30-over 50%, to ask property owners to foot the bill for the estimated $20 million dollar complex is honestly rather insulting and will be a regressive tax on lower income families. This isn't a simple levy to replace the Wagner Pool it is going to create a taxing district that even our children will pay for, if they can afford to live here.
I also have a large problem with creating a tax district that will not include votes by the public and by a board chosen by only a select few.
The want vs need isn't being addressed either FOP, you want a major metropolitan taxation district to fund a massive pool and recreation complex with 2 pools, an exercise room, a splash pad and retractable doors that will likely not employ more than a couple people and run at a deficit of an estimated half million dollars? What are we paying for? A money pit that will suck money out of our community and into the hands of non-local contractors and then saddle the community with forever debt?! Sorry but if any of us ran our households like this we'd all be homeless. Our family will vote NO ON PROP 1.
Erin Bosco-Carlton
Post by Peter Larsen » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:42 am
I see no name attached to original posters opinions ?
Peter Larsen
Post by mamab » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:53 am
Thanks Steve for showing the quotes from the MVN. I also agree that the original post on this thread should be required to have a real signature of a person or persons. The FOP is a group of people and frankly the post is an opinion.
Erin Bosco-Carlton
Post by Brightwood » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:54 am
Erin, well said and Ditto!
Melissa Larson
Post by karlukkid » Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:33 pm
It is nice to see so many rational posts regarding this inane proposition. Please remember we are six weeks from the election, we need continue to talk to folks and keep this in our daily conversations. We cannot let up, we need to put a fork in this proposition. We dont know what funding is behind this and what near election campaign blitz they may have in store. I agree, as has been well stated above, the proponents messaging (in my opinion) is vague, inconsistent and disingenuous. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Post by biglakejudy » Tue Sep 26, 2023 1:32 pm
Oh? And all this time I thought it was the Pool family. Dang.
I still want artgirl to identify only for her claims and suggestions. You just don't say stuff like that without standing behind it.
Judy Brezina
Post by rockchuck » Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:59 pm
It is always helpful to have some context about how we got to the current situation.
My sense is that this has long been about replacing the aging Wagner Memorial Pool with a modern indoor aquatic center. Proposition 1 and the new tax district is simply one piece of the puzzle. Other things like planning/design/engineering, cost analysis, or fund raising are part of the solution. We have heard little about these aspects. Lacking that information, I cannot support Proposition 1.
Read for yourself what was reported and quoted about this evolving public issue.
October 27, 2021
Friends group funds study to replace Twisp pool – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2021/10/27 ... wisp-pool/
April 13, 2022
Indoor pool is overwhelming choice to replace Wagner Memorial – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2022/04/13 ... -memorial/
January 25, 2023
Friends of Pool reports on planning progress – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/01/25 ... -progress/
June 22, 2023
Petition drive aims for November vote on Methow Aquatics District – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/06/22 ... -district/
August 3, 2023
Methow Aquatics District proposal qualifies for the November ballot – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/08/03 ... er-ballot/
Steve Oulman
Post by Mike K » Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:29 pm
Maybe a Town Hall meeting so all these questions can be addressed in a public forum? I would like to put a face to the name of those that want my tax dollars till death due us apart.
Mike Kedrowski
Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:27 pm
FOP had or has plans for educational outreach and perhaps town hall type meeting but I have not seen anything lately. I think it was in the MVN some weeks ago.
Might find out more on their Facebook page.
Pearl Cherrington
Post by rockchuck » Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:08 pm
More history and context for Proposition 1 --
Proponents of Proposition 1 spent many thousands of dollars on a consultant feasibility study to evaluate options to replace the Wagner Memorial Pool. That work embraced a new indoor aquatic center as the preferred solution and a metropolitan park district as the main way to pay for it.
