Re: 1912 High School (Whitworth)Building

[Robert Probasco <rcp@uidaho.edu>]

Thank you, Walter, for providing this balanced and objective analysis.

I, too, was troubled by the lack of authorship of the document.  

I am even more disturbed by the creative accounting being used to 
justify the initial expenditures.

I also agree with your speculation on why the project has not been 
put to a vote: the project would suffer a crushing defeat.  Do our elected
officials lack the courage to put this project on a ballot?

After I perused the slick half-inch thick booklet last week, I
concluded the basic plan was to gut the building back to a shell and
rebuild it from within.  Perhaps this is someone's desired solution to a
problem (said problem has never been really defined, to my knowledge),
but I question whether it is the *best* solution.  

	Robert Probasco		rcp@uidaho.edu					


On Mon, 6 Sep 1999 WMSteed@aol.com wrote:
> Re: 1912 Moscow High School
> To: Mayor and City Council
> From: Walter M. Steed - 9/6/99
> 
> Having attended the Monday, August 30 city council meeting almost by 
> accident, I stayed because of the information provided to the public.  For 
> the first time the council heard the additional approximately $1 million cost 
> of renovation, the $180,000 start up costs and $156,000 annual expense of 
> operation.  Apparently, at least four council persons were taken back enough 
> to delay a decision for a week in order to receive additional citizen input.  
> The following are my thoughts on the subject for your Tuesday, September 7 
> council meeting:
> 
> Most interestingly, nowhere in the Preliminary Design Report given to the 
> council last Monday does anyone or any entity take ownership of the document 
> and the information contained therein.  Except for some presumably 
> subcontracting architect and engineer letters and memorandums, there is no 
> one person or firm who can be held accountable for its contents.  While the 
> drawings contained therein do have the Design West logo on them, the cost 
> estimate has only "Whitworth Building Renovation 6/19/99."  
> 
> I notice the construction contingency contained in the cost estimate is only 
> 7% .  In my experience this is an extremely low construction contingency at 
> this early stage, particularly for a project of this type.  Renovation is a 
> very open ended process as you never know what is behind the next wall you 
> tear into.  A larger, more realistic, contingency percentage of 15% would 
> raise the total estimated cost another $225,982 for a total project 
> construction cost of $4,185,620.  (6% of this amount for start up costs is 
> $251,137.)
> 
> Another construction cost question is the expense for removal of hazardous 
> materials.  Is there no asbestos or other material in the building which 
> requires special, expensive handling or has it already been removed or is 
> there a cost item in the budget which I overlooked?
> 
> Granted, the plan is to raise all construction dollars from donations, so why 
> should the cost matter?  Apparently for the proponents a million dollars 
> extra wasn't enough to even cause a pause.  Realistically, unless a second 
> unnamed benefactor or the one you have tosses in a lot more, you could have a 
> problem finishing the project.  I find it hard to believe there are two or 
> more million dollars in disposable income available in Moscow for a building 
> that is so limited in its uses; meeting rooms, senior center, science center, 
> arts center and city offices.
> 
> It seems the item which did give some council members pause was the $156,000 
> annual cost of operation.  If the existing community room brings in $8,000, 
> almost 20 times this amount will be needed to cover the new building's cost; 
> ignoring my higher figure above.  The Preliminary Design Report Overview, 
> again not credited for authorship, states the seniors will continue to lease 
> the kitchen and great room two days per week.  This seems to say they cannot 
> be counted on for additional income despite the tripling of dedicated space.  
> That leaves the sciences group (who are these people and is there an entity 
> which can sign a $50,000 annual lease for one-third of the building?) and the 
> city to pick up the rest.
> 
> Let's overlook for a moment previous commitments that "no tax dollars will be 
> spent on the Whitworth Building."  Since the city budget is restricted to 
> only $70,000 to $100,000 per year in tax increases, it would appear that 
> either all future tax increases will be dedicated to the building or some 
> existing budget items will have to be foregone for the next 100 years to 
> operate the building.  Are you sure you wish to restrict future councils in 
> this way.  It sure would make annual city budgeting easy.
> 
> I don't know how to stop this juggernaut which, I believe, is dearly wanted 
> at any cost by one hundred or so people in Moscow.  I believe many more, the 
> unheard from majority, either don't care, question its value or don't take 
> the local paper to know what is going on.  
> 
> Although there have been meetings about its use, to my memory there has not 
> been a public hearing about whether or not to pursue this project.  Do 
> proponents fear a bond issue vote by the citizens of Moscow who can only then 
> speak to the real community commitment for this project.  
> 
> Such a vote seems the only way to properly raise operating money now that it 
> is obvious tax dollars are going to have to be used.  Thank you.