HomeMy WebLinkAboutWORKSHOP re Aquatic Survey Results JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR AGENDA REQUEST
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Heidi Eisenhour, Commissioner Dist. 2
DATE: July 14, 2025
SUBJECT: WORKSHOP re: Aquatic Survey Results
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Jefferson County partnered with the Jefferson County Aquatic Coalition(JAC)to push a
survey to as many residents as possible in Jefferson County in February and March of 2025.
The preliminary report was presented in April 2025. JAC President Diane McDade, and JAC
board members Katelyn Bosley, and Kathryn Meyers would like the opportunity to present the
Final Report with the Commissioners.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct the workshop, discuss and evaluate the results and ask questions.
77/0(94--
Jo -Peters, County Administrator Date
Pquatic c'
0
1`O
The Voice for Aquatics in Jefferson County
Jefferson County Aquatic Recreation Survey Report
July 10, 2025
Authors: Katelyn Bosley, Kathryn Meyer, Diane McDade, MJ Metzger
Executive Summary
The JeffCo Aquatic Coalition (JAC), in partnership with Jefferson County, conducted a survey of
Jefferson County residents in early 2025 to determine the public sentiment surrounding the
proposal to build a new pool in a mid-county location. The primary goals of the survey were to 1)
gauge public opinion on the importance of having access to a new aquatic center in Jefferson
County, 2) assess aquatic and non-aquatic amenities and programs residents are most likely to
use, and 3) understand early community support for a potential sales tax to fund a portion of the
construction of the new facility. The survey used a full coverage survey design with a self-select
sampling approach. This method was chosen to acquire as many responses as possible from
residents throughout the full geographic expanse of Jefferson County. Participation in the survey
was voluntary but extensive outreach was conducted to educate citizens on the goals and
purpose of the survey, to encourage participation and help ensure county-wide participation.
A comprehensive analysis of all survey responses was completed that included a thorough
review of all data received and assessment of data quality. The data analysis included
demographic comparisons to Jefferson County population census data to ensure survey
responses were representative of the age and geographic makeup of Jefferson County
residents. Results for each question were summarized individually and preferences for specific
aquatic and non-aquatic amenities were explored by age group category.
Aside from the wealth of quantitative data collected in the survey, there were 1,544 written
comments received, which reflected a broad range of views and opinions regarding the pool
project. A qualitative analysis of these written comments was done which categorized and
summarized the sentiments of the respondents into the general themes and topics.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 11
July 10, 2025
Key Survey Results
The Jefferson County Aquatic Recreation Survey gathered 2,951 responses, of which 2,634
were included in the final analysis after rigorous quality assurance procedures. These
responses represented 6,234 individuals across all age groups and geographic areas of
Jefferson County.
Key findings include:
• High Community Interest: 76% of respondents indicated that access to a new public
aquatic facility is important or somewhat important.
• Current Usage Patterns: Over half(51.8%) of households reported using an aquatic
facility within the past two years, while 45% indicated they never use current facilities.
• Latent Demand for a Mid-County Facility: 15% of respondents who currently do not
use aquatic facilities anticipate frequent use if a new facility were built in Port Hadlock
with preferred amenities.
• Strong Support for Health and Wellness Features: Top aquatic amenities ranked
"very likely to use" include hot tubs (44.1%), saunas (42.1%), lap swimming (35.5%), and
therapeutic pools (32.4%). Fitness classes (30%) and physical therapy services (23%)
were among the most popular non-aquatic features.
• Sales Tax Support: 58.3% of respondents (weighted) supported a proposed 0.2%
county-wide sales tax to partially fund construction of the new facility; 30.3% opposed,
and 11.4% were undecided or requested more information.
• Sentiment Analysis of Open Comments: Of 1,544 written comments, 40% expressed
strong support emphasizing community benefits, water safety, and health impacts; 35%
voiced concerns about taxation fairness, government efficiency, and spending priorities;
and 25% were neutral, offering constructive suggestions for alternative funding, location
considerations, and design features.
These results reflect broad community engagement and highlight both strong interest in
expanded aquatic and recreation opportunities and key areas of concern that should be
considered as planning advances.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 12
July 10, 2025
Introduction
Over the past few decades, numerous attempts have been made to construct a new aquatic
facility to replace the aging Mountain View Pool, located in Port Townsend. These previous
efforts were initiated by the non-profit Make Waves organization from 2007 - 2011. This work
was then carried forward through two YMCA-led initiatives from 2013 through 2018, both of
which failed to bring together a collective approach to pursue the construction of a new aquatic
facility. Through all these efforts, it was clear that the community generally supported the
concept of building a new pool but the location and funding mechanisms were barriers to
advancement of the project.
In 2022, the City of Port Townsend embarked on a renewed effort called 'Healthier Together'
that involved a revisioning of the Mountain View campus and pool. Several reports were
produced confirming the poor condition of the Mountain View Pool and providing
recommendations to rebuild a facility that met seismic and operational standards and better met
the needs of the community. A steering committee was formed to lead the renewed effort,
including Jefferson County, Jefferson Healthcare, Port Townsend School District, Port of Port
Townsend, Olympic Peninsula YMCA, JeffCo Aquatic Coalition (JAC), and City of Port
Townsend. From February 2023 through February 2024, the group met frequently and engaged
with the public and a hired consultant, OPSIS, to develop recommendations for a new aquatic
facility, sited at the current Mountain View location and partially funded by a Public Facilities
District (PFD), a municipal corporation authorized to develop, operate, and fund public facilities.
The Healthier Together Steering Committee proposal faced opposition from residents, especially
those outside of the Port Townsend city limits, due to the expected cost to build this new facility
and because the public funding to be levied by the PFD would be a request for an increase in
the county-wide sales tax. Jefferson county residents living outside Port Townsend expressed
concern about supporting a public facility that was difficult to access for many residents due to
the proposed location and that public outreach had not engaged them, especially regarding
county tax funding for the center. In response to these concerns, the Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners formed a citizen-led 'Healthier Together Task Force' to explore
alternative mid-county locations and more cost-effective construction methods.
The findings of the Healthier Together Task Force, identified that a larger portion of the county
population can readily have access to a pool located in mid-county and supported the
recommendation to form a PFD, which could generate a portion of the funds needed to
construct the new facility and operational costs. The Healthier Together Task Force was also
able to identify a candidate site in mid-county near the county library and Chimacum Creek
Primary School. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and JAC agreed to
enter a collaboration to conduct a county-wide survey to gauge public interest in a new
mid-county aquatic facility and to gather information about what programs and amenities
residents view as most important. A previous feasibility study was conducted by the YMCA in
2014 to determine viability and potential usage of a new aquatic facility in Jefferson county. The
county's demographic has changed since 2014 and given a new potential site and funding
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 13
July 10, 2025
structure for the proposed facility, the current survey was aimed at providing information that
could be used by the PFD to tailor design and construction to include elements most valued by
the community while also constraining costs.
JAC is an all-volunteer non-profit advocacy organization that supports aquatics programs and
local efforts to construct a new aquatic center in Jefferson County. JAC has served as a partner
and advisor on the Healthier Together Steering Committee and also participated in the Healthier
Together Task Force. Some members of the JAC board of directors have extensive professional
experience conducting surveys and agreed to use this expertise to complete the Jefferson
County Aquatic Recreation Survey in partnership with the County to acquire information needed
to guide the ongoing pool project.
The objectives of the Jefferson County Aquatic Recreation Survey were to, 1) gauge public
opinion on the importance of having access to a new aquatic center in Jefferson county, 2)
assess aquatic and non-aquatic amenities and programs residents are most likely to use, and
3) understand very early community support for a potential sales tax to fund a portion of the
construction of the new facility.
Methods
Survey Design
The JAC survey team defined the goal of the survey to receive as many responses from county
residents as possible and strive for those responses to be representative of the different
geographic regions of the county. In addition, the survey was aimed at assessing the potential
usage of a new aquatic facility located at the current proposed location, a property owned by the
Chimacum school district and adjacent to the Chimacum Creek Primary School and Jefferson
County Library in Port Hadlock. The approach used was a full coverage survey design, a broad
and inclusive approach where all residents of Jefferson County were invited to participate in the
survey. A full coverage survey design (e.g. attempted census) reduces sampling error and
ensures full representativeness because the entire population is included in the sampling frame
(Waksberg, 1968). The full-coverage approach is appropriate for applications with a small,
well-defined population such as Jefferson County, where the goal is to ensure comprehensive
geographic coverage and is routinely used for local planning. Participating in the survey was
voluntary (self-select), but a significant outreach campaign was undertaken to explain the goals
and purpose of the survey and encourage participation.
For the survey and for targeted outreach efforts, Jefferson County was broken down into 14
different areas, which were used to ensure responses represented the geographic extent of the
county. Population percentages were determined based on results from the 2020 census
(Figure 1, Table 1). A map of the geographic areas was not provided in the survey, so the
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 14
July 10, 2025
alignment in proportions between the areas defined in the survey and those from the census
data is approximate.
The survey was created for online access using the Zoho survey software platform. Participants
could reach the survey by navigating to the JAC website or scanning a QR code on a poster or
flyer, which were distributed throughout the county (Figure 2). Zoho is a flexible and
customizable online platform that allows users to create and distribute complex surveys, polls
and questionnaires. It also offers several options for ensuring security and privacy in survey
responses. To support data integrity and prevent automated or fraudulent responses, the survey
was configured with multiple layers of security. Specifically, the survey was set to limit one
submission per device using a combination of device identifiers such as operating system and
browser fingerprinting. This approach was intended to discourage duplicate entries from a single
user while still allowing for multiple responses from a shared IP address. This was important for
ensuring equitable access from public internet sources such as libraries or community centers.
In addition, the JAC survey team received early participant feedback emphasizing that individual
household members often held distinct opinions about aquatic facility needs and should each be
able to submit their own response. To accommodate this, the configuration focused on
device-based limitations rather than stricter IP-based filters. To further prevent spam or
automated entries, a CAPTCHA feature was enabled, requiring respondents to confirm their
identity as a human before submission. Both the CAPTCHA and device restrictions were
security features available through the survey tool and were applied consistently throughout the
response period.
