Skip to content

12/11/23 01 PM: Board Adopts Record Budget, Explores Aquatic PFD

Board Adopts Record Budget, Explores Aquatic PFD

Board unanimously adopted the record $109M+ 2024-2025 biennial budget. Debated regional aquatic facility options, authorized PFD formation info and city ILA for $15K financial review (2-1 vote).

2024-2025 Biennial Budget Adoption

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:05:02.138–00:09:48.823 (PART 1)
  • Categories: budgeting

Summary

The board continued deliberation from a prior hearing on adopting the 2024-2025 biennial budget, described by County Administrator Mark as a record-setting budget exceeding $109 million, at least $25 million larger than any previous budget, driven by Hadlock sewer funding and a successful grant year for the road fund. Staff presented no new updates beyond prior materials, and no public comment was taken as none was listed following the previous hearing. The board unanimously adopted the budget resolution covering the general fund and other funds, 2024 general county road construction program, 2024 county capital improvement program, and 2024 central services cost allocation plans.

Key Discussion Points

  • County Administrator Mark: Confirmed materials were the same as last week's full presentation; recommended board deliberate and approve the resolution on page 2 of the agenda request.
  • Commissioner (unidentified): Praised improvements in budget process due to biennial approach and departmental input; noted better understanding with Judy onboard for expertise.
  • Limited discussion overall; board expressed satisfaction with the outcome after multiple iterations.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced. Transcript notes "all the materials are here for you commissioners. Same materials as last week."

Financials

  • Total budget exceeds $109 million, at least $25 million larger than prior budgets.
  • Key drivers: Hadlock sewer budget and road fund grants. No specific funding sources detailed beyond general description.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: "Adopt the 2024-2025 biennial budget for the general fund and other funds, the 2024 general county road construction program, the 2024 county capital improvement program, and the 2024 central services cost allocation plans."
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes from all three commissioners).
  • No next steps specified.

Aquatic Facility and Public Facilities District (PFD) Formation

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:24:05.982–01:25:43.997 (PART 1)
  • Categories: planning, infrastructure, services

Summary

The board discussed options for a regional aquatic facility amid concerns over the current Port Townsend pool's short lifespan and high-risk $21 million renovation estimate from DCW (visible issues only, no subsurface testing, one-tank pool). Steering committee and city staff proposed forming a countywide PFD (5-7 appointed members with geographic representation) to review prior work, conduct studies (e.g., market analysis for Hadlock), pursue grants, and potentially place a ballot measure for sales tax funding of a $37 million YMCA facility at Mountain View Commons (reduced from $44 million via redesign). Commissioners debated location equity (e.g., Port Townsend vs. mid-county/Hadlock), funding (PFD sales tax vs. MPD property tax), voter fatigue, and risks; authorized staff to develop information on PFD formation and an ILA with the city to split costs for a required independent financial review.

Key Discussion Points

  • City staff (Kerry): Current pool renovation $21 million (high risk, escalate for 2025); new facility not competitive for grants if renovated old pool.
  • County Administrator Mark, Commissioner Kate: Recent meetings with Commerce and steering committee showed determination for Hadlock site; PFD signals seriousness to voters and for capital campaign.
  • Commissioner Heidi: Expressed skepticism on Hadlock location (end of peninsula, 45-min drive for District 3); cataloged ~300 public comments favoring pool but not this configuration; suggested mid-county or Port Townsend options, geographic representation on PFD, dedicated staffing.
  • Commissioner Greg: Location/accessibility concerns for South County/West End; supported financial review (shelf life 2-3 years) and PFD exploration to avoid dropping the project.
  • Rich (Aquatics Coalition/Y board): Emphasized YMCA-wide services (not just pool), $10-12M Y funding potential; criticized messaging as "pool" vs. "Y".
  • John Noak (school board): Stressed pool need for kids, current pool failure risk; PFD preferable to MPD amid levy fatigue ($10-40/year impact).
  • Diane McDade (Aquatics Coalition): PFD as neutral group for options review, public process; countywide asset requiring finance/construction/recreation expertise.
  • Public concerns: Distrust in process, Port Townsend focus, half-baked plan, opposition to countywide tax for northern site; some supported due diligence.

Public Comments

  • Gene: Lacked outreach/geographic representation; prefer MPD or citizens committee; PFD force-feeds countywide tax.
  • Mr. Teersh: PFD gains independent bonding authority; minutes hidden (disputed); be upfront on debt.
  • Shelley Ornell: Majority Facebook opposition; extraneous features (lazy river, pickleball); one basic pool needed.
  • Jane Armstrong: Continue due diligence, financial feasibility, recruit qualified PFD members for informed process.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials provided for analysis. Transcript references prior steering committee work, DCW partial report ($21M renovation), Office Architecture design ($37M), community survey (90% prefer PFD sales tax over MPD property tax), but none attached.

Financials

  • Current pool renovation: $21 million (high risk, no subsurface testing; escalate for 2025; demo ~$200K).
  • New facility: $37 million (2025-2026 dollars; reduced from $44M via redesign).
  • Independent financial review: ~$15K (county/city split via ILA; required pre-PFD/bonding/facility development).
  • Potential PFD bonding: $20-22 million sales tax (e.g., $10-40/year per person); Y contribution $10-12M. No funding sources beyond sales tax, grants, private campaign specified.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Renovate current pool: High risk, not grant-competitive, one-tank.
  • Hadlock site: Market study needed; city disinterest possible.
  • Port Townsend/mid-county: Geographic equity concerns; sales tax 74% from Districts 2/3.
  • MPD (property tax): Voter fatigue (e.g., East Jefferson fire levy, school bonds); survey preferred PFD.
  • City-only PFD: RCW limits to county for recreational facilities. No formal amendments; motion clarified as exploratory.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: "Authorize staff to bring forward more information about the formation of a PFD and also work with the city to create an ILA to move ahead with the independent financial review."
  • Vote: 2 Ayes (Commissioners Greg and Kate), 1 Nay (Commissioner Heidi); non-unanimous.
  • Next Steps:
  • Staff to prepare ILA with city for financial review cost-sharing (Commerce facilitates contract).
  • Gather PFD details (authority, staffing, geographic representation, impacts).
  • Wednesday meeting with bond counsel on PFD feasibility.
  • Potential PFD appointment process concurrent with review.

Background Materials

Contents

AI Information