ch2 the solution 05-03-2011a

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

1/28

AN ILLUSTRATED GUIDETO

Page 1 Geoffrey James Retired AIA RIBA Architect Solutions Task Force 5/3/2011

REVISED AND CORRECTED VERSION

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

2/28



Dear Task Force members:

This document is a report on the Solution that has now been developed forCourthouse Square.

I am the author of this document, but I relied heavily on the input from all of oursub-committee members.

As a group of volunteers we faced time constraints that made reaching consensusdifficult. We had no budget to work with to have our concepts reviewed.Fortunately, as Bob Royer mentioned at a Task Force meeting, Gene Pfeifer and Iworked long hours to supply our sub-committee with meaningful, detailedinformation on design concepts, cost estimates, arranging meetings with

engineering and construction firms, setting up opportunities to visit the buildingand a whole host of other information. Robert Brownell contributed structuralsketches, and input on the electrical cost numbers. Don Russo and Andrew Cooperalso provided substantial help.

Throughout this report you will see the terms TECH Group and the Technical Sub-Committee. I used those terms because discussions guided our process. TECHGroup were the report writers, sketch designers, and cost estimators. TechnicalSub-Committee was the six volunteer members, who discussed the developingSolution at their fifteen public meetings. Questions were often raised, more detail

was then presented, and as a group we were becoming more comfortable with thenotion that another less expensive remedial concept was indeed worth pursuing.The committee unanimously set that as our Goal: to find a feasible way to repairCourthouse Square. However, we didnt have the time or any budget to get theinformation needed to come to a vote of acceptance of a finalized recommendationand report.

The conclusions drawn in this report are mine, but without the guidance and thework of the sub-committee members we would not have progressed this far. Thesub-committee members have had a chance to review this document and Iveattempted to incorporate their suggestions in the report. Knowing how activethese folks were in debating various points of fact, Im confident that if you askedthem to comment on the report, they would not hesitate to critique it for you.

Another unanimous action of the Technical Sub-Committee was to decide to askthe building owners the following: If Courthouse Square can be repaired, tobetter condition than before, but not as-new, for a cost in the range of $15m to

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

3/28



$18m, would the Owners be willing to move forward and get it repaired? Welater found out that the Condo association Bylaws require this to be done, and theOwners decided to move ahead to have an Owners Representative prepare therecommended Performance RFP for this design and construction repair work.

The author or scrivener of this report would like to thank the team in thisincredible effort, Bob Royer, Robert Brownell, Gene Pfeifer, and Geoff James, whoall contributed sketches, ideas, and or cost estimating, plus the other two membersof the Technical Sub-Committee, Ric McNall and Jerry Walling, who contributedtheir expertise, and who kept the committee honest and focused. Bob Royer alsohad valuable input on the wording of parts of this report.

The actual numbers will come in with the bids or the Proposals that thePerformance RFP will be requesting, but we have already been told, by the

Specialist, that the structural repair number is correct, and we are told, by theconstruction industry folks, that the architectural repair number is also realistic.

Winston Churchill once said.Never has so much been owed by so many to so few.

Thanks for letting me lead this effort by a group of incredibly talentedprofessionals.

Now, Lets Repair Courthouse Square.

Geoffrey James

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

4/28



CONTENTS1. COVER2. COVER LETTER3. 4. CONTENTS5. INTRODUCTION6. WHO CAME UP WITH THIS7. COMMITTEE GOAL8. THE SOLUTION WORKS9. COSTS10. STRUCTURAL GROUP11. THE ACTUAL REPORT12. STRUCTURAL REPAIRS13. ARCHITECTURAL REPAIRS14. COST ESTIMATE15. COST SAVINGS

16. PT TENDONS & DE-BONDING17. INTEGRATED REPAIR TEAM18. ACTION PLAN19. REPAIR TECHNOLOGIES20. APPENDIX 1: COSTS NOT INCLUDED21. APPENDIX 2: CONDO ASSOCIATION22. APPENDIX 3: EXPANDED PLAZA23. APPENDIX 4: SIMPLIFIED CONDOS

24. BUS MALL RECONFIGURATION25. APPENDIX 5: PARKING26. APPENDIX 6: VALUATION27. APPENDIX 7: FUNDING28. THE AUTHOR

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

5/28



THE SOLUTION: LETS REPAIR COURTHOUSE SQUARE

INTRODUCTIONIT IS FEASIBLE, AND IT IS AFFORDABLEIt has now been determined, by the TECH Group, by the peer review, by the specialist concreterepair firm, and after the discussions with a total of eight firms, that the building and the entire facilityis repairable at a cost significantly less than the $49m that the consultants report identified.

