Say no to new luxury pool. Swimming in chlorine not good for children's health

[Fun CH]

I still don't get why people swim in public pools.

https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/ ... 20a%20pool.

"Urine is not the only thing to be worried about in a swimming pool. More harmful toxins can actually lurk in the water.

Think about all the germs and bacteria that can come from a single person. A swimmer can leave behind sweat, sunscreen, skin cells, hair, saliva, and trace amounts of poop."

"Aside from bacteria from stools that can end up in pool water, viruses can spread here too. Hepatitis A, enterovirus, and norovirus are some common ones.

Cryptosporidium is also a common illness that can rapidly spread in a pool. This parasite causes diarrhea and commonly impacts children. It’s normally associated with outbreaks at public swimming pools.

E. coli is another notorious bacteria that’s transmitted via food or water contaminated by fecal matter. An E. coli infection can cause severe diarrhea"

[pasayten]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CvhoumOt ... BiNWFlZA==

[Fun CH]

I don't know if I mentioned this yet but, being an already certified scuba diver, I assisted teaching (TA) a scuba diving college course in the Universitie's indoor pool. I know from personal experience the gross clusters of snot that are stuck to the bottom of public swimming pools.

After that course, in never swam in a public pool again even though I was a certified life guard also.

I still logged countless hours in the water. Once, at night, even scuba diving in the Universitie's golf course ponds to collect shagged golf balls.

Later, I was an avid windsurfer swimming in all kinds lakes, the Columbia River (lake), and salt water. When you're out on the water and the wind stops blowing hard enough for your sail size to work or gear breaks down, you swim..a lot towing your gear behind.

So is the Mega spa really the end of swimming in the Methow as the FOP would like you to believe? Certainly not. The public pool option Tonasket choose at a levy rate of 13 cents per thousand is one viable option as is recycling the Wagner pool and restoring it to its full Glory and spirit it was given to this community.

Also consider;

"1 in 5 adults pees in the pool."

"But while taking a dip is a great way to beat the heat, many public pools are crawling with germs -- and, if not treated properly, can pose a major health risk."

https://www.cbsnews.com/media/6-gross-f ... ing-pools/

[Fun CH]

If a just child is injured due to swimming in a chlorinated luxury pool, that is a tragedy.

As more research is done into the health risks associated with chlorine used as a disinfectant in pools, I foresee a future where lawsuits will be initiated to cover damages, and rightly so.

Keep in mind that the taxpayers may be on the hook for paying damages due to diseases as a result of swimming in chlorinated water. Those damages may surpass any Insurance liability amount if that hazard risk is indeed covered in the proposed pools insurance policy. That risk may not be covered.

Parents need to also ask themselves if it is wise to subject their children to dangerous toxins just for a swim in a pool. There are other cleaner alternatives in the Methow Valley with two large lakes and swimming holes along the two rivers that feed the valley.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39139307

"Chlorinated Pools May Increase Cancer Risk"

"chemists for the first time analyzed exactly what was in chlorinated water from a public swimming pool in Barcelona. They identified more than 100 chemical byproducts in the water. Many were toxic. "

"Among a variety of markers for respiratory problems, though, the new work found that swimming led to a rise in just one. This marker showed an increase in how easy it is to penetrate the lining of the lungs. That's a sign, scientists think, of inflammation and a higher risk for asthma allergic diseases."

"After 40 minutes of swimming, the study found, people showed a large rise in markers of DNA damage that can lead to cancer. Concentrations of four of the most common byproducts were seven times higher after people swam."

I suggest everyone do their own research into this matter.

[Fun CH]

Wenatchee has only one public pool, an outdoor pool built in 1956. Pool rental rates there vary from about $125 to $250 per hour. However, that is kind of comparing rotten apples with spoiled oranges, as it would be a different price structure for an indoor pool open year round as the costs are quite different. Also, in a lot of cases certain activities appear to be subsidized for historical reasons that are unclear to me.

