Methownet BB - Proposed Pool Discussion

[Guest]

The pro pool people are set up @ the Thriftway spreading more misinformation to unknowing customers about prop 1 , I conversed with them and a customer and had to rebut there arguments that even they had no clue about ? I gave the customer and friend of mine a handout to study and the website information. Again they thought this was only about a pool .
Peter

[PAL]

Great slogan.

[Fun CH]

They are backpedaling like mad. The newspaper ad is vague. I have talked to another person that is against Prop 1.

I spoke with someone who moved here around 2 years ago and that couple is voting no and everyone that they recreate with are voting no.

Happy to see there are new people moving here who understand rural values. They've been here two years and they are already locals. Some have been here for 20 years and still aren't locals, as they try to mold the place like the city they moved away from.

Read a slogan today.

Don't "Bend" the Methow

[PAL]

They are backpedaling like mad. The newspaper ad is vague. I have talked to another person that is against Prop 1.

[Fun CH]

Who can answer this for Ann? My brain is too tired to answer. This from the Methownet BB.

"artgirl" answered the questions in great form...

a friend sent a text to me that Artgirl posts were removed several days prior to all the threads being removed. I guess facts bother some folks.

It’s fine. FOP was starting to fill the Bulletin Board with their BS and looking for sympathy from their “persecution”. They are resorting to more and more political ploys, which only distracts from what they really want: Both hands in your pockets with an eye on your bank account.

Dave Hopkins

the FOP stated on Methownet that there is no plan for a 20 millon dollar pool which I now call the Big MAC. They removed the original MAC language from their web site.

Yet it clearly states on the ballot that we are voting whether or not to create a Metropolitan Park District that will specifically fund the MAC along with existing future and related facilities. So now they have redefined their MAC message which is different then when the petition was circulated. Yes I agree that they are playing politics here.

From FOP.

"What’s the MAC?
The MAC stands for the Methow Aquatic Center and it’s the name we’ve been using to refer to the future pool. Based on community and expert input gathered from 2019-2022, an indoor, year-round facility with two pools of different temperatures, was selected for the current working plan.

There is no guarantee the commissioners will move ahead with this option. With more public input, the Methow Aquatics District leaders will determine the final design and size of the pool to best serve our growing community. This decision will be subject to budget considerations, citizen input, and private fundraising to build the pool."

This sentence is particularly troubling.

"The MAC stands for the Methow Aquatic Center and it’s the name we’ve been using to refer to the future pool. "

No, its the name that they were originally using to describe a future two pool hot tub indoor complex. Link has that Original Big Mac language.

https://pasayten.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t ... c50d98e8d4

With all the changing messaging at the very least the County commissioners should withdraw their support for prop 1.

[pasayten]

Well, we have copies of all what was said here... I just posted all the links on my Facebook account...

Methownet BB is very disrespectful of all the work and effort folks spend posting to the BB on issues like this. Maybe some big money folks pressured them??? We will never know...

[dhop]

It’s fine. FOP was starting to fill the Bulletin Board with their BS and looking for sympathy from their “persecution”. They are resorting to more and more political ploys, which only distracts from what they really want: Both hands in your pockets with an eye on your bank account.

Dave Hopkins

[PAL]

Gone. Methownet BB discussions gone. That's fine. People can complain and have things removed, if the admin deems it so. It was good while it lasted.
Who's hurtin' now?

[PAL]

Yes, I noticed. Glad for that.

[pasayten]

Who can answer this for Ann? My brain is too tired to answer. This from the Methownet BB.

"artgirl" answered the questions in great form...

[PAL]

Who can answer this for Ann? My brain is too tired to answer. This from the Methownet BB.
Couple random questions...
Who appoints the muniparkboard members since they are appointed not elected?

Why cant the Wagner pool be renovated, enclosed and heated?

From what i understand of the posts here, the prop1 tax is for ongoing operations of the proposed municipal pool complex. Where are the construction funds coming from?

Ann Wagstaff
Carlton

[PAL]

I see that. I am really surpirsed. They must think this is important enough to keep it going. It hasn't gotten contentious. It is a more widely viewed public BB, with various posts, so maybe people who otherwise don't use BB's except to buy and sell, will learn something from the discussion.
If they came on here, they would learn even more!

[pasayten]

Jeesh... the methownet BB thread is 5 pages now...

[PAL]

I know several people from both "sides" and they are voting no. If they own property here they are going to be taxed but won't get to vote if their address is somewhere else. I don't think alot of people are willing to change their address just to vote on this, especially if they live elsewhere more full time.
I think it's not gonna pass. I also know some people that are for it that don't seem to want to communicate with me. Fine.

[Fun CH]

I've already spoken with several liberal vacation homeowners and they are voting no. Many people who consider themselves liberal understand what regressive taxes will mean to low income families with children such as increased food insecurity, and not being able to pay other bills.

Also consider that not all vacation homeowners here are liberal, many are conservatives. Shouldn't anyone that is going to be affected with an increase in their property taxes have a right to vote on that issue?

There are more of us liberals against this than you would think. I would also think that if it benefited the FOP they would be reaching out to Vacation homeowners. I don't see any indication that they are.

We should be thankful for this issue unity in this ever increasing partisan divide.

[Jingles]

I'm trying to figure out how without it being an announcement. I know, I can create another topic post. Will see what I can do.

you could do a public service announcement to educate vacation homeowners that they need to register to vote in Okanogan County in order to vote here. All they have to do is go to the Washington State Secretary of State website and update their voter registration using their Okanogan County address. That way they will receive the Okanogan County ballot which has the Metropolitan Park District Proposition 1 on it.

BTW, replying on a topic several years back when new support for MPD Pro proposal was brought up at the Methownet bulletin board got me banned there when I posted the 2014 Paul Butler MVN letter to the editor supporting 2014 MPD proposal.

I wonder if enough pool supporters threaten to cancel their service with methownet, will thread disappear?

