HomeMy WebLinkAbout021113 ON JOINT SPECIAL MEETING QORT re..
PORT TOWNSEND QTV COUNCIL, � �o
and
J FE.R oN COUNTY$BOARD Of COM ISSWNER, WA;
February 11, 2013
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor King and Chairman Austin called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Superior Court
Courtroom at the Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, Washington.
MEMBERS PRESENT
City Council Members present: Mayor David King, Michelle Sandoval, Catharine Robinson, Mark
Welch, Kris Nelson, Deborah Stinson and Robert Gray.
County Commissioners present: Chairman John Austin and David Sullivan. Phil Johnson was absent.
Staff present: City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, City Public Services Director
Rick Sepler, County Administrator Philip Morley, County Public Works Director Frank Gifford and
County Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler.
Invited Citizen Presenters: Kathleen Kler, Rich Stapf and Bob Wheeler.
PURPOSE OF MEETING & INTRODUCTIONS
After introductions, Chairman Austin reviewed the format for the meeting. Mayor King explained that
the purpose of the meeting is not to finalize a decision on a Metropolitan Park District(MPD),but to
work together to decide whether, as a community, we should further explore the use of this method to
address park issues. This is a follow-up to the process that was started by the Exploratory Regional
Parks and Recreation Committee (ERPRC). The ERPRC spent about a year considering the issues
facing parks and recreation for all of East Jefferson County and submitted a recommendation to the City
and County. Members of the ERPRC are present tonight and we will be hearing from some of them
later in the meeting.
The ERPRC recommended that the City and County form a MPD and consolidate their respective park
operations. A citizen-led group is being proposed to more fully evaluate this recommendation. The
process will be to develop a recommendation on the configuration of a MPD with respect to size,
funding, facilities and programs that will go to the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners
for consideration and approval which would then lead to a possible ballot measure. We will be
discussing whether this is worth doing. If we want to move forward we will decide if now is the time to
create a public process to take on the responsibility of helping to define it. Then we will discuss what
that process will be.
Page 1 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
REVIEW OF EXPLORATORY REGIONAL PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE'S
(ERPRC) HISTORY, WORK, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
County Administrator Morley introduced ERPRC members Kathleen Kler and Rich Stapf, and ERPRC
process facilitator Bob Wheeler. Ms. Kler stated that she is one of 18 citizens that served on the ERPRC
and met every month for over a year. The ERPRC was formed as a result of the passing of Proposition 1
which enabled the County to provide funding for public safety, Memorial Field and the Port Townsend
Recreation Center. Our present approach to funding parks and recreation in both the City and the
County is unsustainable. We have cut programs and services nearly to the bone. With the help of
amazing volunteers from various communities we have maintained what we treasure in the County, but
this too is unsustainable. The ERPRC conducted an extensive survey of all City and County parks and
recreation programs, and programs offered by other agencies. A needs assessment was conducted on
whether or not current needs are being met and what services are desired with regard to park facilities,
seniors, accessibility for individuals with special needs, etc. The ERPRC also evaluated community core
values in Jefferson County. The public survey had an amazing response and provided direction to the
ERPRC. One of the values made clear is that parks and recreation are vital to the character of Jefferson
County. The ERPRC worked very hard in looking at various program options and funding structures.
An analysis was done to look at equal access, facilities, capital improvements, duplications, efficiencies,
and coordination. In the end, options were formed.
Mr. Stapf stated he and Ms. Kler are also members of the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board. He served on the ERPRC which included representatives of the school district, City,
County, YMCA, etc. Initially, he felt there were too many people on the Committee and that it was
doomed from the start. However,the committee kept up with the time line which resulted in some final
recommendations. Overall, it was felt that the City and County should form a MPD for all of East
Jefferson County. Also included in the recommendation is that the City and County, in leading up to a
possible MPD, work together to find efficiencies to sustain current programs and facilities. In the event
that the formation of a MPD is delayed or rejected by the voters, the recommendation is that the City and
the County merge their parks and recreation services and that either the City or County takeover those
services. Specific recommendations related to this approach include:
- Governance -the MPD Board should be elected by the people
- Geographical balance by region and population
- Include representatives of both the City Council and Board of County Commissioners
- Formation of the MPD would be authorized by a joint City and County Resolution
There is no recommendation on a tax rate. The formation of a MPD has a timeline. The ERPRC
recommended that there needs to be a smaller focus group and some ERPRC members are available to
be part of that group. It is also recommended by the ERPRC that the City and County continue to work
together, as they have been, to inform a smaller focus group to carry out these recommendations.
Mr. Wheeler added that when the ERPRC was formed the members had not made any predetermination
on how they should proceed. They were open to suggestions, ideas and approaches on how to work on
making parks and recreation sustainable. They looked at several different options and did a great deal of
work behind the scenes. Through consensus they arrived at this recommendation for the City and
Page 2 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting- February 11, 2013
County to seriously look at the formation of a MPD. The recommendations are based on the technical
information that was put together in the process that will be helpful to the smaller focus group when
considering this further and reviewing some of the specifics.
Ms. Kler stated the ERPRC also looked at the "status-quo" because often times people ask why change,
if it's working? In the end,the ERPRC found that it's not working, it's not sustainable. All of the
options that were considered would be affected by the lack of revenue in both the City and County due to
the current economic situation. Some people do not understand that parks and recreation funding is a
discretionary item in the City and County budgets. A MPD would mean that the public dollars that were
voted for parks and recreation would go to a parks and recreation budget and could not be used for
anything else.
COOPERATION BY CITY AND COUNTY TO SUPPORT ERPRC'S WORK
Mayor King stated representatives of the City and County have been meeting together in a small working
group once a week since October 2012 to design a process that would fairly allow the benefits and
challenges associated with a MPD to be brought forward and vetted by the community. The working
group consisted of Mayor David King, Commissioner Phil Johnson, Commissioner John Austin, County
Administrator Philip Morley, City Manager David Timmons, County Public Works Director Frank
Gifford, County Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler, and City Public Services Director Rick
Sepler. Three variables that need to be considered were identified: 1) Size; a MPD is a physical entity
and a taxing district that has a geographical boundary; 2) Funding; a MPD would have its own taxing
authority, but there are funds already being contributed by the City and County. Would funding be
entirely supplanted?; and 3) Facilities and programs; How would they be managed?
Throughout the process it was important not to arrive at a predetermined result. We grappled with
getting an idea of what the legal ramifications were, what the structures were, and how things interacted
in hopes of designing a community-led process that we could bring forward. At the same time, it is
important that we provide some "bookends" for things that have to be accommodated in order for this to
go forward. The size of the district cannot be any larger than East Jefferson County and cannot include
existing Park Districts like the one in Brinnon. There are limits to what all taxing districts combined can
levy. Beyond a certain level,junior taxing districts have to prorate, which means reduce their maximum
level of levy by a formula provided by the State. We do not want the taxing/levy level to trigger
proration, so it puts a limitation on how much can be levied by a MPD.
