Snoqualmie council approves bond ballot
August 13, 2008
By Ed Farrell
Pledging to be “crystal clear” in its support for a new 30,000-square-foot community center – with an indoor swimming pool – the Snoqualmie City Council Monday voted unanimously to place a $10 million general obligation bond measure before the voters Nov. 4.The facility, which carries an overall $14 million price tag, would be located on Snoqualmie Ridge and is planned to include a gymnasium, fitness center and a multi-purpose room. It will be operated by the YMCA, which gave its approval to the proposal Monday night.
The balance of funding is the result of developer fees the city has already collected and accumulated interest.
If approved, the bonds will add about 30 cents per $1,000 valuation – about $150 a year for 20 years in additional taxes to a home valued at $500,000 – according to Harry Oestreich, the city’s finance director.
In earlier discussions, city officials declared the YMCA was not interested in partnering with the city for a facility with a swimming pool because of the additional liability risks and higher operations and maintenance costs.
As recently as Aug. 4, city officials said they were considering two possible ballot measures: The approved $10 million version and an alternate $6.2 million bond issue that would have built a smaller center without a swimming pool, the option they said was favored by the YMCA.
On Monday, however, the no-pool option was not even formally discussed by the council, which considered only the costlier proposal, largely because extensive community surveying has concluded that including a swimming pool increases the likelihood of victory in November.
YMCA Eastside Regional Executive Marcia Isenberger said Monday that her organization has always supported including a pool in the center, but that concerns over the additional costs had been addressed and were no longer an issue.
“We’ve looked at the size of the facility and we’ve had concerns about risk, but we’ve always believed in a pool,” Isenberger said.
As part of the discussion prior to Monday’s vote, Mayor Matt Larson announced that the city will provide up to $100,000 annually to the YMCA in additional funding on an interim basis, as well as allow the organization to limit its hours of operation, if necessary, to reduce operational costs during low-use hours.
In a letter to the council, dated Aug. 7, 2008, outlining the modified agreement, Robert B. Gilbertson, Jr., president and CEO of the YMCA of Greater Seattle, said the $100,000 payments would be used “to serve children and families who may need financial assistance.”
Larson was clear, however, that such assistance would only be temporary – likely for no more than two to three years – to allow the new facility to become firmly established.
Previous attempts to garner voter approval have all met in failure, with voters rejecting both bond measures and property tax levy increases in prior years.
Because of state election laws requiring a supermajority of 60 percent approval for bond issues, as well as an overall turnout of at least 40 percent of the last general election, city leaders feel the upcoming general election, which is anticipated to have an unusually high turnout, represents the best chance for success.
Conversely, a defeat in November, with its high voter turnout, would make a return to the voters in the 2009 general election extremely untenable, leaving any realistic chance to go back to the electorate for a similar bond measure unlikely until 2010.
Opponents, however, several of whom addressed the council Monday, predicted the voters will again rally against the proposal, costing the city not only the expense of the failed measure, but impacting other bond measures that could be on the ballot.
And a successful effort, one opponent said, would likely have a negative impact on any future school bond questions, as local residents, already stretched to the breaking point by a weak economy, would be less likely to support a district-wide measure.
Unlike a similar proposal rejected in 2006, area voters will not be asked to approve a second measure to authorize additional operation and maintenance funding for the community center.
Councilwoman Maria Henriksen, who took the lead in pressing the argument for approval, pledged there would be no turning to the voters again in the future to provide such funding.
“There is no (maintenance and operations) levy now, and there will not be one in the future,” Henriksen said.
By removing completely the additional funding, Henriksen noted that voters are being asked to approve a construction-only package that amounts to about 40 percent less overall than in 2006.
The $100,000 in additional annual city funding, she said, would come out of a recently established fund for family support and non-profit organizations that will be seeded by a city contribution of 1 percent of general fund revenues, and therefore have no adverse general fund impacts.
Henriksen said previous attempts to secure voter approval failed, in part, because the city did not do a good enough job of selling the proposals to the electorate.
“My observation of the last time (2006) is communication was not clear,” Henriksen said. “And I want to make sure this time communication is crystal clear.”
Henriksen said she was equally certain that “upon first blush, this might look frivolous,” a notion she said she could relate to if one lacked a full understanding of the council’s studied backing for the project.
The council supported an extensive voter canvass in February 2007 to determine why the 2006 measure failed; the conclusion, Henriksen said: “People want all the amenities, but they don’t want to pay the price.”
Henriksen said the city had also considered a number of potential partners, including the Boys and Girls Club and Encompass, among others, before concluding the YMCA was the right group to operate the center.
“The Y is an efficient, fundraising machine,” Henriksen said, “and the Y is all-inclusive. We found a strong partner in the YMCA, and partnerships and creative thinking are the way you get things done in a lagging economy.”
Henriksen also said a November vote on the project would not place the question in direct competition to a school bond initiative, which she said are typically brought before voters in the spring.
“We don’t want to disrupt that,” she said, adding that Snoqualmie voters have always supported school-bond measures, even if they fail district wide.
A community center, Henriksen said, would be an asset to local schools and children, as well as contribute to the property tax values of homes on the Ridge.
“If the school district is not going to improve our facilities, we have to do it ourselves,” Henriksen said. “A community center will do this.”
Several residents voiced strong opposition to the proposal.
Barbara Joyce said it was “irresponsible for this administration to even consider asking for this measure,” given the increases in consumer costs, hikes in property assessments already and the “badly crowded” conditions at local schools that she said will be adversely impacted if a school bond measure is not quickly approved.
“Schools,” Joyce said, “are a more important expenditure.”
Tony Yanez said he has long supported the YMCA and its programs, “but the timing of this thing is not right.”
Noting that Quadrant Homes has collected more than $3 million earmarked for the project, Yanez said it was the city’s own delaying of the project that has ballooned the cost.
While the city is not locked into a firm timeline as to when it must expend the collected $3 million, if it were to determine a center were not to be built, the city could be forced to return the money, officials said.
In the early 1990s, Yanez said, the city had enough money on hand it could have built the center with little, or at best, minimal bond expenditures.
And Yanez predicted that despite assurances to the contrary, residents would be asked to pick up the additional costs of operations and maintenance.
Katherine Warmerdam noted that area residents, after being asked to build and equip the center, would still be forced to pay YMCA membership and/or fees to use the facility and programs, even if the partnership pledges to ease such payments for low-income or needy families.
“There will be no relief for the property taxes,” she said, adding that homeowners are being forced to make choices.
“We have to prioritize our essentials – our mortgages, our families,” Warmerdam said.
At the conclusion of the meeting, however, the YMCA’s Isenberger – in a private interview with The Star – said Snoqualmie residents would, in fact, benefit by reduced membership and user fees; in exchange for passing the bond issue, local residents would pay less for access and use than out-of-town clients.
Isenberger said she could offer no solid promises – nor did she even address the possibility of reduced rates to city residents during her presentation to the council – but said it is standard YMCA policy to offer as much as a 30 percent discount for residents of a partner community.
“It’s the community’s YMCA,” Isenberger said. “Snoqualmie residents will pay less.”
Reach reporter Ed Farrell at efarrell@snovalleystar.com or 392-6434.
Comments
Got something to say?
Before you comment, please note:
- These comments are moderated.
- Comments should be relevant to the topic at hand and contribute to its discussion.
- Personal attacks and/or excessive profanity will not be tolerated and such comments will not be approved.
- This is not your personal chat room or forum, so please stay on topic.