Sorry but Is it really wise to have vacation home owners voting on something that an additional .75 per 1000 in assessed valve means they probably only have to give up 1 or 2 foofoo coffees a month . For what it's worth I think only full time residents should be making the decision on this, not those that are here for only a couple weekends a year
In regards to threatening to cancel service with Methownet that happened long ago when I got banned from the liberal site, clarification that they are liberals ever notice how when topics get posted that could be constrewed as conservative they get deleted, or when someone is called on topics by posting facts contrary to the posted info that gets deleted too, followed up with first a temporary ban then a permanent ban. I'm really surprised some posting here still have posting privileges on that site

[Fun CH]

I'm trying to figure out how without it being an announcement. I know, I can create another topic post. Will see what I can do.

you could do a public service announcement to educate vacation homeowners that they need to register to vote in Okanogan County in order to vote here. All they have to do is go to the Washington State Secretary of State website and update their voter registration using their Okanogan County address. That way they will receive the Okanogan County ballot which has the Metropolitan Park District Proposition 1 on it.

BTW, replying on a topic several years back when new support for MPD Pro proposal was brought up at the Methownet bulletin board got me banned there when I posted the 2014 Paul Butler MVN letter to the editor supporting 2014 MPD proposal.

I wonder if enough pool supporters threaten to cancel their service with methownet, will thread disappear?

[PAL]

I'm trying to figure out how without it being an announcement. I know, I can create another topic post. Will see what I can do.

[pasayten]

You can tell Peter that we have copies of his deleted posts here….

[PAL]

My response to Peter's post on the BB. I keep thinking it will be taken down anytime, if one of us pushes it too far. They really only want Buy, Sell, Trade or announcements on there. But the truth needs to be posted. Thank goodness we can do that here! The feasiblity study also states that it would not be likely that the pool could not be supported by just the Methow or even Okanogan county.

Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:40 am
Re: The Proposed Pool
Post by Reapward » Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:44 pm

This is why it is misleading. The April 13th of the Methow Valley News edition had an article where the headline read, "Indoor Pool Overwhelming Choice".
When consultants presented alternatives for a new swimming pool in the Methow Valley to community members at a recent meeting, the community’s response was loud and clear.
“We clearly hear indoor pool,” said Ken Ballard of Ballard*King Associates, the consultant leading a feasibility study for a new pool in the Methow Valley. The new facility would replace the aging Wagner Memorial Pool in Twisp.
In the online public forum in late March, three alternatives for a new pool facility developed by consultants were presented for consideration. About 40 people attended the Zoom presentation hosted by Friends of the Pool, which is spearheading a campaign to replace the swimming pool in Twisp that is only open in summer and is in frequent need of repairs.
Alternative A proposed an outdoor, seasonal facility with a six-lane, 25-yard competitive swimming pool and an attached recreational swimming area. Consultants said that facility could be enclosed in the future.

So sure when people were asked what they thought of an indoor pool for the area, they thought it was a good sounding idea without any thought to what that would possibly entail.
Educating people is key that they are voting on a Metropolitan Park District to be formed, not directly for a pool.
Thanks for bringing this to light. Instead of MPD, perhaps a small sales tax could be implemented so everyone would pay instead of the property owners paying increased taxes.

[SOulman]

This post is about potential attendance at an indoor aquatic center.

In the parallel universe of the Methownet Bulletin Board, a question came up about usage/attendance figures of the local pool.

(I can't post. I need to get my account working again.)

Back in June I corresponded with Justin Porter about this issue. He wrote me that 2022 figures for Wagner Memorial Pool were 1875 users per month or about 62 users per day. The numbers are soft, so I assume 75 users per day.

I also corresponded with the consultants for the feasibility study. Ken Ballard responded with this information --

------------------

Admission Numbers are projected to be approximately 79,000 annually or 223 per day.

Program and Rental Numbers are projected to add another 17,726 annually or 50 per day.

Total uses per year are projected to be 96,866 a year or 273 per day. This is an aggressive number and actual numbers could be up to 20% less.

There are a number of assumptions that go into these calculations such as:

How many times will a month to month or annual pass holder actual use the center?
For Household admissions, how many individuals are in these passes?
How many people will actually be registered for the aquatic and general classes?
How many people will be present for each rental?

-----------------

This is a marketing-based approach that anticipates how many people might use a facility based on socio-economic data. Again, it based on marketing assumptions.

I did my own calculations based on the assumptions made in the feasibility study and came up with 190 visits per day over the entire calendar year. My number was not "aggressive" and within what the consultants assume.

To be clear, this is only based on a set of assumptions about who might use a facility. It measures visits, no distinct users. It is reasonable to argue about assumptions.

Bottom line: Not many people are projected to use an indoor aquatic center and the revenues will come nowhere near recovery.

Steve Oulman

[Fun CH]

I totally agree!!!

Jim Brennan
Let's go back to the drawing board and find a better solution.

Jim had a good post and pretty much summarizes what we've been discussing here.

Yes, back to the drawing board. But hasn't it been said that they won't pursue a pool if the MPD does not pass?

Justin Porter told me yesterday that if prop 1 does not pass, they will reorganize and try again, but still pushing the Metropolitan Park District idea. His comment totally invalidates their narrative that a no vote on prop 1 means no pool. We always knew that sales pitch scare tactic wasn't true.

Perhaps this time they will listen to the voters and have a solid plan to present to the voters.

As far as I'm concerned any kind of rec district is out. The small sale tax increase is the most viable option, not just for a pool support, but to support other existing recreational facilities.

[PAL]

Yes, back to the drawing board. But hasn't it been said that they won't pursue a pool if the MPD does not pass?
Also, maybe remove Prop 1 from the ballot? No one seems to want a Park district except them. I don't think any other type of District would take pass a vote either. As was pointed out on the other BB, why not a Capital Campaign and no property taxes being involved.

[pasayten]

I totally agree!!!

Jim Brennan
Let's go back to the drawing board and find a better solution.

[pasayten]

I will keep this updated with the posts from the Methow BB as they have a habit of deleting posts...


