Members of the North Whidbey Park and Recreation District board of directors dove into a thorough examination of the district’s aquatics club and swim team program in response to a longstanding conflict.

Members of the board in early September had established a subcommittee to address the debate over North Whidbey Aquatics Club and swim team funding and attempt to find an equitable solution. The subcommitee presented its findings at a regular district board meeting Sept. 17.

The debate stems from a disagreement over whether the Aquatics Club should continue to receive partial subsidization via a tax levy awarded to the district.

Ideally, according to interim aquatics director Erika Miller and district board members, each program should pull its own weight financially.

Proponents of the Aquatics Club’s subsidization say this can and will occur, given time and strong leadership. Opponents of the swim team’s subsidization contend that the team is a drain on district funds compared to other aquatics programs.

All district programs receive some funds from the levy, said Miller.

Swim team coach Richard Taylor, who declined requests to comment, issued a letter to all the Aquatics Club participants on Sept. 17 in which he contended that the club and swim team were unfairly singled out as “undeserving recipients” of funds awarded through its partial subsidization in comparison to other district programs.

Taylor wrote that the idea of privatizing the swim team is a “scam” which would require participants to continue to pay whatever taxes the facility may collect via the tax levy in addition to paying potentially increased fees associated with club membership.

“The scam is designed to get into your wallets by claiming that your swim team is the unwarranted and unwanted orphan of aquatic programs,” he wrote.

The objective of those opposed to the swim team subsidization is to discontinue the very swim team taxpayers voted to support via approval of the levy, he said.

During the subcommittee’s presentation, eliminating the program was sixth in a list of possible alternatives to the status quo. However, subcommittee members stressed that they do not see that as an alternative to be pursued, except in the case other options are exhausted.

Also during the presentation, the subcommittee outlined the program details, financial history, strengths and weaknesses, and possible alternatives to the current funding system.

Parks Commissioner Wendy Shingleton said that she recognizes the program hasn’t always had such financial troubles. She noted that there is some difficulty compiling data for previous years due to inconsistencies that committee members are trying to correct.

The numbers presented are the best “apples-to-apples comparison that could be easily done” and were gathered directly from profit and loss statements, she said.

According to the budget as presented by Shingleton, the team had $49,520 budgeted revenue for 2015, but had brought in just $18,525.27 as of Sept. 1. The expenses budgeted for 2015 are $69,380.

As of Sept. 1, the team had a total of $40,826 in expenses.

The first alternative listed, which the subcommittee did not recommend, is to “do nothing,” allowing the program to recover financially over time given favorable circumstances.

The second option is to raise club dues to cover all program costs.

The third option is to raise club dues to cover more program costs, obligating program staff and parents to “determine balance of program funding.”

The fourth option sets a deadline by which program staff and parents must determine program funding. Fifth option is to “divest interest” in the swim club, granting parents the responsibility of determining a forward path.

The issue will be revisited at 7 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 15.