It also has to be fair with respect to facilities and programs to all members of the City and County. It
must address short and long term needs, be sustainable and must be an improvement over what we have
now. As Ms. Kler stated, it is an improvement by definition of what we have now because parks and
recreation would be the mission of this new organization. It would not be the first thing to be considered
to be cut by City and County budgets. That has to be kept in mind as we go forward.
County Administrator Morley stated as the City and County began to meet to talk about how to support,
but not direct, the work of the ERPRC continuing,the financial realities of both the County and City
came into sharper light within the last few months. At the same time that we have been working
together to honor the work of the ERPRC, we were also faced with some exigencies in the present tense
Page 3 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013
of how to keep parks and recreation going. Most notably, the Mountain View Pool. One of the results
of the work being done in the weekly meetings was the convening of the Public Infrastructure Fund
(PIF) Board and their recommendation to fund two projects with funding from PIF that is supported by
the State which funds public infrastructure that promotes economic development. In December, the
Board of County Commissioners approved the PIF Board's recommendation to fund the Esplanade
project on the waterfront at Quincy Street which provided necessary economic development downtown
Port Townsend, but at the same time eased some of the 2013 financial conditions for the City and made
it possible for the City to help support continued pool operations in 2013. Another project was approved
to take place in 2014 and 2015 for$150,000 for Building 202 at Fort Worden. This put State and
County funding into that important economic development project and in so doing, freed up $150,000 of
funds that the City had set aside from a prior bond issue, that now can be put into emergent repairs for
the pool. This is an example of a creative partnership between the City and County in working together
to figure out how to maintain important parks and recreation assets in our community while still trying to
create a long term solution. One of the benefits of this entire process that was started by the ERPRC, is
sitting down together and finding common ground. These are not just City and County facilities, they
are "community" facilities. We have been working as a team to find a way to sustain them now and into
the future.
Tonight we are trying to find a way, collectively,to recognize and respect the recommendation of the
ERPRC and to provide the resources to citizens to define the answers to the questions that they help
develop so that a meaningful ballot measure could potentially be posed to the public. We are not
controlling this process. We are trying to support it.
ESTABLISHING THE CONTEXT AND FRAMING THE PROCESS
City Manager Timmons explained that this is not the first time that this process has been looked at or
undertaken. The process has evolved over a number of years but came together in light of the situation
that both the City and County face. Currently, we have competing interests at stake between our core
responsibilities that are defined by statute and our essential responsibilities which are not defined as core
responsibilities, but are essential to the community's quality of life. Libraries and parks and recreation
are examples of essential services, but by law are not described as statutory core responsibilities. They
are discretionary. Since they exist in a combined budget scenario, they compete for the resources that
are available. Many times that puts them in a very unfair competition and practice when weighed
against policy objectives in terms of meeting core statutory obligations and trying to look at what is
essential to the quality of life for the community.
In 2009, the City began to address its situation because of the loss of the ferries. We went to the voters
and said that certain essential responsibilities were going to be put at risk. Through a series of town
meetings we looked at our options and chose to fund library services as an essential function but through
a dedicated levy. The monies that were originally allocated for the library were then reallocated back
into community services and programs. The problem we faced was a continuing erosion over time.
When we entered into an agreement with the County for the Proposition 1 funding,the financial
situation at the County was dropping much more rapidly. The City, by establishing a lifeline through the
Proposition 1 agreement, basically helped maintain services at a minimum, but over time the City's
financial situation is also beginning to erode because of other issues and challenges that we are all
Page 4 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013
facing.
The ERPRC recommendation includes a targeted level of service in a combined City and County system
through a MPD. The problem that we discovered is through the apportionment and tax limitation
initiatives that we have with the combined maximum statutory levy rate of$5.90 for all the districts.
This limits what the MPD could establish in the initial phase. However, it does not mean that all is
foregone. Over time, with the infrastructure in place to begin to fund a combined system, it has the
opportunity to grow and expand and eventually get to the point where it can meet the target objective.
This will take time and will not happen right away. It will be based on how we address the Real Estate
market, growth and economic development in communities. As we grow and expand it will give
capacity to the MPD to grow and expand. The key thing to remember is that while it will take time to
reach the target objective,the erosion which will occur over time will be stopped. As demands grow and
mandated services escalate through actions at both the state and federal level, it will put even more
continued pressure on those services and we will see more erosion over time because we do not have
enough resources to keep up with all the demands. The benefit of a MPD is similar to the City's Library
and the County's Library District. It is established and framed with having its own source of dedicated
funds so it does not need to compete for resources. As we go forward in this discussion we must
remember that we are faced with certain funding limitations and restrictions.
Councilmember Gray asked how the target level of service was determined? City Manager Timmons
replied that the target level was determined by the ERPRC and is included in its report. The ERPRC
established what a combined level of service should be for all East Jefferson County(City and County)
in terms of maintaining existing parks and establishing other parks that we need. The target level
represents the funding gap that currently exists.
Mayor King asked if the target level includes capital investment? City Manager Timmons replied yes.
One of the main areas where we lack in terms of our current deficit is in deferred maintenance and
reinvestment in capital.
Councilmember Stinson asked if it also includes recreational programs? City Manager Timmons replied
yes.
County Administrator Morley explained that since 2009, no additional funding has been added to the
County's parks and recreation program. Essentially, the County does not have any capital funding to do
any major maintenance on facilities, such as replacing the roof on Memorial Field or making repairs to
the Port Townsend Recreation Center. When the picnic structure at East Beach on Marrowstone Island
needed to be rebuilt, it was done through volunteers. It was not done with County funding because the
County had no funding to provide. In 2009, the County significantly cut its parks and recreation budget,
laid off staff and began closing programs including the Port Townsend Recreation Center which is now
only open because of the funding received through the Proposition 1 funding agreement with the City.
Currently, most of the County's park facilities are operated and maintained with volunteers, not with
paid County staff. The only reason they are open is because of citizen volunteers. The County does not
have the staffing to maintain them and keep them open. This has worked amazingly well for the last
three years, but it is not a sustainable model in the long term, especially, when there is no capital funding
to make any significant repairs. The gymnasium at the Port Townsend Recreation Center has an
Page 5 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
engineering report that indicates the roof needs to be replaced or the entire building replaced. That has a
price tag of over a Million dollars for that one facility and we currently do not have one penny.
Commissioner Sullivan stated another way the County generates funding is through volunteers,
donations and fees. Increasing fees would prevent a lot of people from being able to participate in parks
and recreation programs unless there were scholarships, which would mean more donations. Grants are
a possibility, but are harder to come by these days. He noted that costs also increase over time.
County Administrator Morley stated the degree to which we ultimately fund, and the amount we set as a
target level of service, will be determined by the citizens in this process.