The Proposed Pool
Post by karlukkid » Thu Sep 14, 2023 12:42 pm
I have seen signs up endorsing the proposed new pool. I would like to know if there is organized resistance to this initiative and who is organizing it, as I would like to help. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by Reapward » Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:08 pm
Yes, indeedy there is. I have your email and will tell you the details.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by karlukkid » Thu Sep 14, 2023 2:25 pm
THe proposal is called "Metropoltan PArk Distrct", I have found the information I needed and connected with the people involved. Please read Ray Peterson's opinion that was published by the MVN. You can email me and I will send you the link. karlukkid1@gmail.com
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by Peter Larsen » Fri Sep 15, 2023 10:54 am
I’ll join in ! I would put up a large no tax district type sign on my prominent, high visibility location in Winthrop , if one is available . Displacing the rural culture with one based on affluence and insatiable desire for all the luxuries of urban culture is currently in progress here and threatens one of the last great locations ! Envision Sun Valley , Jackson Hole , Whitefish and all of Colorado mtn. towns . Where would you go next !
Last edited by Peter Larsen on Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post by BetsyC » Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:30 pm
As you organize your thoughts and discussions around the pool I respectfully request that you bear in mind that the folks involved with Friends of the Pool are your neighbors and community volunteers attempting to solve a serious community need. Please be kind. They have worked very hard on this project and have asked others to join them. Please take the time to speak with them and ask questions if you haven’t already. If you care about a pool, join them and help make the proposal and communication around the proposal better. Not having a pool is a very real possibility, and if we work together we can ensure that doesn’t happen on our watch. Let’s make it a question how, not if we have a public pool.
Betsy Cushman

Post by karlukkid » Fri Sep 15, 2023 1:43 pm
To clarify my position. I agree there needs to be civilized and respectful discussion of issues. My own opinion is that for the millions of dollars being asked for by proposition one and the fact that this taxing district could increase taxes further over time, without a vote, is excessive. I would like a new pool but I believe that there are more economical ways to meet the needs of the swimming community. For instance a smaller project and private funding through donations. Keep in mind that there is a hospital levy on this election. Personally hospitals and affordable housing are higher on my list of spending priorities. With respect to the latter, all of these taxes will be passed through to renters further exacerbating this issue.
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by Slate74 » Fri Sep 15, 2023 3:07 pm
A multi million dollar aquatic facility is far from a serious community need.

Post by Reapward » Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:15 pm
Yes, to a pool, but not a multi million dollar aquatics facility. And not on the backs of the taxpayers anymore.
The hospital levy is very important.
This is how taxes will look on these items alone, if the MPD is passed.
$1.39 per $1000 for the hospital and $0.75 per $1000 for the metropolitan park district (MPD) totals $2.14 per $1000.
Read the feasibility study. Read about the costs associated with upkeep.
And lack of voter control once a MPD is in. Read about what an MPD does.
I think my comments are civil and factual.
Vote no on a taxing district.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by duncan » Fri Sep 15, 2023 4:58 pm
Please understand that a Junior Tax District as proposed by pool advocates, can be a vicious tax on all of us; just to benefit a small portion of our valley population. The pool isn't serving 4,000 residents as is fire district, aero rescue, hospitals, etc. The ratio of pool tax per users is far in excess of other services. See www.nopooltaxes.com for an excellent analysis of Prop 1. Ask questions at paysayten@yahoo.com. Bronson

Post by Santila23 » Fri Sep 15, 2023 6:30 pm
My earlier post was removed about the pool. We do not need a all year round aquatic center. The proposed levy is too high and would be an on going levy for ever. These Friends of the aquatic center proposing the levy for the operational cost not to build the facility. It is where the “white elephant” hides because the administration cost will increase and seeking more and more.
Now about the 72 million dollar proposal is a bigger “white elephant”! We do not need this hospital. We have hospitals all around us fifty miles away, rather considilate these health care facilities into one. For any complicated health care problem one needs to go to Wenatchee, Spokane and/or Seattle. Brewster no matter what only could stabilize you and then transport you to the mentioned hospital. For that reason we do not need an expensive hospital and proposed levy payable for 30 years, every years for thirty years!
Enough for these special levies! Vote no for both levies otherwise you need to move because you be taxed out from your residence
Sandor Feher

Post by Reapward » Fri Sep 15, 2023 7:12 pm
Peter Larsen contact Ray at pasayten@yahoo.com. Quick before this gets removed.

Sandor, I really do like the Brewster facility. It did save us a trip to Wenatchee about 10 yrs. ago. I really like the women's health care that is there, but that may not be part of the levy.
it is clean, efficient and you don't have to wait long. But yes, it is mainly to stabilize the patient.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by AirForcevet » Sat Sep 16, 2023 12:42 am
The Methow Conservancy just raised over 8 million dollars for the Sunny M. Couldn't a similar campaign happen to raise money for a pool, without having to tax everyone in perpetuity, if having a pool really is that important to the community?

Post by karlukkid » Sat Sep 16, 2023 6:50 am
I read a flyer from the Pro Prop 1 folks. Here are the key reasons they say we should vote for the proposition:

1) "Supports the Health and Well being of the Methow Valley". Seems like the folks here do a pretty good job of that without spending 23 million dollars in taxes.

2) "Replaces the Wagner Pool". I cant argue with that, but there is the small issue of scale. The comparison really isn't apples to apples.

3) "Ensures Democracy". I am thankful for that.

4) "Provides sustainable Funding through a levy". Which is a nice way of saying it is sustained through on-going increases in taxation.

5) "Means a go ahead to build". This bullet is marked with a red "x: indicating that this is not the case. However, it goes on to say that the proposition will require "additional funding streams".

Bruce Herron Wolf Creek


Post by Solstice » Sat Sep 16, 2023 9:48 am
This is a good discussion and not political per se. Please sign your name after posting as, by definition, your posts are opinions. And go back and read Betsy Cushman's admonitions to keep keep it civil.

I will be voting NO on this proposition. Somehow, the scale of the project envisioned by Friends of the Pool grew into a much larger project than I believe is needed in our far flung rural valley. An indoor Olympic-sized pool plus and additional pool is simply out of proportion. Plus, at this point in time, it's not even clear exactly where the pool is intended to be located. I'm certainly not and enemy of the pool—just this particular Proposition.

