The day they thought would never come arrived on Tuesday, March 19th, 2024, when the City of Port Townsend and the Olympic Peninsula YMCA received an unwelcome bit of news from a litigation team at the Center for American Liberty, representing longtime Port Townsend resident, Julie Jaman.
As reported by the national news website, the Daily Wire, the clock has run out on the YMCA’s and city’s dodging of responsibility for the debacle that ensued after Jaman was banned for life from the Mountain View Pool a year and a half ago.
Regular readers of the PT Free Press are familiar with the outrageous treatment Jaman (and eventually her supporters) faced in July and August of 2022. (Access our extensive reporting with the link following this article.)
According to the demand letter from the Center for American Liberty, “The City’s and the YMCA’s conduct violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution… and Washington law.” The letter was addressed to City Manager John Mauro, acting City Attorney Kendra Rosenberg, and Olympic Peninsula YMCA CEO, Wendy Bart.
“The Center for American Liberty sent a demand letter to the YMCA and the City of Port Townsend on Julie’s behalf threatening imminent litigation if Julie’s lifetime ban is not immediately lifted. The City of Port Townsend and the YMCA punished Julie because of the content of her speech—because she spoke out after seeing a man in the women’s locker room. Julie deserves justice for the violation of her First Amendment rights and the emotional distress she’s experienced because of this ordeal.”
Though a relatively young enterprise, in practice since 2018, the Center for American Liberty is blazing trails as it defends parental rights, constitutionally protected speech and religious liberties. They’ve emerged as a powerhouse in the woke arena of coercive “gender transitioning” of young children and teenagers, including the now nationally-recognized ‘detransitioner,’ Chloe Cole.
Page one of Center for American Liberty demand letter
Setting the stage
The 8-page letter accompanies over 200 pages of duplicative public records, many redacted — communications between city officials, the YMCA and the public relations firm contracted by the city to manage the mess they’d created by refusing to even consider Jaman’s version of the episode, devoted as they were to ideology rather than fairness and accuracy.
The demand letter references the unlawful ban of Jaman, provides a bit of factual background, and swiftly moves on to “The Locker-Room Incident.” (The following are excerpted quotes. For legal reasoning supporting them, please read the entire eight pages.)
On July 26, 2022, Jaman went for a swim at the Pool. After she finished, she entered the women’s locker room to shower and change. There were no signs warning patrons that the locker rooms were open to members of the opposite sex. In fact, the signage indicated that the locker rooms were sex segregated.
While in the shower, Jaman heard a male voice inside the locker room. When she pulled back the shower curtain to see who was there, she saw a biological male wearing a female swimsuit. The individual—later identified to Jaman as “Clementine Adams”—was watching two young girls who appeared to be about four to six years old as they were preparing to use the toilet. Adams was not wearing any form of identification indicating an affiliation with the YMCA.
Jaman was startled by Adams’s presence in the women’s locker room and believed that she might be witnessing a crime in progress. Jaman asked Adams, “Do you have a penis?” Adams responded, “None of your business,” after which Jaman said, “Get out of here!”
Within seconds, YMCA staff member Rowen DeLuna entered the women’s shower area and began berating Jaman. DeLuna did not inform Jaman that Adams was transgender, that Adams was an employee of the YMCA, or that the Pool had a policy allowing individuals to use the locker rooms that aligned with their gender identity. Instead, DeLuna informed Jaman that her speech toward Adams was “discriminatory,” that she was “banned for life” from the YMCA because of her speech, and that she could no longer set foot inside the facility.
In addition, DeLuna told Jaman to leave or she would call the police. Jaman told DeLuna that she too wanted the police involved so they could investigate potential misconduct. YMCA staff called 911 and asked for the police to escort Jaman from the premises. A recording of this call reveals that the YMCA staff told the police that Jaman was harassing YMCA employees and belligerently refusing to leave. None of this was true.
None of this was true. It’s important to reiterate this statement from the law firm, and to highlight the effort by several operators within the city administration to carefully craft the narrative before it went public.
Example of redacted communications between the city and the public relations firm hired to provide damage control (page 31, Exhibit C).
More from the Center for American Liberty’s demand letter:
On August 11, 2022—in the wake of significant local and national media attention—the City released an official Q&A discussing the July 26 incident... In the Q&A, the City said — falsely — that Jaman had engaged in a “documented previous pattern of disrespectful behavior.” … The YMCA made similar false statements to the media.See Exhibit B (quoting YMCA’s statement asserting that Jaman had “repeatedly violated the [YMCA’s] code of conduct”). Despite multiple requests, neither the City nor the YMCA has explained this alleged prior misconduct.
