Administrators and elected officials in Port Townsend’s city hall are painfully familiar with charges of subverted public processes, and rightfully so. Sims Way poplars, the golf course, streateries, the pool — each of these controversial projects followed trajectories reflecting desires and preferred outcomes of those in power at the expense of transparency and honest efforts at citizen engagement.
Yet another attempt by the city to avoid transparency and manipulate public process has come to light.
In the course of exploring options for Port Townsend’s aging Mountain View pool, City Manager John Mauro and the city’s Director of Parks and Recreation Strategy Carrie Hite have told us there were only two choices. We “do nothing” and wait for the pool’s inevitable closure. Or the City of Port Townsend plus all the county’s taxpayers take on the massive debt of a grandiose $37-50 million aquatic center that citizens are calling the Taj Mahal (see articles here, here, here, here, and here).
Citizens asked repeatedly, What about renovating the existing pool? Mauro and Hite insisted that repairing and upgrading the pool would be prohibitively expensive — that the only option is a full-scale redevelopment of the entire Mountain View complex.
More than half a million dollars later, it turns out that reports provided by experts hired to evaluate the options show their assertion is untrue. And that those reports were kept not only from taxpayers, but also from the city council.
It took two citizens’ requests for documents that are supposed to be publicly available to uncover these suppressed reports.
They revealed estimates to completely refurbish and modernize the pool for $4-$5 million.
First Consultant’s Report
Last summer, the city commissioned Water Technology, Inc. (WTI) to evaluate the condition of the Mountain View pool and estimate the costs of remedying any problems found. WTI provides designs for new pools and the “refreshing” of old pools. In their field, which is primarily traditional construction methodology, they are considered a global leader.
WTI conducted an on-site investigation of the Mountain View pool and provided its report to the city six months ago on September 8, 2023. They found plenty of signs reflecting the age of the facility, the same problems we have heard about from city and YMCA staff, namely:
- leakage in the pool vessel;
- rippling in the pool liner;
- ineffective pool gutter;
- clogged drains;
- deteriorated pool deck;
- corrosion;
- lack of underwater lighting;
- insufficient HVAC ventilation;
- inefficient and problematic pump;
- deteriorated heat exchanger;
- absence of secondary disinfectant system;
- less significant issues such as ceiling bulbs needing replacement.
Example from WTI report of photos and written assessments (from Page 4 of PDF).
WTI estimated that all the deficiencies it found could be repaired and remedied for $2.875 million. For $3.5 million the Mountain View facility could be fully modernized, with complete reconstruction of the pool vessel, pool deck, piping, deck drainage and mechanical systems. They stated:
The newly constructed pool vessel will be designed and engineered to modern standards of quality and compliance and be supported by today’s advanced mechanical, filtration and water treatment systems.
The $3.5 million reconstruction would include:
- New lap pool of 3,400 square feet;
- Water depth zero to ten feet;
- Quartz aggregate finish with tile border and markings;
- Four lap lanes with starting platforms;
- Shallow water program area.
WTI did not intend to paint only a rosy picture. Their conclusion was clear, and certainly no surprise. New is better, if one can afford new…
There is a significant investment required to provide aquatic amenities to the community which are maintainable long-term. However, lower levels of capital inputs for repairs or renovations in the short-term often result in higher total expenditures in the long-term. This report finds the Port Townsend community would be best served, both programmatically and financially, with a new aquatic facility. A modern aquatic center can provide the durability and efficiencies to enable a more effective and sustainable facility over a lifespan measured in decades than the existing facility after repairs and renovations.
But do we have the resources for a Taj Mahal? With city finances currently falling off a “fiscal cliff”, essential services like water and sewer are at risk right now in Port Townsend. Does “living within our means” apply to governments in the least? Bureaucrats spending other people’s money without consequence for catastrophic failure has led many cities in this country to bankruptcy.
Second Consultant “Found Minimal Damage to the Existing Structure”
WTI’s report did not look into the condition of the building. For that the city retained the services of CG Engineering of Edmonds, Washington “to assist the City with determining the scope and cost of rehabilitating the pool building,” according to the firm’s October 30, 2023 Structural Assessment Report.
CG Engineering inspected the pool on October 10. Water staining was observed on the ceiling. But rotting damage was not found; the stains were superficial. “Roof decking appeared in good condition,” the engineers concluded. Rust and rust stains were also observed at locations around the building.
Dozens of photographs document CG Engineering’s assessment of the Mountain View Pool building’s structure. Page 10 of the 10/30/23 Structural Assessment Report.