My biggest concern is the formation of a Metropolitan Park District, a complicated and, in my opinion, unnecessary junior taxing authority governed by an appointed—not elected—commission. This type of District wields the power to levy property taxes without the consent of the citizens who are being taxed. I'm sure I'm not the only homeowner to realize our property taxes have increased significantly over the years. I'm also sure local renters are feeling the pinch of increased rents as well.

Let's go back to the drawing board and find a better solution.
Jim Brennan

Post by duncan » Sat Sep 16, 2023 10:08 am
Take a look at the Tonasket pool. Outdoor pool build WITHOUT taxpayer money. sustained by sharing .18 parks levy for m & A. Duncan

Post by biglakejudy » Sat Sep 16, 2023 1:09 pm
In all the projects around town I have seen little to no research done on them. Solar street lights that are covered with snow through the winter. A traffic revision that actually makes traffic worse, gives the plow drivers nightmares, and has future sight-blocking vegetation planted in rock (?) beds. An oversized weird out-of-context city hall that ate a street, choked the intersection in front of it, has NO PARKING in front of the building, absolutely no snow mitigation and what is with the upsidedown sidewalk overhangs?

So after saying this, there is a way to develop a nice pool that is sized for the town, ahem, refer back to city hall, with funds that don't come from taxation. Remember, the population base in town is 1,042. So my vote is no.
Judy Brezina

Post by Reapward » Sat Sep 16, 2023 2:11 pm
The FOTP is always promoting the property tax exemption program for fixed income folks so as the Proposition 1 tax levy burden will be lessened on them...

If you are a renter, you will most likely not realize any exemption as the full amount will most likely be passed on to you.

This is basically a senior citizen exemption only... No exemption for low income families...
To qualify:
• At least 61 years of age.
• At least 57 years of age and the surviving spouse or
domestic partner of a person who was an exemption
participant at the time of their death.
• Unable to work because of a disability.
• A disabled veteran with a service-connected
evaluation of at least 80% or receiving compensation
from the United States Department of Veterans
Affairs at the 100% rate for a service-connected
disability.

Level 1 income seniors will get no exemption as Proposition 1 will be a regular levy and not an excess levy.

Level 2 and 3 will get only partial exemptions... 35% (max $70K) and 60% of assessed value respectively

Read the rules of the program. Low income seniors, individuals, and families will still be significantly burdened!

https://dor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ ... Senior.pdf

Property tax levies eligible for exemption
There are three levels of exemption depending on your
final calculated combined disposable income.

• Level 3 - You are exempt from paying excess levies
and Part 2 of the state school levy. Generally
speaking, excess levies are the voter-approved levies.

• Level 2 - You are exempt from paying excess levies,
Part 2 of the state school levy, and regular levies
on $50,000 or 35% of the assessed taxable value,
whichever is greater (but not more than $70,000 of
the taxable value).

• Level 1 - You are exempt from paying excess levies,
Part 2 of the state school levy, and regular levies
on $60,000 or 60% of the assessed taxable value,
whichever is greater

Okanogan
Level 1 $30,300
Level 2 $35,350
Level 3 $41,000
Deferral $45,450
Pearl Cherrington

Post by Carforsale » Sun Sep 17, 2023 2:12 am
I'm in. Fix the alley ways before a pool. Cost maybe 100k already in a tax district . No more tax district. Ask sun mountain lodge for funding. They have been generous before. They should be able to find this pool. People aren't thinking about other people and the expense. We lived without hospital an and we can live even better without them. The stuff in the middle of the road was to secure state grant money. No good deed goes unpunished.. in this case free money for a road hazard.. but there is

Post by oneshotjon » Sun Sep 17, 2023 1:25 pm
Has there been a study done on how many full time residents would use the pool? And how often? I don't remember being asked.

If this pool complex were to be built, it would need to be within walking distance of all the low cost rental housing, that also needs to be built, and pool staff would need to be given preference, to assure workers would even want, or be able to afford, to work there. If there is no staff available, it sits empty and rots. And were talking year round now, not a couple months during summer.
I bet if a private party brought a proposal to the city, for a project like this, they would get laughed out of town. But no private party would, because financially it's a losing proposition. The only way this makes sense is by spending tax dollars and even then it's questionable. People tend to spend tax dollars like they're free, but they aren't free.
Ken Rogers

Post by Reapward » Sun Sep 17, 2023 3:47 pm
I believe the feasiblity study may have a calculation as to the number of people that would use the pool. I can't give the link on here but it you search for Methow Valley Aquatics Center Final Report in PDF form that should get you to it. There are alot of graphs and 79 pages of "stuff" to sift through. I had written the page numbers down but I don't seem to have them anymore. Look at the headings and that may save you time, as in Demographics, age of population, etc.
FOP also said something about providing dormitory type housing and housing for a manager, but that is so far away.
Sales tax could do it. Then...everyone pays.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by Peter Larsen » Sun Sep 17, 2023 6:34 pm
Today I did a survey of how people were going to vote on the pool issue . They had seen the signs that state “vote yes to a pool , yes on prop 1”. There is nothing on these signs about a tax district. We all agreed that a pool would be a good Idea for the community . They were going to vote yes based on a lack of information about the tax district and the ramifications that have been discussed on this thread . After a brief overview of what this proposal was about they were aghast , disappointed and frankly shocked and disgusted that they had almost fallen prey to an assumption that this was only for a pool and had no concept that it was about a tax district !
The universal final question they posed was “where can I get a sign to oppose this proposition?I referred them to the website .
I believe that the challenge will be connecting with the voting public to ensure they won’t be remorseful and can make an honest and educated decision that will be civically responsible and compassionate to those who may be most vulnerable and affected.
Peter Larsen.