ENGAGING AND SUPPORTING OUR CITIZENS
City Public Services Director Sepler reviewed and discussed the "Draft MPD Process Map and
Schedule" (Exhibit A to Joint Resolution No. 13-005 (City) and No. 011-13 (County))noting that the
process and dates for the process are not"cast-in-stone". It is a reasonable and sequential process to
address and assess the challenges in a fair manner that involves the public and all citizens who
participate throughout the County, in a discussion about how best to address the future. To that end, this
process includes two groups. One is a steering committee consisting of 12 people who are charged with
representing the broad interests of our County and assessing the different points of view, approaches and
strategies that could be applied to address a MPD. In order to truly capture the broad range of opinions
in Jefferson County, the establishment of a second larger stakeholder group is necessary. The
stakeholders would be invited to participate and be appointed by the steering committee, not by the
Board of County Commissioners or the City Council. There would be no limit on that participation.
The purpose of that is to bring together the broadest coalition of points of view so that everyone has an
opportunity to state their concerns, be fairly heard by their neighbors and to address the best solutions
that would be recommended to the City Council and Board of County Commissioners for consideration.
Mr. Wheeler reviewed and discussed the proposed"Guidance to the Steering Committee for the MPD
Process" outlined in(Exhibit C to Joint Resolution No. 13-005 (City) and No. 011-13 (County)).
Councilmember Nelson noted that the process map and schedule listed as "Exhibit A" is to be adopted
as part of the resolution. She asked about the flexibility of the schedule and whether or not the City
Council and Board of County Commissioners would need to reconvene if the resolution is adopted with
this specific process schedule and then the process turns out not to be as quick and efficient as
specifically outlined? City Public Services Director Sepler replied the process map and schedule is an
anticipated schedule. The enabling resolution does not state specifically that the schedule is carved in
stone. It is understood and is on record that this is a suggested schedule and while every effort will be
made to follow it, if the steering committee or the public feels it needs more time,the schedule may be
changed.
Councilmember Stinson stated"Exhibit C"references a"preferred MPD plan,"however the resolution
references a"preferred alternative plan." Those are two very different things. The group may come up
with a recommendation that an MPD is not what is needed and a dedicated levy may be a better
alternative. She asked if that is being excluded at this point? City Public Services Director Sepler
Page 6 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting- February 11, 2013
explained that it is specific to an MPD because that was the recommendation of the ERPRC. It is likely
that there will be steps along the way that may be necessary to achieve that end which might include
other alternatives. Staff can make consistencies in the language of the documents as directed.
Councilmember Robinson asked about the number of people being recommended for the steering
committee and stated 12 people seems like a lot to really be effective? Mr. Wheeler replied that the
ERPRC consisted of approximately 20-25 people and some people were not able to participate. It is
difficult to find balance between having various interests represented at the table and making it small
enough to be focused on these issues. We may use break-out groups during the process. There are some
techniques that can be used to help the group be effective and efficient. It came down to 12 in order to
make sure that the necessary interests are included.
County Administrator Morley added that one of the constraints is that this group is going to have to
determine the geographic boundaries of a MPD and decide what communities are in and what
communities are out. It is very important that there is good representation of the diverse communities
throughout the County to make sure that if a community ended up being in or if they ended up being out,
that they had some representation at the core group to help make those decisions. That added five or six
people to group. We also want to make sure that there is representation of recreation program interests
and park facility interests, as well as representation of both the City and County Parks Advisory Boards.
The working group has been identifying candidates to represent these interests. We have started to
interview candidates and have shared this process and schedule to vet with them their level of
commitment and availability.
Mayor King added that the working group chose mainly institutions so there could be representation by
an alternate if an individual could not attend.
Councilmember Welch asked what mechanism will be used to select the steering committee members
and will it come to the Board of County Commissioners and City Council for confirmation? County
Administrator Morley replied that the working group would bring a consensus panel to both the City
Council and the Board of County Commissioners and ask for appointment either by motion or
resolution.
Councilmember Nelson asked about the membership list for the steering committee and questioned why
the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition is specifically listed when most of the interest groups on the list are more
general? She suggested it list"pool and facilities advocate" or"pool advocate" and "facilities advocate"
since we have other facilities besides the pool. The stakeholders membership list is more specific to
organizations. She noted that the list does not include membership for the Senior Center which occupies
a large portion of the Port Townsend Community Center. Mr. Wheeler and County Administrator
Morley noted her comment.
Commissioner Sullivan said this is going to take a lot of scrutiny throughout the entire process. Many
people are going to be watching this process which will ultimately end up with a recommendation that
will come to the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners. The quality of the
recommendation is going to bear scrutiny throughout the process. There is going to be opportunity for
people to comment. He has heard a lot of concern because of the uncertainty at this stage.
Page 7 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
Mayor King agreed and stated that a recommendation will be submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners and the City Council for action. Not only does it have to be acceptable to both bodies
individually, but it has to be a common proposal to both bodies. There will be a lot of refining taking
place.
Councilmember Nelson revisited her earlier comment about the process map and schedule listed as
"Exhibit A" and noted that the language in the proposed joint City and County resolution under Recitals
A(1) states "Metropolitan Parks District process map and schedule (Exhibit A)", which is specifically
the map and schedule that happens to have dates on it. She highly recommends that if we do not want to
stick to those dates, we need to back off that very firm language.
Councilmember Sandoval stated there are districts throughout the County that we know are not capable
of being part of a MPD, such as Brinnon which has its own Park District, and districts which are in
danger of coming up against levy limitation for proration of the junior taxing districts and the stated
goals for the MPD in regard to funding. She asked if those districts should be considered for
participation despite the fact that they would not be part of the MPD? Mayor King replied yes, and
explained that Brinnon is exempt because it is seeking its own solution. Port Ludlow's current level of
taxation would be one of the more likely areas to restrict the levy capacity for the MPD if it was
included. At the same time, including Port Ludlow would make the MPD broader which could
potentially result in more revenue. Whether it is in or out, or whether it would have a positive or
negative benefit are discussions that would ensue in this process. Those are the complicated issues that
this steering committee will have to face as it determines the geographic area.
County Administrator Morley stated they will be included in this process though the outcome of whether
they would ultimately be included in a MPD is very much an open question.
Mayor King stated we would not exclude them specifically because they would limit the amount that a
MPD could levy or include them because they would expand the amount for a MPD. That needs to be
considered and determined by a process of the steering committee in terms of the benefits versus the
costs.
Councilmember Robinson stated that the original Interlocal Agreement(ILA) for Proposition 1 funding
between the City and County and the first amendment to that agreement include a list of potential capital
projects for Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center. She asked if any of those capital
projects have been done using Proposition 1 funding? County Administrator Morley replied no. He
explained that most of the Proposition 1 funding is used to pay for operations of both Memorial Field
and the Port Townsend Recreation Center. A small remaining portion of the funding is being set aside
to accumulate in order to pay for a capital project. Initially,the County used a portion of those funds as
outlined in the first amendment to the agreement to support the ERPRC process which reduced the
amount of capital funding that could be accumulated. The County will again be drawing on those funds
to pay for this new process. There is a small reserve which is slowly increasing that the County would
need to commit or expend before the ILA expires, otherwise the funding gets returned to the City. The
County has been trying to save up enough funding to be able to do one of the capital projects.