The Task Force and the Owners are advised that a less invasive, less expensive, structural repairstrategy has been developed, and costed out, that is indeed feasible.

The last cost estimate (by the TECH Group) for these repairs is for $15.8m.The full Tech Committee therefore came up with a range of cost from $15m to $18m, and asked theOwners if they would be willing to repair the facility, i.e. the block for that cost range.

In fact, the condominium bylaws actually require the repairs (if they can be done for less than $26m).

WHY IS THE SOLUTION SO MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE?

The reasons why the TECH Group costs are significantly less than the consultants $49m figure areas follows.

1. Interior systems do not need to be replaced, thus saving millions.2. Consultants were probably ultra-conservative due to on-going litigation.3. Their design was expensive because of the replace interior systems language in RFP4. Their design was expensive because of the as new language in RFP 5. They did not want to take responsibility for suspect concrete or tendon condition6. The consultants are not so experienced in the specialized state-of-the-art concrete repair

techniques as the international specialist firm the TECH Group brought in as advisors.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

6/28



WHO CAME UP WITH THIS SOLUTION?This Repair Strategy and SOLUTION was largely devised by members of the Technical Sub-

Committee of the Courthouse Square Solutions Task Force.

The TECH members involved in the actual design concepts, report writing, and cost estimating wereBob Royer (retired engineer), Robert Brownell (electrical systems), Gene Pfeifer (structural &costs), and Geoffrey James (a retired AIA architect). Other members of the Technical Advisory Sub-Committee were Rick McNall (homebuilder) and Jerry Walling (concrete & aggregate).

HOW DID THEY DO IT?

1.First they (a group of four) jointly developed design concepts for a less invasive, and therefore less

costly, remediation strategy.2.Then they (the full Technical Sub-Committee of six) interviewed eight engineering and constructionfirms to have them review the teams conceptual designs.

AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH INDEED

The Technical Committees adopted Goal, and their focus has been on how to repair CourthouseSquare to a better condition than before, plus structurally sound, seismically reinforced, and with newinterior finishes. The Solution was eventually found by consulting with engineers and builders, plusone of the engineers put us in touch with the Structural Group, who showed us how the structure canbe repaired and reinforced for $8.5m. The three who worked on cost estimating have computedanother $8m in Architectural repairs, to the exterior envelope, the brickwork, the windows and thedoors. All fees are included, plus all PT & core testing, and insurance. The cost estimate has notreceived unanimous committee approval, because it is true that we will not have actual bids until lateron. But the estimates are a good guide, and have been reviewed by builders. That is the way it isdone in the industry and the first step is the architects estimate during the design stage, and it isexpected that actual construction bids will come in accordingly. When the authors refers to our, orwe, he refers of course to the committee members who did all this actual design work, involvingfifteen official meetings of the full committee, but also many extra visits to the building, and hundredsof hours of homework. Of the 23 members of the full Solutions Task Force, six volunteered to serveon this Technical Advisory Sub-Committee. Four of these then volunteered to actually come up with

ideas, and all four developed various sketches, plus three of them had input on the development ofcost estimates. One member of the Committee, Jerry Walling, was out of town a lot so was not ableto be at many meetings, but connected the group to concrete experts during the research into 12,000psi high strength concrete, and suggested the committee contact local builders, like Marion. Anothermember, Rick McNall, attended many of the actual meetings, and acted as an advocate, challengingthe group at every step to prove everything, which caused the designers to work that much harder toprove the design works, so it was probably a good thing.It was a progressive, deliberate, and focused process. TENACITY is the word.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

7/28



Early on, conceptual designs were prepared by four members of the sub-committee, who the authorrefers to as the Tech Group, then that was followed by in-depth fact finding and discussions withengineers and builders, and a total of 15 official public committee meetings, and also countless hoursof research, design and cost estimating, and several detailed surveys within the building and parking,

and finally the key element, the addition of the state-of-the-art repair techniques of an internationalfirm that has successfully fixed over 1000 concrete buildings.

