HomeMy WebLinkAbout043024 email - Fwd_ Healthier Together Aquatic Center Task Force Stormwater ConsiderationsALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them.
Hi, Wendy,
Would you please circulate the following correspondence I received yesterday to all those involved in the Healthier Together Task Force? It relays the views of local contractors Mark
Grant (construction) and Bill Leavitt (excavation) regarding the enormous expense of installing at Mountain View a stormwater system compliant with Washington's stringent regulations
to serve the Opsis-proposed project and the comparative advantage--insofar as a stormwater management system goes--of building in Hadlock behind the library.
Thank you,
Jim Scarantino
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Mark Grant <grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com <mailto:grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com> >
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:00 PM
Subject: Healthier Together Aquatic Center Task Force Stormwater Considerations
To: Jim Scarantino <jrscarantino@gmail.com <mailto:jrscarantino@gmail.com> >
Good Afternoon Jim,
When I did my analysis of the Healthier Together Aquatic Center cost estimate as provided to the City of Port Townsend by DCW Cost Management based on the architectural information as
provided by Opsis Architecture, there were many glaring omissions and obvious shortfalls that resulted in my findings that the project budget was at least $12 million under what would
be required to complete the build-out of the facility. Probably the most significant line item shortfall was associated with the lack of information pertaining to the management of
stormwater generated both during construction and through the life of the facility. In an attempt to clarify this shortfall with you, I went back to my notes and followed up with more
conversations with Bill Leavitt, President, Leavitt Trucking, Inc, who provided me with significantly important information regarding the Mountain View site, and stormwater systems
development in general in my initial review.
As you are aware, but to restate for clarity, Bill is a lifetime resident of Jefferson County and has owned and operated a successful excavation contracting business here for well over
40 years. Bill has literally worked in every corner of Jefferson County as well as many areas throughout Washington State. Bill will claim that there is not a piece of ground that he
has not set foot on throughout our county, but more importantly, there is not a piece of ground that he has not excavated in some way. When I asked Bill about his excavation background
familiarity with the Mountain View site, he was very familiar with the soil strata there, having worked on many sites in the immediate surrounding area. Bill explained that the soil
strata at the Mountain View site would likely be made up of a top, shallow layer of dark, organic, sandy loam/ topsoil, followed by a slightly more course sandy loam layer, then followed
by an extremely dense and deep layer of impenetrable glacial till. This glacial till layer, though very stable to build on as it has a very high soil bearing pressure/ capacity, creates
significant problems for the on-site management of stormwater facilities as it is considered to be basically impervious.
The Washington State Stormwater Manual, which serves as the management and design guideline reference/ code for how stormwater must be managed for any new construction, identifies basic
principles that can be utilized for the management of stormwater on any given site, as stated above, during the construction process as well throughout the life of the facility. The
main premise is that, when at all possible, stormwater generated must be managed on-site. This can be done by either infiltration (prefered), detention, retention, and filtration, or
a combination of all of these methods, especially the filtration element. The end result is that any potential stormwater that is generated and then directed to leave the site is free
of contamination and clean, thus protecting surrounding areas and properties.
As Bill explained, the Mountain View site would present significant challenges for the management of stormwater during construction and ongoing facility operation as the impenetrable
layer of glacial till could not be used for infiltration. He also stated, based on the conceptual site plan, that the almost 100% impervious lot coverage design would create large volumes
of stormwater needing to be managed. The site plan showed that no locations for detention, typically achieved by creating open pond type stormwater storage, were available. This would
then require that a below ground stormwater storage structure would have to be built, a retention system, likely under the areas associated with parking.
Bill stated that stormwater retention is typically the least desired method for the management of stormwater as it is extremely invasive during the construction process as well as being
very expensive. Bill drew reference to this type of system being used at the Salish Coast Elementary School for their stormwater management facilities. Bill explained that the structure
that was built there required that an area of approximately 100' wide by 300' long by 8' in depth had to be excavated with spoils removed off-site, geotextile fabrics placed in order
to line the entire excavation, a base layer of drainable clean rock set, followed by multiple runs of large diameter pipes installed, similar to what you would see with a septic drainfield,
followed by coverage of these pipes with more drainable clean rock, followed by more geotextile, and followed finally by an appropriate stable backfill material suited for whatever
traffic would pass over this system. To put the amount of material that would need to be removed and replaced in the development of this system into perspective, this would be equivalent
to approximately 1,800 typical 10 cubic yard dump truck trips through the stormwater system development process.
