I would like to take this opportunity to review for the citizens of Jefferson County the processes thus far associated with addressing our community-based aquatic facility desires, and to re-evaluate the current plan for the development of a mid-county aquatic facility. I will also consider the options for the decommissioning of the Mountain View Pool, and look at the future and ongoing use of Mountain View Campus as a whole.
The Process Thus Far:
Some Steps Forward, Many Steps Back
There have been many efforts, both performed by the private sector citizenry and public sector elected officials and staff, to maintain and enhance the aquatic opportunities for our community. For the most part, these efforts have been centered on the Mountain View Pool facility in association with the Mountain View Campus.
Through the mostly philanthropic efforts associated with Make Waves, and through the public-private efforts with earlier and current iterations of the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition (JAC) in partnership with the inter-local public agencies (i.e. the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, the Port Townsend and Chimacum School Districts, the Port of Port Townsend, the Jefferson County Hospital District, East Jefferson Fire and Rescue), there have been some steps forward.
Unfortunately, many steps backward have mostly neutralized and/or stymied the advancement of bonafide opportunities to develop a reliable community-based aquatic center/pool with its associated programs at the Mountain View Pool facility.
One such effort, performed by the Healthier Together Steering Committee (HTSC), as represented by a mostly inter-local government agency group and with an affiliation with the JAC, was to essentially rebuild the Mountain View Pool facility at a cost to taxpayers of $40-$50 million. This exorbitant project concept was described by many in our community as the “Taj Mahal” version. Due to an apparent lack of public support related to excessive costs and a lack of transparency, this concept fortunately failed, paving the way for more practical and county-wide representative options to be reviewed.
It is important that we, as taxpayers, consider the fiscal impact, let alone the time spent through human effort, that has been invested in the various aquatic facility concepts thus far — especially as it relates to the plans that are currently in motion for the mid-county aquatic facility option. Based on public records made available to me and through my continued involvement with the processes thus far, I have surmised that somewhere in excess of $1 million of taxpayer funding has been invested towards consultants, studies, and overhead (staff time and resources) in pursuit of these concepts.
It is likely that these efforts actually cost the taxpayers quite a bit more than one million dollars, especially if you consider monies that were spent with the earlier iteration of the JAC in association with public agencies during the attempts to locate an aquatic facility on property near the Kah Tai Lagoon. It is my understanding that most of the Make Waves organizational efforts and costs that were associated with refurbishing/rebuilding/improving the existing Mountain View Pool were mostly philanthropic in nature.
The Proposed Port Hadlock Aquatic Facility:
Up a Creek with No Buildable Plans
With the current mid-county aquatic facility plan, through an Inter-Local Agreement (ILA) between Jefferson County and the Chimacum School District, there will likely be an attempt to secure more funding in the form of a state grant (taxpayer money) for approximately $250,000 to be used for pre-design architectural and engineering plans in order to develop and understand the potential true costs for building the currently proposed mid-county aquatic facility. I must emphasize that these will not be buildable plans, and only informative in nature for a potential sales tax increase initiative.
This facility is proposed to be located at the Chimacum Creek Elementary School property, which is owned by the Chimacum School District. This will push the speculative taxpayers’ monies spent thus far to the $1.5 million plus range.
The current project funding methodology being considered is for bond acquisition for construction and for ongoing operations and maintenance funding. This would be facilitated by a potential newly-formed Public Facilities District (PFD) taxing district.
New Public Taxing District Pushes Increase in Sales Tax
The PFD will be the responsible agency for all things related to the new mid-county pool facility, and will draw its funding resources from a potentially voter-approved 0.2% increase to our county sales tax — going up from 9.1% currently to 9.3%.
I have been very vocal in my opinion that I do not believe that raising the sales tax for the construction of a new aquatic facility is the correct mechanism for funding any new development. Sales taxes, by their nature, are a very regressive form of taxation, hurting those who can least afford it.
The last question in the current JAC survey that is circulating asks the survey takers the following question: “Would you support a small 0.2% (20 cents per $100), county-wide sales tax (excluding groceries and prescriptions) that would fund a portion of the cost of constructing a new aquatic and recreation facility in Port Hadlock?”
