HomeMy WebLinkAbout061824 email - FW_ Mr_ King's email regarding utilities and stormwater at Mountain ViewHello Everyone,
The following email was generated from Jim Scarantino.
Best regards,
Wendy Housekeeper
Dear Task Force members and others,
Upon receipt of Mr. King's email that the costs would be "negligible" for rerouting sewer, water, stormwater and electrical utilities and installing a new stormwater system for a new
aquatic center at that site, our volunteer group (the local construction industry professionals I work with on this) took his statement to civil engineers outside Jefferson County.
They have "no dog in this fight" that would conceivably impact their professional judgment. One of these civil engineers specializes in the design of stormwater systems in compliance
with Washington's very onerous regulations.
They were kind enough to review all the Opsis and city utility plans available and are very familiar with the Kah Tai Lagoon's pipes and the Salish Coast Elementary multi-million-dollar
stormwater system, which empties into Kah Tai Lagoon. These engineers work at Zenovic in Port Angeles. Following, in very general terms (using my layman's verbiage), is what was reported
back to me.
They concluded that Mr. King's analysis is incorrect. As a general principle, a city engineer cannot exempt a public work from the state's environmental and stormwater regulations. Washington's
stormwater regulations would not permit discharge of untreated stormwater directly into Kah Tai Lagoon, which is a Class A Wetland. This is the case even though a quite unusual pipe
does connect the lagoon with the Salish Sea by running under the Boat Haven. They concluded that detention and treatment on site of stormwater would be required, but that there is insufficient
available surface area for such ponds. An underground detention reservoir would be required. Something similar to what was required--a $4 million change order nearly a decade ago--on
the Salish Coast school project would be necessary. The costs for these large items at the Mountain View site would not be "negligible," contrary to Mr. King's brief email.
These engineers were kind enough to donate a substantial amount of time in order to provide an oral assessment. Their fee for a written opinion would be $500-$1000. I have no problem
making that payment as a public service.
My question is whether we are going to continue to wrangle over details--albeit important details--of the proposal for an aquatic center at Mountain View or move forward to the tasks
with which we were charged: assessing a site and construction methods for a facility in the Hadlock/Chimacum area. If the task force would like these engineers' expert opinion entered
into the public record, I stand ready to make that happen.
Respectfully,
Jim Scarantino