MEETING: Untitled Meeting at Mon, Sep 16, 06:01 PM

County Sources

Packet Contents

AI Information

Jefferson County Aquatic Center Feasibility and Funding Recommendations

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:02:45–01:23:52
  • Agenda Item: Special Presentation of the Healthier Together Gap Course Recommendation
  • Categories: infrastructure, budgeting, services, planning

Topic Summary

The Healthier Together Task Force presented its consensus recommendation for building a new county-wide aquatic center. The core proposal is to establish a Public Facilities District (PFD) funded by a 0.2% county-wide sales tax to construct and operate a new pool in the Tri-Area (Mid-County) location that offers the greatest population reach. This approach addresses the consensus need for a new pool and suggests a funding mechanism capable of generating adequate revenue while emphasizing the need for continued public outreach and functional design.

Key Discussion Points

  • The Healthier Together Steering committee, started in September 2023, initially recommended a PFD funded by a county-wide sales tax to build a new pool at the Mountain View campus (00:03:33).
  • The subsequent Task Force, formed in April, was directed to explore: viable alternative sites (non-Mountain View), alternative construction methods, the future of the existing Mountain View Pool, and the fiscal limits of a publicly funded PFD pool (00:08:17–00:08:58).
  • Task Force Consensus: All members agreed that a new pool is needed, recognizing the Mountain View Pool facility requires maintenance but emphasizing the community needs a new aquatic center (00:08:46).
  • Location Recommendation (Tri-Area/Mid-County): Data, including YMCA information on population density, suggests a mid-county location would serve 82% of the county's population within a 20-minute drive, compared to 61% served by the Mountain View location (00:14:00, 00:21:01). This is politically key, as demonstrated by South Whidbey Island's two failed levies preceding a successful one at an equidistant location (00:17:14, 00:39:06).
  • Viable Sites: Two primary sites in the Tri-Area were identified as exciting options (00:20:23):
    1. Chimicum Park Site: County-owned property near HJ Carroll Park, but requires approximately $2 million and an extra year of construction time for a large onsite septic system (00:18:04–00:18:24). Pros include proximity to the Chimicum High School campus and connectivity to the Larry Scott and Olympic Discovery Trails.
    2. Chimacum Creek Elementary Site: A smaller 2-acre parcel accessible near the Jefferson County Library and the future Mason Street affordable housing project (120-150 units). It is a short walk for 400 people. This site would require a land purchase/swap with the school district but is located within the Phase One sewer area, accessible by 2026 (00:19:20–00:20:09).
  • Construction Methods: The Task Force investigated alternative methods like "Sprung" (prefabricated steel structure) and Merthyr pools. Examples showed lower square-foot costs (Shore Aquatic Center at $500/sq. ft. for 30,000 sq. ft. vs. traditional $1,000/sq. ft.) (00:28:06, 00:33:40). Sprung structures were noted for their best-in-class air handling and resilience, but lack interior design opportunities (00:53:32, 00:54:03).
  • Mountain View Pool Condition: Preliminary repair cost estimates for the Mountain View Pool range from $4 million (vessel replacement only, per WTI) up to at least $8 million to address unbudgeted seismic, ADA, plumbing, electrical, and HVAC upgrades (00:36:16, 00:56:46). The consensus is the city should continue operating the existing pool until the new county facility is operational (anticipated by late 2027/2028) (00:42:30, 00:49:20).
  • PFD Administration/Governance: The formation of a PFD requires immediate action. It would be governed by a board of 5-7 directors appointed by the County Commissioners, reflecting city and unincorporated areas (00:21:26, 01:04:21). It would oversee site selection, financial planning (including bonding the future tax stream), design, contracting, construction, and operations (00:25:05-00:26:48).
  • City/County Collaboration: Joint formation of the PFD by the City and County could allow greater flexibility in utilizing additional funding sources, specifically a potential 0.2% supplement to the lodging tax if it applies to both jurisdictions (01:17:56).

