Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM080305S City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Commissioners Minutes of August 3, 2005 meeting CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The City Council of the City of Port Townsend and the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners met in a special joint session this third day of August, 2005, at 6:30 p.m. in the Port Townsend temporary Council Chambers in the Cedar Room of the Waterman & Katz Building, Mayor Catharine Robinson presiding. Council members present at roll call were Kees Kolff, Geoff Masci, Laurie Medlicott, Catharine Robinson and Michelle Sandoval. Frank Benskin and and Freida Fenn were excused. County Commissioners present were Phil Johnson, David Sullivan, and Pat Rodgers. Staff members present were City Manager David Timmons, City Attorney John Watts, County Administrator John Fischbach, and City Clerk Pam Kolacy. PUBLIC COMMENT Beth Wilmart reminded those present of the preventative aspects of having a strong parks and recreation program. Mimi Henley spoke in support of specific funding for the pool. Joe Mattern stated that parks and recreation programs are an important community resource, particularly for young families. Hervey Hicks spoke of the importance of a swimming facility to maritime communities. Scott Walker read a letter from Mary Winters, YMCA Board member, supporting recreation as a core government function and supporting a study as the first step toward a park district. She stated that the Y can support this, but cannot be the driver. Warren Steurer (with County Parks Dept.) reminded Council and Commissioners that two studies have been taken part in by advisory boards over the last three years and that staff and advisory boards are happy to work with electeds on this issue. Dimitri Kuznetsov spoke of changing demographics which bring more retirees and also children to the community; stated there must be a commitment from City and County to support parks and recreation programs. Joint Meeting CounciilBOCC Page 1 August 3, 2005 Scott Walker addressed the issue of equity between city and county residents. He stated the YMCA has been looking at how to provide equitable services but is only funded by the City; said that citizens want these services and want them equitably charged and distributed. FUTURE FUNDING AND OPTIONS RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION SERVICES City Manager David Timmons David Timmons stated this meeting will begin the process of the City and County coming together around a single purpose; this particular issue keeps coming up but has never approached resolution. He stated that the City had formed a Metropolitan Park District Task Force under the guidance of Lee Springgate, a recreation professional, and the task force came to the basic conclusion was there is a dichotomy of getting everyone to reach a consensus about whether or not we have a problem. It was difficult to do an inventory and assessment of a community that has many recreational assets that are underutilized. The task force couldn't determine how the community felt. The community has an opportunity to contract with the Trust for Public Land to do a more scientific poll of the citizens to try and understand what they want and what they are willing to pay for. He said that many people like to locate in areas with a high quality of recreation and recreational facilities are critical to the potential growth of a community. He stated that he and the County Administrator feel this proposal, which includes facilitating the process and subcontracting for survey work, is worthy of consideration by the elected officials. Cost would be about $15,000 and the result would be a consensus of where the community sees itself and what it is willing to support or not support. The critical question on the table tonight is whether to proceed with this recommendation and fund a study which could lead to a possible ballot measure in 2006. County Administrator John Fischbach stated that he believes information such as this is necessary, particularly in a diverse county with such different needs. He added that looking at the MPD task force report, you see it recommends against a Metropolitan Park District, yet many members of the community think it is an important thing to have. He said he believes the best way to make this determination once and for all is to get data which shows whether or not the community is willing to pay for an MPD and what form of a district are they willing to pay for. Ms. Robinson stated that one reason there did not appear to be enough revenue for an MPD was that the prior study was looking at the school district boundary rather than all of East Jefferson County. Joint Meeting Council/BOCC Page 2 August 3, 2005 Mr. Masci asked for an explanation of why the discussion has come up again when the MPD Task Force recommended against a district. Mr. Timmons stated that the recommendation against an MPD had a footnote: they felt that given the needs assessment and proposed structure it would not adequately generate enough revenue given the boundary constraints; they also felt they couldn't find in all their efforts that there was enough public consensus to warrant going forward. Their recommendation was a straight levy rather than park district. They supported the concept but felt there wasn't sufficient community support at that time and that a need existed, before going further, to do this sort of report and also felt that the effort should be a joint effort between city and county. Mr. Masci asked whether the decision point is whether to fund the survey; he added that the willingness of the population to afford funding is critical. Mr. Timmons