|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View is taking steps to close a massive funding shortfall for a new public safety building after the cost shot up to $210 million, an amount that far exceeds what the city budgeted for it.
In a 6-0-1 vote, the City Council approved a recommendation on Tuesday evening to revise the project scope by reducing the size of the parking garage and shooting range and implementing it in phases. The public art budget also will be scaled back.
Council member Alison Hicks abstained from the vote at the Dec. 17 meeting.
For more than a decade, Mountain View has been looking to build a new public safety facility at 1000 Villa St. that would house the police department, fire administration and other municipal operations.
The plans finally came together last year when the City Council approved an early blueprint for a new facility. At the time, it was projected to cost about $165 million. But six months later, the price climbed to $200 million after the city added more square footage to the main building as well as a shooting range. Now the price tag has spiked to $210 million, and the city is looking to rein in the costs.
The current design features a 75,000 square foot public safety building, which will remain the same under the proposed changes, but some peripherals will be scaled back. The city plans to reduce the parking garage from four levels to three, and to trim down the number of lanes in the shooting range to eight or 10.
It also plans to build the shooting range as a “cold shell,” phasing the construction so that the roof and exterior will be built first, followed by interior work at a later, unspecified time. Until then, the range would be non-operational.
The combined savings would bring down the project cost to $189 million, closing the funding gap to about $28.5 million, according to the council report. The city has identified about $160.5 million in available funding for the project, leaving a shortfall even after scaling back the scope.
“From a financing perspective, we think we’re definitely within the realm of reason and that there will be ways to close the gap,” said Assistant City Manager Arn Andrews at the Dec. 17 meeting.
Community members were much less optimistic, with nearly a dozen letters and public comments expressing strong opposition to the size and scope of the project. Several advocated for the removal of the shooting range and the K9 training area, saying that they were not needed or a typical feature of most police departments.
Community members also expressed concern that the city would divert money from other critical priorities to close the funding gap.
“I’m concerned about the $30 million shortfall. I’m concerned that trying to make up in areas – yes grants might work – and yet we still have overages.” said Mountain View resident Judy Levy. “Where would that (funding) come from?”
Levy pressed the council to postpone their decision to give people more time to consider alternatives, an issue that others raised as well. The item was the last one on a packed agenda running past midnight just before the holidays.
But the council was not swayed. “The longer we wait, the more expensive this is going to get, and we’ve been talking about this for over a decade. Now I know for some staff, it has been two decades, so we have not rushed this,” said Council member Abe-Koga.
Council member Lucas Ramirez assured the public that the council was not approving an expenditure plan or authorizing contracts that evening.
Ramirez also suggested some new ideas to get the project across the finish line – like drawing on internal service funds that are not earmarked for housing, parks or open space. He also proposed that the public art budget be reduced from $1 million to $400,000, which the council supported.
But Council member Alison Hicks was not entirely convinced by the discussion’s direction or staff report. “I support a new public safety building, and I’ve voted for it every time. But I fear that at this point this project will pull from other community priorities in order to complete it,” she said.
Hicks said she would support the motion if there were more suggestions about alternative funding options to close the $28.5 million gap. Ultimately, she abstained from the vote.
A more detailed financial plan with several options will be presented to the City Council next summer, according to Assistant City Manager Andrews. “We’re going to look at all the options that have been discussed tonight and cobble together what we think is the most reasonable, taking all these concerns and constituencies under consideration,” he said.
Cops should learn to tighten their belts for once.
Why did Hicks abstain instead of voting against?
So let me get this straight: The council decided to raise taxes on future residents (the ones buying houses) to raise money for a building….they don’t have enough money to construct?