Key Discussion Points

  • Todd McGuire (Task Force): Emphasized that continuity and collaboration among elected officials and the public are essential for success (00:11:16).
  • Nancy Spesser (Task Force): Shared her 20 years of experience at Mountain View Pool as motivation and noted that most of the county population lives outside city limits (2/3rds in the county vs. 1/3 in city limits), supporting a mid-county site for better usage (00:16:13).
  • Craig Henry (Task Force): Stressed "design to cost" as a key strategy, adjusting design elements to fit the probable $15 million bonding capacity (00:27:53). Also noted the critical need for a detailed operational plan ("programming") to maximize revenue and minimize losses (00:25:41).
  • Commissioner (Unidentified): Clarified that the $400,000 annual subsidy currently provided by the City of Port Townsend for the Mountain View Pool is not expected to continue funding the new county PFD pool (00:49:20, 00:57:39).
  • Councilmember Ben Thomas: Raised concerns about choosing a broader geographic area due to increased long-term costs, potential greenhouse gas emissions, and questioning the assumption that all individuals who reportedly live within the preferred 20-minute drive lack access to a pool (e.g., through HOAs) (01:06:02-01:07:23). He generally supported moving forward despite these concerns (01:08:41).
  • Councilmember (Unidentified): The Commissioners noted that they committed tourism dollars (L-TAP funds) on Monday to seed the PFD's initial administration costs to build capacity for approaching voters (00:37:59, 01:21:34).

Public Comments

  • Paul Ranch (Retired School Bus Driver, Artist, Padlock/Irondale Area Resident): Supports a Tri-Area pool but objects to the Chimicum Park site because it is a valuable forest area and wildlife corridor adjacent to HJ Carroll Park and Chimicum Creek riparian area (01:27:00). Prefers the Chimacum site that is on sewer. Complained that the projected 0.2% sales tax adds to the state’s regressive tax structure, and pushed for more focus on public access via non-driving means (01:28:35, 01:29:00).
  • Musa Jamon (Port Townsend Resident): Criticized the presentation for lacking sufficient detail and "real numbers" beyond bolded projections for facility costs (01:29:53). Also raised the issue of affordability for low-income and fixed-income residents (median county income $65,000) and suggested implementing a sliding scale for user fees (01:30:10, 01:30:48).
  • Debbie Ronnick (Upper Bridge Haven Resident): Travel time often exceeds 20 minutes to the Tri-Area. Echoed concern for implementing a sliding scale for all income levels (01:31:55). Expressed a preference for the site near the library due to sewer access, criticizing the idea of adding a costly septic system for an aquatic facility (01:32:00).
  • Alita Anderson (Town Resident): Agrees the county needs a pool but strongly objects to logging the Chimicum Park forest, comparing the logging idea to breaking her heart (01:32:51). Supports the Chimacum Creek site because it has access to existing sewer infrastructure (01:33:05).
  • David Hero (Make Waves Project, 15 years prior): Previously worked on the Make Waves Project to build a pool and suggested reconsidering the Kiteai site, noting it was the county's transportation hub and utilizing its unused parking lots, thereby reducing reliance on driving (01:33:41, 01:34:38).
  • Shellie Yarnell (Brennan Resident, Virtual): Stated Commissioners have heard her objection multiple times: demands more public transparency before a PFD is formed. Argues there is no appetite for more taxes and criticized using $200,000 of tourist funds intended for small businesses (01:35:48, 01:36:01). Stated a water park is coming to the Brennan area before the PFD pool is built, requiring more due diligence (01:36:26).
  • Peter Guerrero (Unidentified): Declared keeping Mountain View pool open is a "sinkhole of resources" and suggested patching it is a cheap, short-term fix that is more expensive over time (01:37:06). Argued that aquatic centers are legitimate public functions that should be subsidized like roads and schools, and criticized using drive time as the sole metric, preferring population density relative to public transit, walking, and biking access (01:37:19, 01:37:52).

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • References and data were gathered following a feasibility study funded jointly by the City and County (00:03:51).
  • Oasis and Dcw Engineering Report: Provided cost estimates for repair/expansion and new build options at Mountain View Pool:
    • Expansion (25-yard pool + 3,500 sq. ft.): $21 million (00:35:38).
    • New Build (37,000-29,000 sq. ft. option): $37 million (00:35:51).
    • Lowest Cost Option (Repair/Modernization, 20-yard vessel replacement): Preliminary $4 million (WTI estimate) adjusted to $8 million (rough order of magnitude) to account for ignored costs (seismic, ADA, mechanical, destructive testing) (00:36:11, 00:36:46).
  • Comparative Pool Visits: Shore Aquatic Center (Port Angeles, $16.2M for 30,000 sq. ft. + childcare center; used CMaR delivery); South Whidbey Island (Estimated $27M for 24,000 sq. ft. brick/mortar with Merthyr pool); Boise/South Meridian YMCA (Sprung structure, $18M for 50,000 sq. ft.) (00:33:40–00:34:40).
  • Department of Commerce Report: Requires further analysis of administrative costs before formally launching the PFD (00:37:47).