Structural elements are in good condition. The concrete walls are in good condition. A pool equipment pad was corroded and deteriorated. A crack in the men’s locker room floor was a shrinkage crack and did not compromise structural integrity. The same conclusion was reached regarding observed hairline fractures in locker room walls.
Director of Parks and Recreation Strategy Hite (who holds neither an engineering degree nor a contractor’s license) has asserted that the pool is doomed and beyond repair partly because of the tunnel under the building.
Not so, concluded the engineers. Yes, the metal decking in the tunnel was severely corroded and had fallen away in several places. But “the decking appears to be non-structural and was likely formwork used during the original construction.” Cracking in the sidewalk slab directly above the tunnel was due to temperature differentials and did not compromise structural integrity, they said.
CG Engineering concluded:
Generally, we found minimal damage to the existing structure. Water staining and rust on the roof framing and steel connectors appeared superficial. The recently added vinyl roof coating appears to have been successful in temporarily preventing further water intrusion to the structural framing. Minor cracks in the concrete/CMU walls and concrete slabs appeared to be temperature and shrinkage related and should not affect the integrity of the structure.
CG Engineering’s recommended remedies came to an estimated cost of $536,643. There is only a partial cost of $300,000 estimated for a new roof which has been quoted elsewhere at $1.07 million. If the higher roofing estimate is accurate, that could bring the structural total to $1.3 million. And there is a to-be-determined line item for seismic retrofit. Seismic retrofits are not necessarily required and that appears to be the case for Mountain View since the city never asked any firm to estimate that cost.
Thus, based on these two consultant’s reports, the combined cost of remedying the building’s deficiencies and completely modernizing and upgrading the aquatic components comes to less than $5 million ($3.5M + $1.3M). Not the tens of millions we have been told it would take to provide a place for children to learn to swim and elders to recreate.
Why did city employees keep this news from the city council and the taxpayers who paid for those reports?
Why was public digging necessary to reveal this information?
Enter the Third Consultant’s Report
The WTI and CG Engineering reports, only recently disclosed, were respectively received by the city six months and four months ago. Both firms have decades of experience in these kinds of analyses.
From minutes of the August 8, 2023 workshop of the Healthier Together Aquatic Center steering committee we learn that these two reports were anticipated by mid-September. The minutes noted:
From minutes of the August 8, 2023 Healthier Together Aquatic Center steering committee meeting with Carrie Hite and eight others in attendance. The meeting focused mostly on using the creation of a Public Facilities District (PFD) as a funding mechanism for the proposed new aquatic center, and strategies for winning approval of a new tax ballot measure brought to county voters.
But upon receipt of WTI’s September 8 Mountain View Pool Evaluation and CG Engineering’s October 30 Structural Assessment Report, neither report assessing the possibilities for upgrading the pool and building was disclosed by the city. When both of the above reports revealed less than a $5 million price tag likely for full repair and renovation, it appears Hite and Mauro took another approach.
A third consultant’s report was commissioned. The city contracted DCW Cost Management, a generalized cost-estimating firm in Seattle with no specific expertise in pools, to do a “Cost Study.”
DCW’s Mountain View Pool Renovation Cost Study considers a different scope of work — pool renovation and total building reconstruction at $21 million.
Unlike the first two reports which present documenting photos and written analysis to remedy existing conditions, DCW’s Cost Study, obtained months later, shows no evidence that the firm assessed anything about the existing pool and structure. Other than saving and repairing some windows and exterior doors and repairing a roof drain, it appears that most if not all of the structure, and every system and all contents were to be replaced with new ones. We are told that “Cost [sic] are developed using existing as-built drawings.”
This cost study herein attempts to address the modernization of the existing facility to meet current code and for the pool to meet competition standards for Jefferson County students. The interior renovation includes new interior finishes, pool expansion and building extension, resurfacing of the pool deck, acoustic wall treatment to the natatorium, new plumbing where systems are broken, mechanical and electrical upgrades to current code.
No drawings or plans are shown, only costs. But reading through the 18 pages which include demolition, mass excavation, earthwork and other site preparation — even $153,000 in new landscaping — the impression is that they have taken a wrecking ball to the current building and used the existing as-built drawings to price out a complete rebuild.
Costs are delineated for components such as roofing ($1.07M), superstructure ($1.77M), plumbing systems ($2.67M), and heating, ventilation and cooling ($1.64M). Every pipe fitting, piece of tile and drain is itemized. There is a $1,530 line item for a 60 square foot “locker room graphic.”
We asked professional contractor Mark Grant of Grant Steel Buildings and Concrete Systems, Inc., who has scrutinized this study, for his impressions.
