Reconsider All Options Before Falling Into Regressive Pool Tax
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.
