Skip to content

09/16/24 06 PM: New Pool PFD Plan Advanced; Parking Ordinance, School MOU Approved

New Pool PFD Plan Advanced; Parking Ordinance, School MOU Approved

Healthier Together Task Force recommended mid-county aquatic facility via PFD sales tax (~$15M bond), sites like Chimacum debated amid public input. Council unanimously passed interim parking ordinance (maxima over minima), School Liaison Officer MOU, consent agenda; no votes on pool.

Healthier Together Task Force Presentation on New Aquatic Facility

Metadata

  • Time Range: 00:01:42–01:42:54 (PART 1); continued into PART 2 with public comments ~01:23:57–01:38:32
  • Categories: planning, budgeting, services, infrastructure

Summary

The Healthier Together Task Force presented recommendations from their summer 2024 work building on the steering committee's efforts since September 2023, including a feasibility study funded jointly by city and county in December 2023. The task force unanimously agreed a new pool is needed for Jefferson County, recommending a mid-county (Tri area) location serving 82% of the population within a 20-minute drive to maximize viability and pass a voter levy, funded by a 0.2% county-wide sales tax via Public Facilities District (PFD) projected to yield ~$1.5M annually (~$15M bond capacity after reserving $0.5M/year for operations). Preferred sites include Chimacum Park (county-owned, septic feasible at ~$2M extra) and Chimacum Creek Elementary (school land swap needed, phase 1 sewer by 2026); no final site selected. City to continue subsidizing (~$400K/year) Mountain View Pool until new facility opens (~2028 optimistic).

Key Discussion Points

  • Task force members Todd McGuire (District 1 rep, engineer), Nancy Spesser (former pool manager), and Craig Henry (lifeguard, program manager) introduced backgrounds and motivations tied to community need for modern aquatics.
  • Reviewed prior Ops/Engineering/Water Technology reports, site visits (Shore Aquatic Center Port Angeles $16.2M/30K sq ft; South Whidbey $27M/24K sq ft; Idaho YMCA $18M/50K sq ft Sprung structure), emphasizing cost-constrained design (~$1K/sq ft rule of thumb, alternatives like prefab/Sprung lower lifecycle costs).
  • Consensus on PFD formation immediately for outreach, site finalization, programming, financial plan; county committed LTAG funds for admin (~$50-100K election costs); potential joint city-county PFD for lodging tax add-on.
  • Council questions: City subsidy continuation (task force hopes city maintains Mountain View); construction (Sprung resilient, repairable, but aesthetic limits); scalability (multiple temp pools feasible within budget); voter equity (sliding fees suggested); transit integration.
  • County Commissioners: All-in on PFD seeding; school district supports mid-county site.

Public Comments

  • Paul Ranch (Padlock/Irondale resident): Supports Tri pool but opposes Chimacum Park (wildlife corridor, forest); prefers library site (sewer); notes regressive tax burden, sewer delays, need non-driving access.
  • Musa Jamon (Port Townsend resident): Requests full cost details (e.g., 4-8M estimates incomplete); sliding scale fees for low-income access given ~$65K median income.
  • Debbie Runnick (Upper Brinnon resident): Supports library site (sewer); sliding scale; confirms Shore costs included full facility.
  • Alita Anderson (Port Townsend resident): Supports county pool but opposes Chimacum Park (forest loss); favors sewer site.
  • David Hero: Suggests transit hub site for accessibility.
  • Shellie Yarnell (Brinnon resident): Demands more transparency/public input before PFD; pursue private funding; notes south county water park.
  • Peter Guerrero: New pool essential (repairs sinkhole); subsidies normal (like roads/schools); prioritize density/transit/walkability over drive time.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials (e.g., slides, Ops report, feasibility study) provided for analysis; presentation referenced Y.M.C.A. data (population/drive times), prior steering committee/consultant estimates (Mountain View repair ~$8M swag incl. seismic/vessel; expansion $21M; new build $37M), South Whidbey/Island examples (failed levies until central site). County committed LTAG funds Monday prior; Department of Commerce analysis required pre-PFD voter ask. No divergences from staff recs noted.

Financials

  • 0.2% sales tax: ~$1.5M/year (~$15M bond after $0.5M ops reserve; range $14-17M).
  • Mountain View ops subsidy: City ~$400K/year (2019); continue until ~2028.
  • Sites: Chimacum Park septic ~$2M +1yr delay; repair alternatives $4-37M (incomplete).
  • Comparable builds: Shore $16.2M/30K sq ft; South Whidbey $27M/24K sq ft; Idaho $18M/50K sq ft.