Financials

  • Sales Tax Revenue: A proposed 0.2% county-wide sales tax levy is projected to generate $1.5 million annually (00:40:05).
  • Operating Costs / Subsidy: It is projected that $500,000 per year would need to be reserved from the $1.5 million sales tax revenue to cover anticipated operating losses (subsidy), leaving $1 million annually for capital bondage (00:41:22, 00:41:27).
  • Bonding Capacity (Capital): The $1 million annual dedicated revenue stream is expected to generate approximately $15 million in bonding capacity for construction projects (may vary between $14M to $17M) (00:41:35).
  • Startup Funding: The Board of County Commissioners committed tourism dollars (L-TAP funds) to fund the initial PFD administration to draft the requisite voter request/ballot measure (estimated $50,000–$100,000 for startup) (00:37:59, 00:48:39).
  • Existing City Subsidy: The City of Port Townsend currently provides approximately $400,000 annually to support the Mountain View Pool (2019 timeframe data cited) (00:40:54). The PFD plan assumes the city continues this subsidy only until the new pool is constructed (00:49:20).
  • Lodging Tax Potential: Combining City and County PFD formation could allow co-opting a small lodging tax addition (0.2% for facilities over 40 units) to potentially generate additional operating revenue (01:05:30-01:05:47).

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Alternative Site Selection Frameworks: Debate on using "drive time" (more people served by mid-county) versus "population density/access to non-vehicular transit" (preferred by a councilmember and some public commentators for more sustainable outcomes) (01:06:27, 01:37:52).
  • Property Tax-Based MFD (Rejected): An alternative recommendation for a property tax-based MFD (Metropolitan Park District) within the City limits was effectively dropped after opposition from the school district over concerns about competition for property tax dollars (00:37:06).
  • West Jefferson County Funding: The Task Force did not have capacity to study a localized financing strategy for a facility in West Jefferson County (01:01:17).
  • Future Amenities: Discussion noted the master plan process should identify potential expansions based on private funding (e.g., therapeutic pools, water slides, public showers/bathhouses) (00:59:18, 01:13:27).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: The presentation was informational, outlining a consensus path forward through a PFD established by joint City/County resolution to build a Mid-County aquatic center funded by a 0.2% sales tax. No action was taken.
  • Vote: No vote taken on the recommendations.
  • Next Steps:
  • - City/County Staff/Legal: Investigate the flexibility of lodging tax options under an inter-jurisdictional PFD (01:17:56).
  • - City Council/Staff: Provide an update on the PFD timeline and City support position at the next Intergovernmental Collaborative Group (ICG) meeting on Thursday (tentatively scheduled) and potentially vote on formal support at the October workshop for the benefit of the L-TAP prioritization meeting (01:19:03, 01:20:47).
  • - PFD (Future Entity): Conduct comprehensive outreach and iterative surveying to finalize site selection and design/amenities (00:25:12, 00:44:25).
  • - PFD (Future Entity): Develop a detailed financial plan and cost-constrained design for the aquatic center (00:44:03).
  • - City/County: Must sustain the current Mountain View Pool operations until the new Mid-County pool is operational (anticipated late 2027/2028) (00:42:56).

City Manager's Report and General Business

City Manager's Report: Operational Highlights

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:43:47–01:51:26
  • Agenda Item: City Manager's Report
  • Categories: operations, infrastructure, public safety, services, other

Topic Summary

The City Manager presented several operational highlights, including a thanks for the success of the Wooden Boat Festival, an update on the upcoming "People, Planet, Prosperity Tour," the initiation of a new segment called "Stuff That Breaks" covering maintenance victories, and news regarding several communications awards and the release of the annual report.

