I’d like to make several points about the proposed pool.   

Public Facilities District (PFD): Directors of a PFD, appointed by County Commissioners, will finance, build and operate a pool. The Fort Worden Public Development Agency (PDA) also had appointed directors. With no effective oversight, it was a fiscal and reputational fiasco. Who will make sure a PFD isn’t yet another fiasco? We don’t know.

Port Hadlock demographics: Pool promoters say that a Port Hadlock location should have more users. Yet the YMCA Market Survey of 2014 states: “If the Y were built at Port Hadlock we estimate that [our] forecast would have to be reduced by about 50%...” And recent retail site selection metrics show Port Hadlock’s overall demographics are lower than Port Townsend’s by about 40%.

Survey versus actuals: The recent promoter survey showed 29% of the respondents saying they would use a pool several times a month. But in 2018 the Y reported only 2,956 pool users in Port Townsend (just 10% of the County’s population). Pareto’s 80/20 Rule suggests that 80% of pool visits came from roughly 600 regulars, mostly from Port Townsend. In 2022 (the pandemic), total users were only 676. Actuals at Port Hadlock will likely be significantly lower than anticipated by the survey.

Costs and benefits: Taxpayers, through grants and sales taxes, would pay at least $37 million in projected costs to build the facility, and more to keep it running. But inflation and tariffs will increase costs. And do government projects ever finish on time and under budget? Should taxpayers pay so much for the benefit of so few users?

National figures: U.S. cities closed 291,000 municipal pools (nearly half) between 2009 and 2023, citing unsustainable costs (Pool Magazine, 8/2/2023). Will this facility be different?

Opinions may differ; thanks for reading mine.

David Neuenschwander

Quilcene