As reported in the MVNews (April 13, 2022) the consultant and the client concluded that an indoor aquatic center was the community choice. From that point forward, the project became a new indoor aquatic center that "includes a six-lane pool, a recreation pool and a hot tub supported by administrative offices, a multi-purpose room, locker and restroom facilities and various support spaces." Feasibility study, p. 40.
The consultant analyzed financing options and the client "determined that a metropolitan park district (MPD) is the preferred district entity for funding and governing the pool facility." Feasibility study, p. 70
With a preferred alternative and funding mechanism, the consultants identified important next steps (Feasibility study, p. 74) --
"• Funding Plan Update – Finalize the funding mechanisms for not only the development of the center itself but also the annual operating subsidy. This will establish the sources of funding and most importantly the dollars that are available for the project.
• Site Determination – A final decision on where the aquatic center will be built has to be determined as this directly relates to capital cost projections. This is followed up with a formal commitment to acquire the site itself.
• Building Program Update – Based on the funding plan, make any required adjustments to the building program (amenities and their size).
• Concept Design – With the site determined and an updated building program in place, develop a full concept and site plan for the center.
• Project Capital and Operations Update – Utilizing the updated building program and concept plan for the center, the project capital cost estimates are updated as is the operations cost/revenue estimates.
• Public Vote - If a taxing district (likely an MPD) is going to utilized to fund at least a portion of the capital cost and operations subsidy, then there will need to be an election to establish the district and the tax rate."
The only item that the community has meaningfully engaged in is formation of a taxing district. To earn my vote, I would have liked to see details on the other important next steps.
I appreciate all of the hard work that proponents of Proposition 1 have put into the effort. In my view, the proposal is simply not ready for prime time. I support replacing the Wagner pool. I will be voting NO on Proposition 1.
Steve Oulman
Post by artgirl » Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:46 pm
Here is the orginal language that was used on the FOP website as it existed on 8/72023
"What’s the MAC?
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.
fop-mac-render.jpg
The above drawing depicts conceptual square footage for planning purposes only (by Johnston Architects)
A six-lane pool - for laps, exercise, racing, and recreation
A warmer recreational pool for swim lessons, exercise classes, and fun
A spa hot tub for therapy and relaxation
An outdoor jetted splash pad for kids
Changing facilities for individuals and families
A multi-purpose room for parties, training, and programs
Admin space and a front desk
Outdoor open space
Parking
The community has spoken and the MAC is our future."
Post by Carforsale » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:08 pm
All that actually sounds really cool. Idk
I'll enjoy it if passes. Would there be any other choice.
But still curse the people who pass it for as long as there are taxes
The sad part is. The proponents of prop 1 are bolstered with pride like self promoted government official making change in there community.
In my opinion the stupid thing about people who dabble in politics just grasp at modifying things that are pointless.
The people for prop 1 are not compassionate but goal oriented and want the MAC! Lol
Want what you want when you want it lol it's okay
Post by artgirl » Wed Sep 27, 2023 8:40 am
Here is the Ballot language that we will be voting on in Nov.
Note this wording on the ballot that describes how the Metropolitan Park District money will be used;
"to provide ongoing funding to develop, construct, operate, and maintain the Methow Aquatics Center and related existing and future facilities. "
Please see my above post that defines what the Methow Aquatics Center is.
Propostion 1 as it appears on the November Ballot;
"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."
Post by Friends of the Pool » Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:35 am
The purpose of Proposition 1 is not to build a $20 million pool.
The purpose of Proposition 1 is to create a recreation district (to be called the Methow Aquatics District) responsible for the leadership and management of funding for a new pool for the Methow Valley.
If you are for a pool, but not a $20 million pool, vote yes on Prop 1.
If you are for a pool, but not a fancy pool, vote yes on Prop 1.
There is no $20 million pool. There are no designs or drawings. This was an idea based on community feedback from 2019-2022.
The authority on what pool is built will be held by elected officials through an inter-local agreement, appointed electors, and a citizens advisory council. Prop 1 offers you the opportunity to be involved in these positions of authority.