stated that that is the decision requested and that this survey would go after the data we don't have, which is what do the voters think. We have a group supporting the idea, a group saying we can't afford it; and a group saying other priorities are more critical. We have done several studies regarding inventory, costs, etc., but what we don't know is what voters will support. Ms. Sandoval stated her concern that information is provided to people prior to the survey so they have a basis for answering the questions about what more they could want or get. She asked how we get informed and intelligent answers from the survey. Mr. Fischbach said that the polling has two purposes: first is education, as the poller leaves the person more informed about the available choices; and second is data to provide to the decision makers. Mr. Kolff noted that the Land Trust is familiar with some polls this organization has done in other parts of the country. It usually works by starting with key decision makers and policy makers and people in the community so that the pollers understand the issues; we help design the information they give. The first thing they will do is sit down with this group, the YMCA, and others for input. He added that the task force outlined a process well on the top of page 13. He believes there would be much work prior to unleashing the pollers in the community. Warren Steurer stated that the City and County both have Park and Recreation Comprehensive Plans which were developed with much input and the County has recently done a strategic plan - many of these have capital programs with no funding source so that would need to be taken into account. He will provide a copy of the recently completed strategic plan. Joint Meeting CounciilBOCC Page 3 August 3, 2005 Mr. Johnson stated that after seeing last year that the County had reduced recreation spending 20% per year for several years, he believes we can no longer sputter and fail. He said any approach must be Eastern Jefferson County-wide and it is imperative that we work together and function as a unit. He believes this is a great place to start working together. Ms. Robinson noted that a joint meeting had been discussed regarding various issues the entities shared or needed to share; this particular issue had citizen impetus behind it. Mr. Rodgers stated that he has talked to many constituents and believes we cannot be in a situation where two thirds of funding will be paid by one district for facilities that will be used a different two thirds; it really must be available to all. A tax passed by 51 % will mean that the remaining 49% will have trouble dealing with it. He added that whatever is done has to be available and easily accessible to the entire community. There has been extensive testimony from the community regarding the recreation plan and there are very different needs. He stated anything he supported would have to serve the entire East Jefferson County. Ms. Sandoval stated it would be great to have equity and that right now she feels the City alone has been stepping up to the plate and contributions have not been equitable. She noted you can't have both the YMCA, which was supposed to be a County-wide operation, and the pool, supported only by the City. She agrees that the programs should be countywide, fair and equitable and that we need to know what we are aiming for to make sure families, young and old are all going to have something they need. She stated this is a reason why families don't want to be here and why young people leave. She believes the two entities must join forces as funding is becoming more scarce and a joint effort will make funds go farther. Ms. Robinson asked about the overall time frame. She said it sounds as though we would be including money in the budget for a survey and possible ballot measure in 2006 and the results would be seen in 2007. Mr. Timmons confirmed. Mr. Fischbach stated that based on his experience, it would take about three months to complete the survey and that wouldn't include the information gathering - total time overall would probably be six months. Mrs. Medlicott stated that a lengthy community meeting was held lat year on budget priorities and the Council clearly heard members of the community saying they wanted a pool and parks rather than streets, fire or police services. She stated she believes parks and recreation are important to the health of the community and young families, but does not believe we need to spend another $15,000 to take a survey when we already know what the results will be. Joint Meeting CounciilBOCC Page 4 August 3, 2005 Mr. Masci stated that the BIRFUS study taught us the importance of a statistical survey and that this is a bargain compared to that study. The key question is whether people are willing to pay for the desired services. He noted that it will probably cost more than $15,000 and we should be ready to provide a total of $20,000. He stated that what geographic area is in the district might be another argument, but right now we need to find out if we are going to do it, if it is viable, and go from there. Mr. Kolff stated he agrees there is much to be learned from a survey. He stated that the Trust for Public Land has an excellent track record. He stated that often levies are put forward without enough information and then everyone wonders why they fail. He added it would be an option to have a representative come from TPL and do a presentation for the group. Mr. Sullivan said there is much support in the County for the role of parks and recreation programs in making this a healthy community which will benefit the well-being of citizens as well as being something we can market to attract people to the