“Your interpretation is correct in that the DCW pool renovation cost study reflects nearly a complete tear down and rebuild of the entire facility. It is a stretch to refer to the scope of work shown in the DCW report as a renovation.”
He believes it’s prudent to add more for contingencies than is allowed for in the $4-$5 million total of the first two reports. But even another million or two will not come close to DCW’s $21 million rebuild price tag the city is claiming is an under-estimate.
Strategy: City Management Gaming the Public
In November 2023, as a member of the Healthier Together Aquatic Center steering committee, City Manager John Mauro acknowledged to the Jefferson County Commissioners that taxpayer funds in excess of half a million dollars had already been spent in pursuit of the “Taj Mahal” aquatic center project. Consultant fees and other trackable expenses have at this point amounted to over $721,000 — including more than $555,000 from the city, $105,000 from the county, and $50,000 from the Jefferson County Hospital District.
All has been spent in service of convincing the public that if we are to have a community pool in years to come, our only option is the fantastically expensive design presented in June of 2023.
In April of 2022 Mauro hired Carrie Hite to fill the city’s new Director of Parks and Recreation Strategy staff position. That role was created to direct the process and strategize the narrative to sell us on several large-scale city projects, including a lavish new aquatic center beyond our means.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on staff time and consultant fees, presenting the community with this grandiose vision that would require new taxation. Hite and Mauro repeatedly dismissed what should have been the first consideration — expert analysis of the cost to rehabilitate and upgrade the existing pool and building.
When the Healthier Together Aquatic Center plan was unveiled five months after the steering committee first met, there was tremendous community pushback. Homemade “NO PT POOL TAX” signs appeared around the county (see closing photos). Local professionals challenged the city’s assertion that there was no saving the existing pool.
Public pressure pushed the city to finally hire firms to assess the pool and structure and do long overdue cost analyses on a rehab. No doubt Mauro and Hite were looking to justify the supposed impossibility of bringing the Mountain View facility up to snuff. And one would expect that the outlay of yet more consultant money would drive the city to choose the best qualified firms in the field to do the job.
Both initial contractors WTI and CG Engineering appear to have those qualifications. Both have decades of experience. Both made thorough assessments that are well documented.
It appears that when the first two reports did not support the steering committee’s agenda for their flashy new aquatic center, those reports were kept under wraps. A third consultant was hired, a general “cost management” firm. The new kid on the block was given a vastly expanded “tear down and replace'” scope of work.
This interpretation of events is borne out by exchanges between Carrie Hite and Port Townsend resident Musa Jaman, who submitted a request for documents analyzing repairs needed to upgrade the existing pool. In response to a Facebook post from city council member Libby Wennstrom about the pool, Jaman asked where she could get accurate numbers. Wennstrom referred her to Carrie Hite.
Jaman’s email to Hite on November 22, 2023 titled “Public document request” asked “about getting access to the document analyzing the existing pool issues and associated costs to take care of repairs and upgrades along with operational and general maintenance costs.”
Hite responded on November 28, stalling:
“I have forwarded your public records request to our public records officer… The full cost analysis report that we commissioned will not be ready until next week sometime.”
While two reports that performed the analysis Jaman had asked for were already in the city’s possession, they were not disclosed.
On December 12, 2023, Carrie Hite again demonstrated her qualifications as Director of Strategy. She sent Jaman an email explaining the delay, again ignoring the first two reports, and emphasizing her contention that rehabilitation of the existing pool would be even more expensive than the new, expanded 21-million-dollar estimate from DCW that was now in hand.
Hite wrote, in part:
Hi Musa:
I held your PRR as a continued request so I could email you the cost study that was completed by DCW…
The $21M estimate is based on what is visible and given the age and unknowns around the current structure, as well as the rising costs for construction, this number is likely a conservative estimate.
Despite the existence of two credible reports received months earlier proving there were more affordable options, strategist Hite did not reveal the WTI and CG Engineering documents when they were requested. Instead, she waited until the city had obtained another report to support her “too expensive to fix” narrative.
When documents were finally sent to Jaman, the first report — commissioned from “global leaders” in aquatic planning, design and engineering, WTI — was omitted. Only CG Engineering and DCW files were in the attachments Jaman received.
The September 8, 2023 WTI pool evaluation was uncovered separately through a Public Records Request (PRR) by a member of a new group that had formed, the All County Citizens Alliance. He learned of the report’s existence from the minutes of the August 8 pool steering committee meeting, filed a PRR for it, and shared the document with the group.