Please vote yes on Prop 1 if you want a pool.
Friends of the Pool
Post by biglakejudy » Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:36 am
Because the facts were muddy, the approach less than straight forward and the whole package pretty tangled, I will be voting no. How difficult is it to be honest? And its not very smart to encourage people to commit voter fraud. Is artgirl going to stand up for what she proposes and identify herself? That is another part and parcel of this mess in a box.
Judy Brezina
Post by Ed S » Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:56 am
"There are no designs or drawings. This was an idea based on community feedback from 2019-2022.
The authority on what pool is built will be held by elected officials through an inter-local agreement, appointed electors, and a citizens advisory council. Prop 1 offers you the opportunity to be involved in these positions of authority."
Exactly why I will be voting no. Although the opportunity to be involved is possible, a very small number of people will be "in these positions of authority". And as I understand it the "community feedback" was a biased group of pro pool folks. I am for a pool but there is no way I would ever commit to this structure. I will vote NO. Also, for transparency.... who are the name(s) behind this post.
Ed Stockard
Post by Mike K » Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:12 am
You want the people to trust you, but you don't trust the people to vote for the district every 6 years with a levy. If Friends of the pool stand behind your post list their names.Is this not a violation of BB rules?
I'm a solid no vote and will continue to speak against this outrages plan to drive up my taxes. Remember our tax appraisals went up like 30% this spring.
Mike Kedrowski
Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:32 am
People will be basically voting for a taxation district. A permanent one, with appointed electors.
The $20 million came up in the feasibility study and also by various people in the newspaper.
People want to know the true costs of an indoor aquatics center. The true maintenance costs. The feasibility study showed plans and Mike Millikan talked in front of the County Commissioners about the proposal. Talked about big glass doors that could open in the summer.
The consultant that did the feasibility study and held a Zoom meeting, of about 40 people, said he was hearing overwhelming support. Then the MV News wrote an article about what he said. That was misleading as it indicated "overwhelming" suppport.
This has been a fiasco from the start. What part of NO MPD does FOP not understand.
As Mike said our assessements have gone up and we are already paying regressive taxes.
Vote NO on Prop. 1. This is a regressive tax. No more!
Pearl Cherrington
Post by rockchuck » Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:01 am
Here are some quotes -
Methow Valley Aquatic Center Feasibility Study, February 2023, Ballard*King Associates
"The desired program for a new indoor aquatic center includes a six-lane pool, a recreation pool and a hot tub supported by administrative offices, a multi-purpose room, locker and restroom facilities and various support spaces." p. 39
"The projected capital cost for the project is estimated to be $20,085,723 based on 2022 costs." p. 43
"The following figures summarize the anticipated operational expenses and projected revenues for the operation of the Methow Valley Aquatic Center.
Expenses $ 895,285
Revenues $ 332,190
Difference (563,095)
Recovery % 37%" p. 49
"The pool will likely be funded through a range of public, private, and philanthropic funding sources, but it is likely that debt issued by the MPD will be a prominent source of capital." p. 70
Methow Valley News, August 3, 2023
The county auditor’s certification that the proposition had received enough signatures to bring the proposal to a vote was a pivotal step for supporters of the Methow Aquatics Center, said Justin Porter, who is leading a Friends of the Pool task force on the aquatics center.
“It was a goosebumps kind of moment to know we got the signatures,” Porter said. “Our work was to get to this moment … after thousands of hours of work and thousands of dollars spent.”
Now that the proposal will appear on the ballot, Friends of the Pool will be working to convince voters that the benefits of a year-round indoor swimming pool will be worth the taxes that property owners will pay to fund it, Porter said.
“It is so valuable to have us make a decision as a community. So many decisions in our community are made by a select few. This is our opportunity as a community to say we value aquatics, we value the safety and opportunities a pool brings to our community,” Porter said.