Councilmember Gray asked how much money has been received under Proposition 1? County
Page 8 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
Administrator Morley answered that originally it was projected at $225,000 per year. In 2012 the
amount received was approximately$212,000.
Councilmember Gray asked how much of the Proposition 1 funding was spent on the initial ERPRC
process? County Parks and Recreation Manager Matt Tyler replied it was between$80,000 and
$90,000.
Councilmember Gray asked what is being budgeted for this next process? County Parks and Recreation
Manager Matt Tyler replied it is budgeted at $40,000 to $50,000.
Those costs will be paid out of the County's portion of Proposition 1 funding that is received from the
City.
Councilmember Robinson stated she is pleased that the proposed amendment number two to the ILA,
coming up for discussion and consideration, includes language that the County will be tracking the
City's expenditures and submitting a quarterly report to the City on the revenue and expenses.
Councilmember Nelson noted that the City and County are separate entities, but when we are discussing
the citizens of Jefferson County and the citizens of the City of Port Townsend please always remember
that the citizens of Port Townsend are also citizens of Jefferson County.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA) AMENDMENT
County Administrator Morley reviewed the proposed amendment number two to the ILA (Exhibit D to
Joint Resolution No. 13-005 (City) and No. 011-13 (County)) between the City and the County. He
highlighted key changes as follows:
- This amendment supersedes and replaces the original 2010 Agreement and Amendment Number
One.
- Section 6 on page 4 states that the City and County are agreeing that: the benchmarks in the
original ILA have been accomplished in good faith; the City and County have reviewed the
recommendations of the ERPRC and that through this ILA and through this resolution we are
agreeing on an implementation plan to move forward to convene a citizens steering committee to
develop a MPD plan; the City and County will work in the interim to coordinate, consolidate,
and fund park facilities and recreation programs until a MPD is formed and funded.
- Sections 4 and 5 on pages 2 and 3. These sections describe City and County performance and
now are more parallel with one another. Language in the original ILA regarding benchmarks and
consequences for failing to meet benchmarks or agree on a plan has been removed. It allows
Proposition 1 funding from the City to be spent on the process to develop a sustainable model for
funding and administering regional parks and recreation. It allows the use of capital funds from
Proposition 1 funding to pay for unanticipated repairs that threaten the use of the Mountain View
swimming pool. The County will consult with the City on annual budgeting of Proposition 1
funding provided by the City and on prioritizing capital improvements that may be made to
Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center. The County will track all
expenditures and report quarterly.
Page 9 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
- Section 3 on page 1 sets the effective date, duration and termination of the agreement. The
duration remains to be up to four years and expires May 31, 2015 with two exceptions: 1) If new
funding becomes available that would replace the Proposition 1 funding, then the City's
obligation to continue to contribute Proposition 1 funding to the County would cease; and 2) If
the sales tax for public facilities to rural counties that funds our Public Infrastructure Fund (PIF)
were in some way affected by the State legislature or if actual receipts in some way would
jeopardize the PIF grant for the Fort Worden Building 202 project in the amount of$150,000, the
City and County agree to negotiate terms where the County would fully fund the grant for the
Fort Worden Building 202 project or failing that, renegotiate all terms of this agreement in good
faith.
Councilmember Gray stated he believes that the pool needs to be repaired. He questioned the pool
being included in this agreement and asked if the pool was included in Proposition 1 when it went to
a vote of the people? County Administrator Morley replied no.
Councilmember Gray asked County Administrator Morley if he thinks it should have been included?
County Administrator Morley replied that at the time we did not realize what shape the pool was in.
Mayor King explained that the ERPRC report included the pool as one of the most important assets
and resources of parks and recreation for East Jefferson County. With the assistance the County has
provided for recent pool repairs, it is unlikely that we will need to use any Proposition 1 funding for
emergency repairs. The funds would be used only in the event of equipment failure that would
imperil the operation of the pool. The working group felt that if the City did not have the resources
to make repairs to the pool, the available capital funding that was received by the County from the
City through the Proposition 1 funding agreement could be used to keep the pool operational.
Councilmember Gray said he agrees. He is talking about keeping faith with the voters.
Mayor King said he is explaining the difference. As pointed out,the citizens of the City are citizens
of the County as well and this keeps faith with the increase in taxes and its dedication to keeping
these resources operational.
Councilmember Sandoval expressed concern that while we are saying we are not predetermining the
outcome,the amendment number two to the ILA is very specific in its proposal for a MPD. There
are no other alternatives mentioned, in fact, we have deleted the language that states the funds could
actually end, as stated in the previous ILA. The previous ILA says "up to four years" and if there is
no agreement reached upon a funding strategy then we go our separate ways. There is no divorce
here. This is a permanent marriage. It doesn't say what happens if the steering committee decides
not to proceed with a MPD or if it is decided to go forward to the voters with the MPD and it fails.
There is no "back out" and that makes her nervous. A year ago when the City was having significant
problems with the pool and the City was going to terminate the original ILA because we had not
reached certain benchmarks, the City Council was accused of not living up to the original agreement,
though it did say up to 4 years, and it did contain a divorce clause. This amendment number two
ILA does not have a divorce clause. While she is in favor a moving toward a MPD, it feels like we
are giving mixed signals. We are saying we are not predetermining the outcome and yet this only
Page 10 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
says MPD,no benchmarks. If there is no conclusion by the steering committee and/or there is a
failure or repeated failure to pass a ballot measure for a MPD, guess who is going to be in front of
the City Council in 2015 saying that we are not living up to the Proposition 1 funding agreement.
The citizens are not going to understand that the contact says there is no more money from the City.
It makes her nervous because we cannot predict the outcome of either of these future events.
County Administrator Morley agrees that this is a significant change to the structure of the ILA.
Section 6 is saying that we are embarking on this citizen-led process. The outcome of which is
indeterminate. This section also says that we the City and County are pledging, during the term of
the ILA,to coordinate, consolidate and fund park facilities and recreation programs in the interim
and toward the long-term. This builds from"Plan B" of the ERPRC's recommendation which was
for the City and County to look at how to consolidate and find a different way to deliver these
services. With regard to direction given to the citizen group, he believes the starting point is with the
recommendation of the ERPRC which was to do a MPD. We are charging the next citizen group
with the mission to do a MPD. If they ultimately conclude that a MPD is not possible,then we look
at alternatives.
Councilmember Sandoval stated it would be much more clear to say something in section 6 other
than"...until a MPD can be formed and funded..." As currently worded, it is an absolute.
City Attorney Watts noted that the contract states in section 4(f) on page 3 of the agreement that in
no way does City's commitment for funding go beyond May 31, 2015. Additionally, section 4(e) on
page 3 states that if there is an approved dedicated and secure funding source that would fully replace
the funding under this agreement before May 31, 2015, then that would terminate the City's
contribution of Proposition 1 funding. Regardless of the outcome of the MPD process, the City's
contribution of Proposition 1 funding will only continue until May 31, 2015.