Key Discussion Points

  • Wooden Boat Festival Success: Acknowledgment and thanks to the community, volunteers, and city staff (Streets, Public Safety, Chief Olsen's team) for organizing the successful festival and executing timely sewer line repairs (01:44:03).
  • "People, Planet, Prosperity Tour": A joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, 5:00 PM – 7:10 PM, with stops at Sheridan and 30th (5:00 PM - 5:35 PM), Rosecranston and 21st (5:45 PM - 6:20 PM), and Nora Porter Loop and Hancock (6:30 PM - 7:10 PM) (01:44:51). Self-guided QR code tours are also available (01:45:52).
  • Stuff That Breaks (Water & Facilities):
    • Olympic Gravity Water System: A pipeline problem near the airport was patched under pressure quickly by Michael Spears, Rich Kiesel, and Tyler Johnson, averting a larger issue. A full repair is planned for the regular mill shutdown period (01:46:25–01:47:15).
    • Mountain View Pool Repairs: The facilities team (Brenda, Terry, Child) replaced the main boiler circulation pump that heats the pool/locker rooms, dismantled the boiler to replace a gasket, and drained the hot water tank to replace an internal temperature probe (01:47:30–01:47:57). Staff capacity for in-house repairs for technical issues has substantially increased in the past few years (01:48:11).
  • Communications Awards: The city received an accreditation award for financial sustainability from the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) (01:49:32), and a national 3CMA Savvy Award of Excellence for a sewer-related video featuring Steven Bliss (01:48:43).
  • Publications: The quarterly insert on public safety featuring Officer Ali and the annual report detailing highlights of the year's work were released (01:49:52, 01:50:30).

Public Comments

No public comment specific to the City Manager's report was recorded during this segment.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials explicitly cited.

Financials

No financial information discussed during this segment.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Information presented. No formal action required.
  • Vote: No vote taken.
  • Next Steps:
  • - Staff: Coordinate the Wednesday "People, Planet, Prosperity Tour" (01:44:51).
  • - Mayor/Staff: Mayor plans to meet with Melody Jaa about organizing a formal Mayor's Book Club to discuss "On The Housing Crisis" by Jerusalem Demsas (02:39:16).
  • - Mayor/Libby: Coordinate Farmer’s Market sign-up for Saturday (02:40:50).
  • - City Manager/Mayor (Outreach): Acknowledged the question of sending a letter of support to Springfield, Ohio, following harassment of their city manager, deciding not to take action due to concerns about potentially drawing unwanted attention/threats to Port Townsend staff (02:44:57).

Consent Agenda Approval

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:51:35–01:52:02
  • Agenda Item: Consent Agenda
  • Categories: operations

Topic Summary

The City Council approved the consent agenda, which typically bundles routine administrative and procedural items.

Key Discussion Points

  • Limited discussion; approved as presented.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials referenced.

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Motion to approve the consent agenda carried.
  • Vote: Unanimous (motion and second acknowledged, all in favor said "Aye," none opposed).
  • Next Steps: No specific next steps specified.

Public Hearing: Interim Parking Regulations Extension (Ordinance 3339)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:52:02–02:16:31
  • Agenda Item: Ordinance 3339 - Interim Parking Regulations
  • Categories: planning, ordinances, land use

Topic Summary

The City Council held a public hearing for Ordinance 3339, a subsequent interim ordinance amending Port Townsend Municipal Code Chapter 17.72 to continue the current interim parking regulations for another six months. The original ordinance expired two days prior. The goal is to address "over-parking" concerns and privatizing the public right-of-way by shifting away from minimum off-street parking requirements while staff works towards permanent regulations under the Comprehensive Plan Update.

Key Discussion Points

  • Previous Ordinance and Lapse: The original interim ordinance expired on Saturday, resulting in a lapse that staff aimed to immediately correct with this new ordinance (01:55:30). The Growth Management Act allows such interim ordinances in six-month increments (01:55:42).
  • Policy Goal: The regulation aims to re-examine parking requirements to address concerns about "over-parking" and minimize the dedication of public right-of-way to private driveways ("privatizing the public right of way") (01:57:43, 01:57:51).
  • Key Change: Under the interim standards, builders are "recommended" to follow former parking minimums but are not required to, allowing them instead to adhere to internal engineering design standards (01:58:30, 01:58:48).
  • Impact and Data: Since the initial ordinance in March, 16 applications have been received, providing data on alternative urban forms and land use (01:58:58). Staff reported receiving positive feedback and seeing inquiries about redeveloping vacant parking lots for thriving businesses (02:12:17).
  • Implementation Status: The ordinance takes effect immediately ("tomorrow"); applicants filing for a vesting permit (e.g., building permits) within the 6-month period will be protected by these standards (01:56:11, 02:13:19).
  • Future Timeline: Staff noted the possibility of needing two more 6-month extensions to align fully with the Comprehensive Plan Update deadline in December 2025, noting that grant funding ends in June 2025 (02:05:07).
  • Wording Ambiguity: Councilmember Thomas questioned the language where "maximal permissible parking spaces" is sometimes listed as "none," finding the wording confusing. Staff acknowledged this required a "full scale Rethink" in the permanent update (02:08:25, 02:09:07).
  • Engineering Standards: Councilmember Monica asked whether the City Engineering Design Standards (EDS) used in lieu of minimum parking requirements have been updated since 1997. Staff confirmed they have only received minor edits and "need some work" (02:10:02, 02:10:12).