“We know we’re asking the voters a lot in approving this district, but it’s what’s required to replace the Wagner Pool with a year-round indoor facility,” Porter said.
- Steve Oulman
Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:09 am
Thank you Steve.
Pearl Cherrington
Post by mamab » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:20 am
I will be voting NO ON PROP 1. This creates a forever taxing district on the backs of property owners, many of which are working class families at a value up to .75 per $1000 of assessed value. Most properties in the valley recently had new valuations of anywhere from 30-over 50%, to ask property owners to foot the bill for the estimated $20 million dollar complex is honestly rather insulting and will be a regressive tax on lower income families. This isn't a simple levy to replace the Wagner Pool it is going to create a taxing district that even our children will pay for, if they can afford to live here.
I also have a large problem with creating a tax district that will not include votes by the public and by a board chosen by only a select few.
The want vs need isn't being addressed either FOP, you want a major metropolitan taxation district to fund a massive pool and recreation complex with 2 pools, an exercise room, a splash pad and retractable doors that will likely not employ more than a couple people and run at a deficit of an estimated half million dollars? What are we paying for? A money pit that will suck money out of our community and into the hands of non-local contractors and then saddle the community with forever debt?! Sorry but if any of us ran our households like this we'd all be homeless. Our family will vote NO ON PROP 1.
Erin Bosco-Carlton
Post by Peter Larsen » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:42 am
I see no name attached to original posters opinions ?
Peter Larsen
Post by mamab » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:53 am
Thanks Steve for showing the quotes from the MVN. I also agree that the original post on this thread should be required to have a real signature of a person or persons. The FOP is a group of people and frankly the post is an opinion.
Erin Bosco-Carlton
Post by Brightwood » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:54 am
Erin, well said and Ditto!
Melissa Larson
Post by karlukkid » Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:33 pm
It is nice to see so many rational posts regarding this inane proposition. Please remember we are six weeks from the election, we need continue to talk to folks and keep this in our daily conversations. We cannot let up, we need to put a fork in this proposition. We dont know what funding is behind this and what near election campaign blitz they may have in store. I agree, as has been well stated above, the proponents messaging (in my opinion) is vague, inconsistent and disingenuous. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Post by biglakejudy » Tue Sep 26, 2023 1:32 pm
Oh? And all this time I thought it was the Pool family. Dang.
I still want artgirl to identify only for her claims and suggestions. You just don't say stuff like that without standing behind it.
Judy Brezina
Post by rockchuck » Tue Sep 26, 2023 3:59 pm
It is always helpful to have some context about how we got to the current situation.
My sense is that this has long been about replacing the aging Wagner Memorial Pool with a modern indoor aquatic center. Proposition 1 and the new tax district is simply one piece of the puzzle. Other things like planning/design/engineering, cost analysis, or fund raising are part of the solution. We have heard little about these aspects. Lacking that information, I cannot support Proposition 1.
Read for yourself what was reported and quoted about this evolving public issue.
October 27, 2021
Friends group funds study to replace Twisp pool – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2021/10/27 ... wisp-pool/
April 13, 2022
Indoor pool is overwhelming choice to replace Wagner Memorial – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2022/04/13 ... -memorial/
January 25, 2023
Friends of Pool reports on planning progress – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/01/25 ... -progress/
June 22, 2023
Petition drive aims for November vote on Methow Aquatics District – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/06/22 ... -district/
August 3, 2023
Methow Aquatics District proposal qualifies for the November ballot – Methow Valley News
https://methowvalleynews.com/2023/08/03 ... er-ballot/
Steve Oulman
Post by Mike K » Tue Sep 26, 2023 4:29 pm
Maybe a Town Hall meeting so all these questions can be addressed in a public forum? I would like to put a face to the name of those that want my tax dollars till death due us apart.