Although no online survey system is entirely immune to circumvention, these steps reflect a
reasonable and widely used balance between accessibility and response validation, helping to
ensure that results reflect authentic community input.
Most of the questions were not required, which allowed participants to exit the survey at any
time. Partial responses were recorded through the point of exit. Responses were fully
anonymous (no personally identifiable information requested) and respondents had the option to
provide write-in comments at the end before submission. Clear instructions were provided
indicating that responses should be specific to the respondent's household and that only adults
over 18 should participate.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 15
July 10, 2025
��. Port Townsend
.. -- (within city)
10,149(30.8%)
Jefferson County
A uatic Recreation Surve Port Townsend
q Y Cape (outside city)
George 2.014(6.1%)
2020 Census Block Population
1.875(5.7%) Ma rrowstone
Estimates of Survey Areas 995
Kale Point (3%)
1.566
(4 7%)
Gardiner
468(1.4%) Port Hadlock
3.805
(11.5%)
Discovery Bay
964(2.9%)
Chimacam
1.837
(5.6%)
Port Ludlow
5.058(15.3%)
°micelle
1.688
(5.1%)
4
f
i •.s„, ,,r,, 4 $( Coyle
/ 9 4, ,
14.'' , ' ' k'• e
h
r .ks3`r," 4C
` ,
1.:iiii' ' — `, -. ',,A, ..
a�
„.. ,,a,, ,, .t 'ya. West End
1 r"-i
.1 ' is .
ii 4 '. k
v
N
Figure 1: Map of Jefferson County showing geographic areas used to compare responses to general
population distribution. Population distribution percentages are based on the 2020 census.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 16
July 10, 2025
Prior to launch, the survey was thoroughly tested by the JAC survey team and shared with
select community members to receive feedback on the content, functionality, user experience
and length. The survey was made public on February 1st, 2025 and remained open
continuously through 5 pm on March 31st.
Outreach and Accessibility
A large outreach campaign was conducted before and during the survey to help achieve as full
coverage as possible across Jefferson County. Over the 2-month survey period, a total of 87
different groups and organizations throughout the county were contacted to help spread the
information about the survey and encourage participation. In addition, JAC led a number of
survey-focused public meetings and published ads and articles in local news outlets. Outreach
efforts included but were not limited to the following:
• PT Leader news articles, guest columns, and letters to the editor
• Peninsula Daily News articles
• PT Leader advertisements
• KPTZ Radio Interviews
• Public Comments at BOCC
• Flyers throughout the county
• Informational "rack card" sent directly to PUD customers throughout Jefferson County
and Mason County
• "Rack Card" displays in local food and retail outlets
• Public meetings
• Newsletters of local non-profit and community organizations
• School district newsletters
• Homeowners Association (HOA) meetings and newsletters
• Community events
The Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners helped encourage broad participation by
approving spending to print and insert an informational rack card into utility bills sent to all
Jefferson County Public Utility District#1 customers and a portion of Mason County PUD
customers who live in south Jefferson County. A total of 12,806 households were reached with
the Jefferson County PUD mailer and 1,150 households with the Mason County PUD mailer.
To provide broad and inclusive access, the survey was provided both in English and Spanish. A
telephone line was also established specifically to assist residents who did not have access to
the internet or had a disability or visual impairment that limited them from being able to complete
the online survey. Anyone needing assistance was invited to contact us via telephone and a
JAC volunteer was able to read the questions over the phone and complete the survey online
on their behalf. A printed paper version of the survey was not available because of concerns
that people could make copies and submit multiple responses.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 17
July 10, 2025
One month after the survey was opened, responses by geographic area were reviewed and
compared to the 2020 census population proportions. This preliminary assessment was done to
determine how well the distribution of respondents tracked with the distribution of the
population. Areas that were over- or under-represented were identified and the outreach team
targeted additional efforts to areas that were underrepresented. Areas that required additional
outreach included Port Ludlow, Kala Point and Cape George.
Your Thoughts, What should a new Jefferson
County Aquatic Center include?
P l e a s e ! Jefferson County&partner Jeffco Aquatic
Coalition are surveying residents and
• visitors to learn more about features
and programs-aquatic&non-aquatic-
Jefferson County and partner JeffCo they would likely use in a new facility.
Aquatic Coalition(JAC)need your This is a chance for you to help guide
input to help shape the vision for a decisions and state your priorities-
new aquatic center in the heart of whether for a pool or other
our community.Your feedback is community benefits.
essential! Learn more:
Please complete our 5-minute survey jeffcoaquaticcoaliton.orgo�@ GL P �.c Ctl
} ;�� ]
Questions?
5,,...� "'° info@jeffcoaquaticcoalition.org
it '� - '� ,Scan the oRcode -at
.--�''� with the camera
•
on your smart :IOW-
phone or tablet y
Figure 2. Scanned image showing front and back of the 'rack card'that was distributed widely throughout
Jefferson County, including as an insert in the February 2025 PUD bill.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 18
July 10, 2025
Data Analysis
A total of 2951 submissions from Jefferson County residents were received from February 1st
through March 31st.
To ensure that the best quality data was used in the analysis, a series of quality control and
quality assurance (QA/QC) procedures were completed, which included the following steps:
1) Partial responses that were 'empty' (didn't contain any data beyond location and age)
were removed - 53 responses removed
2) Removed responses from IP addresses that had 5 or more submissions (See Appendix
A). This was to eliminate suspicious responses that may have been submitted in error,
as several of these submissions from the same IP were completed within minutes of
each other and had similar answers in the submissions. There was no way to rule out
that these were submitted maliciously, by a bot, or resulted from a technology error. To
address this uncertainty, we made the conservative assumption that four or fewer
responses from a single IP address could be reasonably expected for a two-family
household (Table 2).- 264 responses removed
3) Adjusted data types to be in the same consistent formats for analysis. For example,
changing 'i' entry to where it should be a numerical 1. - no responses removed
4) Re-coded 'Other Area' category responses to correct area designations based on written
descriptions. - no responses removed
After QA/QC procedures were completed, a total of 2634 responses were retained in the final
dataset for further analysis and summary.
Table 1: Responses by repeated IP address. Retained only responses from an IP with 4 or fewer
responses. 74% of the responses were from unique IP addresses and 91% had 4 or fewer repeated IP
addresses. See Appendix A for the distribution of responses that were not retained for the analysis due to
duplicate entries by IP.
Number of Repeat IP Number of Responses
1 2145
2 398
3 63
4 28
5+ 264
All responses were summarized and percentages generated using the raw survey responses.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 19
July 10, 2025
Question 13 asked respondents whether they would support a sales tax to fund a portion of the
pool construction. The survey results for this question were presented as both unweighted and
weighted totals to account for bias in geographic distribution of the responses relative to the
geographic distribution of age 19+ adults in Jefferson County (determined from the 2020
census).
Weight Calculation
Survey weights were computed using post-stratification based on age group and geographic
area. Each respondent was assigned a weight tt'r equal to the ratio of the population in their
age-geography stratum to the number of survey responses in that same stratum:
7\s
wi _
ns
Where:
• ir, = weight assigned to respondent i
• =ti's = total population in stratum (from census data)
• /z.s = number of survey respondents in stratum .>
Weighted Proportion
To adjust for differences in the geographic and age distribution of respondents relative to the
population, survey weights were applied. For each response category t , the weighted
proportion Pr. was calculated as:
_ >-Er W
13r 1
- ti-
�i=1 WI
Where:
• Pr = estimated proportion of responses in category r
• it), = weight assigned to respondent i
E «'1
• ?Er = total weight of all respondents in category r
E u;
• =i = total weight across all respondents
• ' = number of valid responses
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 110
July 10, 2025
All data analysis was conducted in the open-source statistical software program R (R Core
Team, 2024). All code and output are available on the JAC GitHub Repository
(https://github.com/JeffCoAquatic/JeffCo Aquatic Recreation Survey)
Survey Results
Geographic and Population Representation: Questions 2 -4
Question 2: In which city or area do you live?
Percent Distribution by Geographic Area
Survey Respondents vs. Census
40°i° 35.2%
30.8%
47,• 30°r0 Data Source
20°,0 Census
15.Eti
14. Survey
ea 10%
2%
` 4.1'b.7%5.7% 5.6%61% 4.7% 3%
<4) e o-tee Ri `c6 o`*ti �o�e e a.00 �`y\ �.`,�y\ ewe 4,,,
eP
Q ° `4 p.
Ct `r o� G•� C1
Q°` e e*a
Q°� Q°`
Figure 3. Percent of responses by geographic area relative to the 2020 census population proportion.
Census proportion includes all ages.
A total of 6,234 people were represented in all the responses received across all geographic
areas (Table 2). Overall, the geographic distribution of survey respondents (households
represented) matched the overall population distributions, indicating good county-wide
representation. Survey participants were not provided a map, so the geographic areas
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 111
July 10, 2025
submitted in the survey may not perfectly align with the census areas defined in the map
generated by Jefferson County staff. Areas that were most overrepresented in the survey
included Port Townsend (inside and outside the city limits), Marrowstone Island, Chimacum, and
Quilcene. The most underrepresented areas included Port Ludlow, Kala Point, Cape George,
and Discovery Bay.
Table 2: Jefferson County population (all ages and 19+adults) and individuals represented in survey
responses (households) by pre-defined geographic areas. Census data provided by Jefferson County,
WA.