COMMITTEE GOAL

Also, early on in the process, the full Technical Committee had a quorum and unanimously voted toset a Goal of Finding a Way to Repair Courthouse Square. Understood in that effort and discussionwas that the total cost needs to be way below $15m to $18m for it to make sense. That was anartificial number or cost range that we discussed, based on commercial real estate input, and whatwe thought made sense as a maximum repair cost. Except, the location itself adds significantadditional value, over that of a real estate appraisal value, being a convenient one stop center for

the tax payers, and County customers, next to the Courthouse, and also being the ideal, determined,proven, essential and documented location for the Transit Center, for the last quarter century.

THE STRUCTURAL REPAIR

The structural repair design was always designed by members of the committee to be less invasiveand therefore less expensive than what the consultants had come up with, so this groups view wasto attempt to accomplish that without destroying everything, like the consultants had proposed.Conceptually the committee members design has included enlarged columns, the addition of columncapitals or dropped panels, and reinforced shear walls, and the intent is that most of the interiorsare to be, as much as possible, to be un-affected, although will be re-decorated and re-finished.

CRITICS

There were apparent attempts by some others to discredit this approach, and the original consultantswere repeatedly called to critique the Tech Groups work, or to comment, upon invitation, that welooked at that, but it didnt work.

NO OTHER FEASIBLE SOLUTIONS

Now we recall that in July, John Lattimer had told the Statesman Journal Editorial Board on video that

the consultants are coming up with several alternatives. That was encouraging news at the time,and we all looked forward to the hired consultants coming through with some good ideas, and a realaffordable solution. Well, we asked them, and NO solution has ever been proposed, within thedefined cost limitations of economic feasibility.

So, it was up to Technical Committee to find the solution. $1.8m had been invested in consultantstudies and NO solution was arrived at. However $0.00 was invested in this volunteer team ofarchitects and engineers, and a $15.88m REPAIR SOLUTION has indeed been found. The actualcost will come out in response to the Performance RFP.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

8/28



THIS SOLUTION WORKS

So the SOLUTION checks out (by the experts) and it works, according to them.Members of the Technical Committee persevered. Meetings of the full Technical Committee were

publicly noticed and all findings reported to, and discussed by, the full group, and then publicmeetings were held with eight firms of engineers and builders. Engineers told us the concept isviable, but needed structural analysis and calculations, i.e. a normal structural design process.Contractors told us our cost estimates were accurate, as far as they could see of the unit prices andquantities that were used. However the critics, and the skeptics, repeatedly brought up the issues ofPT Tendon Testing are they overstressed and concrete debonding (indicated in some concrete coretests).

EXPERT OPINION

The Technical Sub-Committee needed an expert to reassure the Task Force Committee. One of the

engineering firms (BMGP) suggested TECH Group call Structural Systems, part of the huge VSLInternational company that supplies the PT tendons around the world. Their VP was in Las Vegas ata construction conference, and agreed to come to Salem. TECH Group and the full sub-committeemet with Jay Thomas, toured the building, and even took measurements. Structural Systemssubsequently examined the SERA Architects, & MCE (Miller Consulting Engineers) & KGA (KramerGehlen Associates) Reports and has had discussions with Eric Watson of MCE, and with Joe Gehlenof KGA.

THE QUESTION TO THE OWNERS

Then the Technical Committee again had a quorum and unanimously voted to ask the Owners this

question: If Courthouse Square can be repaired, to better condition than before, but not asnew for a cost range of $15m to $18m, would they want to proceed to repair it?Finally the Committee learned this was also a rule in the Condo Bylaws, i.e. the building must berepaired (as long as the repair cost is under $26m).

THE COST

Subsequently the TECH Group determined the building is indeed repairable. The last issue was theslabs, and the TECH Group finally had a structural solution to that repair, at a structural cost of$8.5m. The Technical Sub-Committee then held a Webinar and public meeting to describe the repairtechnology to the Task Force Committee. TECH Group and the Technical Sub-Committee invitedJay Thomas come out once again to talk to the entire Task Force and the Owners, on April 19, 2011.

STRUCTURE

The structural repair, that is proposed, is a fairly non-invasive approach that involves enlargedconcrete columns, pressurized concrete column capitals, application of carbon fiber slabreinforcement, and of shear wall reinforcement, and, in some locations, what is called external PT

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

9/28



reinforcement. This all is done leaving existing ceilings and systems in place, except for aroundcolumns. Some footings are to be enlarged, and the waterproofing issues fixed.

ARCHITECTUREThen the TECH Group also has $8m budgeted for repairs to exterior masonry, windows, doors, and

new interior finishes. Floor leveling is also included. All PT (post tensioned) tendon testing is part ofthe integrated package, and many more concrete slab core tests are needed and are included.

FEES INCLUDED

All fees are included, plus full time inspections, which was missing when the building wasconstructed.

PERFORMANCE RFP: THE INTEGRATED TEAM

The engineers and contractors stress the importance of an Integrated Design & construction Team,which is to include the Repair Specialist company, and a carefully worded Performance RFP thatdoes not drive the cost up by $23m, like what happened in 2010. The cost must be a fixed price bid,i.e. a guaranteed maximum and has to be well below $26m. This scenario actually has a costestimate of $15.88m

THE FIRST CONCEPTS

These structural concepts, that TECH Group originally came up with, even in their early sketches,involved a less invasive and destructive repair strategy, incorporating repair and enlargement ofcolumns, and investigation of FRP reinforcement. Four TECH members came up with sketches and

designs, and three of them, Brownell, Pfeifer, and James, actually designed column capitals. Three,Pfeifer, Brownell, and James, also contributed to the detailed cost estimating.

These concepts were subsequently supported, in part, by the written observations of the CountysPeer Review Engineer, KGA Kramer Gehlen Associates, who also said these less invasive solutionsare in fact possible, and they (KGA) came close with three structural concepts, but did not quite solveit.

The design concepts were then actually determined to be viable by two local structural engineers,who said the concepts should be further developed.

THE DEVELOPED SOLUTIONIt was however not until the TECH Group contacted the Structural Group, at the suggestion ofBMGP, and met with them three times, that it was finally determined that there is indeed a FEASIBLESOLUTION, and a modification or refinement of the Peer Review Engineers designs WILL WORK,with the addition of the high-tech repair technology that the international repair firm brings to the tableStructural Group has successfully repaired over 1000 of these concrete buildings, and employs wellproven but state-of-the-art technology. These technologies include carbon fiber reinforcement, epoxyinjection, external PT reinforcement, and pressurized reinforced concrete column capital installations.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

10/28



STRUCTURAL GROUP

TECH invited Structural Group to Salem and a detailed physical examination of the building tookplace, including deflection measurements, and examination of the consultants reports, and alsoinvolved telephone conferences with MCE and KGA.

TECH then held a Webinar and invited all the Owners and the Task Force to attend online at ascheduled meeting of the Technical Sub-Committee.

On April 19 TECH invited Structural Group to come to Salem again to present these technologiesthat will be used to Repair Courthouse Square to the Owners and to the Task Force.

TECH found Jay Thomas, V.P. of the Structural Group, Baltimore, an international company who

has repaired over 1000 concrete buildings in the USA, plus others around the world.

TECH met with Jay Thomas in March and toured the building and actually measured floor deflection,and examined all the defects.

A WEBINAR and public meeting was held in April so that the Owners and the Task Force could

receive an online briefing of the state-of-the-art Repair Strategies.

A PRESENTATION to the full Task Force, the Commissioners, and the Transit Board was held April

19, at which everyone was able to ask detailed questions.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

11/28



THE ACTUAL REPAIRSSO WHAT DOES THE STRUCTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL REPAIR INVOLVE?

1. Columns are enlarged and reinforced.2. Dropped Panels or concrete capitals, of pressurized reinforced concrete.3. Enhanced FRP reinforcement of Shear Walls, plus epoxy injection.4. FRP carbon fiber application bonded to slabs top & bottom5. Some external PT reinforcement in selected areas.6. Some enlarged reinforced concrete footings7. Waterproofing at bus mall north block.8. Repair of exterior brick masonry envelope and studs, as required.9. Repair of all damaged windows and doors and frames.

The Consultants had repeatedly claimed that these repairs #2, #3, #4 are technically infeasible .However, they also failed to come up with ANY feasible solution, other than a $49m gut job andrebuild, which is fiscally infeasible, and makes no economic sense.

The TECH Team has proven them totally wrong, by bringing in outside experts from around thecountry, at no expense to the County, to show that the building, and the block, IS REPAIRABLE, tobetter than before, for a reasonable repair cost..

There are two (integrated) parts to it. First the Structural skeleton.

ENLARGED COLUMNS, DROP PANELS (CAPITALS) AND

CARBON FIBER SLAB REINFORCEMENT

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

12/28



STRUCTURAL

The reinforcing and repair of the concrete structure or skeleton is the first part. This will be done bya specialist concrete repair company.

