Lowballing costs. The feasibility study for the proposed Port Townsend aquatic center appears to grossly underestimate likely operating costs. Annual deficits may be far worse than being reported to the public. Even greater subsidies — and higher taxes — may be required.
The flawed feasibility study prepared for the city and the PT aquatic center task force relies exclusively on hypothetical numbers.
No on-the-ground research in and around Port Townsend was conducted.
In every scenario, a future PT aquatic center (architect’s conception featured above) would run deficits of around $400,000. And that’s being treated as good news.
We have a comparable facility nearby that could serve as a yardstick in accurately estimating costs for a future PT aquatic center. The William A. Shore Aquatic Center in Port Angeles has real-world data collected from real-world experience of its operations over time.
The consultants chose not to consider the Shore center’s real-world experience on the Olympic Peninsula. We will do it for them — and for the benefit of taxpayers who are being asked to foot the bill.
The William A. Shore Aquatic Center
The Shore aquatic center was built in 1961, two years before the construction of Port Townsend’s Mountain View pool. It has undergone many upgrades and renovations and is now a modern, attractive 30,000 square foot natatorium. It had been owned by the city of Port Angeles until 2009 when voters approved creation of the Shore Metropolitan Park District, which now owns and operates the facility.
The expansion of the facility to twice its original size was completed in 2020. In addition to the original competition pool and diving tank, it now offers a spa, a wellness pool, and an activity pool that includes a “lazy river” and vortex ring. All pools are heated. Other additions include a multipurpose space, universal changing hall and locker rooms, and support spaces for staff and patrons. The enlarged building has a dedicated space for the Splash, Play and Active Recreation for Kids after-school program for children, and an outdoor playground with multiple features above a synthetic turf.
In 2017 voters increased the park district’s debt capacity from $6.5 to $10 million. The $20 million renovation was funded with bonds, state and federal grants and cash reserves.
Here is a video tour of the completed facility:
PT Aquatic Center Feasibility Mixed Up
With Upper Macungie, Pennsylvania
The feasibility study for a new PT aquatic center was prepared by the consulting firm Ballard*King & Associates from Highland Park, Colorado. I have written two articles (here and here) examining flaws and red flags in their report. One of the red flags was that these consultants compared PT’s cost of living and housing expenses to those in Pennsylvania. This, combined with other absurd extrapolations (such as concluding we likely had 1,305 adults playing basketball), led me to wonder if they had mixed up their report for PT with work for another community.
It appears that hunch was correct. The Ballard*King report is now posted on the city’s website. There is no title page. It is entitled “Upper Macungie Report 3.22.23” according to the tab that appears on the search bar when the link is clicked.
Upper Macungie is a rapidly growing township in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. That township had been doing work on a community center. It appears that the report for Port Townsend was cut-and-pasted, commingled and confused with work for a very different community on the other side of the continent.
Here is that curious page from the study comparing PT’s cost of living to its counterpart in… Pennsylvania:
Now add to these reasons to question the validity of the Ballard*King report indications that their operating expense projections appear to be way off. Shore’s real-world experience shows that running an aquatic center costs a lot more than these consultants are revealing.
We have obtained Shore’s recent financial data from Steve Burke, who has been with the Shore Metro Park District since before the facility underwent its expansion and remodeling. You may study that information at this link: 2018-2023 Shore Aquatic Center Financials.
Lowballing the Likely Costs
of a PT Aquatic/Fitness Center
Three versions of a possible new PT aquatic/fitness center have been under consideration. Ballard*King purported to project operating costs for each of them. The three versions are described in their report as follows:
The future PT aquatic center “base” model would be similar in size and offerings to Shore Aquatic Center in Port Angeles. Ballard*King estimated the annual operating costs for Port Townsend’s base model at $1,268,557. This doesn’t square with real-world expenses projected by the already-running equivalent nearby facility. Shore anticipates significantly higher operating costs in 2023.
According to its latest financial data, Shore expects expenditures this year to be close to two million dollars — $1,932,770.
The Ballard*King estimated annual operating cost of $1,268,557 is for a period of time in the future, no sooner than 2026, the year upon which they base their hourly wage predictions. If that figure were adjusted to 2023 dollars, it would be even lower, by a factor that backs out the cumulative effects of inflation.
The current annualized rate of inflation is 3.2%, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. If we applied this rate of inflation to adjust the Ballard*King operating prediction figure to 2023 dollars, it would be about $1,191,106 or $741,664 lower than the Shore center’s experience this year. (You can verify this and the following present value calculations using this handy present value calculator.)
