PORT TOWNSEND CITY COUNCIL MEETING, January 8, 2024 [first 7 minutes, speakers identified in square brackets] >> Roll call, please. >> Council Member Faber? >> Here. >> Council Member Howard? Is this absent or excused? Council Member MikHager? >> Here. >> Council Member Palmer? >> She let me know that she's running a couple minutes late. >> Okay. Council Member Rowe? >> Here. >> Council Member Thomas? >> Here. >> Council Member Wennstrom? >> Here. >> We have a quorum of council. >> Thank you. >> All right, we have general public comments. This is regarding items that are not on the agenda tonight. Do we have anyone signed up for public comments? >> Yes, we do. We have Jim Scarantino. >> Okay, please approach the podium. State your name and where you live for the record. >> Hi, I'm Jim Scarantino. I live in the county outside Port Townsend, but in the 93868 area code. I'm here tonight on behalf of the rapidly growing All County Citizens Alliance and now counts in its ranks former city and county office holders. I'm here to give you good news tonight. To serve the critical function of providing a place for people to learn to swim, which this council has said is of key interest. That can be done for less than $4.1 million by completely refurbishing, modernizing the Mount View pool. The city has in its files studies from two engineering firms retained by the city that reached this conclusion. One is a September 8, 2003 report from WTI Technology. And the other is an October 30th report from CG engineers. Unfortunately, somehow they 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, including a new roof. 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 think that's great news. I don't know why city staff didn't notify you of that, but we're happy to do so. Now if you think you've got to have a big shiny new pool with three tanks along the lines of the proposal you accepted, the other good news I have is that it is possible to do that for the $15 to $16 million estimate that's been provided to city staff and members of the steering committee by sprung structures of Alberta, Canada, I've learned in presentations that were made. And that's a fully as delivered price. That includes the pool, a modern up to date Mertha pool, which is the state of the art pools, and the sprung structure. And this could be done in six months from groundbreaking to grand opening. Again, we're happy to bring this good news to you. I hope that the council looks into this. Why this wasn't before you when you considered this interlocal agreement to do a study of a fantastically expensive plan when we can be accomplished for much less, we don't know, but we're happy to bring you this good news tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else signed up? >> There's no one else signed up. >> No one with their hand raised online. >> No one with their hand raised online. >> Anyone else in the room with public comment at this point? Okay, do we have any staff response? >> [Carrie Hite:] Sure, I can respond. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Jim is correct that we do have a few reports in our files. One is from September, which is just the, it's water technologies. It's a partial report. It's not a full report. The one that he says is $4 million is just the pool components. 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, which is a construction management firm and cost estimator. And they came back with a $21 million number for the full mill deal. And that was a very high risk number in which to rehab the pool. That briefing went to the steering committee on December 6th, which was after when the council met. The steering committee saw that report and heard the results of that report, and also solidified 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. And that 21 million might be 26, might be 27. What the 21 million number represents is things that are visible by the pool. They don't take into consideration the soil conditions underneath or the rebar under the plaster or anything like that. There was an additional report that Jim referenced, the CG engineering in October. It was just up the roof. And the council did get a briefing from Michael Todd about that. The roof was a million dollars to replace the full roof. 80,000 for a five year fix and we did the 80,000 this year. So that was what he's referencing on that report. 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:] Can I also add to that that report has been available online for some time? >> [Hite:] Yeah. >> [Mauro:] The leader might have mentioned it months before. >> [Hite:] We did a press release in early December about it and then the leader picked it up. >> [Mauro:] And not to mince words too much, cuz I know this is a game. But it's easy to cherry pick numbers and manufacture a different truth. That's not what we're trying to do here. We're trying to stay focused on the whole picture. And this study that actually thinks about the big, if we needed to go down a path of a full rebuild of a pool or a full start from scratch in comparing apples and apples. I anticipate some cherry picking and reporting coming soon. I just think that's unfair. More of a staff comment than a staff response. >> Thank you. >> [Monica MikHager:] Can I request, I would like to have a copy of the report that is a $21 million one? >> [Hite:] The full report? >> [MikHager:] Okay. >> [Hite:] Yeah. >> [Mauro:] You can go to the website. >> [Hite:] Sure. I can send that to you. >> [Faber:] All right. Going on to discussion items tonight. >> [Hite:] And John reminded me, it is on our website. So you can go to the website and I'll help you up together to get that. >> [Wennstrom?:] That's why I was confused, cause you'd already said it. >> [Faber:] All right, then we're on to our discussion items. [end of public comments and staff response at 7:00 minutes]