Mike Kedrowski
Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:27 pm
FOP had or has plans for educational outreach and perhaps town hall type meeting but I have not seen anything lately. I think it was in the MVN some weeks ago.
Might find out more on their Facebook page.
Pearl Cherrington
Post by rockchuck » Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:08 pm
More history and context for Proposition 1 --
Proponents of Proposition 1 spent many thousands of dollars on a consultant feasibility study to evaluate options to replace the Wagner Memorial Pool. That work embraced a new indoor aquatic center as the preferred solution and a metropolitan park district as the main way to pay for it.
As reported in the MVNews (April 13, 2022) the consultant and the client concluded that an indoor aquatic center was the community choice. From that point forward, the project became a new indoor aquatic center that "includes a six-lane pool, a recreation pool and a hot tub supported by administrative offices, a multi-purpose room, locker and restroom facilities and various support spaces." Feasibility study, p. 40.
The consultant analyzed financing options and the client "determined that a metropolitan park district (MPD) is the preferred district entity for funding and governing the pool facility." Feasibility study, p. 70
With a preferred alternative and funding mechanism, the consultants identified important next steps (Feasibility study, p. 74) --
"• Funding Plan Update – Finalize the funding mechanisms for not only the development of the center itself but also the annual operating subsidy. This will establish the sources of funding and most importantly the dollars that are available for the project.
• Site Determination – A final decision on where the aquatic center will be built has to be determined as this directly relates to capital cost projections. This is followed up with a formal commitment to acquire the site itself.
• Building Program Update – Based on the funding plan, make any required adjustments to the building program (amenities and their size).
• Concept Design – With the site determined and an updated building program in place, develop a full concept and site plan for the center.
• Project Capital and Operations Update – Utilizing the updated building program and concept plan for the center, the project capital cost estimates are updated as is the operations cost/revenue estimates.
• Public Vote - If a taxing district (likely an MPD) is going to utilized to fund at least a portion of the capital cost and operations subsidy, then there will need to be an election to establish the district and the tax rate."
The only item that the community has meaningfully engaged in is formation of a taxing district. To earn my vote, I would have liked to see details on the other important next steps.
I appreciate all of the hard work that proponents of Proposition 1 have put into the effort. In my view, the proposal is simply not ready for prime time. I support replacing the Wagner pool. I will be voting NO on Proposition 1.
Steve Oulman
Post by artgirl » Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:46 pm
Here is the orginal language that was used on the FOP website as it existed on 8/72023
"What’s the MAC?
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.
fop-mac-render.jpg
The above drawing depicts conceptual square footage for planning purposes only (by Johnston Architects)
A six-lane pool - for laps, exercise, racing, and recreation
A warmer recreational pool for swim lessons, exercise classes, and fun
A spa hot tub for therapy and relaxation
An outdoor jetted splash pad for kids
Changing facilities for individuals and families
A multi-purpose room for parties, training, and programs
Admin space and a front desk
Outdoor open space
Parking
The community has spoken and the MAC is our future."
Post by Carforsale » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:08 pm
All that actually sounds really cool. Idk
I'll enjoy it if passes. Would there be any other choice.
But still curse the people who pass it for as long as there are taxes
The sad part is. The proponents of prop 1 are bolstered with pride like self promoted government official making change in there community.
In my opinion the stupid thing about people who dabble in politics just grasp at modifying things that are pointless.
The people for prop 1 are not compassionate but goal oriented and want the MAC! Lol
Want what you want when you want it lol it's okay
Post by artgirl » Wed Sep 27, 2023 8:40 am
Here is the Ballot language that we will be voting on in Nov.
Note this wording on the ballot that describes how the Metropolitan Park District money will be used;
"to provide ongoing funding to develop, construct, operate, and maintain the Methow Aquatics Center and related existing and future facilities. "
Please see my above post that defines what the Methow Aquatics Center is.
Propostion 1 as it appears on the November Ballot;
"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."
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Ray Peterson
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests