Salem Political Snark

Why "regret" is key to passing a new Salem police facility bond measure

Along with my Salem Community Vision colleagues, I'm an avid supporter of the plan SCV released at last Monday's City Council meeting for a new $66 million bond measure that includes $46 million for a 115,000 square foot police facility, plus $20 million for lifesaving seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library.

Now, there are other PLAN B options that will be considered by the City Council at a February 21 work session.

There's been quite a bit of talk among some councilors that making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe shouldn't be part of a new police facility bond measure, because the lack of this seismic retrofitting supposedly wasn't a factor in the defeat of Measure 24-399, the original $82 million bond measure for a 148,000 square foot police facility that was defeated by voters last November. 

So an option being considered by these councilors is to put a reduced cost/size police facility plan on the May 2017 ballot, delaying a vote on a bond to seismically retrofit the Civic Center buildings until November 2017.

This would be a big mistake. (I'm so confident about this, I put it in boldface.)

Here's my reasons.

First, I led the fight against Measure 24-399. I wrote all of the "Vote No" materials. I spoke at most of the meetings where the bond measure was debated. I designed a Salem Can Do Better web page. And I handled the Facebook campaign that urged a no vote on the $82 million plan. Thus I have a good feel for what arguments resonated with voters, and which didn't. 

People certainly were concerned about the excessive size and cost of the proposed police facility. However, a highly compelling argument used the "pro" campaign's Keep Salem Safe slogan against them.

I'd point out that actually Measure 24-399 only made Police Department employees safer, because they would be moved out of the ground floor of  City Hall -- a building that will almost certainly collapse when the next Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits (a matter of when, not if) -- into a new police facility built to modern seismic standards.

Then I'd say that other City employees will be moved into the same City Hall space, so they now will be the ones who will be crushed to death under tons of rubble. "If it is important to save the lives of Police Department staff," I'd argue, "it is equally important to save the lives of everybody who works at or visits City Hall and the Library, including children at Storytime."

The Facebook posts I wrote on this theme proved that earthquake safety was a central concern of voters. When I'd write something logical about the excessive cost and size of the police facility, a post would get a Facebook yawn, so to speak. Just a few comments, likes, and shares. 

However, if I put up a post about the need to save lives of people at City Hall and the Library by making seismic retrofitting of these buildings part of a public safety/police facility plan, the response would be hugely greater. Here's an example. This is a screenshot of an October 2016 post on my Strange Up Salem Facebook page.

And this is a screenshot of the responses to the post. Only the page administrator, me, can see how many people were contacted both by the "organic" unpaid reach, and the "boosted" paid reach -- which together totaled 19,159 Facebook users on just this post alone, in large part because 91 people shared the post with their Facebook friends.

So I know that making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe is of great concern to people in Salem. Based on my experience fighting Measure 24-399, I'm convinced that voters were as bothered by the lack of seismic retrofitting for these buildings in the bond measure, as they were bothered by the excessively high cost and size of the $82 million, 148,000 square foot police facility.

Why?

Well, this is a tough question to answer, because the dynamics of human emotions and cognition are still largely a mystery. Why we do what we do, feel as we feel, and think as we think is almost as much of an art as a science.

Researchers are making a lot of headway in understanding how our minds work, though. Clearly, we are not Spock-like highly rational beings who cooly assess arguments and evidence, then make a logical decision. Not about how to vote on a ballot measure. Not about anything.

I've read lots of neuroscience and psychology books about this subject, including Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow." Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his research into the non-logical, non-quantitative ways we humans view the world and decide what to do. This morning I was reading a chapter in a book by Michael Lewis about Kahneman and his associate, Amos Tversky, "The Undoing Project."

Here's a passage that describes what Kahneman and Tversky set out to undo.

By the summer of 1973, Amos was searching for ways to undo the reigning theory of decision making, just as he and Danny had undone the idea that human judgement followed the precepts of statistical theory. On a trip to Europe with his friend Paul Slovic, he shared his latest thoughts about how to make room, in the world of decision theory, for a messier view of human nature.

Later in the chapter, Lewis describes some experiments where people are asked to choose between two situations that involve different chances of winning various amounts of money. I'll leave out the details of the choices and jump to the conclusions.

Danny [Kahneman] wasn't inclined to see the paradox as a problem of logic. It looked to him like a quirk in human behavior. "I wanted to understand the psychology of what was going on," he said. He sensed that Allais himself hadn't given much thought to why people might choose in a way that violated the major theory of decision making.

But to Danny the reason seemed obvious: regret. 

In the first situation people sensed that they would look back on their decision, if it turned out badly, and feel they had screwed up; in the second situation, not so much. Anyone who turned down a certain gift of $5 million would experience far more regret, if he wound up with nothing, than a person who turned down a gamble in which he stood a slight chance of winning $5 million [note: and also a slight chance of winning $25 million].

If people mostly chose option 1, it was because they sensed the special pain they would experience if they chose option 2 and won nothing. Avoiding that pain became a line item on the inner calculation of their expected utility. Regret was the ham in the back of the deli that caused people to switch from turkey to roast beef.

...Happy people did not dwell on some imagined unhappiness the way unhappy people imagined what they might have done differently so that they might be happy. People did not seek to avoid other emotions with the same energy they sought to avoid regret.

When they made decisions, people did not seek to maximize utility. They sought to minimize regret. [emphasis in original]

After I read these passages this morning, I was blown away by how closely this reflected both my own feelings about the Salem police facility plan, and why I believe many voters said "no" to Measure 24-399.

For several years I've testified numerous times at different sorts of hearings about the need to seismically retrofit City Hall and the Library, so I'm more tuned in to this issue than most people. One of my conscious motivations is how much it would bother me if the Big One earthquake hits before these buildings are made earthquake-safe and people inside die, trapped under massive chunks of collapsing rubble.

Knowing of this danger, I would feel massive regret for the rest of my life if I didn't feel that I did everything I could to prevent that from happening. And I'm virtually 100% certain that many voters felt the same way, albeit in their own personal fashion. 