The JAC survey, found here, minimizes the potential impact of a county-wide increase in sales tax.
Aside from the fact that this is the only question that addresses the fiscal impact that a new mid-county aquatic facility might have on our community, I found the use of the word “small” to be insensitive, disconnected, and manipulative.
Why? For many in our community, there is nothing “small” about a 0.2% increase in local sales taxes. For those who struggle to maintain housing, put food on the table, etc., a 0.2% sales tax increase adds up, and puts family budgets that are already strained closer to a breaking point.
Given that another new taxing district was recently formed, the Transportation Benefit District (TBD), it, too could generate an increase in county sales tax — to 9.4%. So with an allowable 0.2% add by the PFD in the future, the potential net increase could bring Jefferson County-based sales tax to 9.6%. Port Townsend city sales tax would essentially look the same for various and similar reasons.
Neglected Private Option Could Save
Half the Costs with No New Taxes
I have mostly been a proponent of a private/philanthropic funding mechanism for building a new pool and for utilizing a public-private partnership, with a long-term land lease arrangement for land procurement, and for ongoing facility operations and maintenance.
If a practical and functional multi-tank design for the potential new mid-county pool is considered — utilizing, as much as possible, existing technology and modular building systems designs — it would be very reasonable to consider that a new, turn-key, approximately 24,000 square foot pool facility could be constructed for around $10 to $15 million, using private/philanthropic funding for construction.
Aquatic facilities historically operate with a funding/budget deficit, so future annual fundraising along with other forms of municipal support will be required to fill the funding gaps for this important public asset. Using private/philanthropic funding as the basis for the construction, a public-private partnership could then be established for the ongoing operation and maintenance between the JAC and the public entities that benefit from the new facility.
A partnership between the JAC and Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department could share some of the operations and maintenance costs, and also include other public agencies such as the City of Port Townsend, the Port Townsend and Chimacum School Districts, and potentially even Jefferson Healthcare and East Jefferson Fire and Rescue. All of the agencies would benefit by participating with the JAC and would be doing their part to support this community-based asset.
This privately funded option would also eliminate the need for the formation of the PFD, removing the need for yet another taxing district in our county.
This option is, however, in jeopardy of not being considered as a viable solution for building the facility. With the potential acquisition of state grant/public monies, the new construction of the project would have to be considered as a publicly-funded, public works project. Such a designation would increase the cost to build the new facility by approximately 30% to 40% — even as much as 50%, adding the potential for public works project-related inflated soft costs (A&E design services, project management, etc.) including municipal overhead.
The initial 30-40% upcharge would primarily be based on increased labor expenses as the labor rate for public works/taxpayer-funded projects are required to be set at the current prevailing wage rate. All told, an additional $4 to $7.5 million of public/taxpayer money would be needed for the construction of the new facility.
Port Townsend Aero Museum
Demonstrates Benefits of Private Funding
To put this in a frame of reference to make it easier to understand and to demonstrate the local real world applications that privately funding a project can have in our community, I would like to draw your attention to the Port Townsend Aero Museum (PTAM) facility located at the Jefferson County International Airport.
Beginning in 2003 with final completion of facilities expansions in 2023, my company, along with other local contractors, built for the PTAM approximately 32,000 square feet of new buildings. This activity included A&E design, permitting, project management, site work, infrastructure expansion, new buildings, testing, and occupancy approvals, all for just under $7 million (including Washington State Sales Tax) without one dime of taxpayers’ money.
The scope of work for the campus has a 24,000 sf main museum building, a 6,000 sf aircraft maintenance hangar, a 2,016 sf wing and fuselage painting and fabric restoration building, stormwater system with filtration vault, parking, 3 phase power, etc. The Port Townsend Aero Museum built this, again, without taxpayer money and without incurring any debt. They are also operationally sustainable through ongoing donations and through their youth mentorship program related aircraft restorations activities. The PTAM has a long-term lease arrangement for their ground with the Port of Port Townsend.