Public Comments

  • No oral or written public testimony was received during the dedicated public comment portion of the hearing (02:03:05, 02:03:19).

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials were explicitly cited besides the ordinance text itself (Ordinance 3339).

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • No alternatives or amendments formally advanced during the discussion.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Councilmember Monica moved to approve the findings of fact, waive council rules (for immediate effect), and approve Ordinance 3339.
  • Vote: The motion passed unanimously. (Ayes: Monica, Howard, Mchager, Nelson, Roe, Thomas, Wenstrom; None Opposed: None) (02:16:20–02:16:28).
  • Next Steps:
  • - Planning Staff: Continue gathering data and incorporating work into the Comprehensive Plan update until the next probable extension expiration.
  • - Planning Staff: Consider revisions to ambiguous wording regarding "maximal permissible parking spaces" during drafting of permanent code update (02:09:07).

Resolution 24-032: School Liaison Officer Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:16:34–02:38:31
  • Agenda Item: Resolution 24-032 Authorizing City Manager to sign School Liaison Officer MOA
  • Categories: public safety, services, contracts, personnel

Topic Summary

The City Council considered and approved Resolution 24-032, authorizing the City Manager to sign a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Port Townsend School District to establish a School Liaison Officer (SLO) program. This is a revised approach from the former School Resource Officer (SRO) program, addressing legislative changes, staffing challenges, and community concerns regarding the presence of uniformed law enforcement on campus.

Key Discussion Points

  • Program Background: The school district previously had an SRO program, which ended around 2021 due to Police Department staffing shortages (02:18:42).
  • New SLO Model: The SLO is a dedicated patrol officer assigned to a day shift who would respond to non-emergent school requests for assistance (e.g., reports, training) to ensure response consistency and relationship building (02:20:50, 02:21:19).
  • Differentiation from SRO: Unlike a 40-hour-a-week SRO with an office in the school, the SLO mainly works outside the school, occasionally checking in and reporting presence, thereby addressing community concerns about the direct presence of armed, uniformed officers (02:28:48).
  • Community Concerns Addressed: Public meetings, including student meetings, identified major concerns around having a uniformed, armed officer on campus, perceived fear/anxiety, and the potential for over-criminalization of youthful indiscretion (02:28:24, 02:37:01). The SLO model explicitly addresses this by relying on as-needed response and proactive relationship building (02:29:07).
  • School District Support: The request originated with the school district (Police Chief Olson and Carrie Eric hard of the High School HR Department confirmed the school district's desire for the SLO partnership), which views the SLO as critical for improving communication and campus safety (02:23:19, 02:32:48). Dr. Rosenberry (Superintendent) expressed commitment to making the relationship positive (02:26:17).
  • Officer Training: The identified SLO has attended National SRO School and is receiving additional training through the program utilized by Mr. McVey (School Safety Officer program) (02:24:54).
  • School Policy: The school district formalized its commitment to working with law enforcement and safety officers in its Policy 4311, which would be reviewed shortly (02:26:45).

Public Comments

  • No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

  • Port Townsend School District Policy 4311 (for review at the upcoming School Board meeting) (02:26:45).
  • Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (draft included in Council packet) (02:27:50).

Financials

No specific financial information discussed during this resolution beyond implied staffing costs.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Discussion noted, but ultimately rejected, the idea of sending the MOA to the Equity & Access Review (EAR) Board, given the extensive, independent work the school district had already done to address equity concerns through the design of the SLO program (02:37:22, 02:37:46).

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Councilmember Thomas moved to approve Resolution 24-032, authorizing the City Manager to sign the School Liaison Officer MOA. The motion was seconded.
  • Vote: The motion passed unanimously. (Ayes: All Councilmembers; None Opposed: None) (02:38:23–02:38:31).
  • Next Steps:
  • - City Manager/Police Chief: Sign and implement the SLO Memorandum of Agreement with the Port Townsend School District for immediate effect.
  • - School District: Review and potentially adopt Policy 4311 on Thursday (02:26:45).