Recognizing (because I and others told them) that the City of Salem originally planned to include money to seismically retrofit at least the Library, and maybe also City Hall, in a police facility bond measure, but the seismic upgrades were dropped after the size and cost of the planned police facility doubled, I'm convinced that voters knew that a "yes" vote on Measure 24-399 was an endorsement of leaving people who work in or visit the Civic Center buildings at high risk of dying in the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake.

And the same feeling, the same knowledge, will hold true in a May 2017 second-try bond measure election if City officials once again omit money for seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library.

Yes, the City Council has talked of putting a police-facility-only bond on the May ballot, and a Civic Center seismic retrofitting bond on the November ballot. But this plan stands a good chance of failing, because of the regret issue. 

Lots of people want the Salem Police Department to have a new police facility. Lots of people want City Hall and the Library to be earthquake-safe. It simply makes sense to have all of these people voting "yes" for a bond measure that accomplishes both goals. If seismic retrofitting is put off, the regret card still comes into play.

I and others will think: "There's no guarantee a separate November bond measure for seismic upgrades would pass. And even if it did, this postpones the seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library for at least six months. What if the Big One earthquake happens before the retrofitting is completed, like three months before? Then I'll feel a ton of regret that lives were lost because the retrofitting bond measure was put off until November."

I realize that rational counter-arguments can be made to this, using the sort of logic that economists and psychologists used to think prevailed in the human decision-making psyche. But in large part because of Kahneman and Tversky, we now know that emotions such as regret play a large role in why people do what they do and feel as they feel.

So City officials, including city councilors, will be making a mistake if they think arguments such as the following are going to be sufficient to sell a new police facility bond measure to voters.

-- "It only costs the average home owner a few dollars a month."
-- "The current Police Department quarters are really crowded and inadequate."
-- "Expert consultants told us what the cost should be."

These aren't bad arguments. But proponents of Measure 24-399 had over a hundred thousand dollars to make them last time, and this wasn't enough to entice a majority of voters to say "yes."

This time around, a new police facility ballot measure will be facing these potential headwinds:

-- "Didn't we just vote on this?"
-- "What's the rush for another vote?"
-- "The cost is still really high."
-- "Making the Library and City Hall earthquake safe still isn't included."

I've argued here that the last item, seismic retrofitting of the Civic Center buildings, is a crucial element of a bond measure because it is so emotionally fraught.

Visualizing children dying when the Library collapses in the Big One earthquake is a more potent motivation to vote "no" on a police facility-only bond measure than is an argument that, for example, interview rooms and evidence storage space are inadequate in the current Police Department location.

Many voters, either implicitly or explicitly, can imagine the regret they would feel if they didn't do all they could to make the Library and City Hall earthquake-safe in advance of the Big One quake that is sure to come, the only question being when? 

If City officials decide to once again omit seismic retrofitting of the Civic Center buildings from a public safety bond measure where a central rationale for a new police facility is that City Hall is unsafe for Police Department staff to be in, this offers up a potent argument to vote "no" on the measure, just as it did with the previous bond measure.

Lastly, here's a screen shot of the first 115 responses to a Facebook survey I posted yesterday afternoon on behalf of Salem Community Vision. When asked which of four police facility options are most liked, 57% favor a $66 million plan that includes seismic retrofitting of both City Hall and the Library, and 10% favor a $79 million plan that includes seismic retrofitting and other renovations to the Library. 

Two standalone options for a police facility only are favored by just 7% of respondents so far. So these early responses are running 11 to 1 in favor of including seismic retrofitting in a new bond measure.

How much does regret play a role in this? Hard to tell. But solid psychological research says, probably quite a bit, whether consciously or unconsciously. 

Video of disturbing Salem City Council machinations about new police facility plan

[Update: I've gotten a message from City Manager Steve Powers that is reassuring. He says that all police facility options are still on the table for the February 21 City Council work session.

Brian,

Thank you for your email.  Council has not taken the library and civic center/city hall seismic work  out of consideration for a May 2017 bond measure.  The action that Council took Monday night was to add for discussion at the February 21 work session an option that would have the City proceed with a ballot measure for a police facility in May followed by a later ballot measure for library and city facilities improvements. The action was taken after discussion  under Special Orders of Business, item 5.a.,  May 16, 2017 Public Safety General Obligation Bond Measure, as shown on the published agenda for the February 13 Council meeting.

Steve Powers

Good news. But at the time I wrote this post, I was operating off of what a City of Salem Facebook post about the February 3 City Council meeting said. This excerpt from the post matched my interpretation of the motion passed by the Council after I left the meeting and later watched the CCTV video.

The City Council voted to separate the police facility and seismic retrofitting of City facilities into two separate issues. They will hold a work session on February 21 to discuss police facility options and which one they might put on the May ballot. They agreed that they will seek to put a seismic upgrade option on the November ballot. The specifics of the potential bond for the November ballot will be decided at a later work session.

This sure made it sound like only police facility options that didn't include seismic retrofitting of Civic Center buildings would be discussed at the February 21 work session. But I'm glad that City officials are interpreting that motion differently. A new bond measure for a police facility will have a greater chance of passing if it includes money to make City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.]

-----------------

I'm a big believer in open, transparent government. Important policy decisions should be made in the public eye, not behind closed-doors. Citizens should have plenty of opportunity to present testimony about those decisions before they're voted on.

For quite a while this hasn't been happening here in Salem. City Hall is notoriously biased in favor of top-down decision-making where the public only is able to weigh in on decisions that, for all intents and purposes, already have been decided. 

So public participation is pretty much a sham. 

Here's an annotated video I made of part of last Monday's City Council meeting that shows what I mean. It features a Robert's Rules of Order dance between Mayor Chuck Bennett and Councilor Tom Andersen where the moves seem to have been pre-arranged. Here's how I describe the You Tube video.

I added some annotations to the clip of what happened at the February 13, 2017 City Council meeting where some of the options for a new police facility bond were unexpectedly removed from consideration in advance of a work session on February 21. So the public won't have a chance to testify about these options, which ended being any option that includes making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe (after Councilor Andersen's motion shown in the video was amended). I find this deeply disturbing, because it goes against the intent of making policy decisions in an open, transparent, public manner.