We try to keep it at a high level:
Obfuscation, half-truths and outright falsehoods
Following receipt of WTI’s report through the PRR, Jim Scarantino, “on behalf of the All County Citizens Alliance,” attended the January 8, 2024 City Council workshop. He delivered “good news” in a public comment about the two studies that had been withheld from the council:
Unfortunately, somehow [the reports] didn’t make it into your packets on November 13th, and later on when you considered the pool.
What those two engineering firms found was that there was minimal damage to the Mountain View pool. And that the building can be repaired for $536,000… And that the pool can be completely replaced and modernized with the latest modern equipment, including a new pool with a shallow entry for parents and children, for $3.5 million, for a total of $4.1 million.…
I don’t know why city staff didn’t notify you of that, but we’re happy to do so.
The responses from Carrie Hite and John Mauro that followed are a master class in verbal ju jitsu, misrepresenting, and false statements.
Hite explained that the WTI assessment is just a “partial report”:
It doesn’t include seismic or ADA or building structures, roof or anything that has to do with the building at all. And so we, the city, contracted out with CGI [conflated with DCW], which is a construction management firm and cost estimator.
And they came back with a $21 million number for the full meal deal. And that was a very high risk number in which to rehab the pool…
There was an additional report that Jim referenced, the CG Engineering in October.
It was just up [sic] the roof…
“Just up the roof” is not only garbled — if, as it appears from context, she meant their report was “just about (or for) the roof” — that statement is flat-out false.
As we have shown, CG Engineering supplemented WTI’s report on the aquatic component of the equation with a full “assessment of the Mountain View Pool building’s structure.” Along with roof replacement, their Structural Assessment Report includes concrete walls, steel pipe columns, concrete slabs, pool room structural elements, and mechanical access tunnels.
Seismic wasn’t requested, nor is it included in any line items in the $21 million “full meal deal” from DCW. It is true that ADA was not addressed, but according to DCWs cost study those add-ons would amount to just $9,990 for an ADA-compliant shower, ramp & detectors, and parking signs.
The “full meal” from DCW offered the easy out — $21 million! By changing the scope of work to a “tear down and replace,” the full meal became a smorgasbord. Far from the rehab option that the community had been requesting which the first two reports looked at, it was an all-you-can-eat buffet with $1,500 locker room graphics and $153,000 of new outdoor landscaping for our indoor swim.
“And that 21 million might be 26, might be 27,” Hite told council.
She then said that “the steering committee saw that [DCW] report,” but made “the recommendation not to put a dollar into the old pool, because we can’t get any state and federal money or grants or philanthropy for that old pool.”
She concluded:
So those reports are operational in nature. We try to keep it at a high level.
If you want the details, I’d be happy to send it to you. But we really tried to go through the steering committee first and keep it at a very high level and make some decisions based on the full report, not a partial report.
John Mauro jumped in:
Can I also add to that, that report has been available online for some time?…
And not to mince words too much, because I know this is a game.
But it’s easy to cherry pick numbers and manufacture a different truth.
A game it is. City Manager Mauro did not create the position of Director of Parks and Recreation Strategy to oversee a practical renovation of “that old pool.” Carrie Hite was hired to sell us a “very high level” new aquatic center.
And her “happy to send you the details” was for just one report, DCW’s full meal deal.
When the reports were requested, that $21 million “tear down and replace” cost study was the only one made available to council members. That is the one Mauro references that was online. To this day, it remains the only one of the three posted by the city.
The initial WTI and CG Engineering reports, totaling less than $5 million, are not disclosed on the city’s website. On the “Healthier Together” aquatic center web page under “Materials Available for Review,” there is no mention of the two firms’ analyses and findings that support sensible renovation and modernization of the existing pool.
Find the two buried reports at these links:
Water Technology, Inc.: Mountain View Pool Evaluation
CG Engineering: Structural Assessment Report
Co-editors Ana Wolpin, Stephen Schumacher and Annette Huenke have a combined history of more than 120 years in Port Townsend. See the “About the Free Press” page for more about the editorial team.
The transcript of the Jan. 8 comment period is worth a read. We the people are a nuisance, indeed.
“We try to keep it at a very high level.” Hite is saying the quiet part out loud, shameless as so many bureaucrats are. You who paid for those two early reports cannot be trusted with what they contain. We’ll have to filter it for you. Trust us. We have only your welfare in mind.
Mauro is preparing to be offended by public scrutiny, petulant as an 8th grader:
“I anticipate some cherry picking and reporting coming soon. I just think that’s unfair.”
