$10 million project closed popular WA park for a year. When will it reopen?
From family picnics to enjoying the beach, Kopachuck State Park near Gig Harbor is known for its scenic views.
Since June 3, 2024, the park has been closed for a $10 million renovation. The team is now in the final stretch of that project, and hopes to reopen the park in August.
The renovations include a welcome center, community meeting hall, a new playground and a space for outdoor learning. Of existing components, there will be improved parking lots, restrooms, increased accessibility for people with disabilities and enhanced pathways to the beach. Roads and utilities will also be upgraded.
An outdoor amphitheater was built in the upper day-use area of the park, Washington State Parks spokesperson Meryl Lassen said. Wooden ramps and stairs were also added across the park in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. That means the beach, amphitheater and other amenities will be more accessible for visitors.
Crews discovered in 2011 that 80% of the trees in the park's campground were infected with a fungus called laminated root rot, according to the Kopachuck State Park website. After further research, park officials decided to close the campground area permanently for safety reasons.
In 2014, Washington State Parks created a master plan to improve the day-use area of the park, Lassen said. Ten years later, construction began. Lassen described the lengthy process as 'playing the long game.'
Obtaining permits and funding slowed the process. It's a state-funded project, and the total contract amount is $9,956,107.06.
Lassen said some residents have expressed concern over the years about the loss of trees and the modernization of the park taking away from its natural environment.
'Our mission is to preserve and maintain parks for generations to come,' Lassen said. 'Our commitment is not just their immediate recreation value, but also their long-term health and sustainability.'
She said officials will announce a reopening date when the project is further along, possibly in mid-July.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
2 days ago
- CBS News
Firefighter forced to retire early due to Parkinson's cannot sue Florida city for health benefits discrimination, U.S. Supreme Court rules
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled against a firefighter who retired early because of Parkinson's disease and alleged the city of Sanford violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by limiting a health-insurance subsidy. Justices upheld a decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the lawsuit filed by Karyn Stanley, a fire-department lieutenant who retired in 2018 at age 47 because of the effects of the disease. The dispute stemmed from Stanley losing a health-insurance subsidy two years after she retired and involved questions about whether the city violated part of the Americans with Disabilities Act aimed at preventing discrimination in employment. Friday's main opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, focused heavily on wording in the law that bars discrimination against a "qualified individual on the basis of disability." The opinion said the definition of a "qualified individual" in what is known as Title I of the law applied only to current employees or people seeking jobs. Gorsuch wrote that the law "protects people, not benefits, from discrimination. And the statute also tells us who those people are: qualified individuals, those who hold or seek a job at the time of the defendant's alleged discrimination." But Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson wrote a blistering dissent, arguing the law "says nothing — zero — about the preemployment or postemployment timing of an act of disability discrimination." "Disabled Americans who have retired from the workforce simply want to enjoy the fruits of their labor free from discrimination," she wrote. "Congress plainly protected their right to do so when it crafted Title I. Yet, the Court ignores that right today." A civil servant demanding better post-retirement health benefits Stanley began working as a firefighter for the city in 1999 but was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease in 2016. When Stanley was hired in 1999, the city provided health-insurance subsidies up to age 65 for firefighters who retired after 25 years of service or who retired because of disabilities, according to court documents. The city changed the policy in 2003 to scale back the benefit to two years for employees who retired early because of disabilities. As a result, Stanley received the subsidy for two years after she retired, rather than up to age 65. A brief filed in the case said the end of the subsidy resulted in Stanley facing an additional $1,000 a month in health-insurance costs. Stanley challenged the city in court, but a U.S. district judge dismissed the Americans with Disabilities Act claim. A panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, saying Stanley, as a former employee, could not sue under Title I of the law. The Biden administration and organizations such as the AFL-CIO, the International Association of Fire Fighters and AARP filed briefs at the Supreme Court backing Stanley. Meanwhile, groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities supported Sanford in briefs. Gorsuch was joined Friday in parts of his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He was joined in another part by Alito, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor joined part of Jackson's dissent.
