A Few Minutes with the Mayor – by Paul Becker

Lately, we have been hearing from a small number of citizens about their concerns over what they’ve heard may be planned uses for the Courthouse. Given the rumors and misinformation that’s crossed my desk, I can hardly blame them. Let’s shed some light on what has happened and where we are, and perhaps even where we ought to be going.

First, I need to address the suggestion that we sell the Courthouse for $300,000. If offered at that price, let me be first in line to buy it. Together with the land it is sitting on, the price would be seven figures, not six. We’re talking here about an entire city block in prime territory, not real estate in Detroit. When we accepted the land and buildings from the county, the County Administrator even alluded to the fact that the properties could be sold for seven to eight figures. In fact, there was a party interested in owning the Courthouse. The county could have sold the property, yet the County Commissioners opted to transfer the Courthouse to Jacksonville, cost free.

I realize there will always be those who “look a gift horse in the mouth.” Caution in such matters is commendable, but we are not Hector and this isn’t Troy and the god, Apollo, is long since deceased. I do not question why the County Commissioners gave us the property, but I am grateful they did. It might just be possible that they saw the Courthouse as the Jacksonville icon it is … one the city would welcome so as to insure the continued existence of that icon. Furthermore, there was NO way in which the county, on top of giving us the buildings, was going to give us money for any deferred maintenance costs. We did ask for it… but is there anyone who thinks we had the stronger hand in this game? Remember, the county could simply have sold the buildings without even talking to us.

I personally witnessed one prominent businessman so angry while talking to us that he was on the edge of losing control. He gave us a quick lesson in Business 101 by declaring that one must have a plan before embarking on the acquisition of property such as this. Of course he was right. But, I would add another very important element… one must have a vision as well. I believe we do and we’ve said so in this column before.

However, before discussing that, let’s address the concern held about deferred maintenance costs, seismic retro-fitting costs, and other associated costs raised by folks recently. We also need to address the PARC Report which seems to be the focus of much criticism, especially from Mr. Russ Kennedy.

PARC’s task was to look at the potential uses of the Courthouse building, the general over-all feasibility of the project, plus community sentiment. Their parameters were to work with the City and existing engineering analysis to build a general budget. But the purpose was not to create a preliminary architectural report or a preliminary engineering report. That task is further down the road.

At no place in that report was there any recommendation for the city to use 12,000 square feet for office space. The city is living in cramped office space now, and I share mine with the Administrator, Jeff Alvis, an arrangement I have no plans to change. But 12,000 square feet? 2,000 is closer to the correct estimate… and that is only one third of the ground floor. The hallway takes up another third and the remaining third could be rented out. The associated cost numbers identified as excessive if the city moves to the Courthouse are greatly exaggerated in Mr. Kennedy’s objections.

Another criticism was… “The present space is crowded but a three times increase in space is not justified; particularly when the report is glaringly lacking in headcount projections for the next 5 years.” The report was never intended to cover headcount projections. Why? Because there is no discernible rationale for increasing headcount in the current economic condition we find ourselves in.

Again, another criticism… were the city to move, the PARC report did not address the physical cost of such a move. Of course it didn’t! The report was never designed to address that cost at this stage. Nor did it address where the money would come from. Again, it wasn’t designed to, but the answer lies in the sale of the vacated Miller House which would fetch a price far exceeding any such expense. Even with rewiring, new lighting and any associated renovation, it doesn’t cost $200,000 to move 1,800 square feet of office space.

Any such costs need to and will be identified… but I submit there will certainly be NO expense to the city that would not be covered by the sale of the Miller House.

The PARC report has also been criticized because… “The report does not address the use of 3 other buildings located at the Courthouse site—

Children’s Museum—approximately 3,000 square feet

Hanley Building—approximately 1,500 square feet

Ferguson Building—approximately 1,500 square feet

The rehab of these 6,000 square feet of facilities if done in the next few years could easily cost $300,000 to $600,000.”

Again, the PARC report was never intended to address this question. These three buildings each are unique unto themselves and have no direct bearing on use of the Courthouse. However, there is no cost analysis to support the figure of $300,000 to $600,000 for rehab and I would suggest that whatever eventual use is made of these buildings will determine what the cost will be.