Post by Reapward » Sun Sep 17, 2023 7:44 pm
This is why it is misleading. The April 13th of the Methow Valley News edition had an article where the headline read, "Indoor Pool Overwhelming Choice".
When consultants presented alternatives for a new swimming pool in the Methow Valley to community members at a recent meeting, the community’s response was loud and clear.
“We clearly hear indoor pool,” said Ken Ballard of Ballard*King Associates, the consultant leading a feasibility study for a new pool in the Methow Valley. The new facility would replace the aging Wagner Memorial Pool in Twisp.
In the online public forum in late March, three alternatives for a new pool facility developed by consultants were presented for consideration. About 40 people attended the Zoom presentation hosted by Friends of the Pool, which is spearheading a campaign to replace the swimming pool in Twisp that is only open in summer and is in frequent need of repairs.
Alternative A proposed an outdoor, seasonal facility with a six-lane, 25-yard competitive swimming pool and an attached recreational swimming area. Consultants said that facility could be enclosed in the future.

So sure when people were asked what they thought of an indoor pool for the area, they thought it was a good sounding idea without any thought to what that would possibly entail.
Educating people is key that they are voting on a Metropolitan Park District to be formed, not directly for a pool.
Thanks for bringing this to light. Instead of MPD, perhaps a small sales tax could be implemented so everyone would pay instead of the property owners paying increased taxes.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by Mike K » Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:50 am
The way the pool issue is being proposed reminds me of the con job of bait and switch.I have no problem with a new pool. The problem is the method.The only plan for a pool is full of smoke and mirrors.
If there is truly a way to find out the true support for a pool, mail out a survey to the registered voters of the the valley.
Prop 1 should have been a county wide issue. The tax burden on so few is wrong when so few will benefit.I have yet to see this being endorsed by any elected officials.Political suicide? If a politician thought this was such a good idea they would be all over this to win votes.
Mike Kedrowski

Post by karlukkid » Mon Sep 18, 2023 7:58 am
Mike I agree. The signs say something like yes on pool. When the reality is we are not voting for a pool but a new taxing district. If Tonasket can build a pool without public money so can the valley. Frankly there is a lot more money in the valley than Tonasket. Bruce Herron WOlf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by Santila23 » Mon Sep 18, 2023 9:19 am
As I stated, their is money to build the pool but we would vote on to OPERATE THE POOL and that is under the special taxing district that eventuality would be the White Elephant. Administration cost will not decline but increase and want more and more.
Just come on to your common sense, ask question and most important VOTE!VOTE! and vote NO!NO! including the $72M Bond issue for theThree Rivers hospital.

Post by moose » Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:32 pm
Relieved to see that I am not the only one concerned about prop 1
Glad to know most folks are aware of the dangerous burden this prop would enact
Glad to know most folks, including me, support a local pool project
Without question there are reasonable ways to accomplish this goal
No to prop 1
Joe

Post by Reapward » Mon Sep 18, 2023 2:37 pm
FYI. The hospital levy and the Metropolitan Park District levy are both Prop. 1.
The auditor knows this and says it is not unusual. But folks should be aware when they get their ballots to know which one they are voting for or against.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by Santila23 » Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:47 pm
As I stated earlier, their is money to build the pool but we would vote on to OPERATING cost of the pool that is under the special taxing district that eventuality would be the White Elephant. Administration cost will not decline but increase and want more and more.
Just come on to your common sense, ask question and most important VOTE!VOTE! and vote NO!NO! including the $72M Bond issue for theThree Rivers hospital.
Sandor Feher
U.S. Land Surveyor (ret.)

Post by Reapward » Mon Sep 18, 2023 3:55 pm
There is money to build the pool? I sure didn't think that. They need money to design the pool, purchase the land, then build it. Then money to maintain it, heat it, etc.
The Proposition is for a Metropolitan Park District, which has an appointed Board, not elected. Search Metropolitan Park District and you will see what an MPD entails.
It is a forever tax.
Vote no.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by karlukkid » Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:22 pm
Signs will be available this Friday. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by Peter Larsen » Mon Sep 18, 2023 5:45 pm
I’ve had multiple posts removed from this thread without any explanation even though my legal name appears on top and is registered with the administrator! Please reinstalled my deleted posts as this reflects poorly on the administration of this website and lends itself to the conclusion that this is a biased site . Mr. Peter Larsen . With “Compassionate Citizens for Responsible Civic Behavior in favor of a sensibly funded Pool . Peter Larsen

Post by salsalady » Mon Sep 18, 2023 6:34 pm
Why can the existing Wagner facility not be expanded and enclosed....and Heated Pool....
When the 10 yo kid was taking swimming lessons, he would lay on the sun baked concrete surround to warm up.
Salsalady

Post by Peter Larsen » Tue Sep 19, 2023 8:48 am
Those who have had there posts deleted , please repost with your name at the bottom. Whether you’re for or against this Metropolitan tax district ,your input is valuable. I invite anyone who endorses this prop to step forward here to comment and … don’t forget to add your name . Peter Larsen,
Former Winthrop Parks committee member , Founder Winthrop Rink and Winthrop Amateur Hockey Association.

Post by biglakejudy » Tue Sep 19, 2023 1:22 pm
I'm just thinking about exactly what a huge pool will need on a daily basis to keep it running. There just aren't that many people who will support it. You need a certain set amount of bodies to do this. I'm looking at it from a business aspect. Mine was restaurants. Okay, you have to have so many tables and those tables have to be turning customers X times a day with an income of X amount of dollars. Now, just turn the eaters into swimmers. Just does not pencil out.
Judy Brezina

Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 19, 2023 2:52 pm
Thinking about this. Remember what is being voted on. A Metropolitan Park District. If that is passed there will be no voting on a pool. There may be discussions about a pool, but if the district were to get in, no voting for or against a pool.
Vote no on this district.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by karlukkid » Tue Sep 19, 2023 4:54 pm
Pearl is correct, we checked the law and agree with her. This must be stopped in its tracks. If it passes our checkbooks are open. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 19, 2023 7:06 pm
I want to clarify I mean no ill will towards the proponents of this MPD. But I do have a hard time grocking that they don't understand that an indoor year round aquatics center is not sustainable in our Valley. Think about the heatig costs alone and the pull on fossil fuels.
The feasiblity report is worth reading.