Also, it is hard from any of those sources to know the actual rental costs, as there are additional fees and staffing costs that have to be paid by the renters that aren't fully documented in their price sheets. So I consider the figures I've found to be floors and not ceilings.

Why am I bringing this all up?

One reason is that a lot of the opposition seems to be based on the assumption that the operation and maintenance costs would be paid 100 percent from tax revenues. In other words, use of the pool would be 100 percent free. That is obviously not the case or intention and is an invalid and unspoken assumption of many of the arguments posted here.

Another reason is that Friends of the Pool could have done their homework better. Somebody better at this than I could easily have came up with better estimates. My suspicion is that with a competently written business and operational plan the major tax hit would be for capital expenditures (to build the damned pool), not for maintenance and operations. Which at least in my view makes this a completely different kind of discussion. A capital expenditure would reasonably be financed by bonds and amortized over twenty or twenty-five years.

I'd expect that Friends of the Pool, if they decided to do their homework, would communicate with swim teams about estimated rental costs and get firm commitments on how much they were willing and able to pay. If those numbers don't work then the proposal doesn't work, which is about as simple as you can get. But you can't know unless you sit down with people and talk to them, and certainly can't figure it out from posts in an online forum without talking to actual stakeholders.

We should also all acknowledge that we are all in a vile mood and not particularly positive about ***any*** additional public spending at this time. We've all been hit with property tax increases, we've all been hit hard by higher fuel prices, all of us are paying much more for day-to-day essentials than we were a few years ago, and I am getting absolutely pillaged and looted by my homeowner's insurance. That honestly makes all of us much less open to this proposal than we otherwise might be.

We should also acknowledge that even if we don't perceive the need for a pool today, if we decided a pool was essential in say, 2030 with heat waves lasting months rather than ten days or so and wildfire smoke trapping us inside for three or four months a year we couldn't change our minds and easily get one in 2031. We make assumptions that we'd always be able to beat the heat by getting up earlier and always be able to find someplace with a tolerable AQI. I do not believe those are safe assumptions to make.

David you make some good points about how we've all been hit financially lately, especially those on limited incomes who saw their life savings devalued by inflation and /or land investments "taken" and completely wiped out by special Methow Valley Water rules that deny domestic use access to water.

I still would not support a luxury pool when greater critical needs exist for many of our most vulnerable community members.

That doomsday scenario you mention in your last paragraph may or may not occur. However if it does do you really think 3,000 people crammed into a luxury pool and hot tub facility is going to be the savior?

There will be greater needs for safe housing and energy to run air conditioning for vulnerable populations.

According to the FOP feasibility study, 20% of those living in the tax district are living at or below the poverty level. They will undoubtedly be hit the hardest as rents and taxes are increased.

As it stands now, those low income people in the tax district will be footing the bill for those outside the tax District to use this luxury facility.

And with an estimated $25,000 expenditure for dangerous chemicals, that is one industry I do not care to support.

Perhaps we should focus on the needs of low income people and let the folks who desire this luxury Recreation Sports facility, pay for it.

[PAL]

On some Lloyd's property behind Blackbirds or near the high school. I don't think they know yet.
A link is foptwisp.org. There is a Facebook page too. They will be marching in the 4th of July parade according to FB.

[Fun CH]

Do they say where this luxury Aquatic Center will be located if proposition 1 passes?

[PAL]

Yes, Chris that is what I meant.
Well, hey, some of us oldsters probably won't be around to the suffering in 2030. Oops there goes the tax base. The Feasibility study gives the kid numbers here and it's about 1000. There is a graph posted that shows the average majority age here is 54 yrs.
The operations will not be 100% taxes. There will be grants, donations, etc. according to the Study.
One thing. They will have doors that will open to the outdoors. Whether they are garage doors(hard to insulate) or glass sliding doors. Guess what glass, even with good R values is not good insulation. Heating will be a big cost in the winter.
And you know what, if I am "trapped" indoors 3-4 months out of the year, do I want to be alive? Easy for me to say as I just turned 70.
The other thought is, if trying to beat the heat in an Aquatics Center, with a bunch of people inside, what happens if the grid goes down?
Is there a backup, large generator.
And just read the study. It's a slog, but ir is insightful.

