HomeMy WebLinkAbout030324 email - Proposed Healthier Together Steering Committee Task Force (0002)ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Dear Commissioners Dean, Eisenhour, and Brotherton,
Based on the BOCC discussion from last Monday, the 26th, regarding the formation of a task force, and based on the Regular Agenda Request for March 4, 2024 which again, addresses the
formation of the task force as decided by the Healthier Together Steering Committee (HTSC), it appears that the concept of creating a task force is full steam ahead regardless of the
emails and information that I have presented to you in the past suggesting that the task force is not necessary, is redundant, and not in the best interests of the residence of the
county. I am hoping that you will listen to and consider my concerns. So, in one more attempt to bring some clarity to my position here, I will provide you with the following observation
points, followed by my further recommendations based on my evaluations of the task force issue and Public Facilities District (PFD) issue in the hopes that you will listen:
Observation Points
* The Healthier Together Aquatic Center New Aquatic center as proposed has been found to be deeply flawed, significantly under budgeted, and if enacted on, will end up being a fiscal
disaster for all county residents. The possibility of renovation/ remodel of the existing pool facility has not been thoroughly evaluated, especially in light of the WTI and CG Engineering
Reports that were commissioned by the city, but that are still supposedly not available for public consumption and deemed only operationally significant by city staff. Not having the
WTI and CG Engineering reports available to the public emphasizes the concerns the public has with this entire process not having full transparency.
* Based on overwhelming public input showing a lack of support for such a plan, the HTSC has, it seems, decided to consider alternative approaches towards the development of a pool facility/
aquatic center. The HTSC task force idea is not the answer to the problems they have created for themselves, and therefore should not be acted on by the BOCC.
* Unfortunately, the direction still seems to be focused on using public tax monies through the development of a PFD as the funding source for any such venture, and there is no real
current information available that shows any real efforts towards a privately funded facility development strategy.
* As stated above, the creation of a task force as advised by the HTSC is now up for consideration by the BOCC, with representation that is not equitably represented by the entire county,
with more representation from within the city. Though stated as having no fiscal impact, the support needed for the task force by the county and the city staff, as well as facilities
use, does not come for free, especially based on the value of staff time that could be spent on more pressing and urgent county and city matters.
Further Recommendations (this is likely what I see will be the results of the work that you and the HTSC are considering to have performed by the task force)
1. The current Healthier Together New Aquatic Center proposal as designed by Opsis Architecture and estimated by DCW Cost Management is not complete, and presents a project budget that
is at least $10.5 million under what would be required for turn-key construction completion. I have developed a cost-to-renovate spreadsheet based on all of the current solicited information,
including the WTI and CG Engineering reports, which is included as an attachment to this email for your review. This should help to provide you with some context and clarity to all
of the options and issues presented thus far.
2. Private funding should be the only source of funding to be considered for either the construction of a new pool/ aquatic facility or renovation of the existing facility. If a privately
funded new facility is to be considered, a more centrally located and inclusive county-wide practical and functional proposal should be developed in the central county/ Port Hadlock
area. My previous emails to you get into this issue in more detail.
3. I have identified two viable sites in the Port Hadlock area:
a. The first and best site would be at the Chimacum Elementary School property. A roughly two acre portion of that property is undeveloped and could site a new pool facility that
is close to schools, the library, and existing and future increased housing densities, and will be served by the sewer system development expansion. All other infrastructure
is readily available either onsite or offsite nearby. Soils profiles are conducive and cost effective for stormwater management. Multiple access points are easily
achieved thus making the site highly accessible. An arrangement for a long-term low land lease rate could be made between the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition (JAC) and the Chimacum
School District. A joint venture public/ private partnership could be established between the JAC and Jefferson County for the facility's operations, maintenance,
and management. The parcel number for this site location is 901023010.
b. The second site is owned by Jefferson County and located in Port Hadlock as well. The parcel numbers associated with this property are 901023006 and 901112004. These properties
would have similar amenities as the previously described property with possibly higher infrastructure costs based on the location of available off site utilities. This
property would be accessible to the sewer system development expansion. The same lease, operations, and management arrangements could be made between JAC and Jefferson County.
4. There are a number of alternative construction methods that could reduce the overall cost to build a new pool facility as well as reduce the overall time for construction, i.e "time
is money". One such method has been brought to your attention, that being Sprung Structures. This systems based construction option has been proven to reduce the overall cost
for materials and well as the time needed in order to complete construction. This option has been proven to be operationally viable by other pool-based- facility
operators. Here is the link to an example of a nearby facility built utilizing the Sprung Structures method: Sprung Project: Idaho Central Aquatic Center - Pool Enclosures <https://www.sprung.com/pr
ojects/idaho-central-aquatic-center/> . In a meeting that I attended where representatives of Sprung Structures presented their product information and cost evaluations, it was
explained that the realistic and potential turn-key construction cost per square foot for a pool/ aquatic center type facility would run between $700 - $800 per square foot. These are
publicly funded/ public works/ prevailing wage based costs. If privately built, the costs per square foot could be reduced by as much as 30% - 50%, by eliminating the
prevailing wage aspect as well as excessive bureaucratic related process soft costs. Here is an example:
a. A 12,000 square foot facility built on the two acre portion of the Chimacum School District owned property could potentially be built using private funding for approximately
$5.9 million - $6.7 million on the high side, and $4.2 million - $4.8 million on the low side. This would include a competition length pool, a warner water lap/ exercise
pool (see Myrtha Pools - Stainless Steel Commercial and Regular Pool Builders - Myrtha Pools <https://www.myrthapools.com/en/> ), a spa, bathrooms and locker rooms, offices, mechanical
room, and other operationally necessary spaces. Site development costs are included as well. These are turn-key numbers. Again, these numbers represent a practical,
functional, and efficiently built facility with no fluff, but still accommodating the community needs.
Undoubtedly, there will be other issues that would need to be discussed and addressed before moving forward with any privately funded project, especially one with the varying degrees
of complexity that a pool facility will present. But through persistence, hard work, drive, and determination, an organization like the Jefferson Aquatic Coalition, operating as a 501(c)3
could definitely make this happen, and without public monies and without the formation of a PFD. If the community en masse truly feels that an equitably considered, privately funded
pool facility should be a priority, I am sure that the support will be there. If this was the vision for the pool/ aquatic facility from the beginning, there would not have been the
need to spend well over $721k in taxpayers money in the production of something that is not viable. I have sent my accounting for the amount spent thus far to Commissioner Brotherton
at his request and in response to a previous email that I sent to you all.
What I have presented in this email will undoubtedly be the basis of the resulting content that a task force would generate. If I have missed something, please let me know and I would
be more than happy to do the research and provide you with what you are needing to have resolved, within the best of my abilities, without the need for a task force and without city
and county staff time and resources. Other community members and organizations have expressed a willingness to help, and have actually also done a significant amount of the evaluation
work that a task force might perform, and have done so pro bono. Now, you only need to take this work that these folks have done more seriously and listen to what these community members
have to say as their voice is equitable, and inclusive of the concerns of the entire county population. As I have stated before, I am engaging in this aquatic center/ pool / PFD matter
as a concerned citizen only.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the issues I have presented in this email.
Sincerely,
Mark L Grant