HomeMy WebLinkAboutHTTF Draft Report 073124The Healthier Together Task Force (HTTF) was asked to consider the feasibility of a new aquatic facility in Port Hadlock, to research alternative design or construction practices, the
viability of a Public Facilities District (PFD) as a funding mechanism and the possibility of
adding other Jefferson County Public Facilities to a potential PFD’s workplan. We were also asked to evaluate the opportunities for repair, renovation or rebuilding an Aquatic Facility at the existing Mountain View Pool Location.
In looking at successful efforts in South Whidbey Island, Port Angeles, Boise, and Sequim, the
HTTF concludes that without a community consensus on a general location, any effort to build a
new aquatic facility will fail. Jefferson County, Port Townsend, the Healthier Together Steering Committee and the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition (JAC) need to agree collectively to either pursue a pool in the Port Hadlock area, or in Port Townsend and recognize that either choice has a different appropriate administrative and funding mechanism. Also, significantly more outreach to
the community to program the pool needs to happen prior to final design or talk of actual cost.
Cost recovery is always a challenge for aquatic facilities. Thorough consideration of programming as a path to maximum cost recovery needs to happen as a primary driver of design and capital costs.
In regards to Port Townsend, the Task Force only analyzed the existing Mountain View Pool site
(MVP). We have concerns about additional costs the site might incur with stormwater and utility
management and before final site selection happens, we highly recommend professional studies to evaluate the unknowns at the MVP site. There is a large group of supporters who remain convinced that Port Townsend would be the ideal location for a pool. If Port Townsend is chosen, the HTTF believes it needs to be acknowledged that it is a Port Townsend facility and
funded appropriately with a coordinated effort to establish a Metropolitan Parks District (MPD).
The HTTF looked at multiple sites in Port Hadlock. Our preferred option was the county owned parcel across from HJ Carroll Park in Chimacum Park. It has significant issues in that it would need to be on a Large Onsite Septic System (LOSS) which adds significant cost and time to the project, as the South Whidbey Island Parks and Recreation District has experienced. There are
several viable sites within the Port Hadlock Phase 1 Sewer area that should also be considered if
a mid-county option is chosen. Regarding funding, a Public Facilities District (PFD) is a viable administrative and funding option for a Port Hadlock site with more county residents within a 12, 20 or 30 minute drive time to the facility than a comparable Port Townsend site. We did not spend time considering whether other Jefferson County facilities might be added to a PFD. It is
likely that similarly, an aquatic facility would take all the capacity of a PFD.
The HTTF was asked to evaluate alternative construction methods like the Sprung brand buildings, and Myrtha steel pools. We investigated Sprung and visited the Central Idaho Aquatic Center that has two Myrtha Pools in a Sprung building. Regarding Sprung, our conclusions were: ______________________________________. Regarding Myrtha Pools, our conclusions were
_______________________________________. Ultimately it is premature to make a recommendation on a particular construction option.
In either general area with either a PFD (in mid-county) or an MPD (in Port Townsend), the administrative, policy and fiduciary board and staff should include public outreach as one of
their central foci along with programming, financing,and _____________
• Pools can be designed to cost. Currently, tradi�onal aqua�c structures are $1k per square foot.
Increases in square footage to accommodate other non-aqua�c uses associated with increased
construc�on and long-term opera�onal costs. Construc�on costs can be reduced through
alterna�ve construc�on structures (Sprung) and speed of construc�on (Sprung & Myrtha). Need
to include long term lifecycle (maintenance & guarantees) when evalua�ng ini�al costs. Speed
and cost can also be reduced via the Design-Build approach to construc�on vs Design-Bid-Build
approach. Need valida�on that this approach is feasible with public funding.
Other ideas:
• Pool programming precedes design & should dictate size and number of tanks. . .and cost
structure. Programming should be designed to have users in the facility all day long and into
early evening hours. Enough space and pool for all users at convenient �mes of day for them.
Community input to programming comes first. Need to do this!
• Pools can recover opera�onal costs and generate revenue in a variety of ways: proven revenue
sources across all pools we studied: swim lessons, facility rentals, water aerobic classes, swim
meets, merchandise, snack bar/smoothie/coffee bar. Cite Snohomish example. In addi�on, non-
aqua�c related revenue can be brought in via child watch, day-care, community mee�ng rooms,
outdoor space events, or other recrea�onal ameni�es.
