The Jefferson County Commissioners voted by a 2-1 margin on Dec. 11 to direct county staff to study the possibility of creating a Public Facilities District, as well as to work with the city of Port Townsend on a jointly funded $15,000 independent financial review of the Aquatic and Wellness Center that’s been proposed for the existing Mountain View campus pool site.

The financial feasibility study would be required by the state Department of Commerce to proceed with the PFD, which has been recommended by the steering committee to draw 2/10 of 1% of the countywide sales tax, to fund the new pool facility that they’ve also proposed.

Although Jefferson County District 3 Commissioner Greg Brotherton had previously expressed concerns over using a countywide taxing district to pay for a new pool that was not more centrally located within the county, he suggested this could be remedied by creating a PFD board whose membership would be perhaps less Port Townsend-centric than the steering committee.

Jefferson County District 1 Commissioner Kate Dean, who sits on that steering committee, voted with Brotherton to look into the PFD and team up with the city on the financial review, and agreed with him that a PFD board could consider alternate potential locations for the pool.

However, a number of public commenters instead called for a Metropolitan Park District, which Brotherton himself had previously suggested as a funding mechanism if the new pool were to remain in Port Townsend.

Among the commenters’ expressed concerns were the potential authority of a PFD board to authorize debt without a vote of the people, as voiced by Tom Tiersch, which were echoed by those who expressed fears that the county would “force-feed” expenses to its constituents, just as they criticized what they perceived as “a lack of community outreach” overall regarding the proposed pool facility.

Jefferson County District 2 Commissioner Heidi Eisenhour, who cast the single dissenting vote, described herself as overwhelmed by the amount of information and number of conversations (“at least 300) that she estimated she’s had on this issue, which have left her disinclined toward not only a PFD, but also the currently proposed pool facility.

As she had previously, Eisenhour voiced misgivings with siting such a facility in Port Townsend, then funding it with countywide dollars, a public concern that Dean and Brotherton empathized with, as Brotherton even went so far as to characterize a new pool as a widely popular idea that he nonetheless predicted would fail on an April ballot in its currently proposed form.

Brotherton acknowledged that the majority of countywide sales taxes come from Districts 2 and 3, outside of Port Townsend, and even suggested siting a pool facility outside of Port Townsend could serve as an economic driver for other areas of the county, before he ultimately touted a “geographically representative” PFD board as a mechanism by which to arrive at such decisions.

JeffCo Aquatic Coalition President Rich Childers and board member Diane McDade spoke on behalf of such a facility, which Childers championed for its connections to the YMCA, and McDade deemed a “countywide asset.”

Port Townsend School Board District 1 Director John Nowak likewise attested to the value of such facilities for students, and deemed a PFD “less impactful” than an MPD, before warning that the community might have already “kicked the can for so long” that it could soon find itself without any usable pool facility at all.

Following the Dec. 11 meeting, Port Townsend City Manager John Mauro issued a public statement echoing such concerns about the current pool’s age and level of deterioration, before reiterating the steering committee’s support for the Mountain View campus as the site of a new facility, based on having “continually examined the project’s financials and variables over the past year (...) as new information and ideas come to light.”

Mauro concurred with Dean and Brotherton’s voted decision on Dec. 11, echoing Brotherton’s rationale by stating that “a PFD would ensure that wider county representation is at the table and would continue the work of the steering committee, effectively ensuring there is continued momentum for the initiative.”

The Jefferson County Commission is due to receive further information on a PFD from county staff during its Dec. 18 meeting.