HomeMy WebLinkAbout012324 email CG Report UntitledALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Dear Councilmember Thomas:
I write out of concern regarding inaccurate statements made by Carrie Hite, the city's Parks and Recreation Strategy Director, to City Council at its January 8, 2024 meeting.
Under discussion were the engineering reports and estimates from CG Engineering and Water Technology, Inc. I have followed the pool debate closely and am concerned that these reports
were not made public and not presented to the City Council and the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Hite's rationale for withholding the reports was that they were "only operational."
But these reports, taken together, provide the foundation for a quicker and much less expensive alternative to the Healthier Together proposal that will cost, not including interest
on a bond to fund construction, more than $48 million.
The combined cost of the repairs and upgrades in the CG and WTI reports is less than $4.1 million. As a contractor, I foresee some additional costs (such as for seismic upgrades, stormwater
upgrades, hazardous materials abatements, accessibility upgrades, etc. tasks not estimated by either firm). But, still, these reports represent a start on an approach that could save
taxpayers tens of millions of dollars and provide a modernized facility in much less time than the larger, costlier Healthier Together proposal.
Ms. Hite was not accurate in justifying withholding these reports because they were "partial reports." The WTI report addressed the pool and its components and related systems. The CG
report evaluated the building structure. Taken together, they cannot be regarded as "partial reports."
Ms. Hite inaccurately described the CG report as evaluating only the roof. That was not a correct statement. CG was retained, as its report says, to perform an assessment "of the Mountain
View building's structure." They looked at the whole building, not just the roof. I cannot understand why she would misrepresent the scope of CG's work, and minimize the import of their
conclusion. They concluded that the building showed "minimal damage" and that the deficiencies found could be remedied for $536,643.
WTI estimated that the pool and all its components could be reconstructed with the latest equipment and systems for $3.5 million. Together, with the information presented in the CG report,
that comes to less than $4.1 million.
I took the time to study the construction estimate for the Healthier Together proposal and found that it is under budget by at least $10.5 million. It does not include any stormwater
plans, any costs for mitigation of hazardous materials, and its escalator clauses are grossly inadequate based on a much more realistic construction starting schedule of 2027, not Q2
of 2025 as suggested; none of the reposts present or include a reasonable construction timeline. What this all means is that the proposed funding for the project's construction will
fall at least $10.5 million short.
I would be happy to discuss these issues further. I also would like to note with concern that the steering committee included no one with any construction expertise. This, perhaps, can
account for why the Healthier Together proposal contains so many pitfalls and problems. Finally, the real problem with the approach taken to review either building an entirely new pool
facility or renovating the existing pool is the lack of transparency in the process, as well as the lack of real consensus building in order to be more inclusive with the process throughout
the entire county. The taxpayers in the city and county deserve much better from our elected officials and staff who represent us and are elected to serve us.
Respectfully,
Mark L Grant
Port Townsend, WA 98368