Pasayten's Methow Valley Bulletin Board

5k on attorneys fees and how much for the feasibility study? All money and time that could have been spent on the Warner pool. At the very least an engineering study to determine what the Wagner pool needs to stay operational.

I don't know the layout of the land there but wouldn't it be cool to have a shell that could go over the existing pool and be moved out from the pool when not needed. Perhaps on train tracks. Once moved it could serve as a indoor summer party room that the FOP so much desires..

Party on FOP.

If this thing fails I hope the prop 1 supporters will donate the money that they would have paid in taxes every year to keep the Wagner pool operational.

I had asked this question a long time ago and this was their response... I did see in their WA public disclosure report that they spent $5K on legal... Whether their efforts would support a legal challenge is another story...

Ray,

I really appreciate your curiosity and effort to understand this! I wish you would have been involved in this process from the beginning! Seriously, having your input would have been a tremendous help to us.

Looking back on the last effort to create a rec district in 2013, we learned that eminent domain was a deal breaker to many people. We hired and worked with a legal council, who helped us address this issue. Other municipalities in Washington have excluded eminent domain from their ballot measure and we have done the same. By writing the proposition this way, we are able to remove the power of eminent domain from the district, if the district is approved by the voters.

Justin

That’s an interesting question. It would seem to me that the ballot proposition may be invalid because FOP is taking away powers from a metropolitan park district that the law says can’t be taken away.

Twisp, Winthrop and the County already have the power of eminent domain, any MPD formed here doesn't really need it.

And at least the Stevenson MPD had an elected Board...

The only MPD I can find that did this is the Stevenson Community Pool District, and it doesn't seem that's been challenged.

RCW 35.61 is the chapter of Washington law governing Metropolitan Parks Districts. It defines, for example, the purposes of an MPD (RCW 35.61.010: "...for the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of parks, parkways, boulevards, and recreational facilities"). It also grants the power of eminent domain (RCW 35.61.130: "A metropolitan park district has the right of eminent domain...").

RCW 35.61.020 spells out the election procedure for an MPD ballot proposition, and in particular 35.61.020(5) specifies two ways, and only two ways, in which the MPD may be limited by the ballot proposition:

• "may limit the proposed district's purposes to providing the funds necessary to acquire, construct, renovate, expand, operate, maintain, and provide programming for specifically identified public parks or recreational facilities"
• "may limit the maximum levy rate"

There is nothing in the chapter that allows a ballot proposition to limit the power of eminent domain. MPDs aren't an à la carte menu where you get to pick and choose clauses that apply outside of the two narrow exceptions listed. I'm not a lawyer, but on first glance this seems like an excellent legal challenge to the validity of the proposition. Would that challenge need to be made before the election? Has anyone run this past a lawyer?