TECH Group has met three times with The Structural Group from Baltimore who has repaired over1000 concrete buildings in the USA and has offices around the world.They work on the repair of the structural skeleton.This work will be a Joint Venture with a local but major GC general construction firm. Teams ofspecialists do the specialized repair work and the construction firm does the rest.A Team of Specialist, GC, Structural Engineer, Architectural support, Peer Review (recommended bythe City) and the Clerk of the Works (full time inspector).

1. Columns are enlarged by 6 all round, with additional rebar.2. Dropped Panels or concrete capitals are constructed at each column & pressurized concrete

pumped from below and bonded to prepared slab soffits.

3. Enhanced reinforcement of Shear Walls. FRP wrap & injected epoxy specialized repairs.4. FRP carbon fiber at slabs top & bottom. This resolves the concern over some de-bonding &low strength concrete.

5. Some enlarged concrete footings. Very few footings need work but the Engineer will determinethe specific scope and design.

6. There may be some external PT reinforcement in limited areas (to be determined) at somecolumn capitals.

THE COST

The cost of this Structural Repair is estimated to be $8.5m, i.e. about half the total repair cost of the

block, the other half being the Architectural Repair work, the exterior masonry, windows, doors,interior partitions and re-doing the interior finishes.

There are two (integrated) parts to the overall remediation. Second is the Architectural Repair.

Note:Structural Group is involved in the Structural Repairs (above), and not the Architectural Repairs.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

13/28



ARCHITECTURAL

This work involves the repair of the non-structural parts of the building that were damaged by themovement of deflection of floor slabs etc.This includes repair of the exterior brick masonry, windows, doors, expansion joints, grouting, andsealants.It includes repair of interior partitions, doors and frames, and replacement of ceilings andmechanical/electrical items where disrupted by the surgical structural repair around each concretecolumn and capital.This work will be constructed by a local but major GC general construction firm.The Structural Engineer of Record will design the structural repair of the steel studs and the masonrywith Architectural support.The Clerk-Of-The-Works (full time inspector) will watch over the quality control o f every part of theserepairs.

THE COST

The cost of this Architectural Repair is estimated to be $7m, to $8m, i.e. about half the total repaircost of the block, the other half being the Structural Repair work, the repair of the concrete structureor skeleton.

TOTAL COST OF REPAIRS (ENTIRE BLOCK) THEREFORE IS UNDER $16m

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

14/28



COST ESTIMATETECH Group Less Invasive State-Of-The-Art REPAIRTo better than before, meets seismic/structural code,50 year+ life, all new finishes or redecoration

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

15/28



$33m COST SAVINGSSO WHY IS THE COST SO MUCH LOWER?

REASONS:The previous (SERA) RFP required all new systems, and all new interiors, and the building to bebrought back to as new condition. The expensive price tag for that RFP wording was as follows:

SERA COST ESTIMATE$34m original investment$49m remediation (involved gutting & a re-build to as-new)$73m TOTAL COST

$50m appraised value when fixed

Therefore

$23m LOSS TO TAXPAYERS ($73m minus $50m)

This was immediately deemed infeasible and unaffordable.

A less expensive approach is needed.TECH has found it, and it is FEASIBLE and AFFORDABLE

TECH Group COSTS$34m original investment$16m remediation (involves no gutting & repairs building to better than before)$50m TOTAL COST

$50m appraised value when fixed

Therefore

$ ZERO LOSS TO TAXPAYERS ($50m minus $50m)

SAVINGS: $33m LESS THAN THE CONSULTANTS steel framed DESIGN

($49m SERA estimate less $16m TECH estimate = $33m)

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

16/28



CONTROVERSYSTRUCTURAL ITEMS OF CONTROVERSY AND CONCERN

TENDON TESTING (part of structural repair work)Tendon testing was recommended by the original consultant. That cost was identified as maybe

$130,000. The method the consultant was intending involved removal of the brickwork at slab ends to

gain access to the ends of the tendons. That means that those areas of brickwork would also need to

be repaired or rebuilt. Testing is indeed required as part of the structural design and repairs. The

specialized remediation contractor will conduct tendon testing as an integrated part of their work.

However they have the technology and equipment to do the testing in a less invasive manner. The

machine taps into a tendon below the floor, and measures the tension (usually about 30,000 p.s.i.) at

each selected location. The cost is a lot less and has been identified as more like $25,000 to $50,000

and will therefore be an integrated part of the concrete repair process.