As background to the above, here's the content of an email that I sent to City officials yesterday.

If City of Salem officials, staff, and councilors wanted to guarantee that there will be strong organized opposition to a new police facility bond measure on the May ballot, the unexpected action of the City Council last night just guaranteed it. Very aggravating.

Here’s what I just said in a Strange Up Salem post:

 

https://www.facebook.com/StrangeUpSalem/posts/1247676155313183

AGGRAVATING! CITY COUNCIL SAID "NO" TO SEISMIC UPGRADES FOR THE LIBRARY AND CITY HALL AS PART OF A NEW POLICE FACILITY PLAN

I left last night's City Council meeting after testifying in support of a Salem Community Vision plan that would put a proposal on the May ballot to build a new 115,000 square foot police facility AND seismically retrofit both City Hall and the Library for $66 million. Until a few minutes ago I didn't know the Council unexpectedly voted later in the meeting to discard any new police facility plan that includes making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.

The video below of the meeting should begin at about the 1:26 mark, which starts off a 25 minute or so discussion. There was no advance notice that last night the City Council would decide to make lifesaving seismic upgrades to the Civic Center buildings a possibility for some future date, rather than leaving this as a viable option for discussion at a February 21 council work session regarding a May police facility bond measure. 

My Salem Community Vision colleagues and I will be discussing this disappointing action by the City Council tomorrow. 

At the moment, I'm so irked by the Council taking seismic upgrades off the table before citizens had a chance to testify at the February 21 council work session, I'm leaning toward opposing any police facility bond measure on the May ballot that doesn't include money for lifesaving seismic upgrades to the Library and City Hall. 

I led the fight against Measure 24-399, the standalone $82 million police facility plan. 

Even though we opponents were outspent by about $102,000 to $3,000, voters still rejected that bond measure. One of our best arguments was that it made no sense to move Police Department staff out of a building that would collapse in the Big One earthquake, then move other City employees into the same City Hall space so THEY will be the ones crushed to death.

Along with children at the Library, and other people in that building.

So it looks like I and others who want to see the lives of people in City Hall and the Library saved along with the lives of Police Department staff will have to oppose a new police facility bond measure just as strongly as we did the last one. This would be really unfortunate.

I'd hoped that Salem could come together in a community consensus that a PLAN B for the police facility needs to include lifesaving seismic upgrades for the Library and City Hall. But the City Council just voted to ignore the pleas of citizens to make the Civic Center buildings earthquake-safe at the same time as this is done for a new Police Department headquarters.

Bad decision. 

I don't know whether voters will decide to approve a standalone police facility bond in the May election, but the way I feel right now -- deeply irritated and disappointed -- I'll do my best to defeat that bond measure. 

Because the lives of everybody who is working at, or visiting, City Hall and the Library when the Big One earthquake hits are at stake. I can't live with myself if I don't fight to save those lives by once again trying to defeat a police facility bond measure that values the safety of Police Department staff over the safety of other citizens.

The plan taken off the table by the City Council 

 

City Council seems to favor smaller, cheaper police facility and making Library earthquake-safe

I just got back from a 2 1/2 hour Salem City Council work session on a new police facility plan.

Being more than a little tired, decaffeinated, and looking forward to watching the newest episode of The Young Pope (a great HBO series), I'll just offer up a fairly short take on what transpired tonight, and maybe add on to this post tomorrow. 

First, on a personal note I found it really satisfying to hear everybody talking about how to reduce the cost and size of the previous $82 million, 148,000 square foot police facility plan that was rejected by voters last November when Measure 24-399 failed.

Having led the fight against the ballot measure, yet recognizing that Salem needs a new police facility, just not the one that was previously proposed, it was deeply heartening to hear the Mayor, City Manager, city councilors, police chief, architectural consultants, City staff, and others agreeing that our community needs to find a PLAN B now that PLAN A was voted down.

Here's an overview of what transpired at the work session.

Two down-sized police facility proposals were put forward by City of Salem staff: (1) a 115,000 square foot plan that costs $64 million, and (2) a 127,000 square foot plan that costs $69 million.  See:

The cost of seismically reinforcing City Hall (which kept being called the "Civic Center" for some reason, even though the Civic Center includes the nearby fire station, City Hall, and the Library) and the Library also came up for considerable discussion. See:


A citizen group chaired by John Hawkins had recommended that the 115,000 square foot police facility plan be combined with seismic retrofitting of the Library. Because seismic retrofits and other renovations to City Hall are more costly and complicated, it looks like this will be put off for a few years.

So the discussion among council members, and public testimony by me and others, centered on the need to make the Library earthquake-safe and the cost of the new police facility plans.

As you can see from the Library cost breakdown, only $6,459,000 of the $15,337,000 total is for actual seismic upgrades. The rest is basically for deferred maintenance of stuff that needs to be replaced/renovated. One question facing the City Council is whether it makes sense to include the deferred maintenance items in a new police facility bond measure.

I feel that it would be better to ask voters to simply pay for life-saving seismic retrofitting as part of a Public Safety bond that includes funding for a 115,000 square foot police facility. Paying for a new Library roof, plus electrical and HVAC repairs, etc.,  just doesn't seem like a wise thing to ask for in a bond measure. Isn't there another pot of money that can pay for these sorts of routine maintenance items?

An interesting part of the work session came when Garth Brandaw of the CB Two architectural firm provided a cogent explanation of why the Salem police facility is costing so much more per square foot than a Beaverton police facility. (I blogged about this yesterday.)

From my notes, this is how Brandaw explained $13.1 million of excess costs for the Salem police facility:

(1) $3.3 million is due to programmatic differences. Salem has a crime lab, bomb squad, special teams. This produces an extra cost in "hard construction."

(2) $4.6 million is due to special features of the site that make it more difficult to build on ($2 million) and a parking structure, since Beaverton has all surface parking ($2.6 million).