How could a similar facility hope to operate in Port Townsend for almost 40% less?
The projected base model is the least expensive version of a proposed new PT aquatic center. At their most recent meeting on August 25, 2023, the steering committee focused on the larger and costlier base-plus-gym and the full build out versions.
The base-plus-gym is projected to cost $37.1 million to build, nearly twice the Shore center’s $20 million expansion and upgrades. Port Townsend, with half of Port Angeles’ population, could thus be building a pool twice as expensive as the one that serves the much larger city. The full build out is projected to cost $45.9 million.
From somewhere, the steering committee believes it will obtain $15 million in grants, gifts or other support for each version, leaving $22.1 million for local taxpayers to shoulder for the base-plus-gym version, and $33.9 million for the full build out.
Ballard*King’s hypothetical annual operating costs for the two larger versions appear to be seriously off when compared to the Shore center’s experience just 45 miles away.
The base-plus-gym version would require, according to Ballard*King, operating expenditures in 2026 dollars of $1,617,810. That is $1,519,036 in current 2023 dollars, compared to the Shore center’s 2023 expenditures of $1,932,770.
How could a larger facility requiring more upkeep and staff incur such significantly lower operating expenses?
The projected operating costs for the massive full build out version — more than a third larger than Shore, with a gymnasium, weight/cardio space and a larger staff — are somehow almost exactly the same in 2023 dollars as the much smaller and simpler Shore aquatic center at $1,957,076 versus $1,932,770.
How could that be possible?
Doesn’t Pencil Out
At the most recent town hall presentation, July 13, 2023 at Fort Worden, the public was shown the slide copied above acknowledging that this project can’t “pencil out.” All three versions are projected to run deficits of $352,000 to $434,000, requiring an annual subsidy paid by city taxpayers on top of any property and/or sales taxes they would be paying just for the pool.
Those subsidy estimates may be another instance of lowballing what this project is likely to cost taxpayers.
At a July 2, 2023 workshop — as opposed to a public town hall meeting — the steering committee was provided a much grimmer projection, showing a subsidy of $1.6 million, four times what was presented at the public meetings. Unlike the slides shown the public, this one included the annual financing cost for a new aquatic center:
We’ve Seen This Before:
The Cherry Street Project
“I wouldn’t change a single thing about what we did,” Mayor David Faber has said about the failed Cherry Street Project. The city is now seeking bids to demolish that “affordable” housing project that has taxpayers on the hook for $1.4 million in bond principal and interest. Over $100,000 more in other outlays has been poured into the century-old derelict building barged here from Victoria, B.C. in 2017.
As we’ve reported, city council had in hand the equivalent of a feasibility study — a pro forma — that showed the project would default within two years of securing financing. The project’s cost estimates had been derided as “bogus” by the president of Homeward Bound, the organization that was going to complete the project. Costs were lowballed in repeated efforts to hook the city and taxpayers, and then extract more from them as the project demanded more and more investment… until the costs of finishing it became utterly prohibitive and the project was abandoned.
In its push for a new pool, the city is again being offered a questionable feasibility study. The consultant leading the effort, Opsis Architecture of Portland, Oregon, stands to secure a lucrative contract if the project moves forward.
Every member of the steering committee wants to see a new pool built. There is no one outside the loop providing critical, objective analysis. There is no “red team/blue team” constructive give-and-take to drag into the open all the possible weaknesses and flaws in the work being done by Opsis and Ballard*King. The city and the aquatic center steering committee are going with only one estimate, the estimate that suits their agenda.
The flawed feasibility study comparing Port Townsend’s cost of living to Pennsylvania and reaching absurd extrapolations from statistical data, while also missing the Cape George pool and placing Port Ludlow’s pools in Kitsap County — that study has been in the steering committee’s hands for months. Apparently no one read beyond the numbers they selected to pitch to the public to see how the study may be seriously flawed. They have no reason to critique the feasibility study on which they are building their case for higher taxes.
No one on the steering committee apparently was troubled by the fact that the feasibility study relies only on hypothetical numbers and did not bother to consider the real-world costs of the nearby Shore aquatic center. The Olympic YMCA holds a seat on the steering committee. They could provide real-world data from the Sequim YMCA to show how much it costs to run a larger facility. That does not seem to have been done.
