Envision East Wenatchee

Sprint Boat Races

2010-03-18T15:18:00.000-07:00

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

2009-05-13T10:03:00.000-07:00

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

2009-02-09T09:31:00.000-08:00

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.

Sportxplex Update

2008-04-11T07:56:00.000-07:00

In light of the recent article in the Wenatchee World about the Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex owing back rent to Chelan County and some of your comments to my last post, I would like further clarify the relationship between the City, Waste Management, and the Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex when it comes to building an indoor-outdoor sports complex on Grant Road.

The relationship between the City and Waste Management.

Some of you have expressed concerns that the money the City will receive from Waste Management could put to other uses. This is not the case. Although state law allows the City to enter into a hosting fee agreement with Waste Management, the City cannot impose a hosting fee agreement on Waste Management. The decision to enter into a hosting fee agreement with the City is voluntary on Waste Management's part. In this case, Waste Management is willing to enter into a voluntary agreement based on the condition that the City use the money to build and operate sports fields. If the City does not agree to this condition, there will be no hosting fee agreement with Waste Management. Thus, there will be no money to spend on other needs.

The relationship between the City and the Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex.

The Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex is in the process of obtaining the rights to buy the site for the indoor-outdoor sports complex. If everything comes together, the plan is for the City purchase, build and operate the outdoor sports fields. The money to accomplish these tasks will come solely from host fees. The City will not be backing the project with any money that it receives through tax revenue.

When it comes to maintenance, the City is exploring several possibilities. One possibility is to lease the fields to a management team in exchange for a percentage of the tournament revenue. I would like to involve the Eastmont Metropolitan Parks District in these discussions on the best avenue to pursue. But once again, the costs of maintenance will not come from tax revenue.

In short, if the anticipated revenue from the hosting fees are not enough to meet the purchase costs, construction costs, and maintenance costs, the project will not happen. The preliminary calculations are that the project can be accomplished. But as I have said before and will probably say many times again, a lot of due diligence still needs to be done.

The indoor sportsplex will be completely owned and operated by the Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex. Thus, the City of East Wenatchee will never have to face the problem of having to collect back rent. The success of the indoor sportsplex will rest entirely on its own merits. Like the Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex, I have high hopes for the indoor sports facility. If it proves successful, the Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex will profit. If it proves unsuccessful, however, the City will not be at any sort of financial risk.

I hope this answers some of your questions. The Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex is planning to put on a presentation to the City Council on May 13, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. I invite everyone to attend as it will be a great opportunity to have all the players under one roof and to have questions asked and answered.

East Wenatchee Sportsplex

2008-03-18T16:03:00.000-07:00

Recently, I have been in discussions with representatives of Waste Management and with representatives of the Wenatchee Valley Sportsplex. According to Waste Management, the landfill will receive its permit to expand on May 15, 2008.

The initial drawings envision a 25-acre park that will have five multi-use, artificial turf fields. Next to these fields, the Sportsplex would build an indoor facility that would provide athletic programs and after-school programs for youth.

Contingent upon the fact that the City use the money to build athletic fields and an after school place for kids, Waste Management has expressed a willingness to enter into a voluntary host fee agreement that will provide the City with approximately $500,000 per year for the next 25 years. This host agreement will not increase the amount anyone has to pay for garbage collection. Waste Management collection fees are set by its current contract with the City.

Waste Management is willing to do this as a way to give back to the community as a result of the community allowing it to expand its landfill. Likewise, Waste Management is very committed to improving the lives of youths and feels that providing a means to accomplish this end is a worthwhile endeavor.

The preliminary estimates for the cost of the project is about $10 Million. The City should be able to obtain a bond for this amount secured by the revenue stream provided by Waste Management. This means that the project can be completed without any taxpayer money. I have made it very clear to everyone involved that the City is not willing to commit any funds to the project except for the revenue received from the voluntary host fee agreement with Waste Management.

To make sure the City does not put any taxpayer money at risk, I anticipate that the City will enter into an Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing Agreement with King County Directors’ Association. This Association has installed many artificial turf fields throughout the state. By collaborating with the Association, the City simply agrees to pay an amount that is set in advance and then pay the purchase price when the project is completed. If there are any cost overruns, it would not be the City’s responsibility to bear.

Of course, things are still in the preliminary stages and all parties involved have to do their due diligence. Likewise, on the City’s end, the project is subject to approval by the City Council. But if things continue down the path we are on, the citizens of East Wenatchee and the surrounding community could expect to see the complex built in 2009 and be ready for play in 2010.

I am interested in hearing your comments about this project.

January Post

2008-01-04T08:58:00.000-08:00

Dear Citizens:

It has been interesting to participate in this concept of communication with those of you who have seen fit to comment or simply respond to the informal poll I sent out in late November. The difficulty for those of us at the City who are attempting to establish this new avenue for communication is getting e-mail addresses for those of you who are not already part of some government related e-mail list. The majority of responses I have received are from those who have some kind of vested interest in the subject of utility consolidation due to their affiliation with one of the service districts or their employees. That was not unexpected, in light of the nature of the list with which we began. We are working on creating a link very soon to the City's web site and obtaining e-mail addresses from the business organizations in the valley, as well as getting the word out at the grass roots level. All that should improve the reach of this tool for ascertaining the views of a broader spectrum of the East Wenatchee community.

