HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft HTTF Findings and Recomendations V3.1 -New versionJefferson County
Healthier Together Task Force
Findings & Recommendations
August 2024
Community Partnership = Success
WHAT:An affordable Jefferson County public aquatic recreation center for all ages and abilities to enjoy.
WHY:Teach all county children to swim
Provide healthy year-round recreation for allEnsuretherapyandrehabilitationforthosein need.
WHERE:2 possible locations: Port Townsend or Tri-Area (Chimacum,Port Hadlock,Irondale).
HOW:PT location: paid for by Metropolitan Park District property tax levy.
Tri-Area location: paid for by a PFD through an increase in county sales tax.
In either location, potential additional funding sources such as lodging tax funds,private donors,and federal &state government grants may reduce taxpayer burden.
WHO:1)Port Townsend to create a Metropolitan Park District, OR
2) Jefferson County &City of Port Townsend to create a Public Facilities District (PFD).
The MPD or PFD to serve as project manager. Acquire site,ensure community input to budget-constraineddesign,finalize financing plan, and oversee construction and operations.
3)JeffCo Aquatic Coalition (JAC)to survey citizens to identify specific community usage and programmingpriorities.
WHEN:Make siting decision now. Then work together to support preferred location culminating in a successful vote of the people to pass a tax levy in support of a new public pool.
Background
3
•On Sep 18 2023,the Healthier Together Final Report recommended that Jefferson County create a Public Facilities District
(PFD)to fund and build a new public pool at the Mountain View campus in Port Townsend.In Dec 2023, the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC)and Port Townsend City Council voted to fund a PFD feasibility study,a required first step to create a
PFD.On April 8, 2024, the BOCC appointed 8 citizens to a new HT Task Force to research additional information.
•HT Task Force District Representatives:
o District 1: Todd McGuire, Nancy Speser
o District 2: Jim Scarantino, 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 Aquatic Coalition President)
o Carrie Hite (Parks and Recreation Strategist for Port Townsend)
o Wendy Bart (Executive Director for North Olympic YMCA)
Task Force members’ backgrounds:project management,construction management,facility engineering,construction
law,community development,swim and synchronized lesson instruction,journalism,competitive swimming,lifeguarding,
parenting, pool operations and maintenance.
Task Force Assignment:
Research 4 Questions
1. Are there viable alternative sites to the Mountain View campus in the mid-county area?
2. Are there viable and more cost-effective design & construction techniques compared to traditional
aquatic center design and construction techniques and processes?
3. What is the cost to repair the existing Mountain View Pool and what is the cost to expand it to
create a 25-yard lap pool?
4. What are the fiscal limits for a public pool funded by a PFD with taxpayer dollars in Jefferson
County?
Task Force Homework
Heard Expert Input From:
Opsis Architecture, WTI, CG Engineering, DCW (April 30 and May 9, 2024):
o Presented feasibility studies, addressing land requirements, utility locations, stormwater retention, and geotechnical considerations.
o Discussion on costs, funding, and potential for grants.
South Whidbey Parks and Recreation District (June 27, 2024):
o Presentation on their pool development process, emphasizing environmental impact, location choice, and survey feedback.
o Insights into design choices, cost management, and public engagement.
Sprung Structures and Myrtha Pools (June 17 and July 15, 2024):
o Detailed information on Sprung structures and Myrtha pools, including lifecycle costs, maintenance, and environmental benefits.
o Discussions on construction techniques, site evaluations, and operational considerations.
A First-Hand Look at Aquatic Facilities:
Shore Aquatic Center, Port Angeles, WA
YMCA of Sequim, Olympic Peninsula YMCA, Sequim, WA
Central Idaho Aquatic Center, Boise, Idaho
Tomlinson South Meridian YMCA, Meridian, Idaho
•Task Force toured 4 facilities to learn first-hand about construction methods, costs and timelines, operational maintenance challenges,
programming choices, customer usage, and revenue streams.
Key Findings
1.Our community needs a new modern public aquatic recreation facility.
2.Broad agreement on site location is the necessary first step to a successful outcome.
3.Community collaboration and agreement is required because Jefferson County cannot successfully financially
operate two separate public aquatic facilities.
4.. There are viable site locations in the Tri-Area (Port Hadlock,Irondale,Chimacum)accessible to a
larger portion of the Jefferson County community than the Mountain View site.
5. An aquatic facility can be largely designed to cost.Pre-engineered,pre-fabricated, modular building and pool
vessel systems (e.g.,Sprung Structures and Myrtha Pools)appear to be good options allowing construction
within a fixed budget.
6. If a new pool is to be built, the current Mountain View Pool (MVP)needs support through FY 28.
7. The existing MVP can be repaired for $4.5 million and expanded to 25 yards for $20 million.
8. A county sales tax supported PFD would generate (in today’s dollars) $15 million for capital construction costs
and $500k available every year to support operations and maintenance.
9.A public pool can be built on a septic system (e.g. the South Whidbey project).
10.Aquatic centers can recover large portions of their operating costs through a combination of revenue from
community needs-based programming, facility rentals, & merchandising.