Emails and other documents obtained through public-records requests reveal that in the weeks following the July 26 incident, City officials were intimately involved in responding to concerns within the community regarding operation of the Pool. This included what appears to be a coordinated effort involving Mayor David Faber, City Manager John Mauro, and City Councilwoman Libby Wennstrom, among others, working with the YMCA and Feary [sic] Public Relations — a crisis communications firm hired by the City — to develop a public response to the incident.
This public relations campaign included statements to the media, social media posts, the above-mentioned Q&A, and other statements by members of the City Council.See, e.g., Exhibits C–F. These statements labeled Jaman as hateful and bigoted and indicated that she had engaged in a pattern of conduct that violated the YMCA’s policies. None of this is true.
While the above brief synopsis mentions the YMCA’s denial of evidence for its mendacious claims of Jaman’s prior “disrespectful behavior,” it bears repeating here — none of the supposed documentation was ever produced. Julie Jaman asked for it again and again. It does not exist. It was all a fabrication.
Jefferson County resident Crystal Cox requested a copy of the contract with Fearey. The $3,000 charged by the crisis communications firm to run interference for city hall is now just the start of what it will cost taxpayers to deal with the city’s gross mismanagement of a sensitive situation.
The City and the YMCA Violated the First Amendment
The First Amendment prohibits the government from retaliating against individuals forexercising their First Amendment rights... Moreover, the government may not discriminate against speech exercised on public property based on its viewpoint.
First, Jaman’s ban was in retaliation for her protected speech. When Jaman saw Adams accompanying two young girls in the women’s locker room and watching them while they undressed, she was concerned she was witnessing unlawful conduct.
To be sure, the government may, in appropriate cases, take action to protect its employees from harassing conduct of third parties. But Jaman’s comments did not come remotely close to the line of losing protection under the First Amendment or otherwise justifying the YMCA’s response.
By banning Jaman from the Pool based on her speech, the City and the YMCA retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity.
Second, the YMCA engaged in viewpoint discrimination on public property and acted unreasonably in banning Jaman. The government engages in viewpoint discrimination when it allows speech favoring one side of a debate but not the other.
The City and the YMCA Violated the Fourteenth Amendment
The City and the YMCA also violated Jaman’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause prohibits the government from depriving an individual of fundamental rights absent due process of law… Exercising First Amendment rights on public property is a protected liberty interest.
The YMCA banned Jaman for life immediately upon hearing her object to Adams’s presence in the locker room. It provided her no notice of its locker-room policy or that such objection would be deemed a violation of the YMCA’s conduct policies.
The City and the YMCA Violated Washington Law
The City and the YMCA also violated Washington common law. The statements that the City and the YMCA published about Jaman were false and defamatory per se, and the City and the YMCA acted in reckless disregard of the truth, at least.
Further, the City’s and the YMCA’s coordinated public relations campaign against Jaman amounts to the intentional infliction of emotional distress… And both the City and the YMCA were negligent in various ways, including but not limited to failing to warn patrons that persons of the opposite biological sex may be in sex-segregated locker-rooms…
The City and YMCA Must Cease their Unlawful Conduct
The City’s and the YMCA’s actions against Jaman were not only unlawful but also shameful. When an 80-year-old woman reasonably believes she is witnessing a crime against minors in a women’s showering area, the government’s reaction should be to gather all of the facts and learn what happened, not take sides in an ideologically charged debate.
Moreover, the public records obtained since the incident show City officials and YMCA employees engaged in a sophisticated and coordinated public relations campaign to smear Jaman and make her appear to be bigoted and dangerous to transgender individuals. This couldn’t be further from the truth. It is true that Jaman supports keeping women’s spaces reserved for biological women. But she does not harbor hate towards anyone based on their gender identity, nor has she ever engaged in harassment at the Pool or elsewhere. Yet that is exactly what the City and the YMCA have led the public to believe through their false and misleading statements.
Lead attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, closes with this:
“To remedy the unlawful conduct against my client, I demand the following: (1) the City and the YMCA lift the ban against Jaman; (2) the City and the YMCA issue a formal apology to Jaman for their actions against her; and (3) the City and the YMCA pay Jaman the sum of $350,000 for her emotional distress arising out of the incident.”
City officials and the YMCA CEO have until 5pm on Wednesday, March 27, 2024 to respond, or they can expect to meet Jaman, her local counsel Rosemary Schurman, and the Center for American Liberty — in court.
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.”
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.
WTI’s report did not look into the condition of the building. For that the city retained the services of 
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.