Taxpayers are being asked to buy into a massively expensive-to-build, expensive-to-operate amenity solely on the basis of hypothetical numbers.
Ballard*King has already given itself an out. They do not guarantee that they got any of their cost estimates right. Proceed at your own risk, they say.
Ballard*King disclaimer of responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions in their cost projections
Taxpayers won’t have such an easy out. Once they bite, there’s no getting off the hook.
Jim Scarantino was the editor and founder of Port Townsend Free Press. He is happy in his new role as just a contributor writing on topics of concern to him. He spent the first 25 years of his professional life as a trial attorney, then launched an online investigative news website that broke several national stories. He is also the author of three crime novels. He resides in Jefferson County. See our "About" page for more information.
Oh please not another Cherry Street debacle. Get your heads out of yourselves Port Townsend Council and look at this properly. We have streets that are falling apart. Companies that need help but can’t hire because no place for help to live. Shall I go on? Let this ridiculous notion go.
Another Great article with important info. That the local “media” is entirely silent about. Gotta wonder about all the chumminess between “media” and local govs. So much blatant bs yet we are expected to just consider these operations normal.
Folks need to stop focusing on the massive endless deficits the Aquatic Center would cost our City, because that is “deficit thinking”! Instead we need to “flip malaise and negative thinking habits” and “practice the appreciative approach through reflecting and looking for what made it work — Edge Lane roads as an example.”
That’s the positive message a paid “Lead Groups Better” facilitator is bringing to the City Council at their special “Appreciative Inquiry” Workshop this Monday, September 11 at 6pm. Read all about it at:
https://cityofpt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&event_id=1971&meta_id=219121
Councilors will learn about “What is so great about an appreciative and positive thinking approach? Why is ‘deficit discourse’ letting us down? How often do we ask for input on our strengths? What is the proportion of Appreciative vs Deficit thinking that we use in our regular City and community discourse? How does it feel? Do you notice a difference in your overall sense of well-being and possibility when that proportion changes? What does an appreciative approach make possible?”
The workshop concludes by brainstorming “How do we include a wider set of voices while the deficit perspective tends to be louder and more persistent?” Things will sure be a lot more positive and inclusive once deficit thinkers are drowned out!
There will be two opportunities for Public Comment during the workshop, so here’s your chance to join in and show some appreciation!
Incredible! City administration’s efforts to invalidate public pushback over wasteful spending, misguided pet projects and skewed priorities knows no bounds.
As Jim notes, with millions wasted on the Cherry Street project debacle, Mayor David Faber imperiously declared “I wouldn’t change a single thing about what we did.” Yet more tax dollars are now being thrown down that money pit as the city goes out for bids to tear down the long-standing public health hazard and eyesore.
When the city’s determination to permanently install eateries in high-traffic city streets was met with broad opposition, Faber dismissed the outcry with an aggressive “do not [be] beholden to the loud minority.” He characterized the overwhelmingly negative responses from business owners and general citizenry as “a bunch of loud, angry people.” He led off one council discussion regarding the massive opposition voiced in survey responses and in letters to council by emphatically instructing, ‘Do NOT take that as a statement from the majority.’ All negative input was to be disregarded.
While city finances are “fall[ing] off a cliff,” local electeds focus on incurring more debt (our tax dollars) for a $35-50 million new pool. That and the specter of increased taxation to take care of neglected basic infrastructure like crumbling streets has led to increasing public feedback over a loss of common-sense priorities.
The city’s response to ongoing criticism was to create a new marketing position — Communications and Marketing Manager — a new hire who hit the ground running in May with “a creative approach to allowing everyone to come up to speed quickly with the Financial Sustainability Initiative.” That series of videos to convince the public that we need more taxes, along with other propaganda, hasn’t persuaded the community that city “leaders” are on the right track.
The public isn’t having it.
Clearly the money spent on an in-house spin doctor and hundreds of thousands on consultants hasn’t done the trick. What to try next? How do we stop all the complaining?
Now more funds are being thrown at yet another consultant, this one specializing in re-framing basic, common-sense feedback as “deficit thinking”. “Deficit discourse” is” letting us down.” We need “an appreciative and positive thinking approach.”
Is there no end to the city’s inability to listen to the public it is supposed to serve? To the wasted resources rationalizing their mismanagement and warped priorities? To their determination to defend bad choices and fiscal incompetence?
Each new day brings a fresh opportunity for PT officialdom to shock and awe its taxpayers. Micro to macro, we’re paying for the psyops being employed against us by ever-expanding, already morbidly obese bureaucracies.
