We’re hoping to have applications in by June 1, and we are planning to have interviews that evening. You can find the application form on the city’s website.

At the time it was shuttered (the decision was made before I joined the council), the pool was leaking badly. Putting it back in decent shape would have taken about $500,000, and adding a few things that would have made it a respectable facility would have run over $1.2M. Between the cost of utilities and staffing, the pool cost the city around $60,000 per year. It’s a lot to spend on a facility that was only used a few months out of the year.

Compare that to the minimal operating costs of the spray park, and it’s easier to understand why the city no longer runs an outdoor pool. And if you need one more reason, check out this USA Today article on public pools.

Some have suggested closing the airport and selling the property for industrial development.  While that could provide some return for Kelso, depending on the market, I believe the airport does provide benefits to both Kelso and the regional economy, and that it should be preserved.

Three proposals are being considered related to governance.  One would put a single entity in charge of the airport, quite possibly the Port of Longview.  Another would formalize a board structure somewhat like the one that exists now, except that the board would have more authority than they currently do, I believe.  The third would create a county airport district to operate the facility, though our advisors suggest that would be difficult to implement, as it would take a vote of the citizens, and adding a new taxing agency is a tough sell in this economic and political climate.

In either of the first two scenarios, the biggest issue comes back to funding.  Which entities should share the cost of the airport operations?  How should the funding need be split between them?  The state sees the airport as having benefits to Clark County – should they take part in its funding?

It has been suggested that because Kelso owns the property, our contribution could be partially funded through recognizing the lease value of that property.  That type of arrangement would help offset the opportunity lost by tying up this valuable property.

The questions for the council to consider tonight are, do we believe the airport is valuable enough to preserve, and if so, how do we believe its operation should be structured and funded?  The workshop to consider these issues begins at 6:00, so come join us if you’re interested.Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Don’t lower eduction bar any further.

All publicity is good publicity, right?

Recently, some of us from the city visited with the property’s owner, who’s also now the developer. The tough economic climate and reduced property values have removed much of the profit (or in other words, motivation) for the owner. In order to make this project make sense right now, the owner feels he has to reduce his development costs, because he can’t get as much from the retail operator.

What does that mean at the end of the day? It means they’re asking for relief from requirements to include curbs, gutters, sidewalks and trees along the street that would enter the property. Their position is that if they have to include those amenities, they’ll wait until they could get enough from the property to warrant those investments.

So, the city has a choice between preserving the ideal development standards or bringing in development now, instead of, perhaps, five years from now. It’s a decision that has to be made by the city’s staff at this point.

Personally, I’d have trouble telling folks, “The city’s out of money, and you don’t have a job, but hey, I stood up for our development standards.” There’s definitely a reason for those standards, but I’m just not sure that this is the time to turn down opportunity that could establish us as a retail center for the region.

Anyway, you never know until you actually see construction begin, but I’m optimistic we’ll work out a resolution for the development. Watch the building site this summer for more…

A quick glimpse at the agenda this week might lead you to believe this will be a quick meeting. After all, there are exactly zero motion items this week. However, there will be some key items to hear about:

• BPA representatives are coming to give us information on the transmission lines they’re running through the area. We’ll only hear from them; this isn’t a public hearing, so people are welcome to attend to learn more about the project, though no public testimony is scheduled.
• We’ll get an update on the airport’s master plan process. A meeting of all the airport partners (both cities, county and the port) is scheduled in June to discuss governance.
• We’ll allocate our annual HOME funds. These programs provide housing assistance for low-income individuals, and include programs through the women’s shelter, Habitat for Humanity, and the Kelso Housing Authority.

Come on down – 7:00 sharp!

Not only should there be better reception in the area, but the city should also receive some rent from the placement. More details as I can recall them…!