FRANK LEWIS
PDT Staff Writer
The Portsmouth City Building Committee may be looking at assembling a “good, better, best” scenario in making recommendations to Portsmouth City Council for a future city building.
“It would just be coming up with three proposals that have a tiering effect,” committee member Sean Boldman said. “So your ‘good’ proposal would be the least expensive, most non-idealistic proposal. So it would be redoing the windows in the current city building; redoing the HVAC system, installation; not actually touching the structural of the building, not removing the walls which are plaster, surely, and brick walls that would cost a fortune to take out.”
Boldman said the proposals in the past had called for completely gutting the structure and redoing the entire building.
“You also may be able to redo some of the structures of the building,” Boldman said. “The court rooms also need to be as big as they currently are, and private office spaces — this, that and the other. So that would be kind of the ‘good’ concept.”
He said there would be the option to add on to the current city building if desired in the future.
“Your ‘better’ option would maybe be to do a bigger gut of the city building; to do a little bit more maintenance; adding on a little bit with the concept of being able to add on later on,” Boldman said. “It would be more of the middle-of-the-road price. You would spend a little bit more money on the 22,000 square feet (current city building size) we already have, and maybe add on 10,000 square feet or so, which would keep the cost a little bit less.”
Boldman said the “best” option is either completely redoing the city building and adding on enough square footage to satisfy everybody, or building a new facility at another location, knocking down the current facility, which he said would cost, “an extraordinary amount of money.”
Second Ward Councilman Rich Saddler was retained as chairman of the committee in a vote by members, which included Sharon Benter, Dr. Kenneth Carlson and Boldman.
Saddler handed out two proposals he had already made for scrutiny by the other members. One calls for constructing a new city building on existing city-owned property and only if any of the existing property is able to accommodate a building and parking space of the desired size and in accordance with city and state building codes. This option would not exceed 53,000 square feet in design. Employee and public parking would be in addition to the square footage of the building design.
Another proposal would be to rehabilitate and add on to the existing city building and create employee and public parking space to the east of the City Building. Again, the option would not exceed 53,000 square feet in design and the Master Plan from Alexander-Seckel Architects submitted to the city in October 1984 would be used as a template for the renovation/addition. The report submitted would be updated to include any construction price increases to today’s standards.
Carlson said he thinks the city needs to be in one building, and Boldman said he doesn’t think the city should limit sale of properties to beginning at the appraised value, “because, whether it sells for a dollar or $100,000, it’s going to generate taxes. Obviously, I would like to sell it for as much as we can to offset the cost of building.”
The committee decided to continue to work toward coming up with several proposals, and hopefully have Council narrow it to two to be placed on the ballot. The committee determined Wednesday night, they would probably not get those proposals ready by the November general election, and would probably not have them ready until next year’s primary election.
It was also revealed at the meeting that an estimate for remodeling the Marting’s building for use as city offices was more than $11 million.
“That was something that was submitted to Councilman (Kevin) Johnson from David Stone (Tanner Stone Holsinger Dongess and Company Architects) providing a breakdown for the Marting’s building,” Saddler said. “When this nonprofit thing was happening a month or so ago, I think that this was just follow-up information that Kevin requested. But this is basically the cost of it. This is the total cost of renovating 54,000 square feet of the Marting’s building, which would basically equate to $11,364,000.”
Saddler said that figure included site development of $250,000. Building renovation of that square footage, 54,000, was $9,450,000, or $175 a square foot. Total construction cost is $9.7 million. Engineering cost would be basically seven percent of the construction cost, which would be $679,000. And miscellaneous costs of fees, testing, reproduction, drawings, were estimated at $15,000, and a 10 percent contingency of $970,000.
Frank Lewis may be reached at 740-353-3101, ext. 232, or at flewis@heartlandpublications.com.
Why isnt the Martings Building, the Adelphia building being advertised in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Industry Publications on Loopnet.com where every city in Ohio has their empty commerical buildings for sale or rent ?
How does the City of Portsmouth not know there isnt a company or business in Cleveland or Cincinnati or Toledo, looking to locate out of the inner city for a building like this ? You cant sell it if you dont advertise it regionally, throught the state and nationwide.
This is all way to much thinking "outside the box" for this local government and this silly committee's.
This is a city where you have to call 9 times to get a pot hole repaired, a city that dont pick up its trash before it cuts the grass on city right of ways, a city that dont paint yellow lines in the streets, dont trim grass along city fence lines.
All they are interested in is a City Building. That should be last on the list, fix the streets, the infastructure, get jobs in here, then worry about some city building.
You dont tear down buildings you pay 2 milllion dollars for, get this building advertised statewide and nationally for a couple of years, and you dont need to hire a real estate agent to do that. Its as simple as making some phone calls and getting ads in major publications and websites. Again, beyong the I.Q. of local people.
Good Better and Best, that's novel and flawed, Totally. Little do any of them know it (Johnson should), They are operating out into outer space with not foundations of municipal planning.
No Master plans of any kind for anything.
No CIP, capital Improvements Program nor Plan, just buy more copiers.
No economic growth and development plans.
No traffic plan. No Infrastructure plans.
No Landplanning, Zoning Plan and the like.
No organization, a City Manager coming in a couple of years who will turn things around if s/he is given full reigns of a profession which we doubt.
No Process plans, just 4 people on this committee not one from each ward representing the wards, etc. in prep for council who are from those 6 wards.
They are just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks hah. We know.
Good Better and Best, of nothing but our taxes will be spent into more of those private pockets, the SOGP lives on. Don't you believe it's dead.
What's their criteria, assumptions, decision structure, process, they don't have one or any. Like that ad on TV, they just throw money at and hope but their is no hope, just our money into their pockets.
Just Fluff, thrown at us. That's all Frank can report. They just throw out the fluff and are just puppets. Keystone Kops, are they saving the Good Judge Mowery for the closing?
Their quantitative figures, "a fortune." We can'r get a handle on that. And "this, that, and the other" real professional and mature? Where's the county's "breathing room?" Oh, "would maybe do bigger." Surely, David Stone does not use those elementary school terms.
What happened to that Think Tank a few months ago, oh, the estimate to retrofit the Marting's building for city offices leaked out. Tax payers can you hear that sucking sound?
Saddler II, from ODOT is now running the city from within, in this Home Rule State of Ohio. Satisfy everyone, no engineering, no architectural, no scientific work? Just fuzzy math. They can build east of the existing building.
Carlson wants to give away city property for $1 after spending $2 million for it? Watch that end run, tax payers.
ATTA BOUY Frank, keep shooting all those figures and stats out at us, that'll keep us dumb and confused. No real figures, no business plan and all that sophisticated modern day stuff.
The childish play that goes on with our taxes, fees and fines. It's amazing, simply amazing.