Aquatic Survey
Jefferson County Population (2020 Census) Responses
All Ages Adults Age 19+ All Ages
Proportion of
Population Percent of Population Percent of Individuals
Aquatic Survey Individuals
(#of population (#of population Represented
Area Represented
residents) (%) residents) (%) by Survey
by Survey(%)
Brinnon 1,341 4.07 1,182 4.14 231 3.71
Cape George 1,875 5.69 1,671 5.85 101 1.62
Chimacum 1,837 5.57 1,536 5.38 418 6.71
Coyle 441 1.34 384 1.34 66 1.06
Discovery Bay 964 2.92 811 2.84 105 1.68
Gardiner 468 1.42 427 1.49 31 0.50
Kala Point 1,566 4.75 1,422 4.98 132 2.12
Marrowstone 995 3.02 879 3.08 272 4.36
Port Hadlock 3,805 11.54 3,041 10.65 627 10.06
Port Ludlow 5,058 15.34 4,618 16.17 527 8.45
Port Townsend
(outside city) 2,014 6.11 1,706 5.97 886 14.21
Port Townsend
(within city) 10,148 30.77 8,813 30.85 2445 39.22
Quilcene 1,689 5.12 1,406 4.92 386 6.19
West End* 776 2.35 667 2.34 7 0.11
Total 32,977 100 28,563 100 6,234 100
*The total number of residents for the West End area is inflated because it includes inmates from the
Olympic Corrections Center.The actual resident population is 458 as of 2024.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 112
July 10, 2025
Question 3: What is your age? (person submitting the response)
Percent Distribution by Age
Survey Respondents vs. Census
33%
03
28%
25%
22%
20%
0 0.2 19%
17% 17% Data Source
Census
13% Survey
6%
0.0
co b "'x
Figure 4. Percent of responses by age group (person submitting the response) relative to the 2020
census population proportion.
Table 3: Breakdown of Jefferson County population (all ages and 19+adults) by pre-defined geographic
areas. Census data provided by Jefferson County, WA.
Population (2020 Census) Survey Responses
Percent of Percent of
Age Group Population Total #of responses respondents
population (%)
(/0)
18-34* 3581 12.5 158 6.0
35-54 6333 22.2 668 25.4
55-64 5798 20.3 439 16.7
65-74 7960 27.9 870 33.1
75+ 4891 17.1 494 18.8
* Census data are available in age bins from 19-34
The age distribution of responses relative to the age distribution of the county (based on the
2020 census)was well matched, indicating good representation of the survey respondents. The
primary difference between the census and survey age group proportions was in the 18-34 age
group, which was underrepresented in the survey responses.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 1 13
July 10, 2025
Question 4: Please select the number of individuals in your household by age
group.
Age Distribution of Surveyed Individuals
1500 1434
1333
1000
>' 855
C 711 774
a
ai
u_ 500 470
352 332
0
1 N N ,b. yP C, A �,
aet 1 ^,5, ��, �� �y, ova
J' Ae/ a e� e e e� 1h'
P Po' P' PA PC' 7- Cr
P
Age Group
Figure 5.Total count of household members by age from survey responses.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 114
July 10, 2025
Percent Distribution by Age
Household Data from Survey vs Census
25% 24%
23%
21%
c 20% 19%
18%
47,
12%
0
15% 15% °
14/o Data Source
Q 11% 11% . Census
c 10% Survey
o
7% 8%
6% 5%
a 5°k 311/. 3%
0%
o
Jc '`ni '•c' n 0 `Oh
Figure 6. Distribution of all individuals represented by the survey relative to the 2020 census.
The combined total of people within households from survey responses showed that a large
proportion of people ages 35 and older were represented and, overall, the age distribution of
households represented in survey responses closely matches the age distribution of the county
from the 2020 census. Notably, the under-7 age category from the survey exceeded the census
proportion indicating that families of young children participated in the survey and were well
represented in the survey responses.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 115
July 10, 2025
Current Pool Use: Questions 5 - 9
Question 5: In your opinion, how important is it to have a new public aquatic
facility?
How Important is a New Aquatic Facility?
70
60 56%
0
N 50
c
O 40
0
G)
30
O 20% 22%
c 20
d
a• 10 3%
0
Very Important Somewhat Not Important No opinion/need
Important more information
Figure 7. Percentage of survey respondents indicating the importance of a new aquatic facility in
Jefferson County.
A total of 76 percent of respondents indicated that they believe that it is important or somewhat
important to have a new aquatic facility in Jefferson County, where only 22% of survey
respondents believed that an aquatic facility was not important.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 116
July 10, 2025
Question 6: Please provide the swimming abilities of the members in your
household by selecting a number for each age group and swim ability level.
Swimming Ability by Age Group
1.00-
0.75-
cc SwimmingAbility
0
'C . Advanced
a 0.50- . Intermediate
2ill Beginner
d Non.swimmer
0.25-
0.00-
J Qoi P�'e Pcb P4 Pe) Pe)e e�y
P4
Figure 8. Proportion of individuals within households represented in the survey that fall into each
swimming ability category.
As survey results showed that over 25% of children under the age of 7 are classified as
non-swimmers and a large proportion of youths ages 12 and under were classified as beginner
level swimmers. Over 75% of all adult age groups were classified as intermediate or advanced
swimmers. These results indicate that Jefferson County has a high proportion of residents who
consider themselves as proficient swimmers.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page i 17
July 10, 2025
Question 7: Have you or anyone in your family used an aquatic facility in the last two
years?
Pool Usage within the Past 2 Years
Pool Usage
II don't know(0.5%)
No(47.6%)
Yes(51.8%)
Figure 9. Proportion of households with someone who used an aquatic facility in the past 2 years.
Among the survey respondents, over half(51.8%) indicated that they or a member of their
family had used an aquatic facility in the past 2 years.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 118
July 10, 2025
Question 8: Which aquatic facilities did you or a member of your household use?
Aquatic Facility Usage
30.9%
c 30
O
C
d
2 20
O 16.8% 15.7%
as 13.3%
co
v10 7.2% 7.2% 5.9%
s-
d ;/0
0.2%
0 •
Qoo ec�e •
.� o°\ `ac. oo a`e e�° Q°o
c`es� Ja4`G co
\�OQQ c`aA\y O�recQ �\,eca �Jc. �cecc` �Jc%
e mo
oJc0 Q�'PQ Q•42' '4 G0 o`ec c�'occ
��O Sf
VP' a�
? S
`0 O
Figure 10.Aquatic facilities used by survey respondent households in the last 2 years.
If a survey respondent indicated that they had used an aquatic facility in the past two years, they
were given the opportunity to select which aquatic facilities they used. The options provided
included the public aquatic facilities in Jefferson and Clallam County as well as public and
private pools throughout the region. Survey respondents indicated use of many different
facilities with the Mountain View Pool being the most frequently selected (30.9%) and the
SHORE Aquatic Center in Port Angeles being the second most frequently selected (16.8%). It is
interesting to note, however, that of all the responses provided, the Mountain View Pool located
in Port Townsend represented only 30.9% of the overall and other facilities made up the
remaining 69.1%. These results indicate that Jefferson County swimmers are opting to swim at
locations other than the Mountain View Pool, which could be due, in part, to limited hours,
accessibility challenges, condition of the facility, or lack of desired programs.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 119
July 10, 2025
Question 9: How often do you or a member of your household use an aquatic facility?
Current Aquatic Facility Usage Rates
50 45%
40
0
C130 26%
a) 20
2 15% 14%
O.
10
0
More than once Several times a Less that once Never
a week month a month
Figure 11. Current aquatic facility usage rate by percentage of responses under each of the four usage
rate categories.
In addition to providing details about which aquatic facilities were used, survey responses
addressed frequency of use. A total of 45% respondents indicated that they never use an
aquatic facility and only 15% indicated that they use an aquatic facility more than once a week.
There was a significant proportion of respondents who indicated they use an aquatic facility less
frequently, with 26% selecting the less than once a month category.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 120
July 10, 2025
Amenities and Potential Use: Questions 10 - 13
Question 10: To help define the design for a new public aquatic and recreation
facility, please identify how likely you or members of your household would be to
participate in the following programs if they were offered?
Survey respondents were asked how likely they would be to use a variety of aquatic amenities if
available in a new facility. The first figure in this series summarizes preferences across all
respondents, showing the percentage who said they would be very likely to use each amenity.
Across the population, the most strongly preferred amenities (ranked "very likely" to use)were:
• Hot tub (44.1%)
• Sauna (42.1%)
• Open swim (35.8%)
• Lap swimming (35.5%)
• Public showers (35.1%)
• Therapeutic pool use (32.4%)
These results highlight a clear preference for flexible, health-oriented, and self-paced aquatic
experiences over more structured or age-specific programming. Notably, family-focused
offerings like youth swim lessons, parent-child swim, and splash parks were rated "very likely"
by a smaller proportion of respondents, likely because these amenities appeal to narrower
subsets of the population.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 121
July 10, 2025
Aquatic Amenities by Rank
100 1111
0 75
Ranking
50 Not likely
tiCij
Somewhat likely
Very likely
d 25
0
i J % . 4` .o a o a ` e a�
eJ o� aJ cod cc e- o �� cQ rQ e, y�°,�Gr co 4 5° ,c cod
aQ � c' c` � 6 g\` ,e; 0 aS ,��Q` e c� 4e ea e`' ca co
'<( OQ Q� Q`0"co��,`a5Q\Q JJ,`r QacQe'`��4' .>'6J\ �J�se,
\'
1/4
Figure 12. Percentage of all responses indicating the likelihood of use for a number of aquatic programs
and amenities. Ranked by the combined total of responses from the very likely and somewhat likely
categories.
Among respondents aged 18 to 34, the most popular aquatic features were those centered on
wellness and recreation. 72.5% of individuals in this age group said they would be very likely to
use a hot tub if available, followed closely by saunas at 69.8%, open swim at 56.7%, and lap
swimming at 34.0%. Interest in parent-child swim (37.8%) and party rentals (27.3%) also stood
out, suggesting both personal and social value in aquatic spaces. Structured instructional
programs like adult swim lessons (10.0%), lifeguard training (7.1%), and synchronized
swimming (2.1%) received much lower enthusiasm.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 122
July 10, 2025
Aquatic Amenities by Rank, Ages 18-34
100
Ranking
50 Not likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely
d 25
0
Jr 6 \c, a<,a rc a Pe `Ga. � ` oaocr � ` �. `� I> core ereyGn_iz, 4a°� � `"� 6 e�oo ,yc � 6e §a��
O9rkr6 5 ; d <,G� 9� J oea �G
Figure 13. Percentage of responses from the age 18-34 age group indicating the likelihood of use for a
number of aquatic programs and amenities. Ranked by the combined total of responses from the very
likely and somewhat likely categories.