Mayor King explained that the steering committee will need to work out any MPD process and any
alternatives which is why language in the ILA is not specific. The City is protected about how long
the funding is committed. Even if a MPD is passed in November, funds for the MPD are not
available until 2015. It is necessary for the City and County to collaborate on some level in terms of
how to continue to maintain the parks and recreation programs we have now. That will be developed
as part of this process. There are elements in the charge to the steering committee and the
stakeholders group as to how the transition needs to be managed. That addresses this issue in the
interim. As part of the MPD we will have,to improve on how we work together because we are not
going to be able to call on the resources of the MPD as soon as it is passed, if it is passed.
Commissioner Sullivan stated there is some inherent uncertainty in this process, but there is also
uncertainty with the options without a MPD. There is uncertainty about what happens to our
recreation programs and our individual parks. There is uncertainty with a MPD. That is something
the entire community is going to have to grapple with as we look at electing MPD Commissioners.
Due to the current financial situation we are having to give up control over things we are responsible
for and we are passing that responsibility on to another group. Everyone that cares about an
individual park or an individual program is going to be concerned about how they will be affected.
Some questions will not have certain answers, they will have process answers. There is going to be
Page 11 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
this board,there is going to be this funding and that is going to go forward. There is a certain point
where we no longer have control as we give it up to a new way of doing things. He noted that the
Municipal Research Services Center (MRSC) has a lot of information on MPDs. Contact has also
been made with other jurisdictions that have gone through this process. No matter what course is
taken there is going to be uncertainty.
To address the concern discussed by Councilmember Sandoval, Councilmember Nelson suggested
adding language to section 6 that says "or until May of 2015 when this agreement terminates."
Councilmember Sandoval said she understands the option, but whoever is serving on the City
Council in 2015 may choose otherwise. Do we want to have an alternative that if the MPD doesn't
pass, we have enough leeway that says "or the City and County choose to continue to work together.
She noted that we need to try to not presuppose the outcome since MPD Commissioners can be
appointed, they don't necessarily have to be elected. When we speak we have to remember that there
are alternatives.
Councilmember Gray said a survey was conducted on this issue in 2010. A lot of things have
changed since then and other issues have come about including the library and transit. He asked why
not do another survey to find out citizen priorities before we get into this, to help determine what
may or may not pass?
Mayor King said he feels this process is convening the public to address this issue as a follow-up to
the original ERPRC process. In terms of conducting a survey for what the voters would support,he
would prefer to go along with this process to convene this group. The group could determine that
going forward with a survey would be a good way of deciding how much they take on and how much
is supplanted.
Councilmember Gray said we are talking about a ballot measure possibly in November. We are also
talking about a library ballot.
Mayor King said this does not mean that the City could not conduct its own survey, but the County
voters will not be facing anything to do with their library, so it would not be the same survey in terms
surveying the group of people for a MPD. He feels it is important to keep faith with the work that
other groups have done up to this point and he supports this process.
Councilmember Robinson asked about the change to the date of when funding contributions from the
City end? County Administrator Morley explained that in the original agreement the date was May
31, 2015. City staff proposed to change it to December 31, 2014, however, during discussions it was
agreed that there would be no change to the date and it would remain May 31, 2015.
Commissioner Sullivan stated that with any survey people will want to know they are being asked to
approve or not approve. We will not have that information until we get to the point where we are
ready to go out for a MPD. If we put that up for a vote, that is the ultimate survey.
Page 12 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
DISCUSSION AND IMPLEMENTING ACTIONS
Councilmember Nelson suggested adding the words "suggested" and"estimated"to item A(1) in the
proposed resolution under both sections "RECITALS" and"NOW, THEREFORE..." so it reads as
follows: "Metropolitan Parks District suggested process map and estimated schedule (Exhibit A)."
Mayor King stated there is nothing explicit in the resolution about the approval of the composition of
the steering committee. It is implicit that it be brought forward to both the City Council and Board
of County Commissioners for approval.
Councilmember Nelson suggested adding language to "Exhibit B"under steering committee and
after Jefferson Aquatic Coalition to read "or pool advocate." After discussion it was agreed to add
the language "or pool users representative."
Councilmember Stinson suggested adding language to "Exhibit B"that the steering committee
membership is appointed by the City Council and Board of County Commissioners. The following
language was added: "Appointed by City Council and County Commissioners, will include
representatives from:".
Councilmember Sandoval suggested changing the language in"Exhibit D", amendment number two
to the ILA, section 5, County Performance. The last sentence reads "For 2014 and 2015, the County
shall seek City input in preparing an annual budget for the operation, maintenance, and improvement
of Memorial Field and the Recreation Center, and will..." She would like it to include the following
language: "prior to the passage of the budget..." The language was changed to read: "For 2014 and
2015, the County shall seek City input in preparing an annual budget for the operation, maintenance,
and improvement of Memorial Field and the Recreation Center prior to passage, and will..."
Mayor King noted that his name needs to be added to Recital I of the resolution as a member of the
working group.
Councilmember Stinson noted that the term"Preferred Alternative Plan" is used in the resolution
under section C on page 3, while the term"Preferred MPD Plan" is used in"Exhibit C"to the
resolution. There needs to be consistency among the terms used in the documents. It was agreed to
use the term"Preferred MPD Plan."
Public Comments:
Tom Thiersch unincorporated Jefferson County, I am reacting to this proposed new ILA. The thing
that I see here is what a project manager would call "scope creep." The voters were promised certain
things when the Proposition 1 sales tax was floated for approval; that the money would be spent on
two facilities, two facilities only. Now with the first amendment we had the funding of the
committee. I was shocked to hear the amount of money that was spent on that. I am glad the
question was asked. That certainly was not something that I really anticipated. But,the second
amendment now, you're throwing into the mix Building 202,the pool, additional funding for the
committee. Voters didn't approve a slush fund. Voters approved that money to be used for two very
Page 13 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
specific purposes and that's it. You are breaking a promise that you made to the voters without any
particular good reason for doing so. The situation really hasn't changed. You knew the condition of
the pool. You have known the pool's condition for years. Long before Proposition 1 was ever in
anybody's thought. You can't use that as an excuse. I'm sorry it just doesn't work. Building 202
should not be part of this. That is my concern. I really don't like the idea of governments breaking
promises that they make to the people.
Mayor King responded that only in extraordinary circumstances would Proposition I funds be
allocated to the pool or the Building 202 project. Those are unlikely scenarios. The ILA does
include a provision that if for some reason the State withholds the PIF funds,the City is protected by
the Proposition 1 funding that has been committed. The City had no idea of the condition of the pool
or the scope of repair that was needed until it was recently drained.
Commissioner Sullivan added that PIF funding is a separate revenue stream from Proposition 1
funding. The amount that could go towards capital is very limited given the sales tax situation.
Councilmember Sandoval stated the Proposition 1 funding was also for parks, not just specifically
for Memorial Field and the Port Townsend Recreation Center.