The PTAM facility and program represents a shining example of how a privately funded option for an amazing community asset can happen for our community when you are completely dedicated to the process.
When the founding directors of the Port Townsend Aero Museum were told by many, back in 2003 when their project was first conceived, that “it will never happen,” they took that as a challenge. Look where they are today.
Comparing Pool Funding Options:
Private, Sales Tax, or Property Tax
One other choice for a publicly-funded option is through the formation of a Municipal Parks District (MPD). An MPD can utilize, as its funding source, an increase in countywide property tax. While still a regressive tax, this is considered by some to be a less onerous approach to representative taxation, as those who have more typically pay more, and those who have less typically pay less.
The idea of an MPD was tabled by the Healthier Together Steering Committee due to pushback from various other taxing districts who stated that diluting the tax base potentially jeopardized their needs to raise our taxes in the future. I have a hard time with this concept as the community asset value of a new aquatic facility is considered by many to be an important addition for our community’s health, safety, and well-being.
Teaching our children how to swim, providing other after-school youth-related aquatic activities/sports activities/competitions, providing general public at-large aquatic physical health activities, providing a source of exercise and rehabilitation for our elders, etc., can be perceived as just as essential as some of the services provided by these other taxing districts.
The school districts would use the pool for sports and other youth programs, the hospital district would use the pool for therapy and rehabilitation services, the fire district would use the pool for training and other public safety activities.
All things considered, I would prefer no new taxes of any kind, whether through a sales tax increase (PFD) or property tax increase (MPD). With the philanthropic wealth that our community holds, there is no reason that any new pool can’t be privately built and funded into the future.
Here is my question about funding a new aquatic facility as we near the edge of point-of-no-return decisions:
Shouldn’t we be sure that we have considered, vetted, honestly and transparently evaluated, and educated the public towards what makes the most sense for our community — allowing them to be well informed in clarifying whether the new mid-county aquatic facility should be privately funded, PFD funded, or funded by an MPD?
What About the Mountain View Pool?
Throughout this new aquatic facility review process, the elephant in the room has always been the ongoing operation and maintenance and reliability of the Mountain View Pool. Based on the need for utmost clarity, transparency, and operation in good faith, going forward I have urged the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that states if and when the new mid-county pool facility becomes a reality, that the Mountain View Pool facility be immediately closed and decommissioned.
I firmly believe that our community is not capable of supporting two potentially competing community-based aquatic facilities. I believe that it is fair to ask for this MOU due to the previous lack of transparency that has occurred though other aspects of this community pool facility engagement process with the public. This MOU should be entered into between Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend, the Port Townsend School District, and any other private or public agencies that might see some kind of value in continuing the operations of the Mountain View Pool facility.
Finally, I have been portrayed by some as being “anti-pool” based on my involvement and process recommendations in the past. I find this characterization to be unfair and farthest from the truth.
This characterization may have come based on my comments regarding where I feel a new publicly owned pool currently fits into our community responsibilities and priorities. I do believe that an aquatic facility for our community is an important and essential asset, especially given our aquatic geography.
However, especially on these cold winter days as I hunt-and-peck my way through this writing in my warm home/office, I also think about those who, for whatever reason, have been displaced and struggle with housing.
If we prioritize responsibly and efficiently and think outside of the box, there is no reason that our community can’t accomplish two things at once here — i.e. the building of a new mid-county aquatic facility, and coming up with creative and humane ways of taking care of those who are marginalized in our community.
One possible solution could be right under our noses, that being repurposing of some elements of the Mountain View Campus. Not as market-rate housing as has been suggested in the past, but as a housing and campus facility to provide affordable housing and transitional housing for those in need.
The Mountain View Campus has many amenities already in place, i.e. the food bank, cafeteria, classrooms, bathrooms, showers, public services and security through the resources at the police department, developable infrastructure opportunities for potential new affordable housing construction, easy access to public transportation, the hospital, grocery shopping, etc.
We have an opportunity as a community to fulfill important responsibilities here, if we briefly step back, re-evaluate, and reconsider all of the options that could be on the table.
