Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032007 MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORK/STUDY SESSION OF MARCH 20, 2007 PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL PORT TOWNSEND SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The City Council of the City of Port Townsend met in workshop session the twentieth day of March, 2007, at 6:30 p.m. in the Fire Station Conference Room, 701 Harrison, Port Townsend, Washington, Mayor Mark Welch and School Board Chair John Eissinger presiding. ROLL CALL Council members present at roll call were Frank Benskin, Geoff Masci, Michelle Sandoval, and Mark Welch. Laurie Medlicott was excused. Catharine Robinson arrived at 6:55 p.m. School Board members present were Chair John Eissinger, Vice Chair Beth Young, Tracy Reinhart, Loren Monroe, and Rita E. Beebe. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, Superintendent Tom Opstad, City Clerk Pam Kolacy, and Secretary to the Superintendent Rosanne Butler. The items to be discussed as this special session were possible options for sale or trade of Mountain View property and other recommendations to the School Board by the Long Range Planning Committee. Mr. Opstad began with a history of the district and review of current conditions leading to the long range planning committee recommendations. He noted that three of the four school facilities are outdated and rated as poor or unsatisfactory. Recommendations include closing Mountain View as soon as educationally possible; expand Grant Street on current site to meet needs for the next 30-40 years; consider reconfiguring grades; consider removing the Lincoln Building and Gael Stuart Building and consolidating at the High School campus. Mr. Timmons stated that discussions about facilities and capital needs have begun between the City and District. The City is also looking at critical facilities which are outdated. He noted trying to find a long term solution to the pool issue has been a frustrating process and it now appears there is probably not much salvage value in the existing pool; it would make more sense long term to build a new one and an ideal location would be adjacent to the existing facility. In addition a possibility for relocation of the City Police facility would be to look at adaptive reuse of the Mountain View site. City Council/School District Wkshp Page I March 20, 2007 Mr. Timmons stated that staff has taken it as far as possible and the time has come for the elected officials to determine policy decisions. An option to consider is a land exchange which would secure the Mountain View site for future community needs; other avenues are purchasing, bonding, levies, or other coordinated strategies where both the City and District have a vested interest in the outcome. The bodies need to look at how to bring this together under a coordinated plan so the public will be confident that the actions are complimentary and not mutually exclusive. The land exchange scenario would involve the City utility's 160 acres at Snow Creek with valuable timber and 80 acres owned by the state adjacent to the City which was scheduled for timber harvesting two years ago but delayed pending the possible exchange. A preliminary analysis shows that consideration of the value of the timber would result in a roughly equal trade value. The City's Comprehensive Plan also identifies acquiring the 80-acre parcel for educational purposes. Other discussions are ongoing regarding a Park District which might encompass aquatic center needs; Mr. Timmons noted that the Quimper Foundation has endorsed addressing a long term strategy that would make the community the basis of parks and amenities rather than assigning them to political jurisdictions. The dialogue now must begin between elected bodies to look at long-term capital needs and how to coordinate efforts and demonstrate that we are working together toward the common interest. Discussion ensued among those present; it was noted that there will be many community meetings as well as joint meetings of the Council and School Board to follow. It was also noted that the primary purpose of this meeting was to try and get as many questions as possible posed so that staff can research answers and bring information forward to inform the upcoming policy decisions. The following issue and questions were articulated: Quimper Foundation - clarify what is meant by bringing parks and facilities "under one umbrella." Would this plan of action influence the use of the Mountain View site, particularly if a pool is part of that overall scheme? What would be the timeline on securing Mountain View as an option for providing whatever community needs might be appropriate? [Dependent on District's decision and success on bonding issue - earliest is could run would be Spring of 2008 and then three years before anything could be finished] City Council/School District Wkshp Page 2 March 20, 2007 What will the actual costs be associated with remodeling, rebuilding, or bringing facilities up to code? [Grant Street estimates currently 19-22 million] What are opportunities for partnering and how will these be pursued? Example: Peninsula College, Fort Worden, YMCA. Does the City have an interest in Mountain View and if so, what would be the next step? Is the City interested in doing a land swap? Currently there is limited access to that property so what are the implications for provision and cost of fire protection, annexation (for water and sewer), ingress and egress? How is this factored in to the cost of the property? What is the balance of cash and in-kind value? How do we keep recreational opportunities alive in light of the possible imminent failure of the pool; how can we bring a plan together while the energy in the community is high? When will the District determine its preferred long-range alternatives? Build or remodel Grant Street? Sell Mountain View on the market or partner with City on exchange model? How will the school keep its asset level; can't afford to run four buildings and is it certain that Mountain View is completely out of the District long range plan except as an asset? How quickly can ownership of the 80-acre parcel be resolved; what sort of legislative intervention might help and how can that be accomplished? Can land swap and transfer title be put on a parallel track? How will the District deal with continuing to house students while remodeling and/or building is going on? What are the expectations about the City providing infrastructure? How will community support be secured for the necessary 100% voter approved bonds? What infrastructure is currently available? How close is existing infrastructure? How will demographics affect the decision - how soon will infrastructure expand to the Western edge of town due to building activity? How soon will the projected higher density result in expansion of infrastructure, particularly sewer? Where will the most families with children be living in the next 3-6 years? Will this impact the decision? City Council/School District Wkshp Page 3 March 20, 2007 How does the annexation process work and what is the time line for that? If the 80 acres is acquired and a new campus constructed there, what will happen to the Grant Street site? Would it become obsolete? Will a modern facility encourage more families to send their children to public school? What happens if the school population starts rising? How is "equal value" between properties established? Is the process different if the exchange is between government entities? If the swap does happen, how long would it be before annexation could take place? How do we project costs for infrastructure? What public sources of funding and other financial support can be tapped to help with infrastructure costs? What laws governing School Districts and Cities will apply to the potential land swap? How long would it take to rezone the Mountain View property if the District decided to put it on the market? What other needs might the City have for the 80-acre parcel? Should representatives of higher education be involved in the discussion since there was a vision of a higher education facility on that property? Should the City take on another property that is in need of maintenance and rehabilitation? What are the needs of the City for the assets we have and the assets we may need? Could the Grant Street property provide enough vacant land so the District could build what is needed there while using the existing school simultaneously? What other public uses could Mountain View property be used for even if the City were not responsible for it? What partners might step forward? What is the City's time line in regard to the pool and police facility? What are the implications of the City promising the 80 acres if the deal falls through? Council consensus was to schedule a workshop to discuss some issues and revisit capital assets inventory within six weeks. City Council/School District Wkshp Page 4 March 20, 2007 Participants also agreed that another meeting between the District and Council would be scheduled to continue discussion. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Attest: airy, \tXc~~ Cd--' Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk City Council/School District Wkshp Page 5 March 20, 2007