I see that the CDC and City of Seattle are some of this “Lead Groups Better” consultant’s clients. Makes perfect sense. She might have called her business “Lipstick for that Pig.”
Let’s talk about those edge lane roads (ELRs). I wrote to Public Works director, Steve King, upon hearing that 49th Street would be undergoing that transformation here shortly. A group of folks who live on the stretch between Jackman and Cook Ave decided that this will address speeding on 49th. The hundreds of folks living in linked neighborhoods—people who use 49th nearly every day—weren’t invited to share their opinions ahead of this decision.
I shared with King that I’d recently narrowly avoided a head-on collision heading north on Kuhn when I encountered a gal driving up the hill from NB Park in the center of the road. As I was already in the right lane, I was able to divert to the grass off the road edge just in time. I asked him why he’s using the single metric of speed while disregarding the obvious dangers of blind hills and curves. I asked him for evidence supporting his claim of reduced speed because an ELR “…represents a one lane street which means folks need to slow down.”
Mr. King didn’t say a word about the near-crash, nor did he provide proof for his statements. He dragged out the old canard about people having difficulty with change, and went on about how much he likes these single lane roads, hilariously adding “It wasn’t that long ago when most of the road [sic] were single laned roads.” He must be a lot older than he looks.
He didn’t bother to answer my question about the timeline for the project, or whether or not the city will be liable if/when there is a serious accident resulting from the pathetic little travel direction that does exist—a sign at each end of the street that looks like this — ↑↓. wtf?
These functionaries are not serving us. They’re paid phenomenal sums to follow an agenda designed by entities whose names and intentions they’re wholly unaware of. Time to throw these babies right on out with the icky bathwater.
Myself and council member Owen Rowe don’t like the tone of some commenters. 🙂 A groupthink lobotomy seminar will be held at Fort Worden to correct incorrect thinking, if it is still open. Stay tuned for date and time. John Mauro will be leading newspeak class later in the day. Appointed Mayor Faber will be attending and breast feeding his newborn. He would like to apologize for the latest city newsletter where he took valuable space which should be for city business to talk endlessly about his self breeding program. He also regrets that he assumed his child unit would decide to be female. A relapse we must forgive. Quit being “a bunch of loud, angry people.”
My blood ran cold the one and only time I drove on Kuhn edge road. Definitely recommend for thrill seakers living on the edge. Not OK. Engineering malpractice. Hope the taxpayers are saving up for a multi-million dollar payout. Does anyone know a QUALIFIED, non-compromised engineer who could help get this shut down before someone dies?
The edge roads in my neighborhood are just another humiliation ritual from our WEF occupation government. The new pavement décor didn’t change anything here. People drive, walk and cycle (very rarely) like they always did – most sharing the road and resisting the urge to splash mud on pedestrians walking in the street next to perfectly good sidewalks.
An article on Edge Lane Roads (ELRs) is in the works. There is considerable controversy about this topic, another example of the city enacting changes without adequate public input.
This conversation is being moved to Off Topic! letters, so please contribute to the ELR discussion there.
Would the YMCA continue to run the pool? Would this new aquatic center honor the tradition of binary sex in the human race, and welcome women and girls and protect them from the intrusions of any and all mental and/or medical stylings of men and boys in the locker room? I’m concerned because a program of swimming is a time-honored and medically-supported way for seniors to stay healthy, flexible and fit. So barring senior women from its use because they know what they know including that men and boys will take advantage of the opportunity to invade little girls’ private spaces for nefarious and dangerous reasons as is well known to police, counseling and medical professionals. The presence, questioning and action taken by senior women (and any women) on innocent young swimmers’ behalf is a safeguarding that young girls in society always need… that’s part of why women and girls got their own separate spaces in the first place: safety. I know that with the current morally questionable city government and its ties to the biggest criminal defense law firm in town, and therefore, EVERY law office in town, and the judiciary, makes any kind of fairness near impossible, or, fully impossible. It is conundrum that should stay on people’s minds at voting time, and for local commerce choices, and to take any kind of impeachment or removal actions as they are afforded, because as long as the top tier of city government is allowed to operate, corruption will reign and is has and continues exponentially to do. I have done some research and found that the lovely town across the Sound from my family in Seattle is a scary place for many women who recoil at the idea of men ‘helping’ little girls remove their swimsuits ‘as part of their job’ and allowed via a merely proclaimed ‘identity’ as a woman—for restroom use. “Never let anyone touch you in your bathing suit areas” we were warned by our parents and schoolteachers, and PT’s YMCA actually stood by a man doing this to little girls: actually removing their swimsuits. Were their parents warned this might occur, or that it did occur? Do those parents continue to allow their children to be accessed this way? They would not be the first to traffic their own children to predators, if that is the case and I have no reason to think it is, but, is it? If so, shouldn’t these parents be subject to review by child welfare services? This kind of ‘first’ invasion wrecks the notion that the child has personal sovereignty and can be very hard if not impossible to repair, rendering yet another child a more easily overwhelmed by predators in the future. This is a very serious situation for families in Port Townsend and any friends of families there who allow their children to visit the local pool. Or, other public facilities. Port Townsend was put on the world map by the film ‘An Officer and a Gentleman,’ shot some of the film there, and I am afraid it will be put back on the map with the Nightline newspiece entitled, “An Officer and the Predators.” Next: Fentanyl Forest, the real ‘Twilight’ of the Olympic Peninsula.