Rush to Tax Disrespects Taxpayers,
Could Mean Another Failed Attempt at Public Buy-in
We should not rush to a solution of our community-based issues just because we think there is some tool available to move in a direction that is not completely thought through. We need to ask what the primary objectives are of our community as a whole, and develop a practical, fiscally responsible, and sustainable path towards accomplishing those objectives.
The BOCC will be given a staff workshop presentation by the Jefferson County Administrator regarding the possibility of forming a PFD at the regularly scheduled BOCC meeting on February 18th (slated for the afternoon session). I do not believe that action will be taken at this meeting, and subsequent meetings and hearings will be held leading up to a meeting on Monday, March 10th. 
Please make your concerns about this issue known to the commissioners through public comment either in writing (get written comments in a day or two before any given meeting), or by attending one of the meetings in-person or virtually online.
I encourage you as the citizenry of Jefferson County to urge our elected leaders and officials to make sure we have all of these issues well thought out and resolved before taking any further actions related to aquatic facility development… and before it is too late to turn back.
Most importantly, if we think all of this through, publicly and privately together, coming up with the most optimal plan, our community will undoubtedly respond by supporting the decisions that are made in the future on how to move forward with these objectives, and with everyone’s best interests in mind.
I cannot figure out why there is such a concerted effort to ram the current mid-county aquatic facility concept through on the back of the taxpayers. The reluctance to listen to sound advice regarding the thoughtful and thorough considerations of all funding mechanism options — especially the private option — shows a level of arrogance by those who are facilitating the process, and disrespect towards the taxpayers as well.
The dissemination of any new information that has been presented by the JAC and the BOCC for this current mid-county facility direction, has only trickled out at best, and in forums more representative of those who would unconditionally show their support. In my travels through different parts of Jefferson County, if I bring up anything related to the new aquatic facility, most of the time the reaction is that people don’t know anything about it, and that they thought the pool issue was dead.
If the BOCC, the JAC, and other associated community leaders remain blind to the concerns expressed here, I am afraid that this newly-directed effort will result in yet another failed attempt at public buy-in. That failure will have long-lasting consequences, making it even more difficult in the future to provide a new aquatic facility for our community.
Mark Grant has operated Port Townsend’s Grant Steel Buildings and Concrete Systems, Inc. since 1995. His company built the 32,000-square-foot Aero Museum and the administrative offices for the Port of Port Townsend. He builds commercial, residential, industrial, agricultural and public works projects of various sizes and magnitude. His clients include the City of Port Townsend, Port Townsend School District, Jefferson County, City of Bremerton, Washington Department of Corrections, United States Geological Survey and the U.S. Department of Defense/Navy.
A well constructed, clear argument for an alternative to the “rush” that seems to be advocated by both the City and the County. It seems all of our City and County representatives and employees want to cram this thing down the throats of taxpayers, without carefully considering it’s true costs and needs. Does anyone else see the irony of a City that laments the lack of housing for the homeless, while simultaneous insisting on a boondoggle project for a pool that is simply not a public necessity? Very few citizens will use a proposed pool, but special interest groups are desperately pushing for more taxation to provide what most of us consider to be an extravagance. We can’t fix potholes, but we can spend millions on a pool while homeless people live on the street?
I really appreciate your article. I haven’t been able to find much information regarding this county pool project. As well, the homeless are not only not recognized or given the housing that was declared an emergency how many years ago…? Jefferson County and the city of Port Townsend could care less about the homeless. I know that there are many other non-governmental agencies that care and try their best to help. I can only hope that we as a whole in Jefferson County can do better to help one another.
Great idea, will you be helping to find sources of private funding to support this effort then?
A lot of people do feel a sense of urgency in getting this project done. The longer it takes, the longer a lot of our kids don’t have access to swim lessons. A few years feels like a long time when you worry about your kids drowning.
The county commissioners are paid very well to do this job. If they want it, they should and can find the time and resources to get the funding.