Post by karlukkid » Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:19 am
I love consultants that ignore reality and write get paid to write a rosy report to collect their check. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf

Post by Reapward » Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:23 am
That's exactly what they did.
And this from the study:
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.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by karlukkid » Wed Sep 20, 2023 7:53 am
RIght-size, political speak for increase the geography so more people can be taxed. Bruce Herron
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by Reapward » Wed Sep 20, 2023 8:19 am
Yes.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by duncan » Wed Sep 20, 2023 8:26 pm
Tonasket Pool ZERO tax funds used to build new pool. Hospital District proposal has outlined specific costs for new hospital; this is how you inform voters that proponents know what they are doing. Prop 1 pool if built, all conjecture. Go figure !
Duncan Bronson

Post by RG » Thu Sep 21, 2023 9:02 am
An explanation of tax earlier said $2.14 per $1000 of assessed value. Does that mean pay that amount of new tax per year?

Post by artgirl » Thu Sep 21, 2023 10:34 am
RG wrote:
> A n explanation of tax earlier said $2.14 per $1000 of assessed value. Does
> that meanpay that amount of new tax per year?

Hi RG, That total tax amount of $2.14 happens only if the Hospital levy and the Metropolitan Park District (proposing a new pool) both pass and only if Metropolitan Park District levy is assessed at the full 75 cents per thousand of assessed property value.

If only the hospital levy passes that tax would be $1.39 per $1,000 of assessed property value. The hospital Levy is considered an "excess" Levy.

If only the Metropolitan Park District proposal passes that tax would be up to $.75 per $1,000 of assessed value. The Metropolitan Park District levy is considered a "regular" Levy.

The taxes, if voter approved, won't be applied until next year according to the Okanogan county assessor's office.

And to make matters confusing, both the Brewster Hospital Levy and the Metropolitan Park District proposal are named Proposition 1 on the ballot, but they are completely different and unrelated ballot propositions.

Post by maremare » Thu Sep 21, 2023 1:28 pm
Hard pass on pool complex.
$1000.+ a year additional taxes for a pool I will never use?
Plus it won't be free admission.
Pool & Bldg have to be heated forever including during the impending global dimming!
(aka mini ice age)
News flash!! ECONOMY IS ABOUT TO TANK !
If it isn't blatantly obvious to anyone trying to eat & drive & have heat & electricity
(Don't believe a word Janet Yellen says) Value of USD? .08 cents & headed straight to ZERO! (like a freight train) In the too close for comfort future. So, git out yer wheel barrow & fill er up to the brim with money cos we're going to town to get milk & bread. Don't believe me? History repeats itself tis true & it is about to in ways that will make you wish you knew, so you could see it coming like 30 yrs ago. If you know you know, just sayin.
So, when tax goes up an extra $1000. per yr per household (at least)
And you cannot afford to pay that, how many will lose their homes??
"Build it & they will come" Yes, they will come & buy your place. Subtle or not so subtle
land grabbing?
What a total waste if the old facility is abandoned, cos what? it's just gona sit there & collect dust? Or do we additionally pay out the nostrils for it's demolition as well & buy all brand new pool accouterments!! wooopie!

Think of the Bigger picture y'all.

M.Nemeth voice of reason

Post by karlukkid » Fri Sep 22, 2023 10:20 am
Folks need to realize that the Board for the Rec District is appointed. You have no say in who is on the Board. If you have do not like a decision you cant vote the Board member out. SO once the Board Members are named you have no direct say in how your money is spent ever. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by oldtimer » Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:13 pm
RG wrote:
> A n explanation of tax earlier said $2.14 per $1000 of assessed value. Does
> that meanpay that amount of new tax per year?
-----------------------
I think that $2.14 is based on the MPD levy at max of 75 per thousand plus the hospital request.
David Wilkinson

Post by mamab » Sat Sep 23, 2023 2:32 pm
karlukkid wrote:
> Signs will be available this Friday. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Where are these signs? I would like one. I am adamantly against this project, it is not just replacing the pool, it is building a huge complex that rivals many in major metropolitan areas. It's a multiple pool, exercise room, splash pad, retractable doors building that is estimated at the time to build 25 million dollars and will run at least 500k deficit a year on the backs of property owners. It wont employ any locals during the building process and maybe on a couple when open, it is going to suck money out of this community like a sieve. This is A WANT not a need, we teach our children about wants vs. needs and this is flat out a want. There will be lack of transparency with a board chosen by them and not by votes of the public on a forever taxation district, it is an awful proposal and frankly it is incredibly insulting that it is even being proposed.
Erin Bosco-Carlton

Post by Mobarika » Sat Sep 23, 2023 3:30 pm
Instead of a pool, because we have one already, why not a gymnasium where kids can go somewhere to have fun all year long. Like an arcade or pool tables, or chess sets, or other board games. Or learn basketball or other indoor activities. just a thought.

Post by Peter Larsen » Sat Sep 23, 2023 5:30 pm
Erin , good points , it is hard to wrap your head around how a person could justify using there neighbor to fund there personal dream world but , this is common human and business behavior where the affluent can influence the levers in the halls of power , which enable them to sway public opinion . There tools consist of omissions of fact and truth , which in many cases are the equivalent of lies . The lack of factual information presented is evident to this story . Greed has no conscience and can be rationalized in many ways . I urge all to engage your friends and loved ones with this taxation without representation issue, without becoming emotionally overwhelmed , and present the facts in a respectful manner. Let the facts speak. This may be uncomfortable but it’s better to shed tears then have smoke in your eyes!
Make signs if you have to until one is available to you as the clock is ticking .
Is this proposal for all the children , or just for the fortunate ?
“ Whatever you do , you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon , there is always someone to tell you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising which tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end, requires some of the same courage which a soldier needs . Peace has its victories but it takes brave people to win them pop“ Ralph Waldo Emerson . Vote No Tax District
Peter Larsen

Post by karlukkid » Sat Sep 23, 2023 6:27 pm
Erin: email me and I will connect you with Ray how is spearheading this and may still have signs. karlukkid1@gmail.com
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by karlukkid » Sat Sep 23, 2023 6:33 pm
One more thought Erin. You mention that the pool complex is big enough for a large metro area. I read an article recently in the Washington Post or New York Times that indicated many major metro areas are dropping pools because the revenue vs operating expenses is a losing proposition. I am 70 and I work to stay in shape, but I would very seldom use a facility like the proposed one. Bruce Herron Wolf Creek
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Post by salsalady » Sat Sep 23, 2023 7:26 pm
Couple random questions...
Who appoints the muniparkboard members since they are appointed not elected?