Carrie Hite flat out fibbed when she dismissed the CG report as only a roof repair estimate. A couple council members had been asking if these kinds of reports had been done and were told “no” and “not yet” when, in fact, Hite and Mauro had them when they went to council to get an endorsement for the $37-52 million Taj Mahal aquatic center. During that meeting they told council the pool could not be repaired, though the reports to the contrary were already in their hands.
Can you say Criminal Malfeasance boys and girls? Try it, it’s easy.
Criminal Malfeasance.
This is a fun game! 🙂
Now can you say Collusion and repeat the definition.
“secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others: ”
Can you ask where else this has occurred?
Can you click on this link and ask yourself WTF did you expect?
https://www.porttownsendfreepress.com/?s=who+is+john+mauro
Did you see this? County Commissioners Monday Meeting Agenda Jan. 22, 2024.
Now what would have the Commissioners calling in their attorney? This is part of OPMA law: Any member of a governing body who attends a meeting knowing that it violates the OPMA is subject to a potential personal liability of $500 for the first violation and $1,000 for a subsequent one. See RCW 42.30.120(1)(2). The missing two swimming pool reports acquired by Freedom of Information Act and published by Jean Ball raises my concern of the Commissioners violating OPMA. This could be an honest oversite; but them calling in a lawyer about violations of OPMA strongly suggests to me that this “pool papers disappearance” is what has them scared.
Agenda: January 22, 2024 AFTERNOON SESSION 1:30 to 2:00 p.m.
“EXECUTIVE SESSION with the County Administrator, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney re: Potential Litigation; Exemption as Outlined in the Open Public Meetings Act, RCW 42.30.110(1)(i)”
OPMA aka Open Public Meetings Act. For purposes of this subsection (1)(i), “potential litigation” means matters protected by RPC 1.6 or RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) concerning:
(i) Litigation that has been specifically threatened to which the agency, the governing body, or a member acting in an official capacity is, or is likely to become, a party; when public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the agency.
Outstanding reporting and advocacy Jim and PTFP editors. As a mid-county resident who swims several times a week at Mountain View, I do indeed want a functional, accessible, modern facility. But only through honest, feasible means and in a location that makes sense for the county as a whole. I am so grateful for PTFP’s tireless fight to expose the bullshit.
The biggest rip-off so far is the hundreds of thousands of dollars wasted on the Healthier Together Taj Mahal theater (“town halls”) and the nice drawings cribbed from other projects and flawed feasibility studies. $721,000 down the drain. In contrast, a group of citizens, the All County Citizens Alliance, brought to the table a way to save $35 million and get the project built in under a year. Whether it be pride or just bureaucratic dysfunction, city staff seem to be standing in the way right now. Building the aquatic center in Hadlock — centrally located on good soils where the site prep will save millions over the Mountain View site — and using the cost-saving engineering of Sprung pool enclosures and Myrtha pool vessels, is the only way Jeffco will get an aquatic center. But none of that was even considered as $721,000 was being burned up.
Jim,
That’s laid out well. I liked the grand pool idea – from the perspective of a swimmer, but I wondered on the “fall out of the sky” money concept from the beginning. No matter how it’s served up it cannot match the population by which it would be used. Port Townsend can feel larger than it is when one is in the core — because it’s often bustling. A $30 million pool for 30,000 (potential) users is mathematical incompetence. This isn’t why I’m commenting, since this recent information has moved from a dusty drawer to public knowledge. With technological advancements in building pools, I’ve ALWAYS thought on the centralized location for a county pool the best. The idea isn’t even slightly weird. Granted I would drive anywhere reasonable around here for a decent place to swim, do you believe your stated direction will now be re-visited since there are now tangible plus-positive examples of pool construction that cost a pie slice of what the public has been unfairly delivered as a non-optional cost window? I also feel that “with all this”, the city of PT has 100% failed to come through and therefore the concept should be handed off. Sounds harsh but think about it .
Thanks for your opinion and scope.
Hi, Pete. First the true cost of the “base model” Taj Mahal will be closer to $50 million. See Mark Grant’s analysis published previously by the Free Press. I do think that the city fumbled this project terribly and set it back considerably. I do not understand how the “professionals” and “experts” on pool construction failed to educate the Steering Committee on the latest in pool construction alternatives that would have saved tens of millions of dollars. As for why Hadlock was never considered, Carrie Hite told me at the Kala Point town hall the Free Press sponsored that she did not know there was a sewer system under construction there.