area. He stated we do not want to have any foregone conclusions about the results of the poll. Ms. Sandoval stated she is anxious to begin and would rather not schedule another meeting for a presentation; if there is agreement to move forward, she supports starting the process and having the education piece come as part of the project. Mr. Masci stated that initiation is simly a matter of a resolution from each body and he is in favor of expediting the funding decision. Ms. Robinson asked if there is consensus that we need a resolution from each body and this will relate to each entity committing funding for half the fee for the poll. Mr. Timmons stated the first phase of the project would include bringing the TPL representatives here and clarifying expectations. He added that the Trust for Public Lands is a non-profit organization and the cost to get them to the table is a nominal investment. He added we would not be required to commit to the full $15,000 initially but can see the initial presentation and then authorize additional work if the elected officials are supportive of what they propose. Mr. Rodgers noted that he does not like junior taxing districts as a matter of principle. He believes they result in a lack of flexibility which may take funding away from other needed services. He said he is not opposed to a joint venture such as a consolidation, but believes there are inherent problems with junior taxing districts. He would prefer to keep more flexibility for elected officials and Joint Meeting CounciilBOCC Page 5 August 3, 2005 is interested in a consolidated process as long as it serves all of the city and county. Warren Steurer stated that there is an advantage for people knowing that particular dollars will be earmarked for parks and recreation and that this source of funding is stable and continuous. Otherwise there is always competition with other items in the budget which also require funding. Mr. Timmons noted that more and more cities are going into taxing districts because they represent a service area delivery model. He added that recent changes by the state legislature allow a dedicated tax to be created with governance retained within a jurisdiction - a city can elect to retain jurisdiction if a district is contiguous with city limits; if the district is into a county, a mixed board can be created with county and city officials or there can be a separate elected board. Ms. Robinson noted that the task force said given the boundaries (school district, which is not much larger than the city limits) not enough revenue could be generated to do much more than retain what we have; by doing a larger area, we can get a lot more by pooling our money and it appears that the way to do that would be by junior taxing district. Mr. Kolff stated he hopes we can go into this open minded and learn from someone like the Trust for Public Lands so that we go in opening the door to all possibilities, learn from them, and decide what's best for us. He urged the group to go forward and develop an interlocal agreement in August to expedite the process. Mr. Sullivan stated he would be interested in hearing how comparable communities have addressed this issue. He added that people are frustrated with so many competing entities, and want someone to take responsibility for studying the issue and providing good information so that people feel they have had a sufficient amount of education on a ballot issue. PUBLIC COMMENT Scott Walker stated that volunteer groups have taken this as far as they can, but we still need to work on the costs associated with all those the programs identified in the plans and surveys. He said that what we don't know includes geographic need, timing for when facilities could be established or built, and what would be the cost to residents. He said the County plan was developed by a self-selected group of individuals who came up with a wish list and perhaps that will be validated by the survey. He noted a number of gaps need to be filled in before a measure goes onto the ballot. He doesn't have an opinion about boundaries and this information could come from a statistically validated survey Joint Meeting Council/BOCC Page 6 August 3, 2005 and will be helpful no matter what kind of taxing district we have. He added he is pleased to see the two groups of elected officials willing to work together. David Hero stated that 1) he is happy to see these two bodies together talking about a topic; 2) regardless of whether the decision is made to go forward with a survey, he believes a survey will prove that citizens of the county and city would like some way of designating parks and recreation as a priority in our community. He would like to see that parks and recreation are not always at the end of the list, hostage to the other needs of the entities; 3)Jefferson Transit should be at the table because part of the issue is that distribution of assets could be mitigated by working with transit so everyone has ready accessibility; 4) he is not big on surveys but is willing to support this one if it gives the information needed. He suggested initially testing the survey on a small group of people to make sure no information is missed; you need to get the information you want, not the information you need to hear. Mr. Kolff stated it is his understanding there is a pre-poll survey built into the process. Ms. Robinson stated that five members of this group serve also on the Transit Board. Mr. Timmons asked if Council members wanted action on the item to be brought forward to the next Council meeting. Consensus was in favor. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. Attest: Pam Kolacy, CMC City Clerk Joint Meeting Council/BOCC Page 7 August 3, 2005