Julie Jaman Quimper Peninsula, I am going to paraphrase some things that you have already heard
from Nancy Dorgan, but other people in this room may not have heard. It's because we do need
some really rational thinking, and I think you have made a good effort at it, and a lot of expensive
legal advice to help bring the MPD idea to ground. The timeframe seems to be unrealistic as is the
fiscal skillset that will be required of stakeholders to do the complex inter jurisdictional service
facility planning and budgeting in this timeframe. In fact, such a plan is more likely to become the
spin needed for campaign promises than for future parks. How can"The Plan"provide for the
directive that came, insure that the public will get what the MPD plan promises when the City
Manager reported that there did not appear to be any legal mechanisms to bind a future park district
to any prior County and City agreement such as "The Plan?" What legal advice have you received
regarding this little hitch? How do you intend to make the plan legally binding on a future MPD if
one is formed? More likely citizens would have to be vigilant and lobby MPD Commissioners
regarding any particular park issues. How will a committee honor the already adopted Park and
Recreation goals, policies and implementation strategies in the County and City Comprehensive
Plans? Even though the GMA requires that Counties and Cities consult and collectively adopt
regional planning policies and that they have consistent Comprehensive Plans, the State exempts
MPDs from all aspects of the GMA. So, if we were to vote for an MPD, a new taxing district into
existence, it would be independent and not require coordinated planning with the local GMA land
use plans. The MPD Commissioners of such a district would have fiduciary responsibilities. They
would need to collect funds, taxes and fees in order to mainstay staff and services. They could, if
needed, impose fees, rent, lease or sell the assets handed over by the City and County. This kind of
desperation, handing off the community's assets to a new taxing district, is akin to the loose thread in
the fabric, the unraveling of parks and recreation in Port Townsend and Jefferson County. Indeed, I
agree, a creative response is needed for the future. That response may fall outside any familiar
paradigms. You may recall the Kali Tai process. Over 30 years worth of volunteers who used
incredible creative response so that we now have an 80 acre park. So call on us. We are full of
Page 14 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
creative responses.
Elizabeth Van Zoneveld, Port Ludlow, it is an interesting event to participate in a party you didn't
know you were attending. So I am not prepared to give you long talk, but I will tell you I'm between
a rock and hard place here because I've worked in the parks and recreation field for many many
years, both building parks and in capital projects. But I want to remind you that Port Ludlow is
neither fish nor fowl here. We are a Master Planned Resort. We have a set boundary. We all pay
every year for admirable facilities, but we should not have to pay for yours as well. It is difficult for
me to not support a parks effort. I want to see Jefferson County and Port Townsend achieve a MPD.
I believe it is the best answer. But I do not believe it should include Port Ludlow. Port Ludlow has
many fine facilities and its people pay dearly to support them. You will not have support from those
people and it could doom an effort at the ballot box. So think about that. Thanks for listening.
Mike McFadden, Quilcene, I am on the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
One of the things I'm concerned about is are we going to have a roving program where we go place
to place or is this thing going to have to be in one spot whenever you're doing your shows and
having the citizens come. Right now we are required to be here at the Courthouse. We have to set
up Special meetings to go anywhere else. Is thing going to be set up the same way or will you be
able to go to the different parts of the County where people are concerned about what is going on
with the MPD?
Mayor King replied that it is anticipated that the meetings will be held in various locations.
Tonight's meeting had to be held within the City limits in order for the City Council to possibly take
action.
Jim Todd, Port Townsend, I basically agree with what Julie Jaman said. I just want to emphasize a
MPD, as Michelle said, is forever. I get a little queasy about doing something like that unless we
have examined other possibilities and I'm gathering from what I'm hearing that yes that can happen,
but then in the next breath I hear, well this is about a MPD. That is what bothers me a little bit,
because it seems to me there might be an alternative which doesn't marry us forever. For example,
something like a six-year trial of something. I don't know the legalities, but maybe there is a six-
year trial, and see how that goes. If after six years we find that it works, maybe we ought to make it
permanent. But I'm a little apprehensive about creating something that is forever. It's like buying a
pig in a poke.
David Armitage, Port Ludlow, I have two concerns. One is the selection of the steering committee.
I sense a logic problem there. The geographic areas seem to be under-represented and your selection
process seems to require the need for prior knowledge to what is going to be included in the district
versus what is not going to be included the district. A longer term problem I see has to do with the
long-term funding with the County. I guess it goes back to the Eyman initiatives where your buying
power is being eroded every year because inflation and the limitations on budget increases are
different. You are throwing the library out to a public vote. You are going to throw the parks out
into a district and you are going to have to throw other things out too because your buying power
continues to erode. This is a solution, but it is not going to last. If you want a solution, you have to
go fight the Eyman initiatives so you can get back on track of doing what you have to do.
Page 15 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
Margaret Lee, Port Townsend, other people this evening have touched on a few of things that I
wanted to mention. But I sat there thinking, particularly after Michelle's comments, about the song
"All or nothing at all." That is the way I feel about the MPD. We might as well call it a taxing
district. That's what it is and it is a fact that it is going to be in perpetuity. I appreciated your
comments tonight Kathleen. You began by talking about the choices that were contemplated when
you began your process, and I thank you for serving on that committee. So my question to you or
anyone else that cares to answer it is what other options were considered? Other than a MPD, was
there any consideration to form a Parks and Recreation District which could be scaled down and
might just specifically address the things that I think drove this process from the very beginning: our
pool, our recreation center, etc. The City got squeezed on supporting them. I have watched this
process evolve and now here we are with this sort of"all or nothing at all." So that would be one of
my questions for clarification. The other has to do with Mr. Sullivan's use of the word control. You
said you don't have control, you have to see what's going to happen. Once a MPD is established,
I'm afraid you will not have very much control at all. But that entity will have control over selling
land, bonding, setting taxes and imposing development fees. The final thing that I'm concerned
about is the land use. Whether they would have to conform to the Comprehensive Plan and the
Growth Management Act may seem outside of the need to be debated tonight, but I think those are
all vitally important things.
Councilmember Sandoval responded that she served on the ERPRC which talked about a variety of
different types of alternatives. There were discussions about doing something that was short-term.
We wrestled with a lot of things and all varying degrees of relationships.
Ms. Kler responded that all of the documents from the ERPRC process are available. All the
meetings of the ERPRC were open to the public. For a year they held meetings and pleaded for
public input. This is such a complicated issue and the clock is ticking with a May 2015 deadline.
The problem with doing short-term trial and errors is it takes an immense amount of capital and
personnel and we don't have enough capital and personnel to even run the daily programs. If you
have a different way of doing it please start giving the information to the steering committee. We
need all of the help we can get about what the public wants. I really appreciate these comments. Get
them to us please. Incidentally, I am one of the people who have been asked to serve on the steering
committee representing Quilcene (South County).
Mayor King spoke to issue of control. He noted that the City and County would be giving up that
control to the public. It could be an elected body representing East Jefferson County. If we do not
like the job they are doing, we elect other representatives. We are not giving it over to a faceless
corporation, we are giving it over to ourselves in a new format. I think that is frequently lost in our
discussions.
Mike McFadden, Quilcene, I also serve on the Conservation District. All of these things are bound
by State regulations, such as the Public Disclosure Act,that individuals, either elected or appointed,
must follow.