Respondents aged 35 to 54 showed a broad and varied interest in aquatic amenities. 65.1%
reported being very likely to use a hot tub, 58.2% for open swim, 47.3% for youth swim lessons,
and 39.1% for lap swimming. Therapeutic use (33.5%), party rentals (32.5%), and safety
training (25.7%) also drew notable support. While enthusiasm was lower for competitive swim
(17.7%) and synchronized swimming (5.2%), the spread of preferences suggests this age group
values both family engagement and individual recreation, with an emphasis on versatile and
inclusive programming.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 123
July 10, 2025
Aquatic Amenities by Rank, Ages 35-54
100
�.. 75
Ranking
50 1111111111111111 Not likely
111 Somewhat likely
Very likely
a)
a 25
0
.e e� 5 aQ ec� ••��a`' 0o c�'cti� ey �N, �a ey `05
OQ .sr� aQ��Q�J'��,p Qa J�r� Pe"-Qace�ye,e)6>A
co
Figure 14. Percentage of responses from the age 35-54 age group indicating the likelihood of use for a
number of aquatic programs and amenities. Ranked by the combined total of responses from the very
likely and somewhat likely categories.
In the 55 to 64 age range, preferences shifted more heavily toward fitness and wellness
features. The highest percentages of very likely responses went to aerobics (29.6%), hot tubs
(37.6%), lap swimming (35.7%), therapeutic use (29.3%), and saunas (35.8%). Interest in
structured or child-oriented programs like youth lessons (5.8%), parent-child swim (4.3%), and
lifeguard training (4.1%) was notably low. This age group appears to prioritize health benefits,
with moderate enthusiasm for general recreational use.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 124
July 10, 2025
Aquatic Amenities by Rank, Ages 55-64
ioo
75
Ranking
50 11111111111111111 � Not likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely
d 25
0
•eJ` oo�°eaQ et c• J •< ) t oJ ac
`°o °� co ,s o$ ycqeyo�Q (seaoJ4eg� ` e` °c`G o.&oc;
4\ e, e, o �
•<( Q. cf, OQ OJ.acogJ y Qa ,c
J
Figure 15. Percentage of responses from the age 55-64 age group indicating the likelihood of use for a
number of aquatic programs and amenities. Ranked by the combined total of responses from the very
likely and somewhat likely categories.
Seniors aged 65 to 74 also favored wellness- and relaxation-focused amenities. The most
commonly selected very likely to use features were saunas (32.5%), aerobics (32.8%),
therapeutic use (32.3%), lap swimming (38.5%), and hot tubs (34.0%). These options likely
reflect a desire for physical activity and wellness-oriented options. Amenities aimed at families
or children such as splash parks (8.2%), parent-child swim (6.6%), and youth lessons (6.4%),
along with performance-based offerings like competitive swim (4.6%) and synchronized
swimming (1.6%), received minimal interest.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 125
July 10, 2025
Aquatic Amenities by Rank, Ages 65-74
aT
too
75
11111111111111111 Ranking
▪ Not likely
0 ▪ Somewhat likely
Very likely
d 25
0
�c e o, .° a d F of .`C iv- 5 .tea a` 5 5 F \c •F
eJ� per° �� • �� .IX` Q° ea Q a yo°Gr` e�� ••)e o° 't'• (a 34`
aQ d o .�F� `��g'c° o� o� 'ate y e c •eaA e5 4e' `ate
o r
�r6 P�5� JrS4' OQOJ�°��ie�Q�aJ�ti. a�eQ,�,��`ly J`r e�`�� J y ca
co G
Figure 16. Percentage of responses from the age 65-74 age group indicating the likelihood of use for a
number of aquatic programs and amenities. Ranked by the combined total of responses from the very
likely and somewhat likely categories.
Among adults aged 75 and older, the percentages of very likely responses were the lowest
across all age groups, but still revealed meaningful patterns. 31.7% were very likely to use
aerobics, followed by therapeutic use (32.5%), lap swimming (25.0%), hot tubs (27.0%), and
public showers (29.3%). Almost all other amenities saw limited support—for instance, only
1.4% expressed interest in competitive swim, 1.7% in sports leagues, and 3.4% in splash parks.
Preferences in this group indicate a desire for accessible features that promote health and
physical well-being, with minimal interest in structured programming.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 126
July 10, 2025
Aquatic Amenities by Rank, Ages 75+
100
0
Ranking
5075 Not likely
C 111111111111111
Somewhat likely
Very likely
d 25
0
o r a •c(\ e 0 �� a .�
eJ``or�G o�J J�g�` o e Qo Cca °c Q ac c` Grp °c �a,sca g44 44�cc
aQ Qec 5 c` �5r •� o° �� e5 �r �`� ec`�e5 yea act °4, •
�r OQ��� Q� O�`�a 5 aJ�` 5Q Q� Qac se c`y e� �\
Q \,a v Jo cock' b `� c°Q
G°
Figure 17. Percentage of responses from the age 75+ group indicating the likelihood of use for a number
of aquatic programs and amenities. Ranked by the combined total of responses from the very likely and
somewhat likely categories.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 127
July 10, 2025
Most Preferred Aquatic Amenities by Age Group
AdultLessons ---
Aerobics __- Very Likely to Use
CompetitiveSwim �
p 71-75%
HotTub 72% 65% 66-70%
LapSwimmingiii--= 61-65%
LifeguardTrain
— II56-60/°
Y OpenSwim
cDC OutdoorPool ■ 46-50%
E II 41-45%
ParentChild
Q PartyRental �— 36-40%
mIII 31-35%
= PublicShower — °
< SafetyTrain ---- II 26-30/o
Sauna 7096 _-- ■ 21-25%
SplashPark ■ 16-20%
1111
SportsLeagues 11-15%
SyncroSwim 6-10%
Therapeutic ■ 0-5%
YouthLessons --
���d ha ��? �1rx �k
a h
Age Group
Figure 18. Most preferred aquatic amenities by age group, represented by the percent of respondents
within each age category who stated they would be very likely to use an amenity if it were available.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page i 28
July 10, 2025
Question 11: If you had access to a new facility in Port Hadlock that could
accommodate the aquatic programs most important to you, how often would you
use the facility?
Aquatic Facility Usage
50
45%
40
32%
Cr,30 28% 26% Usage Category
ea
= 22% Current Usage
u 20 15% ° 18% Expected WI Aquatic Amenities
14/o
a
10
0
More than once Several times a Less that once Never
a week month a month
Figure 19. Comparison of responses from Question 9 (current aquatic facility usage rate)for responses
from Question 11 (potential facility usage rate).
Figure 20 (below) presents anticipated changes in aquatic facility usage, from current to
expected usage rates of a facility located in the Port Hadlock area that offered preferred aquatic
amenities. The left axis represents respondents current usage patterns, and the right axis
shows anticipated usage at a new facility that includes respondents' preferred amenities. The
flows between the two sides illustrate how respondents expect their usage frequency to change
under the proposed improvements. Notably, a large proportion of respondents who reported
never using a current facility anticipate frequent use if improvements are made. Conversely, a
small but significant group of current frequent users reported a decline in expected use,
primarily due to concerns about the new location or funding mechanisms.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 129
July 10, 2025
Expected Change in Aquatic Facility Usage
More than
once/week More than
• 2000
Several once/week
times/month
Q Less than
'I) once/month Several
times/month
o - — �
• 1000 — -
E
Less than
z + once/month
Z Never r
„° Never
0
Current Usage Expected Usage
Usage Rate More than . Several Less than Never
once/week times/month once/month
Figure 20. Expected change in aquatic facility usage at the current facility and a proposed new facility in
the Port Hadlock area with preferred amenities.
Usage Shifts: From Non-Users to Frequent Users
The most striking finding from the usage transition analysis is that over 15% of respondents (n =
400) who previously reported `Never' using an aquatic facility anticipated using a new facility in
the proposed location and with additional amenities frequently ("several times a month" or
more). This significant shift suggests strong latent demand—particularly among those who view
current facility options as inaccessible, inconvenient, or lacking in relevant amenities.
Respondents expecting to increase their usage were broadly distributed across the county, with
the highest numbers coming from Port Townsend (143), Port Hadlock-Irondale (54), and nearby
areas like Chimacum, Marrowstone, and Port Ludlow. Their comments emphasized how a more
central location, especially Hadlock, would reduce transportation barriers—particularly for those
without easy access to Port Townsend.
In addition to location, respondents expressed enthusiasm for modern and expanded amenities
such as warm water pools, lap lanes, saunas, and therapeutic options. Many envisioned a
multigenerational space with inclusive programming that would serve children, families, and
seniors alike. A shared desire for fitness classes, physical therapy access, and
wellness-focused programming was frequently mentioned as a motivation for more regular
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 30
July 10, 2025
attendance. Several also emphasized affordability, hoping for low-cost or sliding-scale rates to
enable widespread community participation. Even among those who had never used a pool
before, many described the proposed facility as a better fit for their evolving health goals and
sense of community wellbeing.
Conversely, a small number of respondents (n = 29; 1.1%) indicated a substantial decrease in
projected use, moving from frequent current use to rare or no use. Individuals from Port
Townsend (13) expressed concern that a new facility could replace the existing Mountain View
Pool, which they view as more accessible and familiar. Those from Port Ludlow (11) and other
locations (5) primarily indicated that they currently use a private or HOA pool and would not be
interested in a new facility elsewhere. Some also cited financial concerns over development and
a few criticized the planning process as unrepresentative. Comments suggested that
maintaining a sense of continuity, ensuring affordable access, and preserving familiar programs
will be essential for retaining current users while expanding reach.
