Rift over rec center architect led to PenMet resignation

A disagreement between staff and board members over a choice of architects led to the resignation last month of the project manager for the proposed PenMet Parks community recreation center, The Gateway has learned.

Glenn Akramoff, a consultant who was nearing the end of his contract term as interim project manager, resigned Sept. 17, citing “continued interference in daily operations and a total disregard for professional recommendations.”

Akramoff had been the district’s acting executive director since March of 2019 and shifted to the CRC job after the current executive director, Doug Nelson, was hired in November.

(A temporary replacement has been named. See accompanying story.)

Akramoff has not replied to numerous calls and emails seeking comment.

In his resignation letter, Akramoff said, “I can no longer work in an environment where certain members of the district continue to make decisions in the background without the transparency of the public process.” He gave no details.

Split with staff

According to people familiar with the dispute, three of the five commissioners, including board president Maryellen (Missy) Hill, thought the architectural design contract should go to a Denver firm, Barker Rinker Seacat Architecture (BRS), while district professionals rated another firm more qualified.

In the end, the winning architect, BLRB of Tacoma, agreed to accept the Denver firm as a subconsultant for the initial phase of the project.

Hill said she respected the opinion of the staff, but in the long run it was the business of the park board to make the decision. BLR was added for its expertise, she said, and for no other reason. She said neither she nor any other board member had any contact with the Denver firm outside the selection process

“The board was always going to render the final decision,” she said.

Largest project

The $26 million rec center is the Peninsula Metropolitan Parks District’s largest capital project ever. To be built on the site of a former Gig Harbor golf driving range, the 190,000-square-foot center is to have an indoor soccer field, a flag football field, pickleball and tennis courts, a walking track and an indoor playground.

The park district paid $4.3 million in December 2019 for the former Performance Golf Center at 2416 14th Ave. NW, adjoining state Route 16 across from the Narrows Bridge toll plaza.

The lead design firm for the earlier stages of the project had been Snodgrass & Freeman of Gig Harbor, but it was dismissed in May. The official explanation, architect David Freeman said, was that the local firm was too small for such a large project.

After a search, the PenMet board in July chose the architectural and engineering firm BLRB Architects of Tacoma to design the complex. It allocated $3,146,381 toward design costs. BLRB is well-known in the Tacoma area and has designed many local projects, including the Gig Harbor Civic Center.

Dispute over architect

The recommendation to hire BLRB had been made by a selection committee comprised of two commissioners — Amanda Babich and Steve Nixon — PenMet’s four department heads, and consultants. They reviewed nine applications, eventually winnowing them down to four.

In selecting a new design firm, a difference of opinion arose, according to Hill, between the professional staff and commissioners Babich and Nixon — who preferred BRS.

Former and present PenMet staff members, architects and consultants who spoke to The Gateway declined to be quoted on the record because of the risk to their jobs or contracts. But they gave a general outline of the dispute, confirmed in substance by the commissioners, although they disagreed in some details.

The Denver company has a strong portfolio in recreation center design, but no local connections or experience. It placed low in the committee’s rankings and was about to be eliminated when Babich told the committee that the omission would not sit well with the board.

At the suggestion of a consultant, a compromise was arranged. BLRB would accept BRS as a sub-consultant for the initial phase of the project.

Board’s job to decide

Hill acknowledged that BRS had been scored low by district staff — it placed third in the final field of four — but that Babich and Nixon had scored it high. In any event, she said, it was the commission’s job to decide.

“The committee was formed to provide input to the board, but the board was always going to render the final decision on who would be the project architect and to approve the contract,” she said.

Hill said the commissioners were impressed by the Denver firm’s past work, including a 2016 aquatic center in Sammamish and the 2006 Community Center in Federal Way, and by its expertise in gathering input from the public.

The PenMet professional staff worried about the Denver firm’s lack of experience in the immediate Tacoma-area market and their unfamiliarity with a state-mandated protocol they would have to use.

Parametrix, a Tacoma firm serving as consultant, sent a letter to PenMet expressing concerns about BRS. The letter noted particularly the firm’s geographic distance from Gig Harbor and lack of local market knowledge.

‘Bling’ in pitch

A PenMet staff member who asked not to be named to protect their job, said the two commissioners on the selection committee were wowed by the “showy” BRS presentation.

“It had a lot of ‘bling,’ to it,” said the staffer, who sat in on the presentation. “It was very impressive.”

The two commissioners were annoyed when staff consistently ranked BRS below the other candidate firms, the staff member said.

Hill said the commissioners were impressed by substance, not show. BRS had demonstrated “expertise in strength in the public outreach front-end process, as well as interior recreation and programming experience,” she said.

“BRS provides a facility performance advisor that works with the community and the project stakeholders to determine and balance the needs of the community with the project constraints,” she said. “This provides greater transparency with the community in determining what features should be included in the CRC.”

Compromise proposed

Eventually, when it became evident that Nixon and Babich were going to insist on BRS, a manager at Parametrix proposed a compromise: the Denver firm would be brought in as a subcontractor to BLRS for the initial design phase of the project.

Nixon, one of the two board members on the selection committee, said that was entirely the consultant’s idea, but he thought it was a good one.

“Until then, I had not considered this a possibility, which to me was an opportunity to use the strengths of both BLRB and BRS and check more selection criteria boxes,” Nixon said.

Akramoff and the other staff members on the committee “were a part of that conversation and they all supported that approach,” Nixon said. “Neither Commissioner Babich nor myself proposed this outcome, nor did we somehow require the other committee members to reach this outcome.”

A staff member put it another way: “We realized that if the board didn’t get what they wanted, they were going to be fighting with staff all the way through the project,” the staff member said. “So we said, yeah, OK.”

Hill said it is not usual for a major contractor to have several subcontractors, such as mechanical or electrical engineers, to help with various aspects of a project. BRS should be considered simply another subcontractor, she said, and BLRS, the Tacoma firm, still has overall responsibility for the project.

Neither Barker Rinker Seacat nor Parametrix answered requests for comment. Nelson, the PenMet executive director, directed inquiries to Hill.

Reach Kerry Webster at editor@gateline.com

This story was originally published October 21, 2020 at 2:21 PM.