The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About071123 PRTTAB Meeting MinutesCity T ► nsend SPECIAL SESSION PARKS, RECREATION TREES, & TRAILS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING Minutes July 11, 2023 1 5:00 p.m. I Virtual or In Person Meeting Join via computer or tablet at http://)oinw binar.com enter 9 digit Webinar ID 388-377-875 • Join by phone in listen -only mode: (360)390-5064 Ext. 3 access code: 791-359-026# • Submit public comment emails to be read aloud (up to three minutes per person) to: pubIiccomment@cityofpt.us I. Welcome, Introduction & Call to Order - Chair Debbie Jahnke Good afternoon and welcome to this meeting of the Port Townsend Parks, Recreation, Trees & Trails Advisory Board. The role of this Board is to assist City staff and to advise the City Council on legislative matters concerning parks, recreation, trees and trails. This special meeting is open to the public at the City Council Chambers, virtually via this web format, and is also being video recorded for those who could not attend the meeting today and for future reference. Given that this meeting is in virtual format, we ask that the board members raise their hands to be called on by the Chair. The public can do the some to comment during the public comment periods. We normally take public comment at the beginning and end of the meeting but as this is a special session, public comment will be taken only for items on the agenda. II. Roll Call: Russell Hill, Pam Adams, Matt Miner, Jim Todd, Becci Kimball and Debbie Jahnke present. Jennifer Rotermund — excused absence. Staff present include Steve King, Carrie Hite and Michael Todd. III. Golf Course Presentation Carrie Hite introduced the preference of Council to have PRTTAB input and recommendation and indicated that multiple options can be recommended. We have a very divided community around this topic and have provided substantial outreach. Carrie noted that the stakeholders did not conclude with a single recommendation or consensus. Chris Jones of Groundswell summarized the process for this legacy project, started by public input during the PROS Plan effort in 2019-2020. Due to proximity to Mountain View, the two properties were considered together for complementary land uses. He described the multiple live and online open houses and surveys, comment cards and emails. Eight decision-making criteria were developed for engagement. Various small groups were surveyed as well as high school students. The younger generation had a different focus for the property than did most open house attendees. Chris pointed out which versions presented would be competitive for RCO funding. A regional golf consultant, David Heins, was engaged due to concerns from the PROS Plan effort relying on a consultant group from Florida. Multiple citizen -generated plans were also submitted during the process. Becci Kimball provided her perspective as PRTTAB liaison to the stakeholder committee, including financial realities, and that the plans are concepts, not set in concrete. Clarifying questions: Jim Todd asked about any changes in representation since the Jefferson Land Trust stakeholder dropped out of the stakeholder process. Becci and Carrie responded that open space principles were well represented since Jim wanted to make sure the JLT and/or other similar positions were still included. Matt Miner asked about the interests of the younger generation in golf. Chris noted that the high schoolers that played golf preferred other courses that were better maintained but were not asked about their view of the future of golf. He asked about funding and whether we would be competitive for funding. Golf course funding through RCO is not likely. Matt asked about the public's concerns about streets funding versus parks funding and it was clarified that the funding pots are separate. Pam Adams asked about ongoing operational cost differences between the options. Chris responded that Central Park is ^'$5.25 + million with ongoing $90k per year. Hybrid is -$4.4 m with ongoing $60k per year. Golf course option would require operator to pay full operational costs. Pam asked about the timeline/deadline for a decision. Carrie responded that there is fatigue and suggested that a decision needs to be made. Russell Hill asked who would run the Golf Course. It would be split maintenance for the hybrid option. Chris noted that golf course use spiked nationally during Covid but has decreased again. IV. Public comment: Mitchell Osborne expressed concerns about the appearance of the block of public housing in an inopportune place that would affect the largest remaining habitat on the golf course. He also submitted a written comment of similar content. Tim Caldwell, stakeholder, asked whether the Golf Course closes if a decision isn't made and who will operate the course if it is open. Steve Hampton's written comment addressed concerns about the housing drawn into the natural area that is the best remaining habitat on the golf property. Deborah Pedersen spoke about framing concerns that presented false equivalences to the public and there appeared to be support for the 'park with golf amenities' version. The public seems to welcome the opportunity to share the space. Gabe VanLelyveld, stakeholder, spoke about 'living in the zone that is out of the 10 -minute walk' of the PROS Plan; it is an equity issue. Joni Blanchard's written comment addressed 'Andy's plan'. She also felt that Mr. Horner's hybrid plan should have been brought forward as well and cautioned against using golf course space for the aquatic center plans. V. Discussion Becci Kimball asked to share the guiding principles (provided at the end of this document) and suggested that the GC needed to transition over time to a park, possibly with golfing amenities over time. She asked how long would it take to transition. Tim Caldwell, stakeholder, asked about the proposed trails and that golf would provide revenue for the process to see if it could earn its keep. Steve King clarified that the board should work to provide a focused recommendation to Council. Russell Hill made two points: he asked that any option make sure to include a displaced dog park and that Council will likely look to a concept that provides revenue. Jim Todd made the point that nature is important. He prefers a nature park over a developed park. Jim desires a quiet environment and golf provides that and does the least damage. Jim is ok with keeping it as a Golf Course as quiet open space. Russell asked about revenue. The Golf Course is currently subsidized by $50k. A park would not be able charge admissions. Matt asked about housing and whether there is enough space elsewhere on the property to accomodate housing. Debbie commented that the habitat area that is proposed for housing is not a good location due to slope, zoning, and the value of habitat and would not be affordable to build. She noted that the central park concept is expensive and it would compete for RCO funds for our other parks and suggested a shared use space, meaning that schedules would have to be followed. She indicated that she doesn't think that the community is at a decision point and we need to go out for another period of contract operations. Pam indicated that we would need 18 people to maintain a Central Park concept based on the 300 employees that maintain Central Park in NY. Pam supports a hybrid option and that shared use may not work for an operator given that it needs to be financially viable by including other amenities that could generate revenue. Our less expensive course could be considered an equity issue for those who enjoy golf but can't afford the more expensive courses. Pam recommended that we look at another option for housing. Tim Caldwell, stakeholder, commented that it is posted as a public golf course. Gabe VanLelyveld, stakeholder, pointed out the sign at the north end that says golfers only. Pam expressed concern about financial viability if a full schedule for golf is not allowed. Carrie pointed out that it would be difficult to make the golf course pencil unless you get to 8000 rounds... currently we have about 2000 - 2500 rounds. Steve pointed out that the financial sustainability effort does not support adding more funding to golf course management. Motion: Matt Miner moved, Pam Adams seconded: Recommend a hybrid approach as a concept that encourages the use of an alternative driving range (i.e., netting or virtual), that includes space for a dog park, and eliminates the housing element that is currently in the vegetative/habitat space. There was also an interest in the hybrid in the timing as well, sharing the space and allowing citizens to have access to the trails when there is no golfing. Vote: Five in favor, one in opposition. Next Special Session Meeting: July 13, 2023 - Canceled Public Comment: None Adjourn: approx. 6:57pm Stakeholder Decision-making Criteria 1. Inclusive and welcoming • Accessible and safe • Serve the greatest good for the most amount of people 2. Prioritize environmental stewardship • Balance recreation with habitat protection and enhancement • Advocate for a resilient and restorative landscape 3. Benefit community health and wellbeing • Enhance recreation opportunities for a larger community demographic • Align with the community health and wellness plan 4. Celebrate Port Townsend's history, community, and culture 5. Support connectivity, walkability and expanded site access 6. Meet infrastructure needs 7. Financially stable 8. Accommodate future community needs • Forward thinking • Functional versatility :l