Question 12: Please identify how likely you or members of your household would
be to participate in the following non-aquatic programs if they were offered.
Overall, responses to the question on likely use of various non-aquatic(recreational) amenities
revealed strong interest in fitness-related options, multipurpose community space, and
supportive wellness programs. Amenities such as fitness classes, event space, wellness
classes, and physical therapy services stood out for their broad appeal across multiple age
groups. In contrast, interest in programs geared toward children and teens (e.g., preschool,
childcare, teen fitness, playgroups) declined steadily with age and showed very limited support
among older adults.
Amenities with relatively high rates of"very likely to use" responses across all respondents
included:
• Fitness classes (30%)
• Event space (15%)
• Wellness classes (24%)
• Physical therapy (23%)
In contrast, amenities like childcare (6%), preschool (5%), and playgroups (7%) showed much
lower general interest, driven largely by the age profile of respondents.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 31
July 10, 2025
Recreation Amenities by Rank
100 •
0 75
Ranking
50 • Not likely
_ Somewhat likely
Very likely
d 25
0
y y ee c% e o>
a5 aQ >�' Ga � G� �.Fe�ae�a re FQ c� c �Q �► , o
5G r6 5c �gQ �G �\ �� mod' Ga Ge ��
ey y� ey ec oc, Q.c, Qua �- '� a�A G.p
�` Qr� ` " O4% �Oo ee �
Figure 21. Percentage of all responses indicating the likelihood of use for a number of non-aquatic
programs and amenities. Ranked by the combined total of responses from the very likely and somewhat
likely categories.
Younger adults were most enthusiastic about fitness and community-focused amenities. Over
half(53%) said they would be very likely to use a café, with strong support also for fitness
classes (50%), event space (30%), rock climbing (57%), and gym access (45%). Support was
more moderate for after-school camps (29% very likely) and teen programming (19%).
Childcare and preschool drew some interest (about 20% very likely each), reflecting the
preferences of parents within the age range.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 132
July 10, 2025
Recreation Amenities by Rank, Ages 18-34
loo
111111111111111
I 75
i
Ranking
50 . Not likely
. Somewhat likely
` Very likely
co
d 25
0
'o ke �y • yy e y ec �e a\� o� :L z,
G� Ga G\a OA G\2 Q'', e�Q oJQ e�aQ ¢c a°a \eo oro e�ti e�� \epa
v 5 1. \G A �r �> r� `e- e5 �G .se \cy-
gLoG �cey •\�`e� Leo roo Q�a� �� G \�Q Q� •kee JQ
� 44e' �'d'�a Qr O
P
Figure 22. Preferred non-aquatic programs and amenities for the age 18-34 group. Ranked by the
combined total of responses from the very likely categories.
The age 18-34 group showed the broadest and most balanced support for a wide array of
amenities. Nearly half(48%)would be very likely to use rock climbing, and substantial shares
also preferred fitness classes (44%), gym (39%), and event space (23%). Teen center(34%)
and teen fitness (26%) also stood out, reflecting the needs of parents within this age group.
About one-third of respondents supported after-school camps (34%) and café amenities (37%).
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 133
July 10, 2025
Recreation Amenities by Rank, Ages 35-54
goo ..„„„
.-. 75
0
� 11111111111111
Ranking
� 50 � Not likely
cIII Somewhat likely
v
Very likely
N
d 25
0
,p 5C, ,�e a , by .� e aQ 0 ' e c o'
�� \a G� Ga ,bo ecs Goa es, 9 62, 4 p 0 JQ 40 a� `•ce o
a* 5 \ cG yy ` c` �r \Ge A `ems r`ae `> eeGr
coo kee ce (4e , \cQ Q" . • G Qc
CP A\e Q O
Figure 23. Preferred non-aquatic programs and amenities for the age 35-54 group. Ranked by the
combined total of responses from the very likely categories.
Respondents ages 55-64 showed moderate interest in a range of wellness and fitness options.
The top preferences were fitness classes (27% "very likely"to use), wellness classes (22%),
and physical therapy services (22%). About one in four (23%) also expressed strong interest in
a café. Support for more active amenities like the gym (15%) and rock climbing (11%) was
notably lower, and interest in youth- or family-oriented offerings such as preschool, childcare,
and playgroups was minimal (2%-3%). This group's preferences suggest a shift away from
high-intensity or child-centered activities in favor of fitness and social options.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 134
July 10, 2025
Recreation Amenities by Rank, Ages 55-64
100
75
ic°
Ranking
50 Not likely
II Somewhat likely
Very likely
d 25
0
e 5 0 ��
��G 5 Q- ec F% N. Qe
`a6z> a \a .o '0 ` a ec`er o
• \ � GeG O<( 4' G � o4.> f \C'
o ' QQ• ° e o° a Qc
- � \\ e
QeO
°or
Figure 24. Preferred non-aquatic programs and amenities for the age 55-64 group. Ranked by the
combined total of responses from the very likely categories.
Among those ages 65-74, preferences leaned even more strongly toward wellness and fitness
offerings. The most popular amenities for this group were fitness classes (24% "very likely" to
use), wellness classes (21%), and physical therapy (22%). Interest in a café remained relatively
high (20%), offering a social complement to wellness activities. Enthusiasm for more higher
intensity or family-centered amenities dropped further, with fewer than 10% of respondents
saying they were very likely to use the gym (10%), rock climbing (4%), or any youth programs
such as teen center, childcare, or preschool (all around 1%-2%).
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 135
July 10, 2025
Recreation Amenities by Rank, Ages 65-74
100
F505
Ranking
: 0th1kely
111111111111111
Somewhat likely
Very likely
v
fl 25
0
, °J� ec� °rGo G`a62' c>2. G \V � ems \rc? c
r , \ Q4 kee r� e Q` ,Oo Oee Qt
` J w* r 14e�Figure 25. Preferred non-aquatic programs and amenities for the age 65-74 group. Ranked by the
combined total of responses from the very likely categories.
The oldest age group expressed the most selective preferences, with interest concentrated
almost entirely on wellness-focused offerings. About 21% of respondents ages 75 and older
were "very likely" to use wellness classes, and 22% indicated interest in physical therapy
services. Fitness classes (18%) and a café (20%) also garnered moderate support. All other
amenities received very low interest, especially those geared toward families or high physical
activity—fewer than 5% of respondents were "very likely"to use the gym, rock climbing wall, or
any youth-oriented programs such as preschool, after-school camps, or teen fitness.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 136
July 10, 2025
Recreation Amenities by Rank, Ages 75+
100
.► 75
i
Ranking
50 . Not likely
Somewhat likely
Very likely
a)
a 25
0
�a a # msmsre'
f
c e c; c; Gc_c \e 0 \e 4 c; f o do e
�r4yye� Q\ E 1e �G ,Se
oQ` O''' 0 11Qk�e�� e�ce �, \ � o e
Qr % o y P
Figure 26. Preferred non-aquatic programs and amenities for the age 75+ age group.. Ranked by the
combined total of responses from the very likely categories.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 137
July 10, 2025
Most Preferred Recreation Amenities by Age Group
AfterschoolCamps —_---
_--
Cafe 1���a
Childcare -- Very Likely to Use
EventSpace Ell 56-60%
FitnessClass 5 1—5 5%
Gym II 46-50%
a) InPickleball II 41-45%
E
Q Kitchen III 36-40%
OutPickleball II 31-35%
PhysTherapy ■ 21-25%
CC Playgroups ----- ■ 16-20%
Preschool ----- ■ 11-15%
RockClimb 57% 48°0 --_ ■ 6-10%
TeenCenter 111111.1—_— ■ 0-5%
TeenFit ---
WellnessClass ---
Age Group
Figure 27. Most preferred non-aquatic amenities by age group, represented by the percent of
respondents within each age category who stated they would be 'very likely' to use an amenity if it were
available.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 138
July 10, 2025
Question 13: If you had access to a new facility in Port Hadlock that could
accommodate the non-aquatic programs most important to you, how often would
you use the facility?
Respondents were also asked more broadly about their anticipated use of non-aquatic
amenities if included in a new facility. Figure 28 shows how frequently respondents expected to
use non-aquatic amenities, if their preferred features or programs were available. Notably, a
substantial portion of respondents expressed interest in non-aquatic use alone, reinforcing the
importance of including flexible and accessible recreation options beyond aquatic offerings.
This breakdown also provides a useful point of comparison with responses to Question 11,
which asked about current facility use. While many current users engage primarily with aquatic
amenities, future usage projections suggest significant interest in diversified facility types,
especially among adults less than 55.
Expected Usage Rates for Non-Aquatic Amenities
40
32.2%
30
23.7% 23.9%
rn 20.2%
c 20
U
t�
d
a
10
0
More than once Several times a Less that once Never
a week month a month
Figure 28. Frequency of use for a facility that has preferred non-aquatic amenities and programs.
Additional findings on non-aquatic amenities:
• There is consistent interest across age groups in fitness and wellness classes, indicating
that these may serve as core non-aquatic offerings with broad appeal.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 139
July 10, 2025
• Younger adults (18-34) favor active and social spaces such as gyms and event rooms,
while older adults (55+) prioritize wellness and therapeutic services.
• The 35-54 age group represents a key demographic for cross-generational facility use,
supporting both personal and family-centered amenities.
• Based on survey comment data, many respondents anticipated using non-aquatic
amenities exclusively, highlighting the benefit of balanced investment in both aquatic and
non-aquatic programming.
Support for Public Funding:
Question 14: Would you support a small, approximately 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?
Of the respondents that answered Question 14, 61.2% indicated that they would support the
small sales tax to support a portion of the pool construction based on the raw unweighted data,
whereas 27.7%would not support the tax. A number of respondents (11.1%) were undecided or
felt that they needed more information (Figure 29).
