To create the first new junior taxing district in Clallam County in 34 years, supporters of the proposed metropolitan park district that would fund operation of the William Shore Memorial Pool have enlisted some heavy hitters to further their cause.
Clallam County commissioners and the Port Angeles City Council are in their camp as Save the Pool PA wages a last-ditch battle to save the only public pool in town in an effort to take it off life support and give it an annual infusion of tax-levy-generated cash.
The city — which says it can’t afford to maintain the pool at 225 E. 5th St. — will lease the facility to the district for $1 a year if voters approve the May 19 measure, “Proposition 1. Formation of a Metropolitan Park District.”
Approval may take some earnest convincing, organizers say.
“There’s a lot of credibility and trust riding on this,” said Gary Holmquist, a Save the Pool PA member who helped put together the district’s prospective budget and is directing the group’s election efforts.
$64,000 raised
Supporters have shown their mettle by raising about $64,000 in contributions to keep the 47-year-old pool financially afloat in April and May.
The city will shutter the pool for good June 15 if voters reject the measure.
Ballots will be mailed April 29 to Port Angeles School District residents in the all-mail-ballot election.
They must be postmarked or dropped off at the county auditor’s office or an election drop-box by May 19.
The pool district boundaries would be the same as the school district’s. They include the city of Port Angeles and the communities of Deer Park, Elwha and Black Diamond, where voters approved a water district in 1975, the last junior district created in Clallam County.
The last day to register by mail and Internet was Saturday, and in person it’s May 4. As of Friday, there were 19,167 school district voters.
Levy estimate
To financially support the new district, voters are being asked to approve a levy “estimated” at 15 cents per $1,000 of valuation, according to the ballot language.
Taxes would be collected on 2009 valuations that are now being conducted and based on a value of the district that will be finalized by Jan. 1, 2010.
That’s one reason that a precise levy amount is unknown,
“The levies are subject to those final values, which are subject to change until that last day, Jan. 1,” said Michael Hopf, the technical operations manager for the assessor’s office.
The levy would cost the owner of a $200,000 home — the median price of a home within the school district — about $30 a year.
Some seniors will qualify for an exemption. County Assessor Pam Rushton said residents should contact her office at 360-417-2400 for more information.
Opposition
While “Save the Pool” signs are replete throughout Port Angeles, City Council member and ballot measure opponent Larry Williams stands alone among his council colleagues, though council member Karen Rogers also has voiced similar reservations.
Williams said last week the measure should have been more comprehensive, that the levy should have been adjusted higher to include funding for city parks, which are also suffering financially.
He said he suggested as much in 2006.
That’s when city officials started talking about closing the pool, shelving plans to conduct a $25,000 feasibility study to determine the overall condition of the pool, which Public Works Director Glenn Cutler said still remains a mystery.
Williams said he would have favored a higher tax rate ¬– metropolitan park districts can levy up to 75 cents per $1,000 of valuation — to operate and maintain city parks instead of the “last-minute thing” of putting the measure on the ballot.
“I told people three years ago when we were headed this way, that we needed a priority list and needed a dollar figure in advance, and they did not listen to me,” he said.
“Now this is a last-minute, special-interest-group situation, so we don’t have good numbers, as far as I’m concerned.”
If Proposition 1 passes, the pool district’s management of other parks or facilities such as Civic Field, which needs major repairs, would require another ballot measure and new levy rate, Holmquist said.
Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney Deb Kelly wrote the ballot measure.
Most levies ask voters to approve a levy rate up to a certain amount, not an estimated amount, as does Proposition 1, Hopf said.
Kelly said last week she, too, could have done that, “but this is the option we came up with.”
“Most of the debate was, are we gong to put in no number at all or whether we put in up to 75 cents [allowed by law], or whether we try to put in a number that is as accurate a number as we can.”
The district would be run by a board consisting of Clallam County commissioners and City Council members.
They may end up selecting two commissioners, two council members and one member of the public ¬– possibly from the Save the Pool group ¬– to make subcommittee decisions subject to final approval from the county-city governing body, county Administrator Jim Jones said last week.
Board members would be entitled to the $90-a-meeting compensation but would not take it, county Commissioner Mike Chapman said.
There is no long-term plan for permanent repairs for the pool.
“Once the initial levy rate is set by the district, if let’s say two years from now there’s a major failure, it would require asking voters to approve an increase if it requires a higher levy rate,” Holmquist said.
“We’re putting a lot of our own personal credibility on the line by bringing a proposal to the voters where we say the initial levy rate set by the board will not be more than what’s required to operate the pool, based on the budget work we’ve done.”
The county and city leaders — except Williams — who will comprise the board have passed resolutions supporting the estimated 15-cent levy amount.
After the new board sets a precise levy amount, the revenue it creates cannot be increased by more than 1 percent without a vote of the people.
If the new board went much beyond the estimated 15 cents per $1,000 valuation, it would be politically disastrous, Chapman said.
“We would be subject to voter anger, voter reaction. We could levy up to 75 cents, but we would be fools to do it. I will keep my pledge, I promise you that.”
Added Jones: “If they were to come back at 16 cents, nobody would have a gripe.
“If it’s 25 or 50 or 60, from what I’ve been told, then any voter could petition the court to overturn an election and invalidate it. That would be up to a Superior Court judge.”
________
Staff writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-417-3536 or at paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
