Well, after attending a 2 1/2 hour Salem City Council work session last night, I can report that six years of planning for a new police facility appears to be on track to end up as dysfunctional as it began. (See here for documentation of the messy process.)
Which is too bad.
The police department needs a new facility. But I observed the work session thinking, "Man, here's another reason voters probably will reject a bond measure in the November 2016 election."
(For a comprehensive and readable analysis of this project, check out the Salem Community Vision position paper, "Salem's New Police Facility: The Best Way to Achieve It.")
John Horvick from DHM Research started off the work session by reviewing the previously-released results of a sample survey of 508 Salem registered voters. One of his key statements was that a bond measure should have at least a 60% up-front approval rating to have a good chance of it passing.
But the Salem survey found that only 52% said they favored an $81 million police facility bond. Not good, Horvick said, since it is "easier to move people to no than yes." Especially if there is community opposition to a bond, as there will be in this case.
So support for a new police facility starts off weak. Given this fact, one would think that the Mayor and City Councilors would adjust the project plan to make it more appealing to voters. What I heard last night, though, didn't offer up much hope of this happening.
Here's my main takeaways supporting this pessimistic conclusion.
A "Police Palace" is the current goal, not cost-effectivenesss. Originally the Mayor, Police Chief, and other City officials favored a 75,000 square foot building with underground parking on the Civic Center campus. Strong community opposition to this plan led to a Blue Ribbon task force being formed to take a fresh look at things. The task force recommended a new police facility in the range of 75,000 to 106,000 square feet.
But after a Chicago consulting firm was hired to design a police facility, the original desired size doubled to 148,000 square feet. Naturally the cost soared accordingly. The current $83 million proposal is much more expensive than other recently built police facilities in Oregon.
Sure, it is the best money can buy. Question is: given that Salem's per capita income is considerably lower than the Oregon average, and this town has many other unmet needs, will voters buy the notion of a Police Palace?
The doubling of the building size increased costs in this not-so-obvious way: structured parking is much more expensive than ground level parking. If the police facility were smaller, there wouldn't be a need for an expensive parking structure on the chosen site just north of downtown, which previously was occupied by O'Brien auto dealerships. Also, the entire approach to parking is archaic and out of step with evident trends.
A critical Salem Breakfast on Bikes blog post about police facility parking is well worth a read. Some excerpts:
Council meets tonight, June 1st, for a work session on the Police Station, and the City continues to do a lousy job of proving its case! ...Why don't we seek to reduce the amount of superfluous drive-alone trips rather than seek to accommodate more of them in a costly parking structure?... An important reason for a downtown facility is to make it more accessible to transit! That should obviate at least some of the "need" for car parking.... Remember, the Marion Parkade operates no more than 40% full.... Since the garage operates at 40% peak occupancy, to say there are only "45 spaces available" is so highly misleading that it is close to an outright falsehood.
Saving lives through earthquake-safety has gone bye-bye. A big reason for a new police headquarters is that currently it is on the ground floor of the Civic Center, which will collapse when (not if) the "Big One" Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits.
A previous City Manager, Linda Norris, said in 2013: "The way it is, right now, city employees wouldn't even be able to get out of the building alive, much less use the building."
At that time City officials planned to make seismic upgrades to City Hall, and probably also the Library, as part of a Public Safety bond that included funds for a new police facility.
Now, though, the goal of saving lives of children at the Library, along with other people at the Civic Center, is no more. Instead, the estimated $27 million this would cost is effectively going to help pay the doubled price of the newly supersized police facility.
I see this as morally outrageous.
Police are expected to "protect and serve." So it seems absurd that an over-priced Police Palace is going to prevent critical seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library that likely would save many lives when the next massive earthquake strikes the Northwest. I've talked about this in several previous posts:
Why a new police facility could cost many lives
A Moral Must: make Salem's Library and City Hall earthquake-ready
City of Salem officials acting stupid on earthquake safety
Lovers of the Library, and lovers of saving lives, would work hard to pass a bond measure if it included funds for making the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe.
