Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

Here's a photo of the petition header which I assume has to be the same language as the ballot measure.

It says; "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."

Well for one there is no interlocal agreement in place that the voters can review. And it appears to me that any future interlocal agreement could state that the five MPD board members will be Friends of the pool board members.

We just don't know and they're not saying.

We do know that none of the MPD board members will be elected by the people as seems to be standard practice in other MPD propositions throughout the state. The five board members are generally elected by the people at the same time the ballot measure is voted on. They only assume the position if the ballot measure passes.

Lack of transparency here is a big red flag.

I wondered about that too, "related exisitng and future facilities". I had heard a rumor someone wanted to turn the old pool into a skate park.
I thought it had always said town council members being selected as if they are not busy enough. I did not see the one about 2 mayors.

There is a provision in the original petition language for "related existing and future" facilities. The only related existing facility is the Wagner pool, so if passed they will pour money into that.

The 21 million estimate didn't include the sliding walls to give the indoor facility an outdoor feel when the weather is nice. This type feature is very popular now in high-end residential homes. The actual cost is probably going to be double their original estimate.

BTW, good letter to the MVN SOulman

Ray, I noticed that they removed your facebook post that showed their original post containing racist language. That speaks volumes on what we could expect with these folks with unelected power,and tax payer money.

I also noticed that the original petition had language that stated that the Okanogan Commission (sic) and the two town councils would select five board members. So that's a bit different than saying one County Commissioner and the mayors of the Two Towns would be on the board.

I posted the comment as public. The record on my end shows it as such.

SOulman... I cannot see your comment on MVN facebook page... Counter says there is one... Did you set privs to public? strange.

I re-posted it... Maybe somebody on staff hid the original?

Spot on. FOTP, come to your senses. See what is real. Don't let your egos get the best of you.
I know, with all your hearts you want this indoor luxery aquatics center, but search your hearts and realize this is not feasble.
It's ok to want just an outdoor pool. Start there, not taxing us to death.

Great post!!! FYI…. FOTP have banned me from their facebook page…. They don’t like to answer questions about their decisions….

Here is a response posted to the MVNews facebook page in response to their 08.03 story about Proposition 1. I shared the response with Justin Porter (whom I've been meeting and corresponding with) but he said he wasn't going to bother with a response at this time. My letter to the editor was published this week.


Six points about the proposed indoor aquatic center that were not included in the news article --

1. According to information from the National Recreation & Parks Association, there is NO comparable rural community in the country with an indoor aquatic center containing multiple swimming pools and other amenities. Indoor aquatic centers are expensive and require significant public subsidy.

2. The cost "in the vicinity of $20 million" is extremely preliminary and probably significantly off. Planning estimates for public projects are notoriously imprecise. Bold conceptual design almost always costs more than envisioned, leading to higher costs or lower expectations.

3. Construction is years away. If approved, the district would need to get organized and hire staff. A site would have to be acquired. More public outreach about the facility is promised. Planning, design and engineering is needed. Fundraising will take time. It's not unreasonable to expect that construction could be at least 5 years away.

4. Consultants who did the feasibility study estimated the cost in 2022 at $20.1 million. They included an annual inflation cost of 5% or $1 million per year. Assuming that construction could begin in 2027, four calendar years out, the estimated cost simply due to inflation would be $25.6 million. Operation/maintenance costs similarly rise over time.

5. The proposed governance structure is arguably biased against the majority population and assessed property valuation of the proposed district. If the towns want 4/5 representation on the governing body, they should pay 4/5 of the cost of the facility. (Yes, I understand that the towns appoint two "at large" members, but who really thinks that the town councils will appoint people who live outside town limits.)

6. A "Tonasket solution" is real. In-kind replacement of the outdoor Wagner pool could be done at a fraction of the cost proposed for the indoor aquatic center. It is an option that is not talked about.