Why don’t you go jump in a lake? I don’t mean that as an insult, but as a practical suggestion. I remember getting my Red Cross swimming instruction and certification in rivers and lakes back in the day. Our county has some nice lakes and beaches for swimming once the weather warms up. No need to wait for chlorinated pools to teach your kids to swim.
I haven’t been able to follow this as closely as I’d like, but has this been submitted to a vote of the people of Port Hadlock to see if they even want this pool or is it just going to be shoved down their throats?
Exactly. What’s the rush, also? Not everyone is going to use this place, yet everybody has to pay for it? There are other priorities, that are well-known.
About a new county pool and housing: the Port Townsend electeds and staff seem to have an agenda – they need lots of money to pay their manager and staff. It seems apparent that they are not listeners, as well, they are not forthcoming with requests for public information.
Now that their $40M city aquatic center idea has failed, Mayor Faber is focusing on his plan to take golf course lands for a housing project. Hundreds of people have stepped up to comment, testify, and sign petitions saying no to selling off golf land, but he persists and will spend $25,000 on a housing study on the site and push for a rezone again next year.
The logical place for low and moderate income multi unit housing is at the Mt. View tennis court land, already identified for housing on school document. It is located next to the Kearney St. apartments and surrounded by city-owned right of ways. The mayor refuses to look at this option. He told the community at the Feb 3 hearing that the school district would have to request a rezone. Its up to the school board to let the city know they are open to this idea.
Lobbying the school board to get this done would be a great idea. Young workforce, singles, temporary, handicapped, elderly, and homeless – the most urgently needed housing including for the 1/3 of high school graduates who do not leave the area. This is a realistic proposal and would be really good for the future of the Camas Prairie golf land and open space. Be aware this is not the only designated open space the mayor and staff are looking at for other uses.
As for more options on how to afford a county pool, that conversation would be well worth the community’s time. A swimming pool contributes to health and happiness, the well being of the community.
Excellent article and perspective! Exactly what I would expect from Mark.
Thanks, Mark, for writing this.
The history of trying to get an updated pool here is rife with good intentions, thousands of hours of volunteer work and lots of frustration.
I was asked to join the Y board in 2014 and quickly (my second meeting) charged with being president of the board. I joined because the focus was to make a new Y. JAC, the city, county, PT school district and hospital were all partners in this venture. Of course, a new aquatics center would benefit lots of entities. And, with the Y’s successful model around the world of building new facilities there was a great path forward. We talked about a potential tax but always came back to the Y model which looks to private donations to build new Y’s to take the burden off the working people.
So, for 3 and a half years I and others worked together to build up the Olympic Peninsula Y and work on relationships with private donors. In the end, egos got away from the mission and family issues pulled me away from the task. It fizzled. Again….
There is plenty of money, it is just the distribution which we need to hone in on. Another example of a private funding venture is the Maritime Center. $17.5 million raised over 15 years ago and arguably that venture impacts a much smaller niche than a new aquatics center.
I hope the commissioners realize part of affordable means no more tax increases. The reality is people cannot afford it. PERIOD.
Email the commissioners and let them know you’re against a new tax. They can look to the private sector and grants.
Please do not rush it. Eye on the prize and keep egos in check.
Email your county commissioners. I just sent them this article and some of my thoughts.
JeffBoCC@co.jefferson.wa.us.
Great dispatch! It’s always good to see common sense — too bad “The Leader” so seldom does it! Hats off to Mark and all the brilliant and hardworking PT Free Press staff!
Greetings Mark, Phil Andrus here, curious about the private/public option you favor. By private do you mean philanthropic donations or partnership with a very optimistic private business? If the latter is the case, where and how is profit to be made, given that public pools, as you write, are expensive to staff and maintain. An aquatic facility priced to be profitable would require admission fees beyond the means of those for whom you voice concern.