CONCRETE QUALITY ISSUES AND DE-BONDING CONCERNSThe specialized concrete repair people encounter those concrete quality problems every day and can

deal with them, and will reinforce and repair the floor slabs accordingly, as part of their repair work.

See structural repair item #4 above.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

17/28



THE REPAIR TEAMWHAT IS THE INTEGRATED REMEDIATION TEAM?

The following was recommended by the construction companies that TECH Group met with, e.g.

Marion, Dalke, Structural Group. It is essential that there be an Integrated Team of Engineers &

Contractors, and that their specialized Repair Work be addressed by a carefully worded Performance

RFP that does not drive the cost up by extraneous clauses.

An Integrated Team of GC, engineer, concrete specialist (with tendon testing), peerreview, architectural, full time inspector.

The Performance RFPtherefore needs to be structured to require proposals by anintegrated Team of these disciplines, working together on the solution: the design, the specialized

repairs, and the quality control.

It is essential that the Integrated Team be formed and contracted to repair the block,

to better condition than when MC/SAT moved out.

This means structurally sound, meeting State and Seismic Codes, completely repaired so it is in

better condition that before (but not new condition) but with new finishes, and a designed life of a

minimum of 50 years, except for normal routine maintenance.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

18/28



THE ACTION PLAN1. Owners appoint an O.R. (Owners Representative). Qualifications: Experienced design and/or

construction professional.2. Duties: Prepare a Performance RFP3. Issue a Performance RFP for the selection of an Integrated Delivery Team of Repair Specialist

Firm, General Contractor, Structural Engineer of Record, Architectural, PT & Core Testing,Peer Review, and Clerk of the Works.

4. Receive and evaluate proposals from Integrated Remediation Teams.5. Interview Finalists6. Award Contract to the Team that has the best point score of Credentials & Fixed Cost.7. Criteria: Cost must be below $20m including construction, testing, and fees.8. Criteria: Remediation to be completed within 12 months.9. Criteria: Open Book accounting with all savings to go to MC & SAT.10. O.R. to administer the Contract through the Construction (about 12 months).11. O.R. to administer the Post Contract one year warranty and punch lists.12. O.R. to provide Monthly Reports to the Owners.13. O.R. to administer requests by MC & SAT for Tenant Improvement work to floors and suites,

and such remodel or alterations to be contracted separately by those agencies.14. O.R. to assist with overall coordination of Move Back of MC and SAT agencies and

departments, but detailed coordination of moving back to be individually managed by MC &SAT and their departments.

15. O.R. to administer any desired Re-Configuration of defined Condominium boundaries, of MC& SAT within the building, and within the block.

16. O.R. to represent the Owners and coordinate any reconfiguration that may allow a TownSquare or enlarged Plaza, and is the lead staff person in the coordination with the UrbanRenewal District.

17. O.R. to administer Grand Opening event.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

19/28



REPAIR TECHNOLOGIES

Carbon Fiber or FRP reinforcement bonded to floor slab soffits with the existing

ceiling grid left in place: for huge cost savings.

An overall cost saving to the taxpayers of about $23m

Note:

These slides are low res because they are screen shots of the CCTV recording of slides being projected on a screen.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

20/28



APPENDIX 1COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REPAIR FIGURES

The Repair Strategy in this Report addresses conformance with the Condominium Bylaws

which require Repair to the Same Condition as Before.

Actually the TECH estimates are for a condition Better ThanBefore, seismically upgraded, and all

new finishes.

Costs not included, of course, would be the cost of the Move Back, and any new furniture or

equipment, should the County or Transit not want to move existing furnishings and cabinets back.

Also not included would be the Space Planning of any desired re-arrangement of office suites or

departments, due to reduction in space requirements. This cost would be extra, as would the cost of

remodeling i.e. the Tenant Improvement construction work to accommodate any desired changes

in department sizes or arrangements. The $15.88m figure is just for fixing the building to better than

the time they moved out, and to that same interior arrangement as before.

Also not included would be costs associated with any decisions to reduce the Transit Foot Print

that entail any actual desired construction changes to the transit mall facility, other than the identified

repairs.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

21/28



APPENDIX 2THE OWNERS: THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATIONWHAT IS REQUIRED TO HAPPEN (from the Bylaws?)