• A PFD of 0.02 sales tax increase would allow for about $15 million in construc�on costs and an
annual pay down of $500k annually to subsidize opera�onal costs each year.
• This would make a PFD self-sustaining and not draw down other public revenues.
• A new aqua�c facility should focus on this baseline budget and only exceed it if other revenue
sources are available (grants, philanthropy). It is possible to build an aqua�c facility within that
budget. Would be easier if not using public financing which adds about 30% more to the costs.
Q- can a non-profit build it and then gi� to county/PFD?
Next Steps
Presenta�ons to 3 bodies
Presenta�on to public?? How to do this? Events, Newspaper ar�cles, radio shows, paid adver�sing,
county newsleters -do they exist?
Decision by policy-makers at to where new public pool is to be built.
Community survey of aqua�c programming needs? Too soon? Should wait for answer to next ques�on?
Appendix A - Healthier Together Task Force Mee�ng Summary
Par�cipants and Presenters
The Healthier Together Task Force in Jefferson County held multiple meetings between April and August 2024, with participants from various districts and representatives from relevant organizations. The key participants included:
• District Representatives:
o District 1: Todd McGuire, Nancy Speser
o District 2: Jim Scaran�no, Celeste Schoenthaler
o District 3: Adele Govert, Lynne Hovde
o At Large Members: Cray Henry, Mary Rothschild
• Additional Attendees:
o Commissioner Greg Brotherton (Facilitator)
o Diane McDade (JeffCo Aqua�c Coali�on President)
o Carrie Hite (Parks and Recrea�on Strategist for Port Townsend)
o Wendy Bart (Execu�ve Director for North Olympic YMCA)
o Presenters from various organiza�ons, including Opsis Architecture, South Whidbey
Parks and Recrea�on District, Myrtha Pools, and Central Idaho Aqua�c Center.
Research and Discussions
Feasibility Studies and Presentations
1. Opsis Architecture (April 30 and May 9, 2024):
o Presented feasibility studies, addressing land requirements, u�lity loca�ons, stormwater
reten�on, and geotechnical considera�ons.
o Discussion on costs, funding, and poten�al for grants.
2. South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District (June 27, 2024):
o Presenta�on on their pool development process, emphasizing environmental impact,
loca�on choice, and survey feedback.
o Insights into design choices, cost management, and public engagement.
3. Sprung Structures and Myrtha Pools (June 17 and July 15, 2024):
o Detailed informa�on on Sprung structures and Myrtha pools, including lifecycle costs,
maintenance, and environmental benefits.
o Discussions on construc�on techniques, site evalua�ons, and opera�onal considera�ons.
Site Evaluations
• Chimacum Creek Elementary, Downtown Hadlock, Chimacum Park, Mountain View:
o Evaluated based on size, accessibility, proximity to ameni�es, and popula�on reach.
o Discussion on sep�c systems, �mber revenue, and poten�al for mul�-use facili�es.
Funding and Grants
• Explored various funding op�ons, including state grants (Building Communi�es, Youth Athle�c
Facili�es), lodging tax revenue, and poten�al for a Public Facili�es District (PFD).
• Discussed the importance of collabora�ve funding between Jefferson County, Port Townsend,
and other stakeholders.
Community and Public Engagement
• Emphasized transparency and public input, with discussions on handling public feedback and
conduc�ng surveys.
• Planned field trips to other facili�es for insights and inspira�on (e.g., Sequim, Boise).
Findings and Recommenda�ons
1. Need for a New Aquatic Facility:
o Consensus on the necessity of a new public aqua�c facility to serve the community’s
needs. 2. Site Location Preferences:
o Tri-Area loca�ons (Port Hadlock, Irondale, Chimacum) deemed more accessible and
viable compared to Mountain View.
3. Collaborative Efforts:
o Stressed the importance of collabora�on among county stakeholders to ensure financial
and opera�onal sustainability.
4. Design and Cost Considerations:
o Recommenda�ons to design a facility within the $24-25M range.
o Suggested integrated project delivery methods to spread risk and ensure quality control. 5. Public Communication Plan:
o Importance of a posi�ve, countywide communica�ons plan to gain community support.
Appendix B – Sources
Links and annota�ons for OPSIS, WTI, DCW, etc reports