(3) $5.2 million is due to a higher 9% rate for cost escalation and contingency allowances; Beaverton used a 5% rate.

In part of my testimony, I thanked Brandaw for explaining this so clearly. I said that I didn't necessarily agree that these extra costs were necessary, but now the City Council knows what to look for as places to cut costs, if desired.

Near the end of the work session, Councilor Tom Andersen made a motion to have staff prepare a bond measure resolution to be discussed at another work session that probably would be held on February 21. Andersen wanted the resolution to be for a 115,000 square foot police facility and seismic retrofitting of the Library (seemingly the full $15,337,000).

Now, the problem with this, which I pointed out in my testimony, is that $64 million for a police facility plus $15 million for Library renovations totals to $79 million, which is just $3 million less than the $82 million bond voters rejected in November. Yes, now citizens would get a Library that is earthquake-safe, PLUS a new police facility. 

But many voters may just look at the price tag, roughly $79 million, and think, "Didn't we just vote this expensive bond measure down a few months ago? I'm going to vote no again."

So after the work session was over I told Brandaw and other members of the architectural team from the DLR Group that they need to look at each of the "extra cost" line items and try to get their cost down as much as possible. For example, by reducing the escalation/contingency to 5%, as Beaverton used.

A 60-some million bond measure would be much more appealing to voters than a 70-some million bond measure.

After Andersen made his motion, Councilor Brad Nanke said he wanted to have staff come back with other draft resolutions. One for a stand-alone $64 million police facility, and one for a stand-alone $69 million police facility. That amended motion was approved, so at the next work session the City Council will be discussing three options: two stand-alone plans, and one plan for a 115,000 square foot police facility and seismic upgrades/renovations to the Library.

I believe that the last option is the best.

It would have the most appeal to voters, especially if the cost can be reduced to around $69 million or less. I couldn't support either of the "Nanke options," because I feel so strongly that it is wrong to leave people at the Library and City Hall unprotected when the Big One earthquake hits, while Police Department employees would be safe in a seismically-sound police facility after being moved out of City Hall into a new police facility.

Judging from the tone of what Mayor Bennett and city councilors said tonight, my bet is that the City Council will end up going with some version of the 115,000 square foot police facility plus the Library seismic upgrades plan. But I could be wrong. Several councilors sounded like they'd be happy with not putting forward any PLAN B on the May ballot, and wait for another voting opportunity.

Well, I've written more than I planned. Maybe I won't do an update. Time to watch The Young Pope...

New plan for Salem police facility too costly. Beaverton shows how to do it right.

Last November citizens in Salem and Beaverton each voted on bond measures to build a new police facility. Here in Salem, voters rejected an $82 million, 148,000 square foot plan that cost $555 per square foot by a margin of 52% to 47%.

In Beaverton, voters approved a $35 million, 90,000 square foot plan that cost $389 per square foot by a margin of  50% to 49%.

This was the second try for Beaverton. In November 2014 voters there rejected a different public safety plan, which included a new police facility, by 53% to 47%.

Tomorrow, Monday, February 6, at 6 pm, Salem's City Council will be discussing plans for a reduced cost/size police facility in a work session. Public comments will be heard. I'm going to be speaking along the line of this blog post's central theme:

If a PLAN B proposal is going to be approved by Salem voters in May, just six months after they rejected the original over-priced plan, City officials need to demonstrate that they've (1) markedly reduced the cost of the police facility, and (2) heard the call of voters that the Library and City Hall need to be made earthquake-safe, just as the new police facility would be.

Since I led the fight against Measure 24-399, the $82 million original proposal, I'm very familiar with the "Vote NO" arguments that resonated most strongly with voters.

Namely, (1) and (2) above.

The overall cost of the police facility plan was too high, as was the total development cost per square foot. Also, people in Salem didn't like the idea of moving Police Department staff out of City Hall, a building that would collapse in the coming Big One earthquake, while then moving other City employees into the same space -- and also leaving the Library without vitally needed seismic retrofitting.

You can review the new plans of City officials by clicking on this link. 

This information was only made publicly available on Friday, February 3. So citizens were given very little time to inform themselves about those plans before the City Council work session tomorrow. This is no way to handle public participation and open government. Obviously more meetings need to be held where people can weigh in on the new police facility proposals.

I'm pleased that a 115,000 square foot plan has been put forward. It eliminates construction of a new 911 Center that can stay in current leased space for about another ten years. It also reduces the number of very expensive spaces in a parking structure from 163 to 100. 

Together, it looks to me like these steps reduce the cost of the police facility by about $12.5 million.

But since seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library is estimated to cost $19,155,000 ($12, 696,000 for City Hall; $6,459,000 for Library), obviously the cost of a PLAN B bond measure would end up being higher than the original $82 million measure if the police facility cost is reduced by only $12,5 million while making City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe add more than $19,000,000 to the bond measure. 

[Update: I should have noted above that the City's 115,000 square foot option estimated to cost $63,936,000 does reduce the cost of every budget line item in the original $82 million police facility plan, aside from "Site and demolition construction," which goes up slightly. So kudos for the overall cost reduction of about $18 million, which is $5.5 million more than the $12.5 million I cited in the paragraph above. However, this basic point remains: reducing square footage while leaving the total development cost per square foot the same markedly reduces the potential of building a more cost-effective police facility that Salem voters would approve money for in a new bond measure -- especially if essential seismic retrofit upgrades to City Hall and the Library included in a new bond measure cost as much or more as the cost reductions made to the police facility. Exacerbating this problem is the fact that City officials appear to want to add more than $25 million of building repairs and renovations to the "retrofit" budgets for City Hall and the Library, boosting the cost to $44,529,000. That $25 million essentially is to pay for deferred maintenance on the buildings, and it shouldn't be part of a police facility bond measure.]

Thus the big problem that needs to be addressed is the very high total development cost per square foot of both the original and new Salem police facility plans. As noted above, the original plan had a cost of $555 per square foot, which is by far the highest of any police facility built in Oregon recently.