Alternatives & Amendments

  • Mountain View Pool: Expansion/new build $21-37M; repair/modernize ~$8M (excl. full seismic/plumbing caveats); rejected as costlier long-term.
  • City-site PFD (property tax): Rejected (school district competition).
  • No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: Informational; no formal action (special session). Boards expressed support for PFD formation, city LTAG redirection for market study/tourist amenities analysis; joint PFD/lodging tax explored.
  • Vote: N/A.
  • Next Steps:
  • Form PFD board (5-7 directors, reflect city/unincorporated; county seeds admin via LTAG).
  • County LTAG prioritization Oct 17 (city workshop Oct 21 for support letter/resolution).
  • PFD: Site selection, community outreach/surveys/programming/financial plan; voter ballot ~2026/2027.
  • Update at ICGG Thursday; Commerce analysis required.

Interim Parking Regulations Ordinance (No. 3339)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:52:06–02:16:28 (PART 1)
  • Categories: planning, land use, ordinances

Summary

Public hearing on subsequent interim ordinance amending PTMC 17.72 to replace minimum off-street parking requirements with recommended maxima and city engineering design standards, effective immediately upon adoption (prior expired Saturday). Allows study via 16 applications since March; aligns with comp plan update (target June 2025, statutory Dec 2025). No public comments; council questioned duration (possible 1-2 more 6-mo extensions), vesting (applicants vest upon submission), wording ("none" means no max).

Key Discussion Points

  • Staff (Emma Boland/Adrian Smith): GMA allows 6-mo increments to address over-parking privatizing ROW; 16 apps show positive early results (e.g., density, repurposed lots); national attention as model.
  • Council: Vesting protects projects; engineering standards outdated (1997); "none" = unlimited (flag for revision).

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

No supporting materials provided; references 16 permit apps, engineering standards (minor updates since 1997).

Financials

No financial information discussed.

Alternatives & Amendments

No alternatives discussed.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: "Move to approve the findings of fact and waive council rules this time, and approve Ordinance 3339."
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: 6).
  • Next Steps: Sunset earliest of 6 mos from adoption or superseding regs; likely 1-2 extensions to Dec 2025 aligned with comp plan; quarterly updates.

School Liaison Officer Memorandum of Agreement (Resolution 2432)

Metadata

  • Time Range: 02:16:48–02:38:31 (PART 1)
  • Categories: public safety, personnel, contracts

Summary

Approval of MOU designating consistent patrol officer as School Liaison Officer (SLO) for non-emergency school responses, relationship-building, training (vs. full-time SRO due to staffing/legislation). Developed via school/police/community meetings addressing equity concerns (e.g., uniformed presence, opt-outs). Officer trained (national SRO, OSPI); school policy 4311 supports. No public comments.

Key Discussion Points

  • Police Chief Olsen: Replaces 2021 SRO (staffing ended); SLO responds as-needed, reports to office, focuses external/proactive.
  • School reps (Carrie Erichardt, Simon Little): Improves efficiency/consistency; addresses fears (e.g., enforcement anxiety, media influence) via limited presence/opt-outs; safety audit context.
  • Council: Confirmed school-requested; ride-alongs/positive interactions.

Public Comments

No public comment on this topic.

Supporting Materials Referenced

Draft MOU, school policy 4311 (reviewed Thursday); no divergences.

Financials

No financial information discussed (city-funded patrol position).

Alternatives & Amendments

SRO considered/rejected (staffing/reqs); no amendments.

Outcome, Vote, and Next Steps

  • Decision: "Move to approve Resolution 2432 authorizing the city manager to sign the School Liaison Officer MOU."
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: 6); skipped HRAB review for urgency.
  • Next Steps: Implement immediately; school board reviews policy Thursday; ongoing training/data-sharing.

Consent Agenda Approval

Metadata

  • Time Range: 01:51:42–01:52:02 (PART 1)
  • Categories: operations

Summary

Routine items approved without discussion/pull.

Key Discussion Points

Limited discussion; item addressed primarily through supporting materials.

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: "Move to approve the consent agenda as is."
  • Vote: Unanimous (Ayes: 6).
  • Next Steps: No next steps specified.

Background Materials

Contents

AI Information