GROUPS DEBATE THE POLICE FACILITY

Statesman Journal Sept 3, 2016

Several issues will be at stake in November: Who will lead the country, who will be
Oregon's next governor and if the state will raise corporate taxes. But for Salem
residents, one issue hits very close to home: a proposed bond measure that would
fund an $82 million, 148,000-square-foot police facility.
After years of review and discussion, Salem City Council voted unanimously in June to
ask voters to approve the bond. Within two months, two political action committees
formed with starkly different stances on the bond measure and its support in Salem.
Salem Can Do Better formed in opposition to what co-director Brian Hines called "an
over-priced and over-sized" police facility.
A few weeks later, Keep Salem Safe surfaced in support of the bond measure. The
committee's co-director, TJ Sullivan, took part in the city's blue-ribbon task force
appointed to help explore options for the new facility in 2014.
A new police station is needed; both groups agree on that. Almost 190 sworn officers
use the current police headquarters on the first floor of the Vern Miller Civic Center,

which was built in 1972. Crowding, safety, security and victim privacy are incessant
issues, said Salem Police Deputy Chief Steve Bellshaw. Victims pass perpetrators in
the halls and a large-scale earthquake would render the facility inaccessible.
Hines and Sullivan concurred on the importance of funding a new facility, but diverging
paths emerged once the cost, details and size of the building were brought to light. In
the next few weeks, each side will be working to bring their arguments to Salem voters,
who will start receiving ballots in the mail on Oct. 19.
Their campaigns will be a study in contrast. One is likely to be well funded and
managed by a group with business and political connections throughout the city. The
other will probably rely on the passionate work of a handful of civic activists and a
comparatively tiny budget.

Salem Can Do Better

The political action committee opposing the measure was formed by Hines and Carole
Smith, two longtime gadflies at city hall. Smith ran unsuccessfully for mayor earlier this
year, and Hines pens several blogs revolving around local government, businesses
and Oregon politics. The committee formed in July and has since raised $1,425.
Both Smith and Hines are members of Salem Community Vision, an organization
formed in 2013 to support community involvement in local government. The group
includes many of the same volunteers who worked to get repairs done on
the Courthouse Square project for $35 million less than the county was told it need to
spend by outside consultants.
Salem Community Vision successfully argued against a plan to build a new police
facility at the civic center.
"Whenever the citizens spoke up, it got better," Hines said.
The members of its steering community supports a police facility with a lower price tag
and seismic upgrades included in the bond. They've spoken out against the $82 million
bond, which Hines said has very little hope of passing.
"None of us in Salem Community Vision feel any glee in doing this," Hines said. "The
police department is doing a great job."
Architect Geoffrey James, a member of Salem Community Vision and driving force
behind the reduced Courthouse Square repair costs, also served on the blue-ribbon
task force. In July, he penned an op-ed piece critiquing the "bloated" bond. He said the
bond would surely fail and police would have to continue working in "woefully
inadequate facilities."
If the bond doesn't pass this year, Hines and Smith would like to see it resurrected with
a lower-cost, smaller building, seismic upgrades to city hall and the library and more
public input. Hines said the real question is: What's policing going to be 30 years from
now?
Changing demographics, lower crime rates, evolving drug laws and new shifts in
technology all point to a different kind of policing and a different style of police facility.
A new facility should be innovative and community-minded, he said.

Keep Salem Safe

Sullivan, a former city councilor, formed Keep Salem Safe to support the measure.
Although, so far, the group has reported only receiving a $100 loan, it is backed by the
Salem Area Chamber of Commerce and the Salem Police Foundation.
In August, the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce made public its support for the bond
measure. Chamber spokesman Nick Williams said it assembled "a broad coalition" to
campaign in favor of the bond and took part in the creation of Keep Salem Safe
committee.
A chamber-supported political action committee, Create Jobs PAC, came out strongly
against a proposed payroll tax to fund weekend and late-night bus service in 2015. The
PAC outspent the committee supporting the transit tax 8 to 1. In the 2015 race, Create
Jobs reported more than $250,000 in expenditures versus the roughly $20,000 spent
by pro-measure committee. The transit tax measure got crushed.
Sullivan said the Salem Police Foundation is running the campaign in support of the
measure, with funding and assistance by residents and organizations like the chamber.
This is a livability issue, he said, and the healthier Salem is, the more businesses will
prosper, which is why the Chamber of Commerce has endorsed the bond.
"Our PAC may take in some money, but it will be passed through to this measure," he
said.
Sullivan toured police headquarters while he was on city council. He recalled seeing
police interviewing a woman who had just been beaten by her boyfriend. At the end of
a hall, officers had to hold the boyfriend as he was yelling and threatening to kill the
woman.
"That still plays out in my head," he said. "She just suffered and now she's suffering
again in a place that should be designed for healing. We want to create a better facility
so that never happens."
Speaking to residents about the bond has cemented his belief that the public supports
the police department.
"The police officers in this town have done a great job of being good community
citizens," Sullivan said. "Salem is going to get behind this."
Those opposing the measure are a small group of people. Some of them don't even
live within city limits, he added.
In the event of its failure, the bond would have to go to the back of the line, behind
other proposals and needs.
"If this doesn't pass, it'll be another decade before we address it again," Sullivan
said. "I don't want my kids to have to deal with the police facility in 15 years. I want
them to have to deal with parks and pools and museums."