Comparison of Mountain View Pool
(MVP)location to Tri Area locations
7
MVP location
•Serves 19,424 individuals
•Serves 9,435 households
•Serves 2,660 youth population
Within a 20 min
commute area the
Tri-Area locations:
•~7500 more
county
residents
•~750 more
youth
Tri Area location
•Serves 26,945 individuals
•Serves 12,986 households
•Serves 3,410 youth population
Two Viable Tri-Area Locations
9
Two viable site locations in the “Tri Area”can serve a larger portion of the
Jefferson County community than the Mountain View site.
Other potentially suitable sites were not examined in depth.
•Chimacum Park site
•15 Acre parcel owned by the county
•PROS: adjacent to Chimacum High School, across the street from H.J. Carroll
Park, near Olympic Discovery bike trail, campground could be re-opened with
septic in place, room for expansion for future recreational facilities, near
Chimacum business community.
•CONS: Requires a septic system ~ $2 million cost, traffic modifications required
for pedestrian and auto access.
•Chimacum Creek Elementary School site
•2+Acre parcel owned by Chimacum School District
•PROS: Adjacent to Elementary School, next to the Jeferson County Library,
within Port Hadlock sewer district, near PH business community,
•CONS: Site less visible to many community members. No room for future
recreational facility expansion.
Aquatic centers can be designed to cost
9
Other communities in the region have built aquatic facilities at lower costs than $37 million.
Cost savings can be achieved in several ways:
•Constraining the design to a smaller overall building size.Traditional aquatic center costs are roughly $1,000 sq.foot.
The smaller the building,the lower the initial cost and on-going operational costs.
•Traditional aquatic facility design costs can be lowered by the use of pre-engineered,pre-fab solutions such as
Sprung Structures &Myrtha pools.Both these companies offer guarantees reducing operational risk and
subsequent repair costs over the building’s lifespan.These options also speed up completion of the facility.
•Project delivery method options have been utilized at other WA facilities to reduce construction costs,reduce risk
and accelerate schedule.Utilization of project delivery methods besides traditional "design-bid-build"incorporate
contractor input on constructability,cost and schedule at project initiation.
Working DRAFT
A Look at Similar Projects in our Region
10
Shore Aquatic Center
Construction Cost:$27M
Built in:Projected start in 2025
Size:24,000 sq ft*
Features:Multiple Swim tanks
Multi-purpose space
Alternative Project Approach
*Not yet built,includes septic system
South Whidbey Aquatic
Recreation Center
Construction Cost:$16.2M
Built in:2020
Size: 30,000*
Features:Multiple swim tanks
Child Care
Multi-purpose space
*Expansion around existing lap pool
Construction Cost:$18M
Built in:2023
Size 50,000 sq ft*
Features:Sprung Structure
Competition Focus
Private Construction
*Built with private financing and
donated land
Idaho Central
Aquatic Center
Communities in the region have designed and built aquatic facilities at lower cost by using alternative
project approaches and construction techniques
Fiscal Reality Check
11
Build a plan that realistically balances revenue and cost.
The PFD (or an MPD) should be self-sustaining.To do so,it must select a facility size,
design, and construction technologies and methods that will enable construction debt
service, administrative costs and projected operating deficits to be fully covered by its
dedicated tax revenue.Or more simply Revenue >Expenses
The math for a PFD funded by a county sales tax increase looks like this:
•Net operations +Tax Levy >Debt Service
•$1.6M >Debt Service +Net Operating Loss
•For illustrative purposes,lets assume Net Operating Loss ~$500K
How large of a Bond can we expect to buy with $1.1M annual payments?
•At 5.5%and 30 years ~$15M
At this moment in time,we can project a sales tax levy buys
$15 million for capital expenditures
3 Options for Mountain View Site
Repair/Rehab
Update roof, building, HVAC,fix known mechanical Issues, replace pool,decks ~$4.44M*
This cost estimate is derived from WTI & CG Engineering reports & presentations. Their estimates do not include
undiscovered issues (e.g.anything requiring destructive testing including vessel,plumbing,electrical,HVAC…)
Expand
Demo the current MVP and build a replacement with 25 yard lap pool. 19,000 sq ft ~$21M
This cost estimate is from DCW presentation and does not include unknown site elements such as compromised soil
conditions.
Build New
As recommended by HT Steering Committee Opsis Final Report
Base Option at 29,000 sq, includes 6-lane 25 yard lap pool, warm water recreation pool, whirlpool spa,and sauna.$37.1M
There are significant cost/risk premiums associated with building on the MVP site that have not been adequately quantified
(e.g.,storm water management and re-location of all utilities serving the campus).
PRESENTATIONTITLEKey Recommendations
13
1.A community consensus on site location must be built now. Strong support from
city & county residents, policymakers, school districts, non-profits, and
businesses will ensure a successful vote to build a new aquatic center.
2.We need a long-term financial plan that balances project revenues and costs.We
must take the time now to build a complete & affordable plan before asking for a
new tax.
3.Establish a PFD (or MPD) to serve as project manager,to continue HTTF
investigation of construction and operational cost projections,and finalize site
selection,a financing plan,a budget constrained design.Identify how community
priorities align with projected costs to build &operate a new facility.
4.Definitively answer questions about ground water management at Mountain
View site before preceding with any new construction there.
Backup Slides