Because the geographic distribution of responses did not exactly match the geographic
distribution of the Jefferson County population, the total number of responses for each category
were adjusted or`weighted' to account for bias due to under-representation and
over-representation across the geographic areas. With these calculations, areas with the
proportion of responses higher than the census population proportion became less influential
and those with fewer responses were scaled up to match the census age 19+ proportion.
The weighted responses showed a 2.9% decrease in the percentage of respondents who would
support the sales tax (58.3%) and a 2.6% increase in the percentage of respondents who
indicated they would not support the sales tax (30.3%; Figure 30). There was also 0.2%
increase in the percentage of respondents who wanted more information about the proposal.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 140
July 10, 2025
Tax Support Distribution
Raw, un-weighted
Tax Support
Need more Info(11.1%)
No(27.7%)
Yes(61.2%)
Figure 29. Percentage of respondents indicating support for county-wide sales tax based on
raw-unweighted responses.
Tax Support Distribution
Weighted by Age and City/area
Tax Support
Need more info(11.3%)
No(30.3%)
Yes(58.3%)
Figure 30. Percentage of respondents indicating support for county-wide sales tax with responses
weighted by the 2020 census 19+ age population percentage by geographic area (shown in Table 2)
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 141
July 10, 2025
When looking at the raw, unweighted responses by geographic area, responses from Gardiner,
Marrowstone, Port Townsend (within city limits), Port Hadlock-Irondale and Chimacum had the
highest percentage indicating support for the tax. Responses from geographic areas in the
southern portion of Jefferson County tended to have a much lower proportion indicating support
for the tax. Overall, about 11% of responses across all areas were in the Need More Information
category (Figure 31).
Percentage of Tax Support by Area
Raw, Un-weighted
100
fhIIflIH,
I 75 Tax Support
t
50 II
Needmoio� No 25 Yes
a 0
a���y°ce`��y, a`e e by ak cue °��` �� � �`e c°o Ica
Gac cco� a�`�• •�°G Vic° •
G�,c1���a e �a� OJT 'a �°���c
�`a`�r�f` ° ae O•• � Gad Q � 1,
ob c'`,
c� �o
44*
4,0
Q° Q°cti
Figure 31.Tax support by geographic area as a percentage, raw unweighted data.
Differences in the weighted proportions by area were marginal, but the geographic areas with
the highest percentage of support (in descending order) were Gardiner, Port Hadlock-Irondale,
Port Townsend (within city limits), Marrowstone and Chimacum. In both the weighted and
unweighted data, responses from Port Ludlow, Quilcene, Coyle, Brinnon and West End had the
lowest proportion of responses indicating support for the tax. Over 50% of the responses from
all other geographic areas indicated support for the tax (Figure 32).
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 142
July 10, 2025
Percentage of Tax Support by Area
Weighted by Age and City/Area
N goo .
°
75
Tax Support
50 Need more info
v No
rn
25 Yes
a 0
a. ��°tea��- o��`°',� ��`� Gro ��a�eo so
p��e Go��``�c e���i
a`o�sF`r\�o` �acc (,r e c• GaQ O`y,o •f- <2 S�
Q eAt
°
Figure 32. Tax support by geographic area as a percentage, weighted by geographic distribution of age
19+ residents from the 2020 census.
Sentiment Analysis
As part of the survey, respondents were asked if they had any additional feedback or
suggestions for an ongoing pool project. The answer field was open text format that accepted
any responses the respondent wished to submit.
Question 15: Do you have additional comments about the current efforts to build
a new aquatic and recreation facility in East Jefferson County or suggestions for
how you would like to use this new facility?
A total of 1544 written comments were received with topics and opinions ranging widely. A
combination of Al tools and manual classification were used to identify and summarize the
common themes and sentiments from the survey responses. A full description of the methods
and results of the sentiment analysis are provided in Appendix B of this document.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 143
July 10, 2025
see �1Ve su sortKte"c ti m•'e Port Townsend °"wa"
bui t COS Epp.' u t localoor etc access way �uR
swim thing going g >
C ,mt�.r v highCl
adult learn a
�v year space x avai a. ePort Hadlock location
Thank hour p v
ID seem
ya.. . . .r 4,
S pp ,
seem excited V love o' 3 better area ax (v projeVct t E
idea,''' fe: .:nt '` °' A_ °rov3UB
o t
place.nay
WOf�� family a road L please
e,a, ha en . public Qom'!
great✓ one p E building QV gokeep
li.•e,. much �o school
money
able; build E
> o ' kno', swan....;•,,g •r•-1 hope
�..� - r.ss
"m 1-1� Water likely
a uatic center 1 good center-- • •
y nay raciht • d
r used � Crl 1
fundingc 0111m k n 1 ` ya e y t alp,.Cities
asses Had oc drive , ', g 31P� tax
Figure 32. Word cloud figure showing words appearing in survey comments based on their relative
frequency in the dataset.
Overall, 40% of the comments indicated strong support, excitement and optimism for the
Healthier Together project. Comments associated with positive sentiments centered around the
following general themes:
• Community Benefits- Enthusiasm about the pool and fitness facility providing a
much-needed recreational space.
• Children's Safety & Learning - Emphasis on the importance of children learning to swim,
especially in a water-surrounded community.
• Health & Well-being - Emphasis on the facility's role in promoting physical fitness and
mental well-being.
• Long-Term Value - Belief that investing in a community pool will be beneficial for future
generations.
Example Positive Comments:
"A pool would be a fantastic addition to the community. It's about time!"
"Great initiative! Kids need a safe place to learn to swim."
"This is exactly what our town needs for recreation and health!"
The analysis showed that 35% of the comments expressed a negative sentiment generally
emphasizing skepticism, financial concerns, or outright opposition. Primary recurring negative
themes included the following:
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 1 44
July 10, 2025
• Taxation Concerns- Many negative comments focused on opposition to sales tax
increases and concerns that the financial burden will disproportionately affect
lower-income residents.
• Funding Priorities -Argument that public money should be spent on infrastructure
repairs, such as roads, rather than a pool.
• Project Feasibility & Management Doubts- Skepticism was expressed and concern
about whether the project will be completed on time, within budget, or if it will be
managed properly.
Example Negative Comments:
"Why should I pay higher taxes for something I won't use?"
"Fix the potholes first before spending millions on a pool!"
"The government always over-promises and under-delivers on these types of projects.
Many responses did not fall in a positive or negative sentiment category but instead provided a
neutral sentiment, which tended to provide balanced perspectives, ask for more information, or
suggest alternatives. These type of neutral sentiments were associated with 25% of the
submitted comments and included the following general themes:
• Alternative Funding Ideas- Suggestions for private partnerships, user fees, or property
taxes instead of a general sales tax.
• Location Debate - Discussions of whether the facility should be built in Port Hadlock or
Port Townsend based on accessibility.
• Desire for More Information - Questions about construction timelines, cost estimates,
and how the project will be maintained.
Example Neutral Comments:
"I like the idea, but is there a way to fund it without a tax increase?"
"I'd support this if they could ensure affordable membership fees."
"A pool is great, but is Port Hadlock really the best location?"
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 145
July 10, 2025
Conclusions
The Jefferson County Aquatic Recreation Survey has provided a comprehensive and insightful
look into community needs, preferences, and priorities for a potential new aquatic facility. With
nearly 2,700 responses representing over 6,200 individuals, the survey demonstrated broad
engagement across all geographic regions and age groups in Jefferson County.
The findings highlight a strong interest in expanded aquatic opportunities. More than
three-quarters of respondents (76%) rated access to a new public aquatic facility as important or
somewhat important, underscoring a widespread recognition of the role such a space can play
in supporting community health, water safety, and quality of life. The survey also revealed
significant latent demand, with many current non-users indicating they would use a facility
located in Port Hadlock with some level of frequency if it included their preferred amenities.
Preferences for both aquatic and non-aquatic features were clear. Residents expressed high
interest in wellness-focused amenities such as hot tubs, saunas, therapeutic pools, and lap
swimming. Non-aquatic offerings like fitness classes, physical therapy, and multipurpose spaces
for community gatherings also garnered substantial support, especially among older adults and
families seeking holistic recreation options. These patterns suggest a demand for a facility that
serves multiple generations and offers diverse programming for a broad cross-section of the
community.
Support for public funding was encouraging, with nearly 60% of respondents favoring a modest
county-wide sales tax to partially fund construction of a new facility. However, written comments
revealed concerns about taxation equity, location accessibility, and long-term operational costs.
These considerations highlight the need for continued public engagement, transparent planning,
and exploration of diverse funding options to ensure broad community buy-in.
This survey has provided a rich dataset which can inform the design, programming, and funding
strategies of the proposed facility. As planning advances, the insights from this study should be
used to develop a facility that is inclusive, accessible, and reflective of the community's diverse
needs. Ongoing dialogue with residents will be essential to maintain trust and build momentum
toward a successful outcome.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page l 46
July 10, 2025
References
R Core Team. (2024). R:A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation
for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
Waksberg, J. (1968). The role of sampling in population censuses: Its effect on timeliness and
accuracy. Demography 5, 362-373 (1968).
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 147
July 10, 2025
Appendix A
Figure Al: Distribution of repeat IP addresses with 5 or more responses. These responses
were removed for the final summary and analysis.
Unique IP 1
Unique IP 2
Unique IP 3
Unique IP 4
Unique IP 5
u Unique IP 6a)
- Unique IP 7
Q Unique IP 9
a Unique IP 8
o Unique IP 14
ry Unique IP 13
Unique IP 12
o Unique IP 11
Unique IP 10
Unique IP 15
Unique IP 16
Unique IP 17
Unique IP 19 III
Unique IP 18 II
0 20 40 60 80
Number of Submissions
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 148
July 10, 2025
Appendix B
Qualitative Summary of Survey Comments from the JeffCo Aquatic
Coalition County-wide Aquatic Recreation Survey
Goal
Categorize and assess general themes among the written comments that were provided in the
aquatic recreation survey submissions. This qualitative analysis allowed additional important
feedback to be drawn from survey responses which could be beneficial for aquatic center
project planning teams.