STATESMAN JOURNAL

Salem police facility: How did we get here?

The Plan
A DHM Research poll conducted in March found about 58 percent of Salem residents
would support the $82 million bond measure.
An online community survey conducted the same month found more opposition. Of the
634 people answering that survey, 52 percent opposed the measure and 47 percent
were in favor.
When asked if he thought Salem Can Do Better was in an uphill battle against the
chamber-backed measure, Hines pointed out that two chamber-endorsed candidates,
Warren Bednarz and Jan Kailuweit, were defeated in May's city council election.
He said he expects Keep Salem Safe to raise and spend more money in the months
leading up to the election but affirmed his belief in the power of grassroots campaigns
and social media. Distrust in large institutions is reflected the chamber's waning power
and the rise of "people power," he said.
In the two months before the election, Keep Salem Safe plans to start a social media
campaign, send out mailers and possibly run TV ads.
Salem Can Do Better is working to raise money, spread its message on social media
and visit neighborhood association meetings leading up to Nov. 8.
Hines and Sullivan will square off in a debate hosted by Salem City Club on Sept. 23.
Stay tuned for the Statesman Journal's continued coverage of the bond measure,
including a break down of different plans, a look at other, similarly-sized police
facilities and what each side has to say about about the details of the bond.

Email [email protected], call 503-399-6884 or follow on Twitter

@wmwoodworth

Measure 24-399:
City of Salem Police Facility General Obligation Bond Authorization
Question: Shall the City issue up to $82,088,000 in general obligation bonds for a new
police facility? If the bonds are approved, they will be payable from taxes on property
or property ownership that are not subject to the limits of sections 11 and 11b, Article
XI of the Oregon Constitution.
Summary: If approved, this measure would finance a police facility and other capital
costs. This measure would provide funds to:
Acquire a site located generally at the 700 Block of Commercial Street, NE in central
Salem.
Site preparation and construction, furnishing and equipping of a police facility
approximately 148,000 square feet in size, and associated onsite parking.
Provide space for a City 9-1-1 call center serving multiple agencies in the region.
Make adjacent street improvements.
Any funds remaining would be used to fund improvements to the Salem Civic Center,
such as renovations to the spaces vacated by the Police Department upon its
move to the new Police Facility.
Bonds may be issued in one or more series and each series would mature in 31 years
or less from its issuance date. It is estimated that the FY 2017/18 proposed
tax would result in a rate of $0.36 per $1,000 of assessed property
value. For a home assessed at $200,000, the estimated property tax for the
bonds would be $72 per year, or $6 per month.
Source: Marion County Elections

READER COMMENTS

Stef Vandehey
Anecdotal information by a supporter of the bond measure does not mean a facility of
this size needs to be built on an expensive downtown property.
At least two other cities have constructed smaller facilities, more cost effective, using a
square footag e ratio based on their number of sworn officers. There are less
expensive properties available within the city limits but outside the city core and there
is no reason it needs to be downtown.

Oregon State Police recently had a headquarters built for them to lease - not own.
Private ownership allows the building to pay real property taxes to help fund schools
and services. City of Salem ownership takes the facility off the tax rolls. It will not pay
one cent in property taxes like the huge number of city and state buildings in Salem
which all require taxpayer services.
I can see why the Chamber backs the Taj Mahal version of the police station.
Everyone gets paid. Mo money, Mo money!
This Turkey won't fly.

Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399

Stef, members of the Blue Ribbon Task Force toured Keizer's Police Facility and no
one thought it was a Taj Majal. It is well designed, promoted efficiency and can clearly
handle future growth of the department. Salem Police Department has almost 5 times
the number of people working in it compared to Keizer. The proposed facility for Salem
is roughly 5 times bigger than Keizer's and puts our 911 Call Center in a secure
facility.
Our own Police Chief who was born and raised in Salem, has said over and over that
this proposed facility is not a Taj Majal. I would encourage you to listen to him o react -

Jim Scheppke
University of Texas

Dear Mr. "Keep": Please caution Chief Moore that he, as a public employee, is not
allowed to make any statement for or against the ballot measure. Saying it is "not a
Taj Mahal" can be construed as a statement in favor of the measure. Encouraging
people to "have a conversation with him" is a really bad idea. He needs to stay entirely
out of it.

Geoffrey James

Dear Anonymous: The reason why we Task Force members did not consider Keizer a
"Taj Mahal" was because it is only 28,000 sq.ft., the same size as Salem's current
faciity at City Hall. What we liked was the one story efficient design, with multiple
access points at the perimeter, public, suspects, families, staff, patrol, all off a large
surface parking lot. Surface parking costs $4000 a space. Structured parking costs
$30,000. Guess which one the city council went with? No the Taj Mahal crept in shortly
after Warren's visit to the Taj Mahal in 2016, (he said it was "big") and he made the
motion to round off the new police facility at 150,000 sq.ft. Council left it at 148,000.
But it's still a Taj Mahal, that is twice the size of Eugene's and five times the cost.
Obscene, and I am in the design and construction industry, specializing in producing
quality buildings for less.

Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399

Geoffrey James Keizer's facility is 28,000 square feet for 37 sworn officers. That
same ratio for Salem would necessitate a bigger facility. Putting it all on one level isn't
practical.

Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399

Jim Scheppke It seems like you would want the Chief's perspective. Prior to this
becoming a bond measure he repeatedly said that size doesn't mean that a building is
a Taj Majal. This building is designe d by experts to meet the needs of the Salem
Police Department, both now and into the future. Why would we want to underbuild a
facility now and have to spend more later to fix the mistake?

Jim Scheppke
Greg Beck Not true. Councilor Bednarz' family owned part of the block south of the
Library that was not selected as the location for the new police facility.

Greg Beck
Salem, Oregon

Jim Scheppke - Thanks. I've deleted my comment to prevent any

confusion/misinformation.

Geoffrey James
CHECK OUT THESE REPORTS ... "The Salem Alternative" ... an affordable $30M
police facility plus $20M life saving seismic strengthening of the civic center ... plus ...
"The State Police Facility on Kuebler" ... 120,000 sq. ft. built for $18M and $30M
furnished & equipped. Salem Can Do Better. react-text: 229
https://www.scribd.com/.../Salem -Police-Facility-the... /react-text
react-text: 232 https://www.scribd.com/.../Oregon-State-Police... /react-text

Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399

Geoff, no one with any credibility supports your numbers. The State Police Facility on
Kuebler was built for a private investor and doesn't meet the needs of the State Police.
If you talk to Tim Fox who is the Station Commander for that facility will explain to you
that their facility and what is being proposed in Salem are two totally different
buildings. It seems like if you are really interested in helping the public make an
informed decision you would spend some time educating yourself on the difference in
uses and needs between the two facilities. That is what any good architect would do...

Geoffrey James
Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399 /react-text
Who is this annonymous person who shows so much ignorance? Do you have a
name? Or are you just so focussed on a Taj Mahal? I have 50 years of experience
and credibility using value engineering to build quality facilities like Chemeketa and
buildings around the world for less. A major problem with this one is the programming
mistake that suddenly doubled the building size in one night. Eugene has 74,000 sq.ft.
and the police chief says "it is the perfect solution". City of Salem FAQ has
recommended 75,000 sq.ft. for the last 4 years. We dont need and we cannot af react -

text: 306 ... /

Brian Hines
Portland State University

Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399 /react-text

You're good with insults, hiding behind your group's anonymity.
Why don't you come out of the closet and use your real name? You talk about
"credibility," yet so far you aren't willing to tell us who you are, so we can judge your
own credibility to challenge the views of a highly respec ted local architect with over 50
years of experience, react-text: 350 Geoffrey James /react-text .
Is this how you're going to conduct the Yes on 24-399 campaign, as secretively as the
initial police facility building on the Civic Center campus was planned behind closed
doors by City officials?

Jackie Miller
LACC, CCC, Salem

Yes, we need a new police facility. BUT we don't need it located downtown, nor does it
need to be a Taj Mahal. Let's practice modesty instead of pretend affulen ce and just
mild a moderate police facility. One that won't break the backs of the fixed income
people for years and years and years.
We don't need more homeless on the streets.

Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399

Actually there are a lot of good reasons why it should be centrally located and it isn't a
Taj Majal. Being centrally located and close to City Hall is inportant to the interactions
between the police and our courts. If you underbuild it now, then you will have a more
costly addition later and it will cut down on the overall efficiency of the police
operation. Do you really want to save a couple of bucks a month n ow and have to
spend way more a few years later to fix the inadequacies?

Geoffrey James
Dear Anonymous: Our Task Force recommended 75,000 to 106,000 on a 4+ acre site.
I voted for that. Not a bloated 148,000 on a scaled down 3 acres, requiring a fortress like multi-story parking structure, built out to the Commercial and Liberty sidewalks,
and excluding people from the creek walkway, which is to be fenced off. How
forbidding and unfriendly a concept. Obviously an "out-of-town" consultant. The 2013
study of the O'Brien site was a wonderful $29M police faciity plus surface parking, plus
$15M of civic center seismic, plus a new council chambers, all for $55.8M complete,
including real estate and fees. We would all vote for that. But not $83M. You are
making a fatal mistake. That will fail, and that is a tragedy for Salem, because we need
that 75,000 sq.ft police station, and council have delayed it 7 years now. The new
council will get us back on track in 2017.

Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399

The task force recommended a facility of at least that size but also recommended that
the city hire consultants who specialize in this type of facility and follow their
recommendations- which you also supported. When the police facility was proposed
for the Civic Center site the space allowed for a smaller foot print; given the move to
the O'Brien site we are able to build a facility that better meets the needs of our police
force, both now and into the future. I know you can think of examples where
municipalities tried to save money only to spend way more later to rectify a problem.
Let's not do that here.

Jim Scheppke
University of Texas

So T. J. Sullivan could give the reporter no reasons why Salem needs an $83 million,
148,000 square foot police headquarters.
Eugene is doing just fine with a building half that size that only cost $17 million
because they were smart and found a building they could retrofit. We may not have
that opportunity here, but we certainly don't have to spend five times what Eugene

spent to meet our needs.

And T. J. is wrong about having to wait a decade if the November measure does not
pass. We can be voting next May, after our new City Council takes their seats in
January and brings some fiscal responsibility to the Salem City Counci l.
Please vote 'no' on the bloated police bond measure.

Keep Salem Safe - Yes on 24-399

Mr. Scheppke, it seems like you are wise e nough to understand that not every answer
given in an interview finds it's way into the article. Your initial comment suggests
otherwise.
As far as Eugene, goes, when the Blue Ribbon Task Force toured their facility with
their Police Chief he routinely described their building as inefficient and gave different
examples of how they are forced to waste time because of their operation. Somehow
those facts never make it into your comments... When you know a fact and fail to
share it, it is considered intellectual dishonesty. This is an important issue to the
Salem community and deserves your full integrity. I think you would agree that if
Salem spent millions of dollars on a new facility and our Police Chief said over and
over that the building was inefficient, the money would not have been well spent.

599 Jim Scheppke

University of Texas

Dear Mr. "Keep": Since you seem determined to reply to every comment, I would
request that you not engage in ad hominem arguments such as accusing me (o r
anyone) of "intellectual dishonesty." Let's not get down in the gutter as we debate the
merits of this ballot measure. Agreed?

Geoffrey James
Once again you are mistaken. Chief Kerns in Eugene told us Task Force members
that the $17M facility is "the perfect solution". Yes if they had $35M they could have a

better facility, but they achieved miracles for the money, by innovation and discipline. I
was on that tour, and I took a lot of video and dozens of photos. It is a remarkable
facility that only cost one fifth of what this boondoggle is estimated to cost. We expect
better from the Chamber, i.e. more fiscal responsibili ty, more innovation, and better
ideas, than just going along with this bloated proposal. Shame on you. We will
continue to elect councilors who are more enlightened than the ones you fund. That
may be the only way to stop you folks that drag us down to fai lure. Salem Can Do
Better.

Robert DeSantis
Don't agree with taking a valuable property off the tax rolls , when other cheaper land
is available . But as for the size it makes absolute sense to make the building bigger
than they need . They will eventually grow into it and construction won't be any
cheaper in the future .
Like we are finding out with Kuebler Blvd. which was originally planned as 4 lanes . But
after tax payer backlash it was paired to two , to save money . And we've been adding
lanes ever since .