USA Today
2 days ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides against disabled firefighter suing for discrimination over health benefits
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on June 20 ruled against a retired firefighter who wants to sue her former employer for reducing health care benefits for disabled retirees. The court ruled that Karyn Stanley can't sue the city of Sanford, Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. That upheld a lower court's ruling that the ADA didn't apply to Stanley because she no longer worked for the city when she filed her challenge. The Americans with Disabilities Act was designed to protect active employees and job applicants from discrimination. It was not intended as a law that extended to employers' relationships with former employees, the business groups and associations representing cities and counties against Stanley's allegations argued. The law covers someone who 'with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.' Stanley's lawyers argued she was employed – and thus covered by the law − when her future benefits were curtailed in 2003. When Stanley became a firefighter in 1999, the city paid for $1,000 of her approximately $1,300 monthly premium for health insurance. Anyone retiring after 25 years of service or because of a disability would continue to receive the benefit until age 65. After Stanley left the department in 2018 at 47 due to Parkinson's disease, she discovered that benefits for disabled retirees were reduced in 2003. The city covered $1,000 of her $1,300 monthly health insurance premium for only two years, after which she was required to pay the whole premium herself. Arguing that the city discriminated against her because of her disability, Stanley sued, asking the city to continue to pay $1,000 of her monthly insurance premium until she turns 65. The city countered that even though Stanley's benefits were reduced, the company treated her better – not worse – than non-disabled employees who retired with less than 25 years of service because those employees get no subsidy while she retained it for two years. The case is Stanley v. City of Stanford.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Veteran can move forward with ADA lawsuit alleging PTSD-related firing
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A federal court ruled June 9 that nuclear power plant operator Constellation Energy Generation must face a former employee's lawsuit alleging it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by fabricating reasons to deny him unescorted facility access because of his PTSD. It fired him after revoking his access. According to court documents in Thomas v. Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, the employee, who worked for the company from 2006 through 2023, was a senior site emergency preparedness specialist at a Constellation facility in Byron, Illinois. In that position, he was required by Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations to have unescorted access authorization to the facility and undergo periodic evaluations to maintain his access, court records said. The employee alleged that during a requalification interview, he disclosed that a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs doctor had diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2019, and the VA gave him a 70% disability rating due to the diagnosis. He did not disclose this on his medical questionnaire but explained to an access supervisor that his VA disability attorney advised him he didn't need to report it, the complaint alleged. The employee also allegedly submitted medical documentation from the VA that he wasn't a threat to himself or anyone else and could perform his assigned job duties with no restrictions. However, during a follow-up interview, a medical review officer allegedly called him a liar and threatened that she wasn't 'going to believe anything you tell me in this interview.' The MRO also repeatedly said she knew he was lying because, according to her, if he 'truly had a 70% rating for PTSD, then [he] would be completely debilitated,' the lawsuit alleged. Constellation subsequently withdrew the employee's authorization for unescorted access and terminated him because he no longer had the NRC-required access. He sued it for violating the ADA. In particular, the complaint alleged the MRO's accusations were based on her biases against his PTSD, 'as none of the medical documentation in her possession could have possibly supported her accusations.' The employee also asserted that the MRO's notes, as well as those of the access supervisor, grossly mischaracterized what was discussed, took statements completely out of context and included 'utter fabrications.' The court refused to dismiss the lawsuit. It rejected Constellation's assertion the employee failed to state a cause of action, including because, according to Constellation, the employee conceded in his allegations that absent unescorted access, he was legally prohibited from working at the plant. However, 'this argument relies on the faulty premise that [the plaintiff's] unescorted access denial was legitimate and nondiscriminatory,' the court said. And that wasn't what he alleged, the court pointed out. Rather, the employee claimed Constellation unlawfully denied him unescorted access because of his PTSD and fired him based on its discriminatory denial of access, the court explained. For instance, the employee did not allege the MRO determined his PTSD prevented him from safely and competently doing his work or that he was untrustworthy or unreliable due to substance abuse, the court noted. Instead, he alleged the MRO and the access supervisor 'misconstrued his interviews to raise trustworthiness and reliability concerns as a pretext for disability discrimination,' the court said. An EEOC guidance reminds employers that it's illegal to refuse to hire a military veteran solely because the veteran has PTSD, was previously diagnosed with PTSD, or because the employer assumes the veteran has PTSD. Similarly, employers may not refuse to hire a veteran based on assumptions about a veteran's ability to do the job because the veteran has a disability rating from the VA, which uses different standards than the ADA in determining disability. Recommended Reading EEOC to take another swing at pay data collection, regulatory agenda shows