Mountain View Pool March 5, 2024
Sometime in the early 2000s, when Dave Timmons was city manager, the pool came into focus. A volunteer group had formed to support the swim team, the Aquatics Coalition. The team was in a small league but we looked forward to the great photos and reports in the Leader about their meets with other small schools. The high school team had the fastest flip turns in the league and did have one hot shot diver.
The volunteers began lobbying for a regulation length pool so meets could be held in Port Townsend once or twice a year. The aquatic group did not want repairs, they wanted a regulation length pool with spiffed up accoutrements. Some community members wanted private dressing and shower rooms, others didn’t like the look of the roof – the unique parabolic design. The rationales began to grow: the leaky roof, cement cracks, handicap access, rust, mildew. Unbeknownst to the community, in about 2000, Timmons hired a study, The Orb Report, to see what would be involved, costs of repairs.
Around 2006 or so, while up in the planning office (back then the public was able to go to that department to research and ask questions about land use and permitting), a coffee-stained hard copy, the only copy of the report, surreptitiously appeared on the counter. It described the repairs that would keep the pool in working order for another 20 or more years, contradicting the Aquatic coalition’s information.
It appears Mauro/Hite have continued the tradition of hiding reports that don’t suit their agenda. One must question the motives behind insisting a Taj Mahal facility is the only solution. The swim team is a wisp of its former self. How much should the community invest in facilities for this small league team? Should we have aspirations of major swim meets in PT, State or national competitions? What about the Chimacum swim team? Is the student population growing and how many will want to be competition swimmers?
Looking at the Mt. View facility, the pool and gym built in the 50s/60s, it is likely the quality of that cement work will not be replicated. Maintained, refurbished, repaired and replaced to current standards is an affordable approach. Hite, the Parks & Rec Strategy Director ($133,000-$164,000), may know where to find government handouts but the Taj (HTAC) architecture and costs, quality of workmanship and materials may be disappointing.
Housing is the priority of the community. Centrally located low and affordable apartments could be built at the site of the old tennis courts and Gaines Street ROW; a shovel ready possibility. But not if the $40M+ Taj plan with its 100+ vehicle paved parking goes forward. This is not to say that the current 30 space parking shouldn’t be reconfigured to accommodate Wednesday and Saturday food bank activities or special occasions. But the mayor has other ideas.
You may recall, the city strategy concerning the golf lands included references to affordable housing. Mayor Faber has edited out “affordable” and councilwoman Wennstrom wants actions to confirm this real estate plan is going forward. That agenda seems to indicate the city will sell ($$$) part of the golf lands to accommodate high end town houses i.e. views, access to golfing, and just across the street a sparkling aquatic center – just like in the big cities.
About a regulation-size pool suitable for swim meets:
Both new pool quotes were for 3,400 square foot regulation pools. Both Water Technology, Inc. (WTI) — the aquatic specialists who did the first report and estimated a new pool with all the trimmings at $3.5M (the report the city tried hardest to conceal) — and DCW, with their $21M price tag, appear to be talking about upgrading to a competition-level pool.
WTI says their new 3,400 SF pool would be in the existing natatorium. DCW mysteriously describes their rebuild as a “pool expansion and building extension,” which sounds like they are enlarging the space. Yet the city, in a press release furthering their narrative that the pool is too expensive to fix, says the DCW quote is for a pool within the existing footprint.
Like the city, the $21M DCW proposal is not transparent. They never assessed the existing pool and say their quote is working from “as-built drawings” which the city provided. They do not show those drawings, so we have no idea what this $21M full meal deal that included $153K in landscaping outside the building is actually presenting.
In the exchange I had with Mark Grant, I asked him if he could translate what the “expansion and extension” language meant. He agreed it was confusing: “I have never been able to review a full set of the as-built drawings either… It is my interpretation that this plan includes extending the natatorium, pool and structure, to accommodate lengthening the pool.”
Yet the city’s press release said that was not the case. DCW’s language says one thing, the city says another.
But what IS clear is that both the $3.5M and $21M estimates are for new 3,400 SF regulation-size pools. Even the $3.5M upgrade that the city tried its best to memory-hole would give the community a brand new (not repaired) competition-level pool that swim meets could be held in.
What is Carrie Hite’s employment background? Whence comes Mauro’s desire to lie to the people who are paying his salary?
Sylvia:
From the web, Hite has a Bachelor’s degree in Parks, Recreation and Leisure Studies from Western Washington University. She was Deputy Director, Parks and Community Services in Kirkland from January 2001 to January 2011, then Director, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Services in Edmonds from January 2011 to July 2019. (Cities with populations of 92,000 and 42,000 respectively.)