The new 115,000 square foot plan isn't very different: the total development cost is $556 per square foot (this includes construction, furnishings, land acquisition, architectural design, contingency, and some other costs). 

By contrast, the 90,000 square foot Beaverton police facility bond measure approved by voters last November had a cost of $389 per square foot. Some proponents of the original $82 million plan for Salem have claimed that this Beaverton cost didn't include all of the elements that go into a total development cost calculation.  

But this isn't true, from what I can tell. Here's a section of the description of the Beaverton bond measure 34-250 in the voter pamphlet. See:
Download Beaverton Police Facility bond measure

Note that the Beaverton police facility will be built on city-owned property, while a new Salem police facility is planned for the site previously occupied by the O'Brien auto dealerships just north of downtown. 

So to make the total development cost figures for Salem and Beaverton comparable, I took out the $$5,473,000 land acquisition cost for the Salem police facility.

This brings the original $82 million cost down to $76,527,000, which, when divided by 148,000 square feet, makes the total development cost per square foot $517. And it brings the $63,396,000 cost of the new 115,000 square foot plan down to $57,923,000, which equates to a total development cost per square foot of $504. 

Thus when land acquisition costs are taken out of consideration, Beaverton is planning to build a new police facility for $389 per square foot, and a new plan put forth by City officials for a 115,000 square foot Salem police facility costs $504 per square foot -- 1.3 times the per square foot cost of the Beaverton facility. 

Which is a lot of extra money taxpayers would be expected to fork out.

If the 115,000 square foot plan cost only $389 per square foot, this would make the total without land acquisition $44,735,000. Add in the land cost, and we get $50,208,000. Compare that to the $63,396,000 cost projected by the City of Salem. It's a $13,188,000 difference.

Why is Beaverton able to build a new police facility for so much less money than Salem? This question needs to be examined closely and carefully by the Salem City Council, concerned citizens, and City officials. Here's a couple of reasons that pop out for me. 

(1) Beaverton, I'm pretty sure, is using surface parking, not a parking structure. The cost of 100 spaces of structured parking for the Salem police facility is $2,645,000. I've never understood why this is a necessity. There should be plenty of room to park police vehicles in available surface parking on the O'Brien site. Why not use the largely empty Marion Parkade, just a block away, for parking of other vehicles used by Police Department employees?

(2) Salem hired Chicago's DLR Group to come up with the size and cost of the original police facility plan. Beaverton hired the Mackenzie architectural firm, a local company. Mackenzie also designed the Canby police facility, which was built in 2012 for only $220 per square foot. It seems clear that serious consideration should be given to dumping the DLR Group and hiring Mackenzie to work on a new Salem police facility plan, since Mackenzie has demonstrated that it can build a modern police facility for about 30% less per square foot than the DLR Group can.

Here's a conceptual image of the Beaverton police facility. Sure looks good to me.

And here is a link to information about the Beaverton police facility, which is a great model for Salem. The page starts off with:

In November 2016, Beaverton voters approved a ballot measure to construct a modern, earthquake resistant police and emergency management building.

Beaverton’s public safety center will consolidate police services, move police facilities out of a flood zone, and meet residents’ needs for the next 30 years:

• Built to critical-facility standards.
• Private areas for crime victims and juveniles.
• Onsite storage for property and evidence—eliminating need for offsite rented space.
• Flexible design for future growth.
• Community meeting rooms.
• Emergency Operations Center, with modern equipment, that is ready for emergency response during major wind, storm, flood and other events.

Meet residents' needs for the next 30 years. This is important, because the number of square feet per police officer is about the same for the Beaverton facility (657 sq, ft.) and a 115,000 square foot Salem police facility (635 sq. ft.).

(2014 FBI statistics indicate that Beaverton had 137 police officers and Salem had 181.)

So if the Beaverton police department has concluded that a police facility which currently provides 657 square feet per officer will meet the city's needs for the next 30 years, I don't see why this doesn't also apply to a 115,000 square foot Salem police facility that provides 635 square feet per officer, just 3% less.

For all the reasons in this blog post, I believe that Salem needs to follow in Beaverton's footsteps: 

• Build a 115,000 square foot police facility with a total development cost, excluding land, of about $389 per square foot.
• Seismically retrofit City Hall and the Library to save lives and property when the Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits Salem, a matter of when, not if.
• Ditch the over-priced DLR Group, which came up with the original over-priced and over-sized plan. Consider hiring Mackenzie, which designed the Beaverton police facility.

"No organized opposition" to $82 million police facility bond levy? Fighting words, Oregon Pioneer.

How do you argue with the "golden man" statue on top of the Capitol building? Through a blog post! I'm sure the Oregon Pioneer reads Salem Political Snark, since he's sitting right on top of a whole lot of fodder for political snarkiness.

Of course, I guess it's possible that the regular Musings of the Oregon Pioneer column in the Salem Business Journal isn't written by the statue. 

Regardless, the column in the December 2016 issue contains some fighting words.
Download SBJ piece about new police station

Last November 8, the voters turned down a new $82 million police station at the site of the former O'Brien/DeLon auto dealership on Division Street between Liberty Street and Commercial NE, abutting Mill Creek on the north. There was no organized opposition to the bond levy.

Hey, Mr. Oregon Pioneer, there sure was organized opposition!

• Carole Smith and I organized a Political Action Committee, Salem Can Do Better, that opposed Measure 24-399.
• I designed a nicely-organized web page for Salem Can Do Better that's been viewed over 10,000 times.
• We have a Salem Can Do Better Facebook page.
• The Salem Can Do Better PAC paid $1,600 for four Voter's Pamphlet arguments against Measure 24-399.
• I debated the merits of the $82 million police facility at a Salem City Club debate.
• Pro and con arguments about Measure 24-399  (I wrote the "con") were featured side by side on the Statesman Journal editorial page. 

I made a post-election video about what Salem Can Do Better did, because Mayor-elect Chuck Bennett also has expressed doubts that voters were exposed to organized information about the flaws of Measure 24-399. 

But aside from the "no organized opposition" comment by the Salem Business Journal columnist, I found their piece interesting. Here's an excerpt.