[mister_coffee]

Wenatchee has only one public pool, an outdoor pool built in 1956. Pool rental rates there vary from about $125 to $250 per hour. However, that is kind of comparing rotten apples with spoiled oranges, as it would be a different price structure for an indoor pool open year round as the costs are quite different. Also, in a lot of cases certain activities appear to be subsidized for historical reasons that are unclear to me.

Also, it is hard from any of those sources to know the actual rental costs, as there are additional fees and staffing costs that have to be paid by the renters that aren't fully documented in their price sheets. So I consider the figures I've found to be floors and not ceilings.

Why am I bringing this all up?

One reason is that a lot of the opposition seems to be based on the assumption that the operation and maintenance costs would be paid 100 percent from tax revenues. In other words, use of the pool would be 100 percent free. That is obviously not the case or intention and is an invalid and unspoken assumption of many of the arguments posted here.

Another reason is that Friends of the Pool could have done their homework better. Somebody better at this than I could easily have came up with better estimates. My suspicion is that with a competently written business and operational plan the major tax hit would be for capital expenditures (to build the damned pool), not for maintenance and operations. Which at least in my view makes this a completely different kind of discussion. A capital expenditure would reasonably be financed by bonds and amortized over twenty or twenty-five years.

I'd expect that Friends of the Pool, if they decided to do their homework, would communicate with swim teams about estimated rental costs and get firm commitments on how much they were willing and able to pay. If those numbers don't work then the proposal doesn't work, which is about as simple as you can get. But you can't know unless you sit down with people and talk to them, and certainly can't figure it out from posts in an online forum without talking to actual stakeholders.

We should also all acknowledge that we are all in a vile mood and not particularly positive about ***any*** additional public spending at this time. We've all been hit with property tax increases, we've all been hit hard by higher fuel prices, all of us are paying much more for day-to-day essentials than we were a few years ago, and I am getting absolutely pillaged and looted by my homeowner's insurance. That honestly makes all of us much less open to this proposal than we otherwise might be.

We should also acknowledge that even if we don't perceive the need for a pool today, if we decided a pool was essential in say, 2030 with heat waves lasting months rather than ten days or so and wildfire smoke trapping us inside for three or four months a year we couldn't change our minds and easily get one in 2031. We make assumptions that we'd always be able to beat the heat by getting up earlier and always be able to find someplace with a tolerable AQI. I do not believe those are safe assumptions to make.

[Fun CH]

Then I am apparently being told they are "Seattle" numbers and somehow cannot possibly apply here.

I took Pearls reply to you as that you can't compare Seattle's economy and pool use demand to our economy here in rural Okanogan County.

Its kind of ridiculous to make an argument that renting a pool is grounds to approve a new Metropolitan Park taxing district with powers of eminent domain.

Did you see the picture of our School mountain biking team, how about the ski team? That doesn't cost tax payers one cent.

Again, The Methow Spirit of can do with hard work and not placing your pleasure seeking as a burden on others who can't afford it.

[PAL]

Ah David, it's what we do here.
The Feasibilty Study says "Both service areas have a lower rate of expenditures for recreation activities than the state and
national levels, but this is offset somewhat by the lower cost of living." (Oh really? My words added here)

So right there, that is not correct information from what we experience living here. I know, you're just trying to crunch some numbers here, but I just don't think using Seattle Parks numbers are very relevant. Maybe try Wenatchee?

I never said I don't want a pool. I don't want an indoor Aquatics facility nor do I want an Aquatics District that levies taxes on property owners.

