Sprint Boat Races

Proposed Sprint Boat Races Fact Sheet

On January 6th, the East Wenatchee Events Office received a press release from the Wenatchee Valley Visitors Bureau regarding the United States Sprint Boat Association’s (USSBA) interest in the Wenatchee Valley as a potential site for a new race track. After a presentation on the matter at their January 12th Meeting, the East Wenatchee City Council voted to support the submission of a proposal to the USSBA. At the January 26th Council Meeting, the East Wenatchee Events Board (the City’s Tourism Advisory Board) issued a recommendation to the Council to proceed to race in 2010. Authorization for Sprint Boat Racing to be a City sponsored event was given by Council at their February 23rd Meeting. The Council Meetings were covered by The Wenatchee World, the Wenatchee Business Journal, and KPQ Radio.

Sprint Boat races take place in a 15’ wide by 3’ deep track of water (approximately 800,000 gallons) shaped like a maze over a span of 4 acres of flat ground with a 70’ offset, fenced in chain link. A minimum of 20 acres of additional land is needed to accommodate an anticipated attendance of 2,500, as well as 1 – 2 acres for a pit area, and an elevated hillside to enhance spectator viewing and increase separation from the race track, for safety reasons. With engines that range from 500 to over 1,000 horsepower, these boats approach straight-line speeds of up to 80-plus miles per hour, and have incredible turning capabilities in the tightest corners. The boats are propelled by a jet ski type motor that is designed to be self-contained in case of a roll-over, so there is no spillage of fuels or oils. Four boats are in the launch area at a time, and each boat takes a minute or less to complete their run around the track. There is only one boat in the track at a time. An average of 25 teams usually participates in a Saturday race. (www.ussbaracing.com/photos/index will provide the best overview of Sprint Boat Racing. Click on the USSBA Promotional Video, which is in red about halfway down the page.)

Proposed race dates for 2010 are Saturday, July 3rd and Saturday, September 4th. Theses dates were suggested by the Wenatchee Valley Sports Council, due to the fact that a couple of large baseball tournaments, normally held at those times, will not be taking place this year. Races would take place between 10:00 am and 4:00 pm. Race teams, vendors, event staff, etc. would arrive between 7:00 – 8:00 am, and the gates would open at 9:00 am.


The City is in negotiations with a willing property owner for a race venue. (See attached map for a representative race track.) Water for the race track would be purchased from the Greater Wenatchee Irrigation District.

The mission of the East Wenatchee Events Board is “to promote and attract awareness, interest and tourism to East Wenatchee, through special events which portray the spirit of community and quality of life East Wenatchee has to offer.” The City has the tools in place to run the event, there is community support for the event, and it is an opportunity to positively impact the local economy, because tourism bolsters local economies and small businesses and contributes tax revenue for state and local governments. Lodging tax may be used for promoting tourism.

The preferred access to the race track would be off of Grant Road via Urban Industrial Way. Use of this access is supported by the businesses in the adjacent industrial park, as well as by the owner, developer and contractor of the detour route related to the construction of the roundabout just north of Grant Road. Use of this access, rather than the 10th Street access, would alleviate neighborhood concerns regarding use of the existing narrow road, as well as any issues relating to cherry and apple harvest.

The Event License Application submitted to the County Commissioners must address such issues as:
excavation, grading, filling, facility installation
sanitary sewage, hand washing facilities, potable water, solid waste collection and disposal, food and beverage service
emergency first aid and response to emergencies
fire protection devices and equipment availability
traffic control plan
environmental impact
and receive approval from such agencies as the Chelan-Douglas Health District, Douglas County Sheriff, Douglas County Fire District/Fire Marshal, and the Douglas County Engineer, in order to be approved. The City is in the process of completing the application and will release it to the public upon filing.


For More Information:

Mayor Steve Lacy
City of East Wenatchee
884-9515
slacy@east-wenatchee.com

Doug Hendrickson, President
USSBA
509-539-9383

Veto

Below is a verbatim copy of the language from a Memorandum that I filed with the City Clerk today:

M E M O R A N D U M

To: Councilmembers Wayne Barnhart, George Buckner, David Bremmer, Dennis Hendricks, Chuck Johnson, Sandra McCourt, and Harry Raab.

And to: Dana Barnard, City Clerk

From: Mayor Steven C. Lacy

Date: May 13, 2009

Subject: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DOUGLAS COUNTY RELATING TO NORTH BAKER AVENUE AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE DOES VETO AS FOLLOWS:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND DOUGLAS COUNTY RELATING TO NORTH BAKER AVENUE AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE

My written objections to the Ordinance are as follows.

