What’s the ‘opportunity cost’ of a $30 million pool for the YMCA?

Perspective: Barney Burke

Posted

Instead of hiring a consultant for yet another Metropolitan Park District (MPD) feasibility study, the city and county ought to convene a community conversation about needs, resources, and priorities.

Ask city and county residents to name our most pressing local issues. I’ll bet affordable housing and economic development would be near the top of the list. Homelessness, substance abuse and climate change might also rank high.

It’s hard to imagine many people saying our top priority should be replacing an old but functional pool with a new, deluxe pool plus a gym – duplicating many city, county and privately-owned facilities and services.

Meanwhile, our town full of older people lacks accessible sidewalks near key amenities like the Community Center, Library, Aldrich’s, the Uptown theater, et al. Thirty years after the Americans with Disabilities Act, wheelchair users still have to use driveways to cross uptown corners without curb ramps. Should these barriers remain until the YMCA is given $30 million (latest estimate) for a pool?

Why should so many people bear a significant tax increase for the benefit of so few?

Why should a private organization that’s been unable or unwilling to fund its pipedream be subsidized with property taxes? Why shouldn’t the Y seek conventional financing like any other corporation?

We need a broad, thoughtful consensus on what ideas merit our scarce tax dollars and which ideas we just can’t afford. Think about “opportunity cost.” If you’re saving to buy a home but get talked into buying a $50,000 SUV, the opportunity cost of that decision might be as high as being priced out of the local housing market.

Port Townsend’s Six Year Transportation Improvement Program, updated in 2019, includes 19 projects totaling $45 million. Only one local street project, Discovery Road from Rainier to Sheridan, is funded. The city has allocated the required match of $250,000 for that $2 million project, but the plan needs another $10.5 million to fund the other local projects (the remaining $35 million comes from state and federal taxes). Unlike the pool, everyone uses the local transportation system.

Port Townsend’s “councilmanic” (non-voted) debt has grown from less than $1 million in 2000 to about $17 million today. Its debt per capita is $2,084, the fifth highest of all Washington cities, including Sequim ($1,446), Port Angeles ($869) and Seattle ($1,469), according to state records.

The MPD is being touted as a new entity that won’t affect the ability of the city or county to raise property taxes. But if you’re a property owner, you still pay the whole bill no matter how many separate agencies levy those taxes.

If voters are talked into pool debt, it’ll be harder to gain support for fundamental infrastructure projects, as many households are simply treading water, not getting ahead. Moreover, an MPD only needs “50 percent plus one” approval to increase its levy when its costs grow or it wants to add programs and facilities. As the Y’s project manager told local officials in a Dec. 16 meeting, when it comes to future expansions and levy rates, “You don’t have to get it all on the first bite.” And if an MPD defaults on its obligations, those become the responsibility of senior taxing districts, e.g. our city and county.

Proponents have suggested a new pool and gym are needed to attract young families with children, but has anyone said they didn’t move here because our pool isn’t good enough?

We need affordable housing, living wage jobs, and a realistic plan for the future, not a $30 million pool that will make housing more expensive and further delay essential infrastructure projects.

(Barney Burke is a former city planner, economic development manager, Jefferson PUD commissioner and Leader reporter who moved to Port Townsend in 2000.)