Answers sought on pool engineer’s report

I would like to comment on the new engineer’s report that states the Golden Square pool now needs $290,000 spent on it before it can be opened. 

I am not an engineer, but I would like to point out discrepancies, which are evident even to a lay person who takes the time to read the 2009 engineer’s reports in detail and compare them to the new costings.

First, the engineer’s 2009 report stated that high priority short term items totalled $19,200. 

Now, upon a hasty re-inspection this has been increased suddenly to $290,000. It seems like a huge increase over a three-year period. 

It’s hard to understand how things can deteriorate so quickly and so dramatically. 

Second, an amount of $100,000 has been allowed for water circulation issues. 

All comments in the old report say the pool is generally good in this regard. 

It states the pump needs replacing but even this is based on estimated flow rates only and not an actual rate.

Third, I was told at the on-site pool meeting that the standards that apply to the Golden Square pool are no greater than other pools. 

The 2009 report for two other pools states that water circulation issues are similar to Golden Square. So why is Golden Square pool being singled out?

Fourth, there is no issue with the integrity of the pool shell in any report. 

So how can council keep saying that the pool is near the end of its life? 

Some other pools need more spent on them than the Golden Square pool. 

Lastly, two other new costing items have been directly disputed by our members who are qualified in those areas and say they are not required or have already been done. 

I spoke to the mayor personally about these concerns on Monday and have raised them with all other councillors and I am still waiting for a response. 

Ken Hamilton,

Shelbourne

Smartphone
Tablet - Narrow
Tablet - Wide
Desktop