I went through the staff's slide presentation. The elephant in the room is that, of all the options, staying put and renovating their building is far and away the cheapest option.
An insider told me the only reason for considering a move is for the political optics created by our dysfunctional school board. When the school tax was passed, there was also a provision/promise that all of it would pay for schools, not administrative buildings, so where do we think this money to move will come from.
Bottom line, everyone should be focused on improving our schools, not building a new and unnecessary new HQ's for the school board. As many have noted, there is plenty of developable land along the river so there is no pressing need to add more. Unlike the jail, the school board building is an office building that adds vibrancy to an area otherwise, to date, lacking same. The development next door isn't exactly setting the world on fire so why add more land to that area. What do we think will replace the school board building? Another empty lot for the next few decades?
It's another boneheaded project by our elected officials IMHO.
The presentation also says the "stay put" option does not include HVAC, roofing, elevators, carpet, paint, tech needs, and other needs of the 40-year-old HQ building. The analysis also notes that parking is inadequate at the current location. Staying in place may still be the least expensive option, but the comparison should include all necessary costs. The stay put and "restack" the building (whatever that means) is the second least expensive in NPV (but is the 4th (of 7) most expensive in total cost.
Presentation (I thought there was a link here, but didn't see it) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23854341-dcps-building-power-point-presentation
Charles, our comments don't really matter because the Board has set up a move as a foregone conclusion. Just look at the resolution below:
Board passed a resolution dated September 7, 2021, to:
o Vacate 1701 Prudential and sell the property along with 4 other administrative properties
o Fund new facility in an amount between $12 - $60 million over 20 years, subject to availability of funds
o Release the Invitation to Negotiate
To show how lacking their interest is in staying put, they don't even discuss how much a potential renovation of the current building might cost to make a full comparison to other options. Hard to evaluate when no one asks the appropriate questions.
To add, they don't calculate the cost of moving or value the disruption to the organization. I would add that construction costs estimates are likely to turn out to be lower than actual based on typical construction estimates vs. reality, especially for civic projects.
The "challenges" to staying put look trumped up to me. Citing the school board resolution as one of them is a self-fulfilling prophecy... that's clearly a self imposed and discretionary-by-the-Board challenge! Just rescind the resolution and this "challenge" is gone.
Same with the comment on parking. "May constrain future growth"... that is true of any facility that can't be expanded beyond some imaginary number. It certainly doesn't mean there is a parking problem now or in the foreseeable future. I didn't see an effort made to compare current parking spaces to the options presented... again, showing a lack of interest in staying put. Looking at Google Maps, it appears the current site has at least 500 spaces vs. 539 (shared with JTA!) and 625 for the options. Not a whole lot of difference and certainly doesn't justify this comment.
Staying for another couple of decades will also allow the market to absorb most of the surrounding develop-able land greatly increasing the existing property's value whereas now it is more likely to be a fire sale given the surplus of land in the area.
As usual, it looks like a consultant got paid big bucks to support the end game dictated by their client and just back filled much of their report to get to the demanded finish line.
ADVANTAGES•Lowest cost option assuming a non renovation and/or non-restack scenario • No disruption of daily operations during move • Exclusive tenancy and branding • Location is central and known to employees and the public • Convenient parking • Owned debt free • Value increase over time • Preserves commitment from sales tax referendum that money would not be used for admin facilities / no capital to admin facilities (assuming no renovation/restack and status quo)
CHALLENGES | RISKS • Does not achieve Board Resolution directive to move off the river • Property in prime location remains untaxed and does not stimulate economic development • Inefficient space utilization • 40-year-old facility with capital improvement needs • Limited growth possibilities without significant capital investment • Less parking than other options and may constrain future growth • Outdated technology infrastructure • Forego estimated $10.6M in twenty-year tax revenue, if it materializes