Why cant the Wagner pool be renovated, enclosed and heated?

From what i understand of the posts here, the prop1 tax is for ongoing operations of the proposed municipal pool complex. Where are the construction funds coming from?
Ann Wagstaff
Carlton

Post by artgirl » Sat Sep 23, 2023 11:31 pm
Hi Ann, To answer your first question, here is the last paragraph of the ballot for prop 1 that we will be voting on.

"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."

To answer your second question would require an engineering survey of the Wagner Pool. I don't know if one exists.

Your third question is more complex. Here is how the FOP explains it.

"Who will pay for building the new pool?
Funding for the project will include a combination of grant dollars, private donations, and possibly the Aquatics District. Friends of the Pool is committed to helping with fundraising." End quote

The Methow Aquatics District is the name of the Metropolitan Park District (MPD) that the FOP is hoping to form if prop 1 passes. In the above quote "possibly the Aquatics District" means funding from tax money collected from the MPD property tax levy rate of up to .75/$1000 of assessed property value.

A Metropolitan Park District can also take on debt by issuing Revenue bonds, take on lines of credit, short term debt etc.

"Districts may also issue all kinds of short-term debt: tax anticipation notes, bond anticipation notes, revenue anticipation notes, grant anticipation notes as well as use lines of credit."

RCW 35.61.100
Indebtedness limit—Without popular vote.
Every metropolitan park district through its board of commissioners may contract indebtedness and evidence such indebtedness by the issuance and sale of warrants, short-term obligations as provided by chapter 39.50 RCW, or general obligation bonds, for any purposes authorized for such metropolitan park district and the extension and maintenance thereof, not exceeding, together with all other outstanding nonvoter approved general indebtedness, one-quarter of one percent of the value of the taxable property in such metropolitan park district, as the term "value of the taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015. General obligation bonds may not be issued with a maximum term in excess of the maximum term set forth in chapter 39.46 RCW. Such general obligation bonds must be issued and sold in accordance with chapter 39.46 RCW.

RCW35.65.210
"(4) The board must include in its general tax levy for each year a sufficient sum to pay the interest on all outstanding bonds and may include a sufficient amount to create a sinking fund for the redemption of all outstanding bonds. The levy must be certified to the proper county officials for collection the same as other general taxes and, for any metropolitan park district for which the county treasurer serves as the ex officio treasurer, when collected, the general tax must be placed in a separate fund in the office of the county treasurer to be known as the "metropolitan park district fund" and disbursed under RCW 36.29.010(1) and 39.58.750."

Post by Solstice » Sun Sep 24, 2023 6:35 am
The road to excessive taxation is often paved with good intentions. The same could also be said of an over-complicated intergovernmental agreement that requires a flowchart to keep straight. Proposition 1—designed to form a Metropolitan Recreation District and administer the funding of a new pool —definitely falls into that category.

There are two other categories of recreational districts that could have been chosen to facilitate the construction of a new pool. Both of them are far more appropriate to the relatively small population here in the Valley. Step back for a moment and ask yourselves do you really live in a Metropolitan District? I know I don't.

Let me mention again that I'm not an enemy of the pool but I certainly disagree with the method chosen to fund and administer the proposed pool that supporters of Proposition 1 have developed. I'll be voting NO.
Jim Brennan

Post by biglakejudy » Sun Sep 24, 2023 7:16 am
It seems to be quite complex and that in itself gives me the creeps. What else bothers me is artgirls ability to roll all this data off her tongue. I would truly like to know her identity if thats possible since she wants to be the mouthpiece for this proposed project. Mostly, where does she hail from? Sigh
Judy Brezina

Post by maremare » Sun Sep 24, 2023 8:46 am
Ya Judy,
How come Artgirl doesn't have to sign her name like everyone else or have her posts removed which happens every time I don't put my name??
M Nemeth

Post by Peter Larsen » Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:03 am
Judy and Mare Mare ,I believe it is because she is only providing facts and not opinions . It seems pretty neutral and informative to the conversation…. But maybe that’s just my interpretation?
Peter Larsen.

Post by Reapward » Sun Sep 24, 2023 9:21 am
Facts, opinions, be proud of what you say! Be brave, sign your name. And if ya say something not too nice, ya still have to sign your name. I had a job, and I was told, sign your notes and memos.
Name signing makes people think before they blurt.
Agree, Artgirl presents the facts, no opinion. I could reel off all that stuff too, as I have read the feasibilty study and everything I can get my hands on about this issue.
But, if Artgirl wants to do it, fine. But if would be nice to know who she or even he is.
Could be a he masquarading as a gal.
I digressed.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by oldtimer » Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:17 am
salsalady wrote:
> Couple random questions...

> Why cant the Wagner pool be renovated, enclosed and heated?
>
> Ann Wagstaff
> Carlton
------------------------------
It can, but there's little or no interest in doing so. Leaks can be fixed, plumbing replaced, equipment rehabbed or replaced, and a structure built to cover the facility for a lot less than the estimated cost of the MAC proposed.

Twenty some years ago, during a Wagner pool rehab, myself, another building designer, and a local structural engineer designed, with the help of a steel building manufacturing company, a free-span metal building to cover the facility. With insulation, lighting, heaters, venting machinery, etc, the estimated max cost of the building back then was under a million.

Maintenance and operations could be funded a number of ways without adding property taxes.

We could not find support for the project.
David Wilkinson

Post by salsalady » Sun Sep 24, 2023 2:01 pm
When the Kid was taking lessons at the pool15+ years ago, the water was cold. The kiddos would lay on the concrete to get warm.