But if voters know that this won't happen because the cost and size of a new police facility doubled from the original plan, this will be potent ammunition for those opposed to a bond measure.
The argument opponents will make is that rejecting the Police Palace bond measure is the only way to wake City officials up to the urgent need to make the Civic Center earthquake-safe along with building a reasonably priced police facility.
A new $10.5 million 911 center is part of the proposed police facility. Because... um... for some reason. City officials are considering two options for the new police facility (there should be more, obviously, but this is all that's on the table at the moment): the 148,000 square foot Police Palace "full meal deal" and a reduced 125,000 square foot facility that omits 23,000 square feet for a new 911 call center.
Currently the regional call center (WVCC, Willamette Valley Communications Center) is in leased space. The police chief and center director have said that the WVCC is fine where it is for the next ten years. So it is difficult to understand why a new 911 center needs to be part of the proposed police facility, especially since Salem taxpayers would fit the bill for building it -- even though the center serves many other jurisdictions.
At the work session City staff presented a financial analysis showing how continuing to lease space for the 911 center compares with building a new center. I believe the analysis assumed that 23,000 square feet would be leased, which seemingly overstates the cost of leasing, since the current smaller 911 center (10,000 sq. ft. or so, I recall) reportedly is adequate for at least the next ten years.
Regardless, it turned out that the break-even point for including a 911 center in the new police facility is 30 years. Meaning, it would take that long before any money would be saved over leasing.
Since no one knows how emergency services will evolve over the next three decades, it sure seems like the smart thing to do would be to lease space for the regional 911 center. (On a personal note, this is why my wife and I have leased our Chevy Volt; electric car technology is changing so fast, we don't want to be stuck with owning a car that is outmoded in a few years).
Tricks being played on the "bonded indebtedness" front. I'm no expert on City of Salem bond sales. But I heard enough about this last night to question how straightforward City officials will be when it comes to selling the public on a $83 million bond for the "full meal deal" police facility project ($72 million if the 911 center ends up being dropped).
Several city councilors spoke approvingly about rigging the timing of this and other bond sales so the annual amount paid by Salem taxpayers stays the same over the years.
Of course, there is no free lunch.
Taxpayers still would be on the hook for paying the $83 million (or $72 million), including financing costs that would add on much more to the cost. But voters would be told "your taxes won't go up," in much the same way a mortgage broker could say "your payments will be the same" if someone took out a 30 year mortgage on an expensive house versus a 15 year mortgage on a cheaper house.
Actually, this isn't true.
Obviously taxes will go up in Salem by $83 million/$72 million, plus financing costs, if a police facility bond were to be approved by voters. Apparently the City would just juggle things so the annual amount paid would stay the same, with people paying that amount for many more years. Hopefully City officials will be honest about this, rather than trying to make it sound like tax payments will stay the same.
Lastly, a City Council public hearing on the police facility is scheduled for Wednesday, June 8, 6:30 pm. Here's what Salem Community said about this in a Facebook post:
DOES THE CITY OF SALEM REALLY WANT YOU TO COME AND TESTIFY AT THE POLICE FACILITY PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 8?
You wouldn't know it from the notices that the City staff puts out about it.
Below are screenshots from the City's Facebook page, the City Council Agenda website and the City of Salem website (click to view). None of them tell the public where the public hearing will be held. None of them encourage the public to come. None of them tell the public what will happen at the public hearing. None of them mention much in the way of background information that the public might review prior to the public hearing. For example, the public might be encouraged to view the work session that was held on Wednesday evening that is now available on YouTube.
We posted an event on our SCV Facebook page about the public hearing and we encourage all of you to come and share your opinions with the Council. The chances of a successful bond measure in November to meet some real needs will only be improved by the greatest possible public participation.
Comments