I went to the council meeting. I had never seen a legislative session like this. The consultant, Maggie Chumbley, does these all over the world. She has a seminar coming up at Fort Worden where you can pay her $250. The city paid her $1,300, according to an email from city manager John Mauro. She put up slides she uses in her workshops–nothing customized–that asked councilors to tell stories about something they did they felt was a success. Then she asked them if they felt better. The whole thing was over in about 90 minutes.
The ghost of George Carlin is now shouting in my ear. Orwell whispers “told you so”.
I really feel Mauro thinks he has ended up in Yokelville and can get the locals to do anything just by controlling the city council. Kind of like the pet you bring home that ends up running the house. Did he have a straight face while he watched?
Was Appointed Mayor Faber’s success story about finding a home for indigent raccoons and rats at Cherry Street? Or providing a place for kids to throw refrigerators out of windows without needing to do so where someone actually could ever live? Did he reflect on how he, Sandoval, Howard and others were able to save a neighborhood from the stigma of “affordable housing” and help Canada get rid of toxic waste? All in one brilliant move? What about creating jobs to tear it down? Does he not already “practice the appreciative approach through reflecting and looking for what made it work”?
He always seems pretty self satisfied to me.
Or did Appointed Mayor Faber testify before all that his success was pondering “having sex with a dog to create the perfect yam” and putting that “thought” on facebook along with saying that to be mayor you have to be a “pervert and deviant”. Like, duh.
This only cost $185.714285714 per successful council member. For a successfully great price of only $14.4444444444 per minute. I wanted to dig deep as to costs. These were fantastic group rates that must have resulted in building a great resilient team. Even more than voting in lock step. It must have been a bonding experience for the self-esteem challenged.
If you’re 5 years old.
Did Mauro share a story? Like faking it into the job of a lifetime and not having to wear a trainee hat? No one noticing your excessive car allowance when you say you bike everywhere and we should too? Is a jet next? Do as I say…not as I do.
I hope someone can post a link to the meeting so everyone can enjoy the stories of success that surely will trickle down to us all. After all we paid for it.
In so many ways.
If we all can focus on our great achievements and avoid “deficit thinking”! and “flip malaise and negative thinking habits” all our troubles will take care of themselves. That used to be called delusional. But aren’t delusional people usually happy folk? Don’t happy folk do better work? See the point?
Too bad you can’t fill chuck holes with bullshit. Thanks for the sacrifice of your time Jim. Still laughing? Mauro is.
Tell us you’re a liberal without telling us you’re a liberal… that is Bidenomics and printing money. Not being able to actually budget what you have is what continually hurts the Taxpayer. “You’ll own nothing and be happy” is the end goal here. Deficit discourse (LMAO), call it whatever you want but it’s really a scam to ultimately bankrupt America.
Many thanks for continuing to follow this story, and these dollars, Jim and PTFP. I’m a mid-county resident who swims frequently & regularly at Mountain View but am not an advocate of taxpayers footing the bill for a new facility. Your columns are being read and discussed and have an impact.
I watched as much of Monday’s circle jerk (pardon the crude phrasing) as I could, which was about 5 minutes. This council continues to be an embarrassment to this community. The continued waste of taxpayer money is offensive. Deeply grateful for the disinfectant your sunlight provides, until enough folks can be inspired to run against and replace these councilors and fire Mauro.