Page 16 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting-February 11, 2013
Linda Herzog, South County, I want to follow-up on a comment about Tim Eyman and what he has
done to all of us. I also want to endorse general purpose government. I think we are well served by
general purpose governments. I am profoundly disappointed that we've come to the point where
some of the services that are provided by those governments have to be thrown off to another
governmental agency. I don't know whether that is a bad thing or a good thing. At this point we
have a lot more to learn. We have a lot more personal and regional interests to be weighed before we
make that judgment. But, I do think that there is a long-term negative effect in showing the citizens
that it doesn't matter that they don't pay taxes. If we vote not to pay more than 1% in addition each
year when the inflation rate is 3% or 4% as it has been during many of those years, we show the
citizens that they don't have to pay for what we give them. After you cut to the bone, which I think
everybody has, then you throw out services. That is the point we are at right now and I think it's
worthwhile to consider the effect that this has in the long-term for perhaps our generation. It is too
late for us, but for folks that come behind us, they need to respect government more and they need to
respect that our elected officials do what they can to give us service with the money we are willing to
give them to do that. Thanks for the platform.
Anita Edwards, Port Townsend, I haven't made up my mind yet about whether a MPD is the way to
go. I would simply advocate for continued support of the pool. I think it is something very
important to our community and I hope whatever decision is made will be something that will
support and continue the pool. I need to think more, process more about the MPD. Thank you and I
appreciate your cooperation.
Barbara Star, Jefferson County, I'm sensitive to the idea that you're concerned about following-up
the ERPRC recommendations and that because they recommended a MPD that is what you want to
explore. But, I am concerned with the comments you are making Michelle that what you're doing
with this wording might tie the hands of the committee. I understood that you were saying that the
ERPRC had not had the opportunity to go into great detail about exactly how it would be funded, etc.
It could be that when the steering committee goes into all that detail they will come up with a
different conclusion about what should be done, or it could be that they'll agree that a MPD is the
way to go and it will fail. If you have nothing in this document to deal with those possibilities, it
seems to me that is a cause for concern. I wonder if you would consider wording of this type that
might be general enough to deal with what you were talking about David, it could say"...until a
Metropolitan Park District can be formed and funded, or absent that, an alternative funding plan is
agreed upon by the City and County." That's real general. It doesn't have to deal with anything
specific, but it makes sure that you're saying that we expect that these parks and recreation facilities
will be funded in the future and we expect that the City and County will cooperate in thinking about
how to do that in the best way if the MPD somehow isn't what we expect. I'd just like to throw that
out for your consideration.
Mayor King responded that because of the limited time, and the direction that this was a MPD
process per the recommendation, it was limited to that deliberately. If the Council and Commission
would like to change it and put in more general wording,that is certainly our option at this point, but
it was not an oversight. There is enough to do with a MPD without going back to the original
processes, as Kathleen has indicated, in trying to look, once again, at the wide array of alternatives.
Page 17 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
Councilmember Stinson stated as far as the steering committee and stakeholders group is concerned,
they have been tasked with the MPD. Changing the language will address what the City and County
will do absent a successful MPD. It adds an escape clause.
Commissioner Sullivan stated the ERPRC did address what to include in the boundary. They
considered whether to include Port Ludlow, Cape George, Kala Point and other areas that also fund
their own local facilities. There is a risk that people will say I'm spending it here, I won't spend it
there and that is one of the risks in going to the voters. The issue was fully discussed by the ERPRC.
Councilmember Sandoval stated the commitment to community goes beyond Homeowner
Associations. The commitment to infrastructure for future generations is something that we are
sorely missing. There is a desire to not pay for anything even if you use it. In fairness to the people
in Port Ludlow, Cape George or Kala Point who pay those fees, I appreciate that. But at the same
time, I think they sometimes go down to Chetzemoka Park. I think that they sometimes may even
visit the pool or maybe take a walk at the Larry Scott Trail. I would hate to see our community turn
into a place where we have to "pay to play" and there is a gate on everything and that everybody has
to pay to use facilities in order to make sure that people pay their fair share. Community is about all
of us coming together to make sure that things are in place well beyond our life.
Commissioner Sullivan spoke to the comments made about GMA and stated that the level of service
is dropping if we don't do anything. Where we get in trouble with GMA is setting levels of service
and not meeting those targets. Our ability to meet those targets is decreasing if we do nothing. This
is one option of meeting those targets. I understand a MPD will not be subject to the GMA.
Mayor King asked about Barbara Star's suggested language for possible inclusion in section 6 of
amendment number two to the ILA (Exhibit D) and requested that she repeat the wording.
Barbara Star read her suggested language "...or absent that, an alternative funding plan is agreed
upon by the City and County." It was agreed to add the suggested language to amendment number
two to the ILA (Exhibit D)
Mayor King agrees that the inclusion of the wording does not change the task of the steering
committee. It broadens the basis of the revised ILA.
In response to Mike McFadden's comments, Councilmember Stinson proposed a change to the
document titled"Guidance to Steering Committee for MPD Process" (Exhibit C)to include language
about where public participation would occur, such as in"locales throughout the County."
County Administrator Morley noted that language regarding public meetings is included in the
document"Steering Committee and Park& Recreation Stakeholders Composition, Role and
Responsibilities for MPD Process" (Exhibit B) and states that meetings may be held in a variety of
locations to reflect the regional scope of a MPD.
Page 18 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
Erica Delma, Port Townsend, I was on the ERPRC and I agree that there was a lot of work put into
that. I also know that there was a process in 2004 that concluded in a recommendation of a MPD. I
would like to see us move forward in a progressive way, but I want to add, I like Barbara's language
that provides for an alternative if it fails or doesn't work. I can tell you that there is more to this than
just facilities. There are services that directly impact the ability of families to live here. I am one of
those people. I am the Director of the YMCA, but I am also a mother of two children and I have had
a preschool in Jefferson County for 10 years. Every day I see the impact of living on the edge in our
community. Services provided by County Parks and Recreation, the YMCA and other organizations
in the community that directly support diversity and livability are so important. I really want to get
to a place where we are not on the edge and where people can live here and flourish and thrive.
Deliberation:
Councilmember Gray stated he is going to vote no on this. He explained that during his first year on
the Council he has heard a lot about the City and County not having money. The people don't have a
lot of money either. There have been increases in sales taxes and property taxes and right now we
are facing the possibility of a tax for parks, a library expansion, repairs to the streets,the Fire
Department annexation, a utility rate increase and issues with the Lincoln building. It seems to me
that we need more of a dialogue with the people. I know we are doing that here. But we need to
have it with all the people to find out exactly what their priorities are. We are putting them in a
position where they are going to have to choose. If you add up all the possible tax increases it
equates to perhaps $600 per year. A lot of people don't have the money to pay for it. We should
choose our priorities. If this is our priority, then maybe the others should be put on hold for a while.
People are coming out of the recession and things are going to get better. But when you raise taxes it
hurts people during a recession. We are piling on too much all at once.