(Note: don't confuse the dumb-idea Plan B mentioned below with the Salem Can Do Better and Salem Community Vision Plan B -- which is for a $62 million bond measure, $20 million less than Measure 24-399, which includes funds for a perfectly adequate 75,000 square foot police facility AND making City Hall/Library earthquake-safe.)

There are several conversations I wish to report on.

The first is that two Salem City Counselors [sic], while making the political rounds speaking in support of the new police station bond issue levy, said there was "No Plan B" if the bond issue failed. Well that was not quite right, as there is a "Plan B."

It seems the City Council, which is also the governing body for the Downtown Urban Renewal Agency, has been talking to itself. The Downtown Urban Renewal Agency is now considering the purchase of the former auto dealership property for the City of Salem.

Is that legal? I really don't know, but I suspect it is. So "Plan B" is now being considered. The City Council, if "Plan B" continues in its present form, will hold another election in May 2017. The price tag is expected to be $82 million again. One might expect organized opposition for the next round, so stay tuned.

Yes, indeed, there would be organized opposition again to a police facility bond measure if City officials were foolish enough to put the same $82 million proposal that voters just rejected back on the ballot.

Salem Can Do Better would make the same strong arguments to vote NO that we did before. And this time we'd have a powerful additional argument:

Salem citizens just told City officials that they wouldn't pay for an over-priced, over-sized $82 million/148,000 square foot police facility that is way more expensive than this town needs, or can afford. Yet here they are, asking you to say "yes" to something that you just clearly said "no" to. Since these City officials aren't willing to listen to you, speak even louder in this election with a more emphatic NO!

City of Salem leasing old O'Brien auto site until June 2017

I wasn't aware that the City of Salem was leasing the old O'Brien auto dealership site north of downtown until I read about this in a recent Statesman Journal story, "Salem preps old dealership for homeless warming shelter."

The city of Salem dispatched staff Tuesday to ready the old O’Brien Auto Group space for the homeless to use as a warming shelter while coming winter nights are expected to dip below freezing.

...The city leases the O’Brien property, which would have been the site for a new police facility if the measure to fund it hadn’t failed this November.

O'Brien site when it was an auto dealership

I knew that the City had an option to buy the O'Brien property, but the lease was news to me. So I asked Courtney Knox Busch, who works in the City Manager's office, to send me a copy of the lease agreement. Here it is.
Download O'Brien Site Lease_Council Report 6_27_16

The City of Salem (tenant) isn't paying any cash to Shires Property, LLC (landlord) for a lease of the 37,320 square feet of space in five buildings on 3.51 acres that runs from June 28, 2016 to June 30, 2017.

Instead, the City is responsible for paying all costs of utilities, insurance, property taxes and maintenance of the O'Brien property. 

What the City of Salem is directly paying for is an option to buy the property. The option is to be paid for in two $50,000 chunks.

First option payment: $50,000 on or before December 1, 2016, which doesn't apply to a potential purchase of the property. I'm not sure if this payment has been made. I'll ask Busch if it has. Seemingly it should have been, because there's a Plan B proposal for a new police facility following the defeat of the $82 million bond measure in the November election.  

[Update: Yes. Busch told me the first payment was made.]

Second option payment: $50,000 on or before March 1, 2017, which does apply to a potential purchase of the property. The option to buy ends on May 31, 2017. 

So, assuming the City of Salem made the first payment after the police facility bond measure failed, another $50,000 payment will have to be made to preserve an option to buy the property. Since the earliest a Plan B could be voted on is after March 1, and the option expires on May 31, there's only a narrow window to submit a revised police facility plan to voters without extending the lease/option agreement.

This is why the Salem Community Vision and Salem Can Do Better document, "Plan B for Building a Salem Police Facility," calls for a vote next May. 

It's clear that simply submitting the same $82 million proposal that failed in the November election would be an insult to the will of voters and have little chance of passing. Thus City officials don't have much time to reach out to the Salem community and come up with a collaborative revised proposal that, hopefully, includes the key items in the above-mentioned Plan B:

(1) Put a PLAN B $62 million bond measure on the May 2017 ballot.

This will pay for a perfectly adequate 75,000 square foot police facility AND seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library — which was the City of Salem plan until the size and cost of the police facility doubled, squeezing out lifesaving funds for making the Civic Center earthquake-safe.

 

 (2) Build the 75,000 square foot police facility on the same “O’Brien” site north of downtown, where the facility turned down by voters was planned. Leave out a new 911 Center and structured parking, since neither of these costly options is needed.

 

(3) Hire new Oregon consultants with a proven track record of building cost-effective police headquarters. Mackenzie and AC + Co Architecture could be good choices.

Rumor: City plans to buy police facility site with urban renewal funds

A credible source has told me that, following the defeat of the $82 million police facility bond measure a few weeks ago, City officials plan to use urban renewal funds to buy the old O'Brien auto dealership site where the police facility was planned to be built.

The budget for the facility showed $5.5 million for site acquisition. I believe the City of Salem had an option to buy the property, which apparently is owned by the Delon family, but the option expires before next year.

Hence, the need to find a way to tie up the police facility site so a public safety PLAN B -- hopefully a smaller, lower cost police building, plus seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library -- can be passed by voters as early as 2017. 

I readily admit that I'm no expert on urban renewal financing. So these are just my snap reactions to the news that $5.5 million in urban renewal funds may be used to buy the O'Brien property.

(1) This probably makes sense. Even though there's a good argument for building a Plan B police facility elsewhere, because the O'Brien property is so close to downtown it seems a shame to pass up a chance to use that prime acreage for a cool mixed-use development (housing, shops, etc.), it would complicate things to start over with a police facility site search.

(2) However, this doesn't seem like a proper long-term use for urban renewal funds. Aren't these supposed to be used to spur development in blighted areas that can't attract private investments? That sure doesn't sound like the O'Brien property. It was just in March of 2015  that a Statesman Journal story said:

With Lithia Motors's recent relocation to a new facility off Salem Parkway, a space that's ripe with opportunity has opened in downtown Salem.