Space does not allow me to review each and every financial item raised in Mr. Kennedy’s letter, but let me address one aspect of his critique of the second floor. He wrote, “A Second Floor—alternative proposal – somewhat “tongue-in-cheek”—Bob Irvine’s 18 page proposal to develop the 6,000 square feet Second Floor generates net income of roughly $1,000 to $4,000 for each of the first five years. Why not install 3 vending machines for sodas and snacks in a 40 foot square feet of space on the Second Floor which would generate equal or better income than the consultant’s proposal and leave the remaining 5,960 feet vacant?”

Then he concluded, “A viable plan must be developed for the second floor or, alternatively, scrap the project!”

Bob Irvine of PARC Resources responded to this by stating, “I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Kennedy that the second floor revenue projections are low. The question we attempted to answer with our analysis was: Can the second floor be dedicated to community use without being a draw on City resources? The answer is clearly yes.”

But what about that extra million dollars Mr. Kennedy cited for seismic work to allow us to use the building? Allow me to be somewhat tongue-in-cheek myself. In 1992 it was determined that the second floor could hold, at a minimum, 100 pounds and more per square foot. It is our intention to find out if this is accurate. If so… we could stampede a herd of fifty adult bull elephants through the room and the floor would easily support them. How we would get them up there might pose a problem, but once there they could all safely squat.

I mention this because it was never the intention of the PARC report to do an engineering study on any necessary seismic costs for the Courthouse. The figure PARC used came from a state agency… SHPO… the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. PARC did not make up this number out of thin air… the actual number will be determined before any steps are taken. However, I believe those fifty elephants will prove the number to be far lower than the alarmist numbers being heard on the street.

Mr. Kennedy also wrote, “No interest costs are in the project proposal for the additional financing needed by debt financing. Why was this overlooked?” This wasn’t overlooked. It wasn’t even considered… and for a very good reason. Changes to the Courthouse must be paid for through grants and Urban Renewal and whatever community fund-raising activities are offered. Any other means of raising money runs the risk of raising taxes and… it is not the intent of this Mayor to raise taxes… not now… not later!

Another argument again, made without foundation, seems to concern the foundation… “The building is 129 years old and the deferred maintenance costs will be much higher than the estimates used in this report. There have been many subterranean surprises in the Jacksonville building history but no comment has been made in this report concerning this very high risk factor!” The PARC Report was never supposed to address this. It is an interim report… not a final report. The Courthouse has stood for 129 years. During all that time its worst enemy was man… not the environment. I shudder when I think of how close the building came to be demolished before S.O.H.S. saved it. And I’ll guarantee that it was built to last far longer than any house in town. The two parallel walls of the first floor hallway which run the length of the building are built in concrete two feet thick to support the second floor. Two feet! When it was built there wasn’t a weapon capable of breaching those walls other than heavy cannon. This is why the second floor is so solid.

It was wrong to demean the Council who received the PARC Report. The report is the first of many the Council will face during the next year before anything is cast in stone… or should I say: cast in two foot thick walls of cement? The Council will continue to gather information before making any final determination. And that brings me to the crux of what this discussion is about. Do the citizens of Jacksonville care about this Courthouse? The response to that question has been overwhelming in our office. Yes, they do!

You, the people in Jacksonville, through your City Council, have the opportunity to save this building for decades to come… perhaps for another 129 years. And it is possible to accomplish this without raising taxes…and that is by moving the City Administration offices into the building on the ground floor. The presence of the City offices in the Courthouse will help to insure the integrity and the viability of what is clearly the most important icon in town. The remaining office space could then be rented out and the corridor could support a window-case museum for the public.

This then is the vision to which I alluded earlier. The Courthouse was built to house government operations. It should be returned to the use for which its designers and builders had in mind. The Council can research, review, and analyze the best possible use for the rest of the Courthouse, including the second floor… but the City’s presence in that building brings together under one roof, the citizens, their government, and the single-most important icon, one filled with history commensurate with Jacksonville.

Instead of paying water bills at the ramshackle Miller House… a building originally intended only as a temporary home for the City for one year, citizens would be walking through the front doors of a building that is the very essence of JACKSONVILLE. What a great idea!

To read “Review” Publisher, Whitman Parker’s opinion on this issue and Russ Kennedy’s letter, please click here.

Posted August 30, 2013