The Condominium Association Bylaws require the building to be repaired to the same condition.

Therefore the RFP and the Remediation Contract needs to require the repair of the building back to

either the same condition as before (bylaws) or better condition than before (Tech Committee),

either of which complies with the condo bylaws.

What should not be done is to word the RFP to require as new condition and replace all interior

systems, which was the reason we received a $49m estimate from the consultants for that approach.

COST LIMITS

The Condominium Association Bylaws REQUIRE these building defects to be REPAIRED to the

same condition as before the observation of these defects, providing that the repairs can be

accomplished within 75% of the building value.

The repair cost is expected to be substantially less than 75% of value.

Assessed value is $33m. 75% of that is $26m.

TECH detailed estimate of April 5 was $15.88m for the repair of the entire facility, and the entire

block. These numbers have been reviewed by construction companies.

This number includes the $8m quoted by the Structural Group for the structural repairs. The balance

of about $8m is for the architectural repairs like brickwork and windows, and new finishes.

This number also includes design, fees, construction, remediation, repairs, new finishes and dcor.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

22/28



APPENDIX 3OPPORTUNITY FOR AN EXPANDED TOWN SQUARE OR HATFIELD PLAZA

COURTHOUSE SQUARE HATFIELD PLAZAShould the Riverfront-Downtown Urban Renewal Area, administered by the City of Salem Urban

Renewal Agency and its Board, have an interest in an expanded Hatfield Plaza, in any space that is

declared to be surplus to the future needs of Salem Area Transit, then that could be a future

prioritized project of that Urban Renewal Agency, when tax increment financed funds could be

eventually made available for such improvements. However, it might answer the expressed need for

a future downtown pioneer Courthouse Square type of people space.

If Transit were to decide to eliminate one row of buses within the mall there might therefore be room

to allow this expansion of the Plaza.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

23/28



APPENDIX 4OTHER OPTIONS:AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A SIMPLIFIED CONDOMINIUM ARRANGEMENTThe repair of the Courthouse Square facility and Block raises an opportunity for a re-configuration of

the Condominium physical arrangement within the building. Currently, the five-story County Office

Building occupies the south one third of the block. However, the Transit Waiting Room is currently

located at the west end of the first floor.

Transit admin offices are currently located at the west half of the 5th

Floor.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

24/28



AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A CONDO OWNERSHIP RE-CONFIGURATION

Transit could offer to relinquish their condo ownership within the office building. The county then

might decide to take over 100% ownership and operation of the office building. The space on the fifth

floor occupied by Transit offices would be available for a County department. The space on the first

floor occupied by the bus waiting room, could become another leased our retail or restaurant tenant

space, administered by the county.

Transit could consider a possible relocation to the North Block. Initially their office and waiting room

can be housed in portable or modular buildings, which they already have, and construction of any

permanent facilities could be deferred for some years, but would be a future consideration. SAT

condo ownership would therefore be more simply defined as the North Block, and the parking below,

plus one row of bus islands. On the site plan (below) the south bus area might be converted to

pedestrian plaza under Urban Renewal. MC condo ownership would be defined as the five story

office building.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

25/28



APPENDIX 5PARKING ADMINISTRATIONThe below grade parking is one city block of about 320 x 320 and about 314 parking spaces. Marion

County should own and administer this below grade parking facility, except SAT would own just the

north block portion, i.e. approx. 60 parking spaces.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

26/28



APPENDIX 6COURTHOUSE SQUARE VALUATIONSTATISTICS:

1) Gross area of office building 163,000 sq ft

2) Gross area of parking structure 115,000 sq ft

3) Net rentable building office and retail space after deducting ramps, lobby, restrooms, mechanical andhallways 141,000 sq ft

4) Net usable car parking below 100,000 sq ft

5) Bus terminal & N. Block exterior use 90,000 sq ft

6) Car parking at $12.00/day => value 75/sq ft/mo.

7) Bus terminal & N. Block, based on 125 sq ft cost to build (100%) and land at $6.00/sq ft => annualincome of 982,500 @ 7 cap rate or 82/sq ft/mo.

INCOME BREAKDOWN: $ per mo.