Phil, your primary question revolves around profitability, which, I do not believe that any newly built aquatic facility should be acting as a profit center. All generated revenues should be reinvested, reincorporated into the ongoing operations and maintenance of the new facility. If the aquatic facility’s revenues actually generate a “profit”, the fees for daily use and/ or membership fee rates could be reduced. Considerations, however, for maintaining a budget surplus, however, should be factored in for possible larger scale maintenance, equipment failure, and facility upgrades. Expansion of aquatic programs could utilize excess revenues as well. As I stated in the article, it is more likely that the aquatic facility will have to operate with budget deficits which will require on-going fundraising and philanthropic support.
It is my view that the JAC, acting as a 501(C)(3), nonprofit organization, would be the primary operator of any new aquatic facility. They would also take the lead in constructing the new facility and developing the property, again, with fundraising/ philanthropic monies. This will require expanding the JAC Board of Directors to include community members who have skill sets that would be centered around fundraising, design, construction, development, and project management. Our community is fortunate to have many individuals who have these skill sets and could accomplish these tasks.
Once the new facility is operational, the partnership arrangement between the JAC, Jefferson County, the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson Healthcare, East Jefferson Fire and Rescue, etc. could be formulated to create the operational framework for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the new facility. I would envision this collective to potentially become integrated into a sub-division of Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department (JCPRD) called the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department – Aquatic Center Division. Budget considerations and revenue re-allocations could be directed from each of these municipal partners to this new Aquatic Center Division of the JCPRD. There would be many intricate details to this concept that would have to be ironed out, but thinking outside the box on this issue, I believe, will be significantly better received by the community at large.
In utilizing a philanthropic (private/ non-taxpayer) funding methodology, the processes for this concept could begin immediately. It is my understanding that the JAC has currently raised in excess of $120k towards a new aquatic facility. Once the JAC board is expanded with the expertise needed, some of that money could be directed towards selecting and hiring a collaboration of local A&E professionals to establish architectural and artistic renderings as well as a scale model of the vision of the new aquatic facility on the Chimacum Creek Elementary School property. It is amazing how that effort can inspire community members with philanthropic abilities to support such ventures. Once you can see the possibilities, the project becomes real, and fundraising efforts will become significantly improved. This concept/ method was extremely successful for the Port Townsend Aero Museum facilities development.
Mr. Grant thinks our community not capable of supporting two pools. I would hope this wrong. Port Townsend people use Mountain View Pool as reopened. I understood part of the rejected pool was rural people travel too much. Quilcene and Brinnon have children that would travel less to use a Hadlock pool. Are these more rural people “new” users that would not cause less use of the Mountain View Pool? Why close the existing pool? Far better to have more total users by building for new people. I try hard to never travel to PT, but do shop and bank in Hadlock. How many “new” users would want and use a Hadlock pool? Of these rural people do any now use/ visit the PT pool? I too think sales tax is very bad. Property tax is less onerous. Is there a known Private / Philanthropic group here? Why does a pool cost so much? How is it that people build nice pools in their yards if they are so expensive? Mr. Grant’s idea makes good sense, and if there are just not enough people to support two pools, then I think we should just keep and be very thankful for the one.
I would love to see this posted in PT Community on FB.
Appreciate the thoughtful laying out of options. I was concerned however at the “given” that public works would cost at least 30% more and more likely about 50% more than private construction. Not having personal experience in this, I turned to Google, which confirmed the principle (it is more expensive) but seemed to show the magnitude to have been considerably exaggerated (times two). Asking “How much more does construction cost for publicly funded versus privately funded facilities?” I got the following reply (which admittedly refers to federal rather than state or locally funded projects, but I doubt that would make much difference):
“Federally funded construction projects typically cost 15% to 25% more than similar privately funded projects due to factors like sourcing requirements and internal government measures.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown of the reasons:
Sourcing Requirements:
Government projects often prioritize purchasing materials from domestic manufacturers, which can increase costs.
Internal Government Measures:
Public projects are subject to various regulations and procedures that can add to the overall expense.
Labor Costs:
Labor costs can be a significant portion of construction expenses, and public projects may have different labor standards or requirements that impact costs.
Overhead and Indirect Costs:
Public projects may have higher overhead and indirect costs due to the complexities of government procurement and project management.
Profit Margins:
While private construction companies aim for profit, public projects may have different profit margins or cost recovery mechanisms.”