[mister_coffee]

To be honest, this is kind of frustrating. I try to put together ball park numbers and actually make an effort to do the research. Then I get told those numbers are "unrealistic" for some reason. So I put together information showing they are realistic. Then I am apparently being told they are "Seattle" numbers and somehow cannot possibly apply here.

Also keep in mind that many products and services are more expensive here (sometimes much more expensive) than in Seattle. They don't call it the "Theftway" for no reason at all...

If you don't want a pool, that's fine. You're free to vote as you wish and I encourage you to do so. That doesn't mean you have to take every piece of information and pretzel it to fit a narrative.

[realoldtimer]

I took a look at what Seattle Parks is renting pool time for. To rent the whole pool during hours the pool would otherwise be open to the public is $200-$300 per hour, plus staff costs. So my ballpark estimate isn’t unrealistic.

https://parkways.seattle.gov/wp-content ... harges.pdf

There are much lower rates for off hours, though. Probably explains why a lot of my training time started at 5am.

Again I note that such an hourly cost would realistically be shared amongst several dozen swimmers. I’d also point out that ten hours a week is pretty minimal training time. I was training 12-20 hours per week when I was 13.

I wonder if the folks pressing for this facility, amd the parents of our local Killer Whales swim team members are willing to pay much of anything to rent the facility? Or, are they thinking that a simple pool membership -- whatever that might cost -- will suffice? I am searching my memory for what wevoaid -- if anything -- back when our kids were team members. Expenses I recall, beyond a family pool membership, were mostly travel costs to other venues.

[Fun CH]

Fun_CH , I am a retired senior citizen on a fixed income whose property has been assessed for way beyond actual value IMHO -- and I agree with you that added taxes will be painful. Most of my friends in the same situation agree.

I am also although at 68 I still work as a bee keeper and sell honey to help make ends meet. If its a choice between me, you and others in our situation having enough money to buy food, heat and Healthcare versus a dip in a hot tube, I'm going to choose the things I need to live.

I don't think people who come here realize that rural folk who built this place never made the kind of money that can be made in the city doing the same job. When I started as a carpenter here I made $12 an hour. I know lawyers who never made much more than $20,000 a year here working full time.

I think that's one reason why the spirit of the Methow has always been that if you desire a luxury item such as a trail system or a skating rink, you organize and work hard to raise the funds for those facilities without placing the burden on others who can't afford it.

The needs of others were always considered and recreational projects were organized around the spirit of giving, not taking.

That is the Spirit of the Methow.

[PAL]

Key word here: SEATTLE.

[mister_coffee]

I took a look at what Seattle Parks is renting pool time for. To rent the whole pool during hours the pool would otherwise be open to the public is $200-$300 per hour, plus staff costs. So my ballpark estimate isn’t unrealistic.

https://parkways.seattle.gov/wp-content ... harges.pdf

There are much lower rates for off hours, though. Probably explains why a lot of my training time started at 5am.

Again I note that such an hourly cost would realistically be shared amongst several dozen swimmers. I’d also point out that ten hours a week is pretty minimal training time. I was training 12-20 hours per week when I was 13.

[PAL]

Jingles, that is not a good arguement against the aquatics center. "I don't use, I don't pay". Jim pointed out what our taxes do pay for. And those are essential services. The word essential is important here. An indoor aquatics center-is it essential? No.
Here is a Demographic Summary from the Feasibilty Study, which does have somewhat of a business plan.

The following summarizes the demographic characteristics of the service areas.