She was not hired to manage our parks. PT has had a Parks & Facilities Manager for many decades, and still does. This is “a term-limited, two- to three-year position” to strategize direction.
From a 2022 PDN article announcing the hiring of the $130,897/year position:
The new “visionary” position is one of many Mauro has devised and added to the city’s employment rolls in his four years as city manager — Director of P&R Strategy, Communications & Marketing Manager, and Director of People & Performance are among them — positions never considered necessary in the past, arguably unwarranted for a city our size, and costing taxpayers a bundle.
Mauro’s desire to lie to people? It appears he got this job to begin with by lying. What would you speculate is his motivation?
Once again, to explain some “Hidden History”. John Mauro was vetted by 20-year council member and 3-time appointed mayor Michelle Sandoval and Deborah Stinson, at the time Stinson was appointed mayor. Sandoval followed her as appointed mayor once again. There are and were issues with the vetting process. Those concerns got no traction.
Mauro was greeted by the “machine” here including the Leader as something more than just new staff hired to follow the Council’s direction. Sandoval in the Leader said Mauro has the Northwest in his blood and was the most in tune and well-prepared option. When Mauro came on board Dean Miller the short-lived editor at the Leader was focusing at last on parking and wrote an editorial warning of “favorite sons” getting special treatment. Can’t find it now. Miller mentioned he was getting some grief from the local “hoity toy” and left abruptly soon after moving here specifically to take the job at the Leader. Seemed odd to some.
Parking under Mauro which benefitted real estate (Sandoval’s gig) and in some minds and plans less cars stayed de funded and damaged business access and basic polite culture. Photos and text to city for 10 years has fallen on deaf ears. Still does with the exception of a recent reply by Appointed Mayor Faber (who was deputy mayor under Sandoval). Faber says we need to look at Bordeaux France and eliminate parking in the historic district. Mauro tried to close Taylor to cars as one of his first actions.
I contacted the city attorney, and it was claimed to only be a demonstration, and the street was re-opened. Signs said it was part of the “Open Streets Initiative”. Closed streets suited someone’s agenda.
Faber is very dependable when looking for someone who fails to grasp bigger pictures and can toss a word salad. His trail of wreckage is well documented. Council supports him without exception. The FP is full of Faber’s activities.
Now we have the opportunity to watch Council deal with an employee who took his job seemingly in collusion with others to ignore laws and codes and built a career on that deeply flawed foundation. A non-corrupted city council would have dismissed someone not following laws and codes. A non-corrupted council would not have allowed it from the beginning. Mauro’s job description is to fund all departments fully. Police and parking not an exception. Except here in PT where police chiefs don’t follow their oath.
Things are more fluid here. The sound of those drowning in the fluid is ignored.
Mauro, Faber, and council’s methods regarding Streateries, poplars, golf course, pool, and aspects of the FWPDA followed the corrupted course this town has been on for years. This continues due to no term limits and city managers running the council. Timmons did for 20 years alongside Sandoval.
They and a few others gave us the FWPDA.
Now, council’s employee Mauro kept information paid for by the public from council and the public. The Orwell quote that warned of the increasing power grab is “turn the cheek and the blows get harder and harder”. Council follows another quote among themselves “the important thing is that we don’t betray each other”. Screw the constituents and many others.
Mauro betrayed all. Assuming Faber and others didn’t know what he and Hite were holding back. If he keeps his job, it indicates the level of corruption throughout the council and city. If given a free pass expect escalating more of the same.
Mauro and Sandoval loved to say, “be kind”. 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Perhaps it is far past time to “get real”. 🙂 🙂 🙂 Crime is crime. Smarm is smarm. No matter how comfortable it has become for some from city attorney to council to police chief to main street to chamber and others.
Faber might act as Mauro’s attorney, if justice really does exist and Mauro has the chance to explain under oath regarding what looks to be Criminal Malfeasance and Collusion.
And people ask why we are leaving…………………
PT rat watch is fun to read. Rodent control methods exist.
https://bondsforthewin.com/
For some tips. To remove officials.
They may not even have a surety bond or notarized Oath of Office. Worth a PRR?
Keep up the fine reporting.
I sent an email to the City Council after reading this and got the following response from David Faber:
“Hi David,
Thankfully, it isn’t true! The actual cost to simply rebuild the exact existing pool is $21million, not $4.1 million, and that doesn’t include the myriad of potential unknown costs that might come with a rebuild. There’s also the fact that a rebuild would likely not attract the charitable/philanthropic funding or grant funding that a much higher quality aquatic facility would draw, meaning that ultimately, just rebuilding the existing pool would potentially cost the taxpayers more than the proposed new aquatic facility. This issue is incredibly complex, and it’s frustrating to see the Port Townsend Free Press take advantage of the complicated nature to cherry pick partial information/misinformation to drive a community wedge on something that is actually pretty important for our community.