= = = = = = = = = =
In sum, I appreciate breaking down the options, but caution that no person with a potential stake in this project — such as a private contractor — should be taken at face value when presenting on this issue.
Thanks for your comments, George. At face value, your research on the web is relatively accurate. However, the percentage of increase that you refer to does not factor in the unfortunate and typical cost overruns and change orders that tend to plague public works projects and overly inflate the total cost for completing the project. Also, exorbitant and excessive soft costs, i.e. A&E design, consulting services, permitting, and project management will frequently not get completely factored into generic cost percentage increases either when comparing public works versus private works projects. Therefore, I will stand by the percent increases as this article states.
Another hidden impact to the community that should be considered if the aquatic facility becomes a public works project/funded with taxpayers’ money, is that the likelihood of the project being built by a local workforce is almost definitely and practically eliminated, as the project must be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder by state law. It is my experience that local prime/general contractors can meet the responsive and responsible standard but are almost never the lowest bidder. The profile of the lowest bidder is typically a very large contractor with high performance bond capacity and whose primary source of work is public works contracting. In other words, the project will likely be built by an out-of-town contractor who will take a lot of the money with them and not spend as much here locally. They also tend to bring their preferred subcontractor base with them, with few opportunities for local subcontractors to take part in the project. An entity, like the JAC, that utilizes a privately funded/private works/philanthropic project method has the authority to choose a prime/general contractor based on any responsive and responsible factors and criteria they may choose, including a preference to local contractors and local subcontractors. That goes for choosing design firms as well.
For full disclosure, due to my civic involvement with this aquatic center issue beginning with my evaluation of the Healthier Together Mountain View Aquatic Center project, in order to maintain my integrity and avoid being construed as trying to focus the work toward me and my business in any way, I have already publicly recused myself from being involved with any new aquatic center development project for our community now and in the future. My involvement with this issue has never been about developing an opportunity for me, my business, and my family, but has always been about civic participation and providing public awareness only.
Mark,
Thank you for putting forth this well written and informative article.
Think that it would get “approval” to be printed in The Leader?
I think not…..
Mark reached out to us after submitting a shorter version of his opinion piece to the Leader and being told that he’d need to cut 2200 words down to 800 words. We were pleased to develop this nearly 3000-word article with him that you see here. And we’re grateful for readers like you, Bruce, who appreciate long-form articles that go into depth on the subjects they cover!
Has anyone considered the fact that Port Townsend’s ancient sewer system is falling apart from old age and needs to be entirely rebuilt and what the added cost of that mammoth project will cost besides this new pool facility? Looks like the people of Port Townsend and Jefferson County are about to take a massive hit on their savings.
I was very glad that the “Taj Mahal” approach to the pool failed, sending the effort over to the mature folk in the room, namely the County. Hadlock’s centrality is advantageous, and being out of the control of the PT City Council is a plus.
Port Townsend can demolish the old pool and use the location for housing rather than trashing the golf course/Camas Praire with high end view lots.
It is good to read this outside the box approach to financing and building, it is very refreshing.
On another matter, I deeply hope the YMCA has absolutely nothing to do with managing the new facility, when it comes. The disgraceful way they treated Julie Jaman is well known, and embarrassingly was reported nationally. But there was another incident at the Port Angeles Y where, reportedly, an active duty Coast Guard family was banned when the father objected to the pornographic, sexist and harassing activity of some teenagers:
“YMCA Accused of Expelling Family for Objecting to Child Porn and Sexual Misconduct Against Women and Girls”.
Olympic Peninsula YMCA CEO Wendy Bart approved of both Julie’s and Coast Guardsman, Tyler Abbott family’s bans. It seems the Y has a problem understanding the concept of women’s and girl’s comfort in a public facility.
Thank you, Mark, for once again stepping up and sharing your experience, writing skills and common sense on this topic. This is really helpful in clarifying where we currently stand with the pool.
I share your concern about how regressive sales tax is. Not having guarantees about the affordability of pool usage fees to those who are already paying taxes on it concerns me as well.