Methods
Al Sentiment analysis
All comments were analyzed using the Yeschat.ai sentiment analysis classifier tool. This tool
uses Al models to classify content thematically based on sentiment. For the aquatic recreational
survey, responses were categorized as 'positive,' 'neutral,' or'negative' based on their content.
Manual Categorization
All comments submitted by survey respondents were reviewed by the research team to develop
main sentiment themes. Comments were then reviewed a second time and marked if the
sentiments fell within one or more the defined themes. Percentages were calculated to
determine the proportion of comments that fell in each of the primary themes. Examples are
provided that represent archetypal comments from each theme. A total of 52% of respondents
provided comments (1544). These percentages are meant only to be interpreted qualitatively to
gauge the general views and opinions of survey respondents about the proposed pool project.
Many of the comments were very long and detailed.
Results
Al Sentiment Analysis
1. Positive Sentiment(40%)
These comments reflect strong support for the project, highlighting excitement, optimism, and a
focus on community benefits.
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 149
July 10, 2025
Main Themes
• Community Benefits— Enthusiasm for a much-needed recreational space.
• Children's Safety & Learning — Emphasis on the importance of children learning to
swim, especially in a water-surrounded community.
• Health &Well-being— Recognition of the facility's role in promoting physical fitness and
mental health.
• Long-Term Value— Belief that investing in a community pool benefits future
generations.
Example Comments:
"A pool would be a fantastic addition to the community. It's about time!"
"Great initiative!Kids need a safe place to learn to swim."
"This is exactly what our town needs for recreation and health!"
2. Negative Sentiment (35%)
These comments express skepticism, financial concerns, and opposition to the project.
Main Themes
• Taxation Concerns —Opposition to sales tax increases and worries about
disproportionate impacts on lower-income residents.
• Funding Priorities— Preference for allocating public funds to infrastructure repairs (e.g.,
roads) rather than a pool.
• Project Feasibility & Management—Concerns about the project being delivered on
time, within budget, and managed effectively.
Example Comments:
"Why should I pay higher taxes for something I won't use?"
"Fix the potholes first before spending millions on a pool!"
"The government always over-promises and under-delivers on these types of projects."
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 150
July 10, 2025
3. Neutral Sentiment (25%)
These comments offer balanced perspectives, request additional information, or suggest
alternative approaches.
Main Themes
• Alternative Funding Ideas — Proposals for private partnerships, user fees, or property
taxes instead of a general sales tax.
• Location Debate— Discussion about whether Port Hadlock or Port Townsend offers
better accessibility.
• Desire for More Information — Requests for details on construction timelines, cost
estimates, and long-term maintenance plans.
Example Comments:
• "I like the idea, but is there a way to fund it without a tax increase?"
• "I'd support this if they could ensure affordable membership fees."
• "A pool is great, but is Port Hadlock really the best location?"
Overall Insights
• Supporters emphasize community benefits, safety, health, and long-term value.
• Critics focus on financial implications, alternative priorities, and project feasibility.
• Neutral commenters seek more details and propose alternative funding strategies.
Manual Categorization
Example comments from each theme category are provided below.
New Aquatic Recreation Facility
Supportive (56.5%)
"I think it is imperative to build a new pool with fun amenities for kids that will prevent parents
from continuing to take their children out of county to more exciting pools like Port Angeles or
Bainbridge Island. This pool absolutely needs to compete with those fun pools to keep our
business in this county. Spend money to make money. Include a lazy river and whirlpool. Put in
slides, water play features, and make the pool zero entry for those with disabilities or emerging
skills. Thanks for all your hard work!"
"Please build a new pool! This is an important community resource. Pools help with play and
confidence for youth and provide connection and fitness for adults. As a swimmer, and a
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 151
July 10, 2025
previous lifeguard, I see the positive impact pools can have for people who use them. Make it
available, accessible and welcoming space for all. Please make a pool that is low cost for
people to use, supports vulnerable community needs like showering, and is welcoming to Igbtq
folks, and create a space that support people with disabilities- both young and old."
"I think it's great, keep going and make this happen yesterday- ha! Growth of a community is
essential and we need more places to connect with each other. This can galvanize our county,
bringing people together. We need to invest in the future and give kids of all ages a safe place to
play and learn."
"Free swim lessons for kids. Important to learn how in this area with so many beaches, so much
kayaking, boating, etc. Make available to schools who can bus kids in for classes. This is why I
am willing to be taxed for it- not for all the fluffy stuff being considered part of it."
"I am excited to be able to swim again!"
Unsupportive (25.8%1
"We are already being taxed out of our homes. This is an unnecessary expenditure that will
further burden our aging population."
"I already have access to a community pool in Port Ludlow."
"I think this proposed facility has value for our county, but do not support its funding through a
regressive sales tax. This should be funded through private donations."
"The new Black Point pools coming to Brinnon radically alter the situation. Moving too quickly for
a mid-county pool could result in both ventures failing. It would be wise to pause this planning to
first see what the Brinnon pools actually provide and how they are utilized."
'All building, operating and maintenance costs should be paid by the actual users. Non users
should not have to pay anything . I am tired of being forced to pay for someone else".
Undecided (5.6%)
"I'm very concerned about long-term operational costs if we expand the scope of the project
beyond aquatics. We need a funding solution that doesn't burden west county for an amenity
they will never use."
'Explain more why the current swimming pool in Port Townsend is not adequate'
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 152
July 10, 2025
"How frequently will the bus from PT go to the new location? Will the new location be part of a Y
membership? Would be nice for bus circuit to run every hour from PT"
"My concern is that there is not information, at least not easily accessible to the public that
shows any thorough planning on the longevity of maintaining a new pool. I feel that applying
more financial burden in a county that already has a relatively high sales tax will only make life
harder for lower income residents. While I can understand the community benefit of a pool
space I do not believe this these will outweigh the negative impact on our local economy. If the
pool space generates income to the county, I do not believe it will flow back toward the lower
income residents who will be sacrificing more intrinsically for the space. What is the point in
adding a resource if it will put the highest burden on those who lack resources? It seems to
cater to the wealthy, rather than the community. Ultimately, my decision to vote NO against the
pool tax is a lack of information that will allow me to trust that the pool space will be properly
maintained, managed, utilized or any assurance that in any unforeseen case of closure that the
new space will continue to be utilized. I see very little forethought represented aside from how
much it will cost, it seems like a silly idea to me without information that shows a plan beyond
building. More information about how the space will be managed and taken care of needs to be
provided to the public."
"Just concerned about the cost. Our community needs s000 much and I don't know if an aquatic
center is where the finances should go first. It's a dilemma for certain"
Port Hadlock Location
Pro (9.4%)
"Great location choice that makes facility accessible to ALL of Jefferson County. Jefferson
Transit has said they will adjust their routes to meet the needs of the community. Our schools
need a regulation sized pool for the swim teams."
"I'm very happy that you're considering a location in the Port hadlock area. I've been saying for
10 years or more that a location more central to East Jefferson County was more fair and
accessible to all. Good job! I live in Port Townsend and have enjoyed having a pool in Port
Townsend and would love to have one again but if this is going to be a county pool he in a place
that everybody in East Jefferson County can use it."
"Thanks for considering a more central location. Those of us in South County appreciate it!"
Con (7.0%)
"The facility would be a nice addition, but being so far from Port Townsend my family would
likely not use it ...just too far to drive/bike (we try not to drive)."
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 153
July 10, 2025
"Not worth the time to drive to Hadlock. Current pool is walkable distance for most of Port
Townsend. Proposed pool is not realistically reachable by walking or bicycle. Forcing everyone
to drive is a time burden that essentially eliminates it as an option."
"Move the location to Port Townsend where 10,000 people live so you reduce transportation
needs , mileage, and transit costs."
"My husband and I do not want a new pool in the county, regardless of where it will be. We do
not want to pay for this, we do not want more traffic or congestion in Hadlock/Chimacum, and
we feel strongly that we should not be required to pay for this facility."
Facility Design/Amenities
Aquatics (28.0%)
"Affordable access to swimming lessons offered at reasonable times for working parents are
very important to the safety of the kids in our community. I hope the pool will be affordable or
free to give access to everyone."
"We would use a Salt Water pool often, we will not use it much if it is chlorine."
"Yes! 1. Sliding scale or supportive programs for lower income families would be HUGE. Part of
the reason we don't frequent the PT pool is distance from home and the cost. Shore aquatic
center has an absolutely BRILLIANT setup with an indoor splash zone and lazy river. My kids
are so in love with it. If a closer, similar venue with similar cost could happen, I would definitely
bring them to swim more. Swim lessons too, please!!! I'm begging as a mama with two little folks
who haven't had the opportunity for a swimming lesson. They swim in life jackets currently. I'm
so looking forward to having a community center offering fitness and aquatic exercise, sports,
leisure and recreation. Birthday swim parties like @ Shore in PA would be so super cool, and
my family would be absolutely into that."
"We are a multi generational local family of 6 who uses MVP 3 times a week each. As boaters
water safety is critical for this community and we use this pool to teach all our kids and their
friends. We all use therapy pools for arthritis"
Non-Aquatics (10.6%)
"I see way too many unhealthy, unfit adults and seniors in this community. There is a definite
need for a community center that focuses on health and fitness, movement and socialization.
The water/pool component is off-putting and unnecessary. I would support a community center,
not a pool."
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 154
July 10, 2025
"It would be great if this facility offered what the Y and the Rec center aren't equipped to offer
here but do offer in many other communities -fitness/yoga/exercise classes, affordable weight
room/gym access, community event space, aquatic classes, swim team and open/lap swim
times, dance classes, rock climbing, childcare, locker rooms, hot tub/sauna, and job
opportunities."
"A gym would be the most important thing to me. The gyms in jeffco are severely outdated. If the
facility could be comparable to the silverdale ymca I would be there every day. A full gym with
up to date state of the art equipment , indoor track, indoor climbing, indoor pool, steam sauna,
dry sauna, hot tub, ice baths. Both me and my mom would be there every afternoon if these
things were available. If it's just a pool my mom might come once a week and I'd come once
every month or two. Please build a gym!"