Mayor King stated we are not voting for a tax increase of any kind at this point. We are putting a
process in place to determine if that is even to be recommended to us. This process furthers your
priority of getting more information and getting something out to the public that is clear and
understandable and that matches benefits to potential costs. We are not taking action on a tax
increase.
Councilmember Gray stated we sort of are taking action on a tax increase. Next week the Council
will be hearing about the library expansion and there will be a lot of people saying that we need to
get the library on the ballot. Maybe that is correct. Maybe that should be the priority, but we have
other issues to consider as well. This is a confusing proposition for the people. Half the families in
Port Townsend have kids that are on subsidized meals at school. That means they are at or just
above poverty level. When you raise taxes it hurts. We are not hearing from those people. I think a
survey would be ideal in this situation. To see what are the priorities of people. It is too much too
soon.
Councilmember Sandoval stated that surveys were conducted. If a process takes five or more years
to complete, it doesn't mean that by the time we get to the fifth year we have to start all over again.
That is one of the very circular things about process. One of the surveys conducted talked about
parks and recreation program usage and the priorities, particularly, for working families. We just
Page 19 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting- February 11, 2013
heard from YMCA Director Erica Delma about the services that are desperately needed, that are paid
for by DSHS and are part of what the YMCA provides. When the City's funding to the YMCA
decreased from $118,000 to $46,000 it hurt young families. Councilmember Sandoval came across
an email today that Councilmember Gray had previously sent to a reporter talking about the
importance of parks and recreation to young families and economic development. One of things that
attract young families and individuals who create jobs is parks and recreation programs.
Commissioner Sullivan pointed out that we are amending an existing agreement to clarify the
process in moving forward with this issue. He discussed the loss of property values and agrees that it
has an impact on the ability of people to pay taxes. But, at the same time, it is an investment in
economic development and the youth in our community that don't have a lot of options. It provides
recreation, adult support, contact with people and afterschool activities for youth who might
otherwise get into trouble. He encourages amending the existing ILA. We will see what comes out
of the process. It may be a tough choice later.
Mayor King believes the process we are considering putting in place is the correct process for
consideration of the priorities that Councilmember Gray suggests we should be taking into account.
Councilmember Robinson stated she will support this amended ILA. She is not certain at all that we
will end up with an outcome that is what we want. As we have learned over these conversations, a
MPD has limitations and has some less than desirable aspects. It may not be what we envisioned
when we started to talk about this process years ago. However, she thinks we need to find out more.
We need to look at it much more closely and talk seriously about specifics. This process will
involve a lot more exploration.
Chairman Austin stated he will support this amendment as well. He thanked the members of the
ERPRC for the tremendous amount of work and many hours they put into this process and the
members of the Parks Advisory Board for their efforts.
City Attorney Watts commented on the proposed language amendment to section 6 of amendment
number two to the ILA (Exhibit D)proposed by Barbara Star. He stated that the existing phrase in
the agreement which states the City and County"...have formulated and agreed on an
implementation plan..." refers to the upcoming process that is basically to be implemented and be
set forth. The next phrase which states "...as well as coordinate, consolidate and fund park facilities
and recreation programs until a Metropolitan Park District can be formed and funded." comes out of
the ERPRC recommendation. His recollection is that the ERPRC recommendation was that a MPD
be formed, but until the funding from an MPD is secured, it is recommended that the City and
County continue to work together to coordinate, consolidate and fund facilities. While well
intended, he is concerned that adding the suggested phrase "...or absent that, an alternative funding
plan is agreed upon by the City and County."may create an obligation to fund rather than an
obligation to review options in the event an MPD fails.
Mayor King believes the intent is to review options.
Page 20 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting -February 11, 2013
City Attorney Watts agrees, but as we found out when we did the original agreement with the
benchmarks, there was criticism that the City was breaking the agreement when it was going to
terminate the funding due to the potential that the benchmarks were not being met. It is very
important that this language be clear in the event the MPD fails. Perhaps a phrase could be added
that states the parties will continue to work in good faith to review alternatives.
Mayor King stated that upon reflection,the previously suggested language change "...or absent that,
an alternative funding plan is agreed upon by the City and County." implies an obligation on the part
of the City to continue contributing Proposition 1 funding or some other funding beyond May 31,
2015. That is not what is intended.
After further discussion it was agreed to change section 6 of amendment number two to the ILA
(Exhibit D) to read: "...or absent that, the parties will continue to work together in good faith to
review service delivery and funding alternatives..."
County Administrator Morley reviewed the final list of edits to the documents as follows:
Changes to Resolution:
- Item A(1) under both sections "RECITALS" and "NOW, THEREFORE..." is changed to read:
"Metropolitan Parks District suggested process map and estimated schedule (Exhibit A)."
- Item I under section"RECITALS" is changed to include "Mayor David King"
- Item C under section"NOW, THEREFORE..." all references to the term"Preferred Alternative
Plan" are changed to "Preferred MPD Plan"
Changes to Exhibit A, Draft MPD Process Map and Schedule:
- The title is changed to read"MPD Suggested Process Map and Estimated Schedule"
Changes to Exhibit B, Steering Committee and Park&Recreation Stakeholders Composition, Roles
and Responsibilities for MPD Process:
- Under Steering Committee Membership, language is added to read: "Appointed by City Council
and County Commissioners, will include representatives from:"
- Under Steering Committee Membership where is says "Jefferson Aquatic Coalition", language is
added to read: "or pool users representative"
No Changes were made to Exhibit C
Changes to Exhibit D, amendment number two to the ILA:
- Under Section 5, County Performance, language is added to read: "For 2014 and 2015, the
County shall seek City input in preparing an annual budget for the operation, maintenance, and
improvement of Memorial Field and the Recreation Center prior to passage, and will act in good
faith..."
- Under Section 6, Joint Performance— Sustainable Service Delivery and Funding Review and
Implementation of Results of Review, the first sentence is changed to read: "...or absent that, the
parties will continue to work together in good faith to review service delivery and funding
alternatives..."
Page 21 of 22
Joint City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Special Meeting - February 11, 2013
Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve County RESOLUTION NO. 011-13 as amended by the
Board which includes approval of the items contained in Exhibit A through D. Chairman Austin
seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Councilmember Sandoval moved to approve City RESOLUTION NO. 13-005 as amended by
Council which includes approval of the items contained in Exhibit A through D. Councilmember
Welch seconded the motion. Mayor King called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried 6 to 1.
Councilmember Gray opposed.
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
The City Council adjourned the meeting by consensus at 9:43 p.m. Commissioner Sullivan moved
to adjourn the meeting at 9:43 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly
noticed. Chairman Austin seconded the motion. The motion carried.
P T TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL
ATTEST:
d �
Pam Kolacy, MMC David King, Mayo
City Clerk
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF e 7 ' SS MIIONERS
�x Jo Austin, Chair
A'��'Er`T�, ``,> Phil Jo erg er
.,1 V
Erin Lundgren J David Sul iVan em er`"`
g ,
Clerk of the Board
Page 22 of 22