HomeMy WebLinkAbout010824 email January 8_ 2024 BOCC Meeting observations and commentsALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Dear Commissioner Dean,
I am a bit confused regarding your comment today that there is no way to "safely" analyze what is going on with the ground under the existing Mountain View Pool facility, also suggesting
that the "unsafe" effort to do the geotechnical analysis work needed would also just be throwing good money at bad. This geotechnical evaluation work can be done relatively easily and
in a very safe manner by conducting borings under and around the existing pool facility in order to produce soil samples and profiles that would be relevant and required for either
new pool construction or renovation design purposes. The borings can even be taken in a minimally invasive manner, angling the shaft of the drilling machine from outside the footprint
of the structure in order to get to the soil samples and profiles needed to be studied. I have years of experience with working projects that require various levels of geotechnical
evaluation. Whoever is telling you that it would be 'unsafe' to examine the soils in question is giving you false and unreliable information. More importantly, it is surprising to me
that given the cost evaluations of the scope of work as performed by the consultants thus far as associated with either the renovation of the Mountain View Pool or the demo and reconstruction,
that the geotechnical evaluations work has not already been completed. This information would be invaluable in order to produce reliable and bonafide information for cost analysis purposes,
again, for either renovation or new construction. This is the information that gives cost analysis data for public consumption a sense of being accurate, credible, and reliable. So
to date, this information does not exist and it is discouraging that it does not!
Lastly, I find it deeply troubling that there were no comments from you or the other members of the BOCC regarding Shellie's comments about the promised $400k subsidy that the City of
Port Townsend intends to provide over the next 30 years associated with the financial obligations associated with the construction of a new pool. Carrie Hite acknowledged in last week's
PT City Council meeting after questioning put to her by Councilmember Ben Thomas that no future PT City Council would be held obligated to maintain the $400k subsidy needed for ongoing
operations and maintenance of the proposed new pool facility. So, if a future PT City Council has a significant city-wide health and welfare budget shortfall and needs to cut or eliminate
the $400k subsidy, who is going to have to pick-up the tab to keep the proposed new pool open and viable? It is issues like this, and many others, that makes this pool discussion process
with the City of PT seem very dysfunctional, and seems as though the BOCC is being taken advantage of, which means the taxpayers of Jefferson County are being taken advantage of. Where
is the transparency regarding this issue, as this should have been a talking point and addressed very early in the new aquatic center discussions?
Thank you for your service and your time!
Mark L Grant
grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com <mailto:grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com>