At the East Wenatchee City Council Meeting on May 12, 2009, in a 4-3 decision, the City Council approved the Ordinance identified above. Immediately after the decision, I notified the City Council of my intent to take an action which is unprecedented in my nearly 11-year tenure as Mayor of East Wenatchee. I am vetoing a decision by the Council authorizing me to sign an Interlocal Agreement with Douglas County.

Under the proposed Interlocal Agreement, the City would pay Douglas County almost $36,000 for engineering work done by the County over the past several years on a project previously contemplated as a joint project between our jurisdictions. The proposed work was to improve parts of Baker Avenue. The County claims it performed the work based on an understanding that the City would reimburse the County proportionately for work on the proposed project.State law, however, requires that a written interlocal agreement be executed between jurisdictions for matters of this type before a City is authorized to pay tax dollars to another jurisdiction. The City of East Wenatchee did provide a letter of support of a grant application in 2000 for a project to make improvements on Baker Avenue between 15th NE and 27th NE. A grant was secured for that project. However, the County and the City never executed an interlocal agreement for that project. Such an agreement can only be authorized by the City Council, not by the Mayor. Until late 2008, I was never aware of any attempt by the County to propose an interlocal agreement on this project.Meanwhile, between 2000 and 2008, the cost of construction for the project skyrocketed and other logistical problems developed as the County, which was the proposed lead agency on the project, slowly attempted to advance the project. By late 2008, the County had unilaterally decided to scrap the original project in favor a smaller project on Baker Avenue from 25th to 27th Street NE and had sought permission from the State to move all the funding previously obtained to that section. There was no longer any work contemplated within the City limits of East Wenatchee. Nevertheless, without any interlocal agreement in place, and without any showing that the engineering work performed was of present or of future benefit to the residents of East Wenatchee, County officials sought payment for the incomplete design work it had performed over the years since 2000 for parts of Baker within city limits. I had discussions with County agents on the issue, and pointed out that no interlocal agreement had been presented in a timely fashion or ever authorized by the City Council, and that I was not empowered to authorize such a payment. The County then took the matter directly to the East Wenatchee City Council in March of this year, at which time I recommended against the execution of an interlocal agreement to pay funds to the County which would not benefit City taxpayers. I pointed out that the current project is no longer the project for which the City supported in the original grant application of 2000 and that there are no funds to do any of that work in the City at this time. In fact, other infrastructure priorities would, in my view, take priority at this time, which are also unfunded.Eventually, the County proposed to the City Council that, in return for payment of the money, the County would provide a design work for a related culvert project at Sand Canyon and Baker Avenue. The City Council then voted to direct the creation of an interlocal agreement to pay the funds, however, the County then withdrew its offer to do the design project at Sand Canyon.That was the posture in which the proposed Interlocal Agreement came before the City Council on May 12. Despite the concerns which I have referenced, the City Council voted 4 to 3 to approve the Ordinance authorizing me to sign the Interlocal Agreement.

In my view, signing the Interlocal Agreement authorized by the Ordinance would result in the payment of City taxpayer funds to Douglas County without any benefit to the taxpayers of East Wenatchee under circumstances where the County has no legal or moral justification for requesting the funds. I am therefore, for the first time, exercising the power of my office to veto this action of the City Council.

Good News/Bad News/More Bad News

Good News

In a unanimous decision, the Washington Court of Appeals agreed with the City's position that the East Wenatchee Water District's attempt to annex over 4,000 acres of mostly dryland agriculture land into its boundaries violated the goals and policies of the Growth Management Act ("GMA"), the State Environmental Protection Act, and the City's and Douglas County's comprehensive plan.

The District wrote to the City on June 14, 2006 to inform the City of the District's future expansion plans. That letter informed the City that "[t]he future service area has been expanded in response to three proposed annexation requests that the District has received." Those annexation requests were consolidated in a petition for annexation filed with the District by CDL Development, L.L.C., and other developers and landowners. The petition sought the annexation of 4,057 acres of property bordering the District's current boundary of service. The proposed annexation territory includes 282 acres that are zoned rural resource lands and 2,919 acres that are zoned dry land agriculture as well as some commercial agricultural acreage.

