PORT ANGELES — The Shore Aquatic Center has resumed its shower voucher program, but board members are now working to put formal rules in place after the program sparked controversy in the community.
The vouchers, distributed through outreach groups, are intended to provide access to basic hygiene for people experiencing homelessness or other hardships. But the program drew criticism over safety concerns and questions about whether a family-focused public facility should be used for broader social services.
Executive Director Ryan Amiot told commissioners the program had already been operating again in a limited capacity, prompting the need to bring it back before the board to establish clearer policy and oversight.
“As the program evolved, it became clear that it raised questions around policy, public access, and governance that were not formally in place. Along with concerns that were raised, the program’s use — via the voucher to shower — prompted discussion and response to community feedback, both support and concern about the program. We recognize the need for a more transparent and consistent process,” Amiot told the Shore Board this week.
The proposed policy would require board approval for partner organizations and add tracking and reporting requirements. Commissioners voiced general support for continuing the program, while emphasizing accountability and transparency moving forward.
Port Angeles city council member LaTrisha Suggs, who sits on the Shore board joined some other board members pushing to reframe the issue, arguing it goes beyond vouchers and speaks to a larger need in the community.
“I wanted for us to consider either grounding it or focusing on a community hygiene program, or a community setting solely for, just being demanding access. So, I think I want to avoid stigmatizing that it’s just one group of people that utilize this program. I’m sure that there’s a lot of other people that utilize this program,” said Suggs.
The discussion followed roughly an hour of public comment, with speakers both supporting the program as a public health service and raising concerns about safety and oversight.
No final policy was adopted, but commissioners plan to revise the proposal and bring it back for further review, even as the program continues in the meantime.