• The Primary Service Area has a small permanent population base to support a comprehensive
aquatic/recreation center. A new center will need to draw from the second homeowners and
visitors to the area to be financially viable. Attracting at least some users from the Secondary
Service Area, with its much larger population, will also be important.
• It is estimated that 35.9% of the 4,316 housing units in the Primary Service Area are “seasonal
use”. This equates to 1,549 units and based on information gathered in “A Comprehensive
Economic Study of the Methow Valley” its projected that there are 3,913 part-time residents.
Of note is the reality that some of these seasonal use housing units have become full-time
residences due to the pandemic and the ability to work remotely.
• The number of annual visitors to the Methow Valley was projected to be 476,746 in 2020 based
on data from “A Comprehensive Economic Study of the Methow Valley”. Encouraging their
use of any new aquatic/recreation facility will be important.
• The population of the Primary Service Area is much older than the state and national median
age. The population of the Secondary Service Area is younger than the primary but still older
than the state and national median age as well.
• Both service areas have a lower percentage of households with children compared to the state
and national numbers. The Primary Service Area has the lowest percentage at 19.8% while the
Secondary Service Area is much higher at 30.9% and closer to the state number.
• The Primary Service Area has a median household income level that is less than the state and
national levels and the Secondary Service Area has a slightly lower income level than the
Primary Service Area. However, the cost of living in both service areas is lower than the state
and national numbers.
• Both service areas have a lower rate of expenditures for recreation activities than the state and
national levels, but this is offset somewhat by the lower cost of living. (Oh really? My words added here)
• Currently both service areas have a smaller population in the youth and adult age classifications
but a higher population in the senior age groups.
• Each of the service areas is expected to see continued steady growth in population. The Primary
Service Area’s growth will be most prevalent in the 65+ age categories, however ages 5-17 and
18-24 will also see strong growth. The Secondary Service Area will see growth in all age groups
except for the under 5, 45-54 and 55-64 age categories.
• There is very little ethnic and racial diversity in the Primary Service Area, but the Secondary
Service Area has a large Hispanic population.

And other language found in the feasibility study is concerning:
The center will be managed by a Park and Recreation District.
Revenues from user fees, programs, and rentals have been projected using a reasonably
aggressive approach.
Lastly, a member from Twisp Town Council, Winthrop Town Council, and the County Commissioner representing the Methow Valley are among those appointed to the governing board. These town council members are already quite busy. That's one more thing for them to do and they do not get paid for it. If you have looked at the Town agendas, Twisp's last agenda was 125 pgs. long.

[Jingles]

Again very simple solution1
Those that want or use the pool pay for the pool. Those that don't want or won't use the pool get to keep their $.

I ask no one and do not expect others to pay for what I enjoy, that is my responsibility.

But maybe that is common sense and unfortunately Common sense was laid to rest long ago in an unmarked grave.

Reading the article in the MVN this week there are just WAY to many unknowns (total cost of pool, cost to operate, etc etc) stated for any sane person to think this would be a good idea for an uncontrolled taxing body to get the go ahead. A real disaster waiting to happen to property owner.
Might as well Hand them a signed blank check.

Additionally when you get down to the real nitty gritty, with the number of lakes in the area why is a pool actually needed? It's not like we live in an area with no bodies of water. Other than it provides some parents with a place to send their kids for free / cheap baby sitters

[realoldtimer]

I don't know about $250 an hour -- sounds like pie in the sky.

I do know after having kids and grandkids on our local swim team, that the parents are very interested, invested, and much involved, but - - -

I have quite a bit of trouble thinking the parents I associated with ftom all the area teams would agree to that rental figure-- or if they could afford it on a regular basis.

Still, it's a plan, or lerhaps the roots of one.

Once again, if the project is financially viabke, and that level of rental fees available regukarly, why burden taxpayers who have no interest in, or planned usage of, such an eztravagant facility?

[PAL]

I second the excellant post! It is what has been on my mind in recent times, but I just didn't know how to say it. Or maybe I was "afraid" to say it.

David, good points about a business plan of which we have seen nothing of. But there should no recreation district foisted on us. The tax strain is and will be too much.

[mister_coffee]

One observation I'd make is that the reasons that local swim teams are not operating and training year-round is that there isn't any facility for them to do so year-round.

$250 per hour for a pool rental may sound expensive, but that would be spread amongst several dozen kids.