It's unknown what may come — or when — to the vacated space at Commercial and Division Streets NE. The property has only been vacant a few weeks.

(3) So it seems that if urban renewal money is used to purchase the O'Brien property, revenue from a Plan B police facility bond should be used to pay back those funds. A police facility won't be paying any property taxes. And there are many other uses for urban renewal funds in the downtown area.

Along that line, I checked out the agenda for tonight's joint City Council and Urban Renewal Agency work session, which involved SEDCOR (Strategic Economic Development Corporation).

The powerpoint presentations linked to in the agenda weren't totally comprehensible without an accompanying narrative. Still, a few things caught my eye.

Fairly recently there were a bunch of downtown focus group meetings. The ideas for improving the area were much more appealing than buying the land for a new police facility. Here's some of them:

So if urban renewal funds are used for a $5.5 million purchase of the police facility site, this sure seems like an unwise use of that money -- unless proceeds from a PLAN B bond sale are used to repay the urban renewal agency. 

A new police facility isn't going to be a draw for tourists, make downtown more economically vibrant, or improve the attractiveness of Salem's urban core. The sorts of "Magic Wand" ideas in the slide above would.

I'm particularly enamored of having more 2-way, 2-lane streets in the Historic District. This would go a long way toward making downtown more pedestrian and cyclist friendly, which would draw more people to shop, work, and live in the area.

Bottom line for me: if this rumor turns out to be true, and urban renewal funds are used to buy the O'Brien property so it can be used for a PLAN B police facility, this should be a temporary loan until a public safety bond is approved by voters. There are much better alternative uses for $5.5 million than purchasing land for a police facility.

Lastly, I can't help saying something about this SEDCOR slide used in tonight's presentation. Geez, I divided $60.5 million by 397 and found that each new and retained job cost $152,393.

This goes to confirm my belief, one shared by many others much more knowledgeable about economic development that I am, that essentially bribing companies to come to Salem doesn't pay off. Let's make Salem more attractive, livable, and vibrant. Then new businesses and residents will flock here willingly. Without a bribe.

PLAN B for building a Salem police facility

Behold! PLAN B!

What's not to like about this PLAN B? Voters have said "No" to the unwise, over-priced $82 million police facility bond measure. So you'll find a two-page document describing our better "Yes" below.

Hopefully City officials will begin to work with concerned citizens so another Public Safety bond measure can be passed in 2017 that gives the Police Department a perfectly adequate smaller-sized headquarters AND makes City Hall and the Library earthquake-safe.

All for $62 million, $20 million less than the rejected bond measure would have spent on a police facility alone.

I wrote the PLAN B piece last night, spurred by a document architect Geoffrey James (a fellow Salem Community Vision steering committee member) had sent me. We'd both attended a SCV meeting the day before where the basics of a PLAN B had been discussed. 

It was good to see that reporter Whitney Woodworth incorporated this proposal into her hot-off-the-press story, "After police facility bond measure fails, what next?"

Architect Geoffrey James, a member of Salem Community Vision, driving force behind the reduced Courthouse Square repair costs and a member of the task force spoke out against the "bloated" bond before the election. He said the high price tag would doom the measure, and after it failed to pass, began working immediately with community action groups Salem Can Do Better and Salem Community Vision to draft a "Plan B."

That plan suggests a bond that pairs a 75,000 square-foot building — similar in size to the Eugene Police Department's building — on the O'Brien site costing $29.2 million (plus the $5.5 million land purchase) with $27 million in seismic upgrades to city hall and the library.

The police department badly needs a new building, James said, and civic center employees and visitors need to be safe.

"It is important that we get this back on the ballot ASAP," he added.

An "ambitious but doable" timeline proposed by the groups suggests a January 2017 public hearing and city council vote on a Plan B followed by a bond on the May ballot. According to the timeline, the police department could be moved into the new facility by February 2019 and all seismic upgrades would completed later that year.

Here's PLAN B: 

PLAN B for Building a Salem Police Facility by bhines on Scribd

Lessons for Salem from defeat of $82 million police facility bond measure

It's always tough to say why an election result turns out the way it did, especially at the local level where we don't have exit polls.

But here's an initial attempt to get into the minds of Salem voters who rejected Measure 24-399 by 52% to 48% in yesterday's election -- combining that opining with insight into a mind I'm much better acquainted with: my own.

Here's a couple of reasons why I'm optimistic about the defeat of the $82 million police facility bond measure that I led the fight against via Salem Can Do Better.

The defeat shows the downside of top-down governmental planning. 
As the Salem Can Do Better web page says, one reason to vote against the bond measure was "lack of public involvement in the police facility planning process from start to finish." I cited some documentation.

"Start," from a January 2014 blog post, City of Salem planned new police facility in backwards way.

There was basically no opportunity for citizens to be involved with planning for a new police facility, or to weigh in on the pluses and minuses of locating this facility in a brand new building at the Civic Center. Even City Council members complained they were kept in the dark about this project.

"Finish," from a June 2016 Salem Weekly editorial, Top Down.

The most important decision made by the Salem City Council during the six year reign of Mayor Anna Peterson was made on June 8 at a special public hearing with most of the citizenry unaware of what was going on... The $82 million full meal deal has had almost no public engagement. It comes from the top down.

Citizens don't like it when City of Salem officials view "public outreach" as asking people to accept what's being offered without questions. This attitude needs to be dumped at City Hall.

Hopefully the Mayor, City Manager, and city councilors now will fully involve the public in a Plan B public safety proposal that costs less and includes the vital seismic upgrades to City Hall and the Library that used to be part of the police facility project until the building doubled in size and cost after Chicago consultants were hired.

The DLR Group now needs to be fired and replaced by a local Oregon architectural firm with a better understanding of what this town needs and is willing to pay for.

The defeat reflects the rise of people-power over money-power.
As a Statesman Journal story points out, those advocating a "yes" vote on Measure 24-399 via a Keep Salem Safe PAC vastly outspent Salem Can Do Better.