When the City first learned of the proposed annexation, the City Planner wrote a letter to the Water District urging it to reject the proposed annexation because it would promote urban growth outside the urban growth boundary, would lead to sprawl, and would not protect agricultural lands. The Water District ignored this request and approved the proposed annexation. The Douglas County Boundary Review Board did likewise.

The Boundary Review Board supported its decision to approve the annexation by reasoning that the agricultural land in question was of marginal productivity. The Court of Appeals held, however, that the Board lacked the authority to ignore the land use classifications in the comprehensive plan. It also held that the Boundary Review Board mistakenly found that the land had "marginal productivity and minimal long-term agricultural use. Although one landowner testified that he would make more money by developing his land rather than planting wheat as he had in the past. This testimony does not lead to a reasonable finding that agriculture is not supportable; it merely identifies the landowner's preference.

Additionally, the City and Douglas County's comprehensive plan is expressly geared toward ensuring that growth outside the urban growth area is nonurban in nature; reducing conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development; concentrating urban density and land uses within urban growth area; defining and developing resource lands necessary to support and sustain the long-term commercial production of cultural and mineral products; protecting agricultural lands and activities from conflicting nonfarm uses and influences; and supporting agricultural use in the event of a conflict between residential uses and agricultural uses. The Court of Appeals held that the Boundary Review Board's decision was in direct conflict with these planning goals and an error of law.

Finally, even though developers have plans to build a resort hotel, two championship golf courses, an equestrian center, a tennis club, swimming pools and playparks, a destination spa, 4,000 condominium units, and up to 200,000 square feet of commercial/retail space, the Water District advanced the annexation as a nonproject proposal. The Court of Appeals found this premise faulty. It held that the annexation is tied to what the District deems to be inevitable development by known persons and entities. Yet the development plans were not part of the proposal. One of the purposes of SEPA is to provide consideration of environmental factors at the earliest possible stage to allow decisions to be based on complete disclosure of environmental consequences. Likewise, the environmental impact statement preparation process must begin early enough so the statement can actually contribute to the decision-making process rather than be used to rationalize decisions already made. Because the annexation of the territory was considered without reference to the specific project the developers had in mind, the annexation easily passed with a DNS. The development is the reason for the District's annexation and proposal to provide water services. The development plans should have been considered along with the annexation to address cumulative impacts.

I am pleased with the fact that the Court of Appeals agrees with the position taken by the City from the beginning in this matter. I am especially pleased with the work done by City Attorney Devin Poulson through the course of this proceeding. Mr. Poulson's work justifies the City's decision to hire full time counsel. The cost to the City's taxpayers to pursue this decision would have been prohibitive if my recommendation to hire in-house counsel had not been accepted by the city counsel a few years ago.

The Water District has 30 days to appeal this decision to the Washington Supreme Court.


Bad News

As most of you have probably read in the newspaper, Waste Management laid off its local director, Ted Woodard. This is a big loss to the City and, in my opinion, to Waste Management. Mr. Woodward was one of the driving forces behind the Sportsplex idea. And he was the City's main advocate in having Waste Management enter into a host fee agreement with the City that would provide about $300,000 a year to promote activities for the youth of the community. Under this agreement, the City would have received anywhere from $0.85 to $1.00 for each ton of solid waste that went across the scales at Waste Management's new landfill. About 85% of these tons come from places outside Chelan and Douglas County.

I have spoken with Mr. Woodard's replacements who have informed me that Waste Management is not interested in entering into a a host fee agreement at this time. I am going to continue exploring options with Waste Management, but at this time the community will have to explore other financing options for better serving our youth. Personally, I do not intend to give up on the potential for partnering with the Cal Ripken Sr. Foundation and the Boys and Girls Club of America on a facility for our community. Such might require contacting other waste haulers who may be interested in competing for providing services to the City.


More Bad News

State law says that crimes involving property valued more that $250 are felonies. Early this year, however, Douglas County announced that it would no longer prosecute property crimes as felonies unless the dollar amount is over $750.00. Example, under state law stealing $500 worth of merchandise from a store is a felony. Someone with nine prior criminal offenses would spend a minimum of 43 months in prison. Now, the maximum penalty will be 365 days.

This results in shifting the burden of prosecuting crimes under $750 to the City, in shifting the cost of incarcerating these type of criminals from the County to the City, and encouraging harden criminals to commit their crimes in East Wenatchee because the penalty for getting caught just went down substantially. All in all, bad news for City taxpayers and bad news for the retail stores in East Wenatchee.