"This is a cornerstone facility for our county. It would be important to our family to offer hours
that are friendly to a working family and not just retirees. As for myself, I would fully train there
several days a week if bouldering/gym facilities were offered as well."
Youth Friendly (17.2%)
"This is so exciting. Very much in favor. I'm a mom with many kids and this would change
everything."
"My household makes the drive to Port Angeles' Shore Aquatic Center 2x a month from Port
Townsend. That is a well-run facility and it is worth the drive. It would be incredible if East
Jefferson County had something comparable to Shore. We would absolutely be coming weekly
if not more than that. Would also like to add that family changing rooms would be a great
addition, as well as a lazy river pool feature, which is fun for all. Thanks for considering."
"Partnering with the schools, they bus the kids to the new aquatic facility after school. They have
time to eat a snack, do homework, have individual time to decompress, then begin swim
practice. Parents or bus system can take them home at 6pm. Perfect daycare/after school child
care while learning how to be on a swim team, which makes natural born leaders. Something
our county desperately needs."
"Although my kids are ready to leave for college, I think about what we would have loved when
we were a young family. A large, state-of-the-art pool facility would have been a dream come
true in Jefferson County and we would have used it all the time. I hope that we can bring this
valuable resource to the families of Jefferson County, and not shortchange them in favor of
louder, older voices."
"This would make a positively huge impact on families. We need a community pool/activity
center, especially for the children and parents in this community. We would use this facility for
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 155
July 10, 2025
swim lessons, play, swimming sports, birthday parties, scuba certification. And, if available, rock
climbing and yoga. My kids would be thrilled. As their mom, I would be thrilled! We would be
healthier and much happier, especially during the long and dreadful winter months. I wish so
much that we can make this happen for our community."
Senior Health (5.7%)
"My wife and I take care of our 2-year-old granddaughter a few days a week. We would
definitely bring her there for swimming lessons, rec.play, play groups, whatever is offered. My
wife would swim and attend water aerobics classes, and we both would use a fitness room
several times a week."
"I feel a new pool is needed in this area. I am 86 yrs old and my Doctor maintains that I am so
much healthier now than I was before I started doing water aerobics some 7 years ago."
"I have been using the pool for almost 28 years since I retired to Port Townsend. I am 88 years
old and proud to say that I am the oldest one in our aerobics class. That is what keeps me
going."
"It is imperative that a maritime community like ours provides a resource like this for education,
wellness and enrichment for all ages in our community. We strongly support the need for a new
facility -thank you for your efforts. I hope that a new aquatic facility would partner with area
schools to ensure that every child learns to swim at an early age, has opportunities to
participate in water sports in middle and high school, and ensures that swimming and water
sports are an accessible part of East Jefferson County residents throughout their lives. Similarly,
I hope that such a facility would partner with Jefferson Healthcare and area health and social
service agencies to ensure that adults and elders have access to activities that promote health,
wellness and community interactions, including co-generation programs bringing youth and
elders together."
"Although I am 75-years old and no young children, I would welcome an exercise pool program,
physical therapy, and gym that offers exercise for older residents. I am beyond thrilled the new
pool will be centrally located as I have no interest in driving 30-minutes one way to Pt
Townsend. The proposed pool will be highly utilized by more Jefferson country residents who
would finally have access to healthy recreation. Thank you for choosing Pt Hadlock location."
Accessibility and Affordability (8.1 %)
"Jefferson County does a poor job of making facilities accessible to disabled residents. It is
imperative that the facility be barrier-free."
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 156
July 10, 2025
"I am unable to use the current pool due to mobility limitations and the mold in the facility that
kicks up asthma. Would LOVE to have access to an indoor pool to stay fit."
"Valuable but expensive stay focused on priority swimming then build out other desirables as
funding allows over time. If membership fee too expensive will not be able to participate as on
fixed income. Consider option style memberships, senior and low income rates for optimal levy
acceptance"
"There were no questions about disability friendly innovations or programs. I would like to see
this in the options. Hot tubs yes, how about cold plunge or cold room facility? I would like to see
this as a walkable facility to get too. Less cars. Please plan all of this with a walkable
neighborhood vibe for those of us who already live in the area. I know there will be cars, but if
you make it walkable to those who live here, then there will be less cars. Bike lanes too. The
taxes. Times are hard. Get creative with those less fortunate on fixed incomes or disabled home
owners. They are the ones who are going to hurt or be pushed out of their homes to fund stuff
like this. They live in Hadlock because it is more affordable. What will you do for them to stay
here while we improve our county offerings.? The taxes need to be less painful for those people
who have been here a long time and are just trying to survive. How do they get to have access
to an amazing space, but still afford to eat or pay for their house? Some can afford these taxes.
Some cannot."
"I'm very concerned about long-term operational costs if we expand the scope of the project
beyond aquatics. We need a funding solution that doesn't burden west county for an amenity
they will never use."
"Please build a new pool! This is an important community resource. Pools help with play and
confidence for youth and provide connection and fitness for adults. As a swimmer, and a
previous lifeguard, I see the positive impact pools can have for people who use them. Make it
available, accessible and welcoming space for all. Please make a pool that is low cost for
people to use, supports vulnerable community needs like showering, and is welcoming to Igbtq
folks, and create a space that support people with disabilities- both young and old."
Changing Rooms (2.0 %)
"Locker and shower areas for women only. Men or transwomen should have these facilities
separate from women. Women need privacy and safety. Thank you all for sticking with this
process. It is so important that the county have a community pool. Please do not force any
identity ideology on patrons. Everyone should have access to the community pool. A separate
public bathhouse with shower facilities would be very civilized."
"I would like to see public showers available for walkins with a reasonable price (Less than $10),
- no membership required -for those living in 'compromised' situations who just need to get
clean. Being able to get clean is healthy for mind, body and necessary for holding down a job."
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 157
July 10, 2025
Transportation (2.4 %)
"Public transport links could be extended, especially in the early evening. There is a 3 hour gap
before the last#6 bus scheduled to return to Port Townsend."
"Operate twice-daily shuttles between the Aquatic Center and locations of large user groups,
e.g., Port Townsend, maybe Port Ludlow; or help self-organizing shuttle groups from locations
like Cape George, Quilcene,etc., the goal being to minimize new traffic generation and to assist
non-driver groupings such as older seniors, students, etc."
"How frequently will the bus from PT go to the new location? Will the new location be part of a Y
membership? Would be nice for bus circuit to run every hour from PT"
".... the location must be accessible for all users. That means open evenings and weekends.
Prior to moving to PT we were avid swimmers both recreationally and competitively. Due to the
lack of hours available for a working fault we have used the pool twice in two years. Very
disappointing the level of service. There should also be a shuttle from PT to the new location so
teens and other non drivers without transport can use the facility"
Construction/Environmental (1.10 %)
"Please incorporate a UX team in the process and know what that means. Please make sure
that the designers/architects involved have families that swim and understand that families who
live here are all working class for the most part and will likely be underrepresented in the
feedback process, though we exist in large numbers and want to see a pool designed for
families and kids."
"Hope you find the right balance between function, beauty, and efficiency. Green and
sustainable. Serving young, prime adult, and older community members would be great.
Healthy environmental impact with minimal [no?] use of toxic substances. Renewable energy,
too. Would love outdoor fitness stations on the pool/center grounds and a running path around
it. Asking a lot, but that's the dream.Thanks."
"Building a Sprung type structure is less costly. Landscaping can soften the appearance. Adult
Daycare might be nice considering the age of community members."
YMCA (4.1(Y0)
"I would highly object to building a pool with public funds then having it run by the YMCA. I
believe that would be a misuse of public funds for a private organizations gain. The Y took over
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 158
July 10, 2025
the Sequim Aquatic center and raised the rates, which are significantly higher than at the Port
Angeles pool. If the pool is built with public funds, it should be run by the county."
"Once again, the south and east end of the county is being neglected. We contribute the most
property tax money to the county and get nothing in return. This aquatic center should be
privately funded like, getting the YMCA to build and run it."
"If you built something like the Haselwood Yin Silverdale, with weightlifting, bicycling and weight
training equipment, then a pool makes sense. A pool by itself has little to no value and serves
just a tiny sliver of the community's needs. Why not collaborate with the Y in order to build
something? We all know the Y in Port Townsend should be demolished."
"Please get it done. I'm so tired of driving to Sequim to access a decent facility. Also there is
very little to offer for children to do when visiting this area during inclement weather, which
makes for a long winter when grandkids come. I very much encourage a new facility to be a
YMCA facility. One can be a member and access any YMCA facilities."
"Do not go small. The demand will grow exponentially over time. We use Shore pool in Port
Angeles which is a fabulous lap/swimmers/activities pool and it can get easily overcrowded.
The pool becomes such a center of community for those who live in Port Angeles, west end,
and Sequim. Such a healthy outlet for the young folks as well. The pool operates in the black $$
and they are able to keep it affordable. Conversely, the YMCA in Sequim is expensive and
caters more to older folks who are not lap swimmers. Lots of water aerobics and group activities
that take over the lap lanes limiting lap swim. So important to have a separate activities pool/
area so that the lap lanes are available all day. The pool and sauna are such important therapy
spots for veterans who suffer from an assortment of mental health and physical health issues. I
am one of those veterans and fully understand the benefits. Make sure the sauna is large
enough. The Shore pool sauna is shoulder to shoulder in the evenings when folks are off of
work. The sauna gets busy in the mornings as well after early morning lap swim and the
aerobics sessions are finished.Spend some time and talk with Steve, the board president, or
Mike, the daily pool maintenance guy about what improvements they would make. Think big and
think of the future growth of our community and its future needs. The people will definitely come
to use the facility especially once they experience its benefits and view it as one of the centers
of community. Thanks."
Jefferson County Aquatic Survey Report Page 159
July 10, 2025