Might be part of the reason the pool never seemed really busy.

I would prefer to rehab the existing than spend untold millions on a facility i have trouble believing it will ever be profitably utilized.

Thanks for the information responses. Appreciated.
Ann


Edit- just did a little more googling... Methow Valley population is about 6,000. So, a few people are trying to build a $25,000,000 swim facility that maybe 10% of the population will use? Maybe someone associated with the current pool can share numbers of members and guests use the Wagner pool. That could be extrapolated to future users.

Post by bmw » Sun Sep 24, 2023 2:48 pm
A pool is a wonderful commodity in this community! I'd be more than willing to donate money to helping fund a pool project. However, if I was forced to spend more taxes on something our community needs it would be low income/affordable housing. So many folks here in the Methow need a home. How about some apartments and/or small homes? How did we get to a place where people are pushing for an aquatic center and not our basic needs? There's got to be a better solution.

Post by jaybee » Mon Sep 25, 2023 9:31 am
Artgirl's response is telling of the thinking process of Friends of the Pool.

Salsalady asks a simple question- Why cant the Wagner pool be renovated, enclosed and heated?

Artgirl responds- "To answer your second question would require an engineering survey of the Wagner Pool. I don't know if one exists."

FOP is proposing a permanent taxing district to raise $20 MILLION for a pool, IN ADDITION to ongoing maintenance and... there's no survey for how to adapt the existing pool? Shouldn't that be the first thing they look at? FOP knew the Wagner funds would run out next year year well in advance and they waited for it to become a crisis before asking the public for a very expensive measure to keep the pool open. This is not good leadership, judgment, or management. It's frankly irresponsible. The public deserves the right to know the cost of less expensive alternatives, like fixing the existing pool and, as the oldtimer proposed, retrofitting the existing pool.

I was at the meeting in January at the Winthrop library when FOP's consultant presented his recommendations for the pool. He poo pooed fixing or retrofitting the existing pool. No wonder. Building a $20 million infrastructure is more business for him- a financial incentive. I was told by FOP that they would explore private funding before setting up a taxing authority. Looks like they went straight for the taxing authority. Look at the article in MVN from January 2023, buried somewhere on their website. It clearly states they were not going after a taxing district.

Also from artgirl:

"Who will pay for building the new pool?
Funding for the project will include a combination of grant dollars, private donations, and possibly the Aquatics District. Friends of the Pool is committed to helping with fundraising." End quote

The Methow Aquatics District is the name of the Metropolitan Park District (MPD) that the FOP is hoping to form if prop 1 passes.

Who is she kidding? Taxing every resident in the valley means less pressure for them to actually convince people for fundraising. How can you reasonably convince anyone of a $20 million price tag without even having a feasibility study for alternatives? Make no mistake- Prop 1 is about setting up a MPD which has very little accountability to the public and can tax at a rate they determine. They are not hoping to form it, they will form it.

Post by Reapward » Mon Sep 25, 2023 10:24 am
They won't be taxing everyone, just property owners. Albeit, renters will be paying more in rent due to increased property taxes.
This cannot pass. Voten NO. They won't form it, if everyone that cares about the Valley and the direction that it is heading, will vote.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by maremare » Mon Sep 25, 2023 11:49 am
Ya Pearl
We already have a housing crisis here; we don't need a homeless crisis too!
Definite No!
Big picture people!
M.Nemeth

Post by Jessica Gallegos » Mon Sep 25, 2023 1:10 pm
Second home owner here, a topic that hasn't shown up yet on this thread is:

Why are second home owners in the Methow Valley taxed at the same rate as homeowners that are permanent residents?

I have no problem paying higher property taxes. I don't live here, not registered to vote here, hence I should pay more property tax. Is there a state law that prohibits it? Thank you for replying!
Jessica Gallegos
Carlton, WA

Post by artgirl » Mon Sep 25, 2023 3:32 pm
Hi Jessica,
The Okanogan County assessor's office would able to answer your question.
You can change your voting address to your Methow Valley address and receive the ballot that will have both the Brewster Hospital Levy and the Metropolitan Park District propositions on the ballot. Check out thread on this subject which is now on page 3.
https://bb3.methowvalley.com/bb/viewtop ... =3&t=31036

Post by salsalady » Mon Sep 25, 2023 3:44 pm
@Jessica in carlton...
Most counties have a minimum requirement for days spent at an address before it can be claimed as a permanent residence, which is a requirement for voting, etc.

Many years ago the requirement in Skagit county was 6 months/~180 days to claim as a permanent. I don't think it had to be continuous. As Artgirl said, county can answer.

As to 2nd homes vs primary homes....square foot is square foot and acreage is acreage. The county doesnt care how many days a year the house is occupied.

Not sure if that answers anything...
Ann

Post by artgirl » Mon Sep 25, 2023 10:30 pm
"From Wa. Secretary of State

To register to vote in Washington State, you must be a resident of the state.

You must establish your voting residency address at least 30 days before Election Day. You may specify a mailing address that is different from your residential address.

You may only be registered to vote at one location, even if you own multiple residences. If you move or are temporarily away, you may maintain your voter registration at that address until you register to vote elsewhere."

Post by biglakejudy » Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:38 am
but you are asking people to do this for specific reason. To vote yes on the pool.
Judy Brezina

Post by Reapward » Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:35 am
Or to vote No on the Metropolitan Park District. It could go both ways. Most people that have second homes and live here part time, probably won't change their addresses.
But they will be taxed if it were to pass. They don't want to see their taxes go up either, although I supposed if a person has a second home, they could afford it.
Pearl Cherrington

Post by artgirl » Tue Sep 26, 2023 10:03 am
Hi Judy, My husband and I are voting no. I'm just trying present facts for all.

Post by Peter Larsen » Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:11 pm
I see Artgirls posts have been deleted ? I’m confused about that as they seemed useful and factual to the conversation without being opinions . I hope that external pressure resulting in censorship was not the cause ? Peter Larsen

Post by biglakejudy » Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:22 pm
You can request to have them removed yourself
Judy Brezina