I will continue to discuss the issue of utility consolidation from time to time on this blog. But first I hope to commission a valid cost/benefit analysis of the issue so that the citizens of East Wenatchee can know whether it is true that such a move would really result in cost savings to the ratepayers and true economies of scale, as I suggested in November. If you are interested in knowing the answers to those questions, I suggest you communicate with members of the City Council, as I will be, about pursuing such an analysis.

Meanwhile, we have a new 2008 budget which provides a glimpse of more prosperous times in East Wenatchee in the next few years due to projections of increased revenue from an expanding central business district and retirement of our debt to Douglas County from the successful cooperative effort we employed over the last five years to accomplish seamless growth of the boundaries of the city. I am in frequent personal communication with the Douglas County Commissioners over issues like annexation and land use planning, which are of mutual importance to our jurisdictions. Currently those discussions are centering around attempts to cooperate in solving waste management issues and rising court and jail expenses in both jurisdictions.

A related issue, which continues to be the subject of discussions by me with officials of Waste Management Corporation and a group of sports-minded potential investors is the establishment of what has come to be called the "Sportsplex." As many of you know, that has been a vision I have shared with other community leaders for some time, the idea that we can create a venue for the attraction of large youth sports tournaments to our valley every year. The potential economic benefits for all who benefit from tourism in the Wenatchee Valley, which we all do, are enormous. The trick is to get such a project done without hitting any of us in our private pocket books. I am seeing a way to do that, which I hope to be able to share in detail with East Wenatchee residents later this year.

If you have ideas, or simply wish to be heard on any matter, I continue to encourage you to communicate with me via this blog.

Sincerely,

Mayor Steven Lacy

Welcome

2007-11-30T13:32:00.000-08:00

Dear Citizens,

Welcome to my first weblog. Hopefully, it will be one of many.

First of all, thank you for electing me to another 4-year term. It has always been an honor to serve the citizens of East Wenatchee and it will continue to be an honor.

I have started this website to provide an informal forum for citizens to stay updated on what is happening at City Hall and for citizens to provide their input on what concerns they have when it comes to City government and what direction they think the City should take over the next four years. I hope to write a new blog about once a month.

First of all, let me give you a brief "State of the City" report.

The City Council just passed the 2008 budget for East Wenatchee which anticipates total expenditures in the sum of approximately 7.4 million dollars. The budget is balanced, of course, but only anticipates a carryover of about $250,000 into 2009. Historically during my tenure as Mayor, however, our staff has managed to limit spending to a sum below budgeted amounts. I would say we have a solid financial position but need to work on lowering expenses while finding new revenue sources in 2008.

Those revenue sources should be developed by increasing the attractiveness of East Wenatchee to visitors, a stated goal of our city since 1995. It is for that reason that I am currently working to explore the possibility of obtaining outside funding to create a Sports Plex facility in our area which could host state youth sports tournaments, for the great economic benefit such events will provide to our merchants and, indirectly, to city government. I'll have more to say about that subject as plans hopefully develop. I would appreciate your comments on the future of the City.

One major idea I have been mulling over for some time is how to consolidate the various municipal services in East Wenatchee under one roof. As the City becomes more and more urban in nature, it makes sense to have the City manage sewer services, water services, and park services.

I believe this makes sense for the following reasons. First, consolidating the services under one roof will result in operational efficiencies. Rather than paying for the services, through taxes or fees, for a City Council, for a Water Board, a Sewer Board, and for a Parks Board, the taxpayers will only have to pay for the expenses of one governing board. Likewise, the process of billing and collecting fees for utility services could be streamlined. Likewise, instead of each entity maintaining a full fleet of vehicles and equipment (a lot of it duplicative, consolidation would reduce the expenditures on purchases of new equipment and on maintenance of that equipment.

Second, consolidating services under one roof will increase public participation and awareness of what is going on in the community. As it presently stands, a citizen faces a daunting task of staying abreast of what is going on in the community. For example, if a citizen is concerned about a particular issue, he or she may have to attend the meetings of four governing bodies.

Third, consolidating services will attract business to the community. For example, if a business owner wants to build a new office or store, he or she has to run to the City for a permit, run to the Water District for a permit, and run to the Sewer District for a permit. Rather than knowing exactly what he or she needs to do from A to Z to build the building, the business owner quickly finds he or she is pulled in different directions. In the end, the process moves slowly and data farms are built in Quincy instead of East Wenatchee.

Finally, consolidation would solve the problem created by the fact that the various governmental entities are not always on the same page when it comes to planning for and managing the significant growth occurring on our community. For example, the Water District has plans to allow growth outside the urban growth area which was jointly established by the City and Douglas County for the Greater East Wenatchee area. This has recently led to litigation between the City and the Water District. Regardless of which entity ultimately wins the litigation, the ultimate outcome will means that one of the entities will have wasted years of time and effort in developing a plan which no one will follow.

Having explained my reasoning to you, my question for you the citizens is twofold: 1) Do you think that consolidating service is an idea whose time has come?, and 2) Should the City request an advisory vote on this issue during the next election? I appreciate your comments and look forward to serving you for the next four years.