Best,
David J. Faber
Mayor, City of Port Townsend
(360) 821-9374”
In discussion with another City Council member, it appears David’s statement is not true. The Council was never made privy to the cited reports until recently. They (as were we) only told that there were only two options: no action or build a new facility. And, the estimate for a new building at $21 million is nothing but a red herring. Mayor Fibber has some explaining to do.
Mr. Johnson-
Faber’s methodology when he does respond is to distort what telling question or fact is before him and “reply” to the distortion. This will often work when people don’t have time or patience to do follow ups.
In my case responses end when the distortions are questioned, and the dishonesty is distilled down.
An edited version of my last email to Faber, Mauro and Council follows…. Sound of crickets is the response. Good luck getting any real response to any lie or manipulation left lying around.
“A few unanswered questions and items that go back a while to David Faber, Ben Thomas and all with a trusted position to serve the town’s constituency. Not calling out bullshit leaves the impression that continued use of it is acceptable and that some don’t know the difference when it is served to them. The servers and servings are well understood.
First to Ben, and of course all council and Mr. Mauro. I asked Ben about this in the Free Press. There was no response regarding Council’s employee Mauro accepting and using the expensive fraudulent “study” by Ballard King that wasn’t even based in this town. Was Mauro’s use of that also fraudulent? Seems plain as day. Did he not notice the study had nothing to do with PT? Did he use it knowing it was not relevant? And expensive? Both possible answers are unacceptable for an “almost perfect” $200,000 a year, 5-week vacation employee. Is there no responsibility for Mauro and Ballard King? Do Ben’s and all council’s constituents take a back seat to Mauro’s career and crafted image that wasted limited public funds?
The ongoing absence of answers here defines the entire council. Constituents are apparently owed no honest answers. Who/what is being served? Not we the people. Wasted limited funds. For a lie.
There are two things that explain David Faber, City Council and others in the power core in PT.
1) Intellectual dishonesty. This is a term used to describe intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning. It refers to the advocacy of a position known to be false, which is misused to advance an agenda or reinforce one’s deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
2) Institutional deviance. Mr. Faber has described himself as a deviant, a trait he says is required to be mayor. Council has taken no issue with that including chicken and dog sexual references on social media. “Entertaining” as one council member put it.
Institutional deviance is the concept of normalization of deviance that was first identified within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”). (After the space shuttle blew up.) American sociologist Diane Vaughan defines the “normalization of deviance” as “the gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization.”
Easily seen ongoing train wrecks such as purposefully mis managed parking apparently is seen by council and others as not constituting “catastrophic results”. It is the ongoing erosion of community. It is in your face discrimination to all visitors, and a community dividing tool. It is in your face discrimination against the unsuspecting and unknowing visitors from here in town to far away. The policy empowers the least community minded to take a limited public asset as personal property and displace visitor access. Intellectual dishonesty serves to facilitate denial of this fact. Extending mess tents (streateries) was a level up from that.
David Faber recently said “I simply do not believe the conclusions of the parking study (millions of dollars in lost business) have any veracity. Again, Bordeaux, in France, is instructive for discussions of parking reform. When they eliminated all vehicle traffic in their downtown, the business community went ballistic.”
Faber won’t explain exactly how that would work here, or his power to dismiss studies that do not support his narrative. Ben Thomas and council are silent on Mr. Mauro’s fraudulent Ballard King “study”.
David, I just saw this. What Mayor Faber says is completely wrong. The $21 million price tag is for all but demolishing the Mountain View pool and building and extending its walls. It is nearly a complete tear down and rebuild. Everything, including landscaping, is removed then replaced, even if there is nothing wrong with it. I don’t think he has even seen the CG and WTI reports. They have been withheld from council and the public. Together they reach the conclusion that the Mountain View pool can be completely fixed, upgraded and modernized with a larger pool for about $4.1 million.
Whoa! Thank you for finding and reporting all of this. People who have moved here from other places do not understand how dinky and isolated Jefferson County is. There just aren’t enough people to pay for the things you find in heavily populated areas, which is one of the trade-offs (or preferences) we accept in living in this beautiful place. Consultants come from a different world and tend to make locals feel pitifully backward, and the amounts of money they are suggesting are way out of range for the small population here. So we turn to grants, which sometimes funnel us in a different direction than was wanted in the first place.