1) Bus Terminal and N. Block 90,000 sq ft @ 82 = 73,800

2) Lower parking @ 75 100,000 sq ft = 75,000

3) Office space / 3

rd

party 30,000 sq ft @ 1.75 = 52,5004) Retail income on main 8,500 @ 3.00 = 25,500

5) Bus transit interior 5,000 sq ft @ 2.50 = 12,500

6) Marion Co. and Salem T. offices 97,500 sq ft @ 1.65 = 160,875

TOTAL ALL INCOME $400,175.00/mo.

VALUE OF BUILDINGS:

1) 400,175 - 12 MO = 4,802,100 - ;@ a capitalization (cap rate) rate of 7%, the buildings valueincluding land is; not including tenant improvements. = $64,028,000.

2) If calc. at a high cap rate of 9.6%, for comparison, the buildings value = $50,000,000.

CONCLUSION: All the assumed sq ft, values per sq. ft., and rental values could be debated in every direction

but a cap rate of 9.6% is too high for this market, so if the building were fixed, value =

$60,000,000.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

27/28



APPENDIX 7HOW ARE THE REPAIRS FUNDED?

FUNDING OF THE REQUIRED REPAIRS

An appropriate method of funding the repairs would be to approach it as a Major Maintenance project,

and obtain financing based upon the assessed value of $37m or alternatively the appraised value of

$50m to $60m when fixed. (See Appendix 6: Valuation). Tech members have computed this valuationto be at least $50m.

DIVISION OF THE REPAIR COSTS BETWEEN MC & SAT

Marion County would take over the office building and parking, and would cover the cost of the

remediation of that facility.

Salem Area Transit would take over the north block for their modular building, and would reduce their

bus mall to the northern portion. They would cover the repair costs of these areas, i.e. the north block

and the bus mall deck, plus the repair of the parking under the north block portion.

8/3/2019 Ch2 the Solution 05-03-2011a

28/28


ABOUT THE AUTHOR Geoffrey JamesGeoffrey James has been a licensed architect in the UK since 1966 and in the US since 1979.For the first 5 years he worked for Sir Basil Spence in Scotland, then with Crudens Limited, the largestconstruction company in Scotland, who are the licensee for the Skarne System of steam cured concretebuilding components, and the company builds low rise and high rise concrete buildings in the UK.In 1968 he was a Design architect with SWCF in New York and in 5 years became a US Citizen.In 1974 he designed pavilions at Expo 74 Spokane, China, and Australia, and moved west.In 1975 he designed the new 2 story buildings #3, #4, #5 at Chemeketa Community CollegeIn 1982 he became President of PRA Pacific Region Architects Engineers Surveyors with 10 partners.1986 PRA was selected by RFP by MC & SAT to design Courthouse Square block, traffic study, public-privatepartnership financing, and architectural studies. Geoff modeled much of it on the Denver Transit Center.1987 Geoff was Owners Rep Architect for the four high rise concrete residential towers in Giza, Cairo, Egypt.1988 Geoff was Architect of Record for the Garden Valley regional shopping center in Roseburg for Dutcher.1994 SAT hired Geoff and Northwest Architecture to develop more detailed architectural renderings so the

concept could be presented to multiple agencies and organizations. Project was named Courthouse Square.1995 Geoff was Architect-Of-Record of the Liberty Plaza project 2 blocks west, 80,000 sq.ft. structuralupgrade, conversion of the Frederick & Nelson building, plus remodel of JC Penney, plus a new skybridge.1996 SABA Development (Vancouver B.C.) bid $30m to build Courthouse Square. General Contractor wasMarion Construction, Architect was Geoffrey James (Northwest Architecture), Engineer was BMGP Salem.The selection committee however chose the other team of Dan Berey, transit board member, Pence KellyConstruction, Arbuckle Costic Architects, and Engineer was Century West.Courthouse Square was built in 1999. Geoff designed 16 projects in Washington State for Citifor Inc.2011 Geoff was appointed to the Solutions Task Force, having had no involvement in CH2 for 15 years.He was subsequently appointed chair of the Technical Sub Committee.TECH Group (the group of four) developed a Repair Strategy at a cost saving of $33m.This report is a summary of those recommendations.

LIBERTY PLAZA, 80,000 S.F. REMEDIATIONSKYBRIDGE OVER CHEMEKETA STREETJC PENNEY 40,000 S.F. REMODEL IMPROVEMENTSArchitect: Geoffrey James A.I.A. Northwest ArchitectureDeveloper: SABA Development, Vancouver B.C.General Contractor: Marion Construction Co.Structural Engineer: BMGP Engineers

ch2 the solution 05-03-2011a

Documents