The grassroots organization raised just under $2,000, mostly from Hines himself, former mayoral candidate Carole Smith and Salem Community Vision Steering Committee member Jim Scheppke.

...In contrast, the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce-backed Keep Salem Safe PAC garnered more than $100,000 in contributions. Big donors like Mountain West Investment Corporation, Salem Health and the DLR Group donated tens of thousands of dollars.

Yet we prevailed, even with a 50:1 handicap in money available to us. We had to rely on buying some voter's pamphlet arguments, getting free press, and making use of social media (mostly Facebook).

Keep Salem Safe had lots of big name endorsements, lawn signs, a direct mailing to Salem households, a Statesman Journal editorial urging a "yes" vote on Measure 24-399, Chamber of Commerce backing -- everything that traditionally led to a political win in this town. 

Except this time it didn't.

The times are a'changing. People are a lot more skeptical of the Power Structure, whether at the national, state, or local level. Their votes aren't a given anymore if certain political buttons are pushed 

On the whole, this is a good thing. In a democracy people-power should outweigh money-power. Let's have more of it in Salem.

Along that line, here's a photo someone sent me of the Keep Salem Safe election night party buffet table at the Illahe Country Club. Reportedly lobster canapés were served to donors and supporters.

By contrast, here's a day-after reenactment of the Salem Can Do Better election night festivities. I spent the evening at home obsessively watching presidential election news on MSNBC and CNN, with checking of Marion County results on my laptop after 8 pm.

I served wine and bagged popcorn to myself, sharing some with our non-political dog, ZuZu. (Popcorn, no wine.)

Salem's Civic Center needs renovating, not replacing

There's more and more talk floating around about doing away with the Salem City Hall and Library, even though the buildings are only 44 years old. 

Geez. Our house was built at almost exactly the same time. My wife and I have steadily maintained and improved it since we bought our home in 1990. It's still highly livable, and worth much more than we paid for it.

In Europe, buildings hundreds of years old are still in use.

So why is it that I keep hearing rumors that City officials want to trash Salem's not-very-old City Hall and Library -- selling the downtown property for commercial use and somehow transferring Civic Center functions elsewhere?

A recent Statesman Journal editorial about the proposed new police facility adds fuel to those rumors:

In contrast, the city of Salem has not done that same thorough examination and long-term planning for the rest of the Vern Miller Civic Center and the library.

The 1970s civic center is uninviting and confusingly designed. Should Salem have a smaller city hall, with drive-thru convenience, and make better use of online portals and video interaction for serving residents and businesses? Likewise, how would a 21st century library be best designed to serve the community?

Salem needs to find those answers before deciding what to do with the current city hall and library.

Well, SJ editorial page editor Dick Hughes must have forgotten that just a few years ago, there was just such a "thorough examination" of the Civic Center. 

In 2010 a University of Oregon Sustainable Cities Initiative did extensive planning for a Civic Center renovation.  A few years later, City officials brought forth a proposal to build a new 75,000 square foot police facility just north of City Hall, and also extensively renovate/seismically retrofit the Civic Center.

Ignore the rectangular three story building on the right side of this image. That's the police facility. Community opposition led to a plan to build it on the Civic Center campus being dropped. 

But look at how much more inviting City Hall looks.

The atrium is removed and landscaping is added, making City Hall look much more inviting. A new City Council chambers is at the top left of the image (both the current atrium and City Council chambers would be prohibitively expensive to seismically retrofit).

This image shows a more schematic view of the Civic Center renovation. Again, ignore the police facility building at top right. Otherwise, there's a lot to like about the plan. At the very least, it's a great start toward a safer, more attractive, and more efficient Civic Center -- by renovating the existing buildings, not replacing them.

This is part of background information about prior police facility planning that was provided in October 2014 to the Mayor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Police Facility. 

As you can see, it says that in 2011, a City Council subcommittee concluded that "seismic strengthening of the existing Civic Center facilities extends the life of the buildings for 40 to 50 years, completes more than $17 million of the $22 million in deferred maintenance projects at the Civic Center, helps to create more convenient public parking and public access to the property and a more active, welcoming setting while retaining and enhancing other important elements and natural features of the campus."

This isn't ancient history. It is just five years ago. 

So why is there talk now, as in the Statesman Journal editorial, of starting over on discussions of how to maintain the Civic Center?

Why ignore a lot of work that points to a way of making the Civic Center buildings earthquake-safe, extending the life of the buildings for 40 to 50 years, and taking care of the bulk of deferred maintenance on the buildings, all for about $20 million?

(City staff say the current cost of seismically retrofitting City Hall and the Library is $26.7 million.)

"Fix it" just makes hugely more sense than "tear it down and start over." This was the advice an expert urban planner, Chuck Marohn, offered to Salem when he spoke recently at the Library auditorium.  Here's what I said in Five "Strong Town" things Salem is doing wrong.

"We are fools if we build more," Marohn, who toured Salem yesterday morning, said. He made similar negative comments about the $500 million proposed Third Bridge several times during his talk.

As noted above, his main theme was that cities can't afford to build costly infrastructure that costs way MORE money to maintain over coming decades. "How much does your tax base have to go up to pay for this project?" he asked...He offered up the analogy of someone wanting to build an addition to their house, but not first fixing the leaky roof.

Yet now City officials are pushing Measure 24-399, an $82 million police facility bond measure that no longer includes any money for seismic retrofitting of City Hall and the Library, which as shown above would go a long way toward taking care of the massive amount of deferred maintenance on these valuable buildings.

This is a big reason why I'm urging a NO vote on Measure 24-399.

Salem's Police Department does need a new police facility.

But in 2013, the plan of City officials was to build a much less expensive 75,000 square foot facility and make renovations to the Civic Center -- in the option shown above this would cost $56 million, which is $26 million less than the $82 million taxpayers are being asked to pay via Measure 24-399 for an oversized police facility alone.

Hopefully talk of doing away with City Hall and the Library is just that, talk.

It'd be a shame to trash buildings whose life span can be extended for 40-50 years by doing seismic retrofitting that also will save lives when the Big One Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake hits.