I agree that action on affordable housing is meritorious. However, I very much doubt that a $20 million direct investment in affordable housing would make any significant difference. There are lots of indirect investments that have to be made, but more importantly producing an effective solution would require that state and local (both county and municipal) governments actually work together and cooperate in ways that they previously have been unable to.

My own view at the moment is that I am unlikely to support their proposal in its present form. I would support a better proposal. Some things that might make a better proposal (for me, at least) are:

1. Identifying large chunks of federal matching money or private donations that could offset the large initial capital investment.

2. A good operation and business plan for the pool. Ideally it would show likely revenue sources that could pay eighty to ninety percent of the annual operational costs.

3. Identify key people who are willing and able to manage a large construction project of this size and who can manage and operate such a facility.

4. Get commitments from stakeholders (e.g. swim teams) about renting a certain amount of time in this new pool when it is available.

[realoldtimer]

Just thinking, mister__coffee, that most area swim teams are not active year round.

And wondering, if the center is a viable financial proposition,why is tax money needed?

And in that regard, being taxed without even the opportunity to elect board members eho might spend my small contribution wisely smacks of taxation without representation -- right? Maybe time for a tea party??

Fun_CH , I am a retired senior citizen on a fixed income whose property has been assessed for way beyond actual value IMHO -- and I agree with you that added taxes will be painful. Most of my friends in the same situation agree.

[Fun CH]

I posted this on the other thread which I didn't know existed when I started this one.

I guess this all depends on how valuable you think a swimming pool is to the community.

that's a good point that has to be weighed against how valuable do you think the less wealthy people are to the community?

That includes retired elderly people on fixed incomes that recently had those fixed incomes devalued by historical inflation, young folks just starting out, and workers who dont make a lot of money in a seasonal rural economy.

The worst part of this to me, besides increasing rents and taxes to people who can ill afford it, is the nastiness directed at no voters. Those voters who I believe are looking after a greater community interest here then merely what's best for themselves.

Here's a quote from a MVN editorial dated June 22nd referring to the last time a Metropolitan Park District was successfully defeated, I don't know the author. Quote

"but their assurances could not overcome the suspicions and paranoia of some opponents (there was a fair amount of dis- and mis-information promoted at the time." End quote.

So no voters last time were"paranoid", right? What a terrible thing to say to people exercising their voting rights.

Also consider that according to law, when a metropolitan Park District is formed, that district is given the power of eminent domain no matter how that issue is represented to the voters by the proponents.

Lets Check the law.

"RCW 35.61.130
Eminent domain—Park commissioners' authority, generally—Prospective staff screening.
(1) A metropolitan park district has the right of eminent domain, and may purchase, acquire and condemn lands lying within or without the boundaries of said park district, for public parks, parkways, boulevards, aviation landings and playgrounds, and may condemn such lands to widen, alter and extend streets, avenues, boulevards, parkways, aviation landings and playgrounds, to enlarge and extend existing parks, and to acquire lands for the establishment of new parks, boulevards, parkways, aviation landings and playgrounds. The right of eminent domain shall be exercised and instituted pursuant to resolution of the board of park commissioners and conducted in the same manner and under the same procedure as is or may be provided by law for the exercise of the power of eminent domain by incorporated cities and towns of the state of Washington in the acquisition of property rights: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, Funds to pay for condemnation allowed by this section shall be raised only as specified in this chapter."

Also from the June 22nd MVN editorial quote.

"It’s vital for the community to be fully heard on whether a new special taxing district should be formed. Voting is an opportunity for expression — either in support of or opposition to a project that will have long-term implications for the valley’s resident and visitors." End quote

The voters have already been heard on this same issue which was defeated 78% to 22%.

Perhaps we're the ones who aren't being heard?

Peace out everyone

[pasayten]

Chris, I totally agree with you on this. No "recreation district". An unelected entity with taxing power. Recipe for disaster.

[realoldtimer]

Excellent post!