Brian Hines
Portland State University

Those who read the online comments from Keep Salem Safe shoul d realize a couple
of things.
First, Keep Salem Safe is hiding behind Facebook anonymity. By contrast, even
though I represent Salem Can Do Better, I'm commenting under my name, Brian
Hines, because I'm a proud open opponent of the poorly -planned, wasteful $82 million
police facility p lan.
So come out of the closet, Mr./Ms. Keep Salem Safe. Back up your statements with a
name and face.
Second, your current name is totally inaccurate. I've been to just about every hearing,
meeting, and work session having to do with police facili react-text: 729 ... /react-text
See More

Susann Kaltwasser
Oregon State University

Argue all you want about the technicalities of the bond, but bottom line it give us no
more police protection, deletes seismic upgrades for city hall and the bridges. In fact
one could reasonably say that this inflated bond makes us less safe .
Putting all our taxing ability for at least 10 years (unless the Councilors want to rate
the tax rate another 25%) into this one oversized, over priced building means no new
fire trucks, no new sidewalks, no bridge upgrades so in a disaster the poli ce and
emergency equipment can get across the river, and no protection for the rest of the
city workers who are essential for recovery.
No reasonable taxpayer is going to accept paying more, so they will end up with less
in the end.

Richard van Pelt

Damn It! Why do you have to ruin a good article by referring to the opposition as "two
longtime gadflies at city hall."
Why can't you just report? Why the bloodh innuendo? Like all too much that passes
for reporting is hidden editorial opinion.
The purpose of reporting ought to be to shed light without requiring a heavy lat hering
of sunscreen. The SJ app ears to employ a simple taxonomy. It consists of just one
question: Does the person agree with us? If yes, he is full of praise. If no, we opens
our Pandoras box of mockery and innuendo.
You have just exposed your utter contempt for community action; the only action that
merits your praise is if the action comes from TJ and the Chamber of Commerce.

Brian Hines
Portland State University

"gadfly" has different meanings to different people. I like the Wikipedia definition of
gadfly:
react-text: 853 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly /react-text

"A gadfly is a person who interferes the status quo of a society or community by
posing novel, potently upsetting questions, usually directed at authorities. The term is
originally associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, in his defense
when on trial for his life."
Hey, if the Statesman Journal wants to put Carole Smith and me in the same company
as Socrates, I'm up for that! Just hold the hemlock, please.

Richard van Pelt

Point taken, Brian, Socrates was a gadfly in the sense of someone who irritates
another. The term was apt and Athens found the antidote to the gadfly to be hemlock.
They had little use of irritatating nuicences, which is how I read the article.
To be generous to the paper, maybe they wanted to draw a comparison with vic es of
the Athenian government - but I doubt it.

Jackie Miller
LACC, CCC, Salem

"two longtime gadflies at city hall." Thank goodness we have those two longtime
gadflies or we would just believe everything you tell us. LOL. Pretty sad when y ou
violate your own rules of civility and name call the opposition.

Greg Beck
Salem, Oregon

"The group includes many of the same volunteers who worked to get repairs done on
the Courthouse Square project for $35 million less than the county was told it need to
spend by outside consultants."
Hmm, should I b elieve the independent group of citizens who've already saved us
$35,000,000 on a different bloated city protect or the group backed by people who
stand to make money on the Taj Mahal being built, who campaigned against a tiny
increase in taxes to fund wee kend bus service (making use of that previous bloated
city protect - Courthouse Square), and who can't give any explanation for why we

need to pay $66,000,000 more than our similarly sized neighbor to the south.
What a tough call.

Jim Scheppke
University of Texas

Mr. "Keep Salem Safe" is violating the SJ "conversation guideline" which expressly
prohibits commenting under a pseudonym Facebook account. Mr. "Keep" is probably
either Nick Williams or T. J. Sullivan of the Salem Area Chamber of Commerce. I hope
the Statesman Journal will enforce its own pol icy and delete their posts until such time
as they stop using their Facebook account. It's interesting that not a single ordinary
citizen has commented thus far in favor of the "Taj Mahal" (aka "Full Meal Deal").

Carole Smith
Don't trust people who will not sign their posts. They are hiding something you ought
to know.

Lee Moore
South Mountain High. class of ' 66, Phoenix, Arizona

Hmmm, Chamber of Commerce is in favor of this bloated project & in favor of the " 3rd
Bridge" project, but was opposed to extending bus service for those that have no
transportation alternative. l guess it should be no surprise. l'll be voting NO on this.

Greg Beck
Damn, the CoC is getting hit from both sides on this issue. It seems the current/former
city council and the CoC are the only ones who actually support this bloated mess that
is the Taj Mahal.