The size of any retention area needed is based on the civil engineer of record's calculation for how much stormwater could be generated, making provisions for seasonal and historic stormwater
producing events, with a final stormwater system design element being introduced into the system to manage some level of retention overflow/ flow control and stormwater outfall off-site.
Bill explained that this is typically managed through concrete vault structures that perform both oil/ water separation and, ultimately, filtration. The pipes in the subsurface retention
field are connected via a manifold type structure, with an orifice allowing the overflow to pass into the filtration part of the system, then potentially into the off-site infrastructure
where available. These filtration/ oil/ water separation structures are very large, buried in the ground, very expensive, and require annual maintenance. Bill believes that the system
that was installed at Salish Coast Elementary School cost approximately $4 to $5 million to complete, and that based on having similar site conditions and similar stormwater management
demand, the Mountain View site with the proposed development of the Healthier Together Aquatic Center would potentially cost the same or even more to develop.
The DCW Cost Management Prefered Option - Cost Plan Update dated June 30th, 2023 has currently only allotted $150k for stormwater systems development, which again, is not at all realistic
based on both Bill's and my review. There is also no money allocated for geotechnical review which would provide critical information necessary to the civil engineering firm selected
for stormwater design and analysis, as well as for foundation design for the structural engineering firm selected. The incompleteness and lack of information pertaining to stormwater
management systems development is, again, a glaring oversight in the development of the cost plan for the proposed new Healthier Together Aquatic Center. Both Bill and I feel that you,
as a member of the Healthier Together Task Force, need to be fully aware of this issue and should make this information available to the other members of the task force as well. Stormwater
management has become a significant element of design cost as well as physical cost for any construction project, and should be closely reviewed as a significant element to the site
selection process.
With that said, Bill is very confident based on his knowledge of the site, that the property being considered in Port Hadlock as part of the Chimacum Primary School campus would be significantly
better for the management of stormwater, as the underlying soil strata there is primarily made up of pervious free draining material which would work well for a filtration and infiltration
type system, thus reducing the stormwater system development costs significantly, i.e. by millions of dollars. As I have been a proponent of a Port Hadlock area based practical and
functional pool facility, the improved stormwater management capability located at the Chimacum Primary School site certainly makes a lot more sense than the stormwater site challenges
that would be faced at the Mountain View site, and, that again, have not been addressed. I would strongly encourage you to move towards siting any proposed new pool facility at the
Chimacum Primary School location for stormwater design considerations as well as the many other practical reasons that so many other members of the public have expressed.
Finally, as I have been consistent with my position regarding a public funding of a new pool, especially through a new taxing district in the form of the proposed Public Facilities District
(PFD), I am against this methodology for building a new pool anywhere. If a new pool is to be built, it should be built with private funding only. The county should absolutely not form
a regressive sales tax funded PFD for any purposes. A public/ private partnership could be formed for the operations and maintenance of a new pool if one should be built. The public
funding elements for this could be structured through the Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department, with the private funding elements supported by the hard work and dedication
that will be needed from the Jefferson Aquatics Coalition. A new pool would certainly be a wonderful asset to our community, but on a list of county priorities, it is nowhere near the
top. And in conclusion, I am thoroughly convinced that the existing Mountain View Pool facility could be rehabilitated and renovated to meet our community needs for years to come for
less than $10 million dollars, which would include lengthening the pool to high school competition length compliance.
Hope this is helpful to your considerations and deliberations!
Sincerely,
Mark L Grant
President
Grant Steel Buildings and Concrete Systems, Inc.
75 Haada Laas Road
Port Townsend, WA 98368
Office - 360-379-3236 <tel:360-379-3236>
Mobile - 360-301-4340 <tel:360-301-4340>
E-mail - grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com <mailto:grantsteelbuildings@gmail.com>
Web Address - grantsteelbuildingsystems.com <http://grantsteelbuildingsystems.com/>
Grant Steel Buildings and Concrete Systems, Inc is recognized as a
certified Veteran Owned Business by the State of Washington.
Grant Steel Building and Concrete Systems, Inc is recognized as an
Authorized Builder by Varco-Pruden Buildings.
楮瑳慲楴敶䜠潲灵⠠奆䥄佂䙈㌲偓䱄⥔振㵮敒楣楰湥獴振㵮挴㐱攳搳戹㔳搴搷__substg1.0_3A20001F