The Proposed Pool

This forum is shown on the index page along with all topics.
Posts: 947
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:23 am

Re: The Proposed Pool

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
Bruce Herron Wolf Creek

Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 10:59 am

Re: The Proposed Pool

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 an additional pool is simply out of proportion. I might add at this point in time, it's not even clear exactly where the pool is intended to be located. I'm certainly not an enemy of the pool—just this particular Proposition.

My biggest concern by far is the formation of a Metropolitan Park District, a complicated and 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 and also assume local renters are feeling the pinch of increased rents as well.

Let's go back to the drawing board and find a better solution.
Last edited by Solstice on Sun Sep 17, 2023 6:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jim Brennan

Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:08 am

Re: The Proposed Pool

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

Posts: 1400
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:40 am

Re: The Proposed Pool

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

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!

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

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

Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:44 pm

Re: The Proposed Pool

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

Posts: 1400
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 11:40 am

Re: The Proposed Pool

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

Peter Larsen
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 8:47 pm

Re: The Proposed Pool

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.

Posts: 1400
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.
Pearl Cherrington

Mike K
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:07 pm

Re: The Proposed Pool

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

Posts: 947
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:23 am

Re: The Proposed Pool

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 Reply

Return to “Main Forum”     Back