Thursday, December 20, 2012

Basis For Throwing Away The Annex

$4,000,000.00 Building Sold For $1.00

A recent announcement on the city website states in part:

"The decision to sell the building originally presented a number of challenges on account of its condition.  In a report prepared by Herold Engineering, the building was identified as being at high risk during a significant seismic event."

Having read the engineers report about this building I could not recall the use of the word 'high risk' in the report so asked city staff to clarify.

The response I received quoted the engineers report as actually saying:

“Upon review of the seismic condition of the building, we conclude that in a seismic event, there is a risk of significant damage or partial collapse of the building occurring.” 

The first time I read this report over a year ago I was amazed at how vague the language was considering I thought engineers were a very precise group of professionals. I did in fact phone the engineer who authored the report and asked what level of 'seismic event' was used in making the determination? I was told I could only get that information from the city as they had commissioned the report.

I have in fact asked the city for this information and am still waiting for a reply. I got a partial reply to my first query but nothing specific about what magnitude of seismic event was used in coming to the conclusion about what damage could result to the old annex.

Consider the exact language used in the engineers report:

"we conclude that in a seismic (unspecified) event there is a risk (unspecified) of significant damage or partial collapse of the building"

I suggest to you, dear taxpayer that you could say of any building on earth that a seismic event presents the risk of significant damage. Since you are neither quantifying the event or the risk or the damage, how can anyone make a properly informed conclusion?


Old Annex Could Have Been Upgraded For $4,000,000.00

According to the same engineers report the city uses to justify building a shiny new office for city staff the building could have been upgraded for just over $4,000,000.00, instead they chose to spend $12,000,000.00 on a new building which was never tendered and devalued the old annex (with an assessed value of just under $4,000,000.00).

They could have spent $4,000,000.00 upgrading a building assessed at $4,000,000.00 instead of giving it away for $1.00.

Is there any wonder those actually paying attention ( I exclude most of council) from just shaking their heads in disbelief when you see how assets are being managed by the city?


Asset Management City of Nanaimo Style

Asset Value Before Upgrade ............. $4,000,000.00 (assessed value)
Cost To Upgrade Asset ...................... $4,000,000.00 ( if really deemed necessary)
Minimum Asset Value
after upgrade.........................................$,4,000,000.00

Asset Value Before Upgrade .............$4,000,000.00
Sell Asset ..........................................$0,000,001.00
Asset Value
after sale .............................................$3,999,999.00 (Loss)

In addition to not throwing away the $4,000,000.00 it would then not have been necessary to blow off another $16,000,000.00 on a shiny new office with all that shiny new furniture.

We all know how the brain trust at city hall and our elected council thought was the right use of YOUR tax dollars! The scary part is they are spending nearly $1,000,000,000.00 (that's BILLION) of YOUR tax dollars in the next 5 years!

allvoices

2 comments:

  1. I for one would like to see the tax value that the BC Assessment Authority places on the annex with the resent sale value of $1. Since BC Assessment basis values on recent sales how will that effect the other property values in the proximity?

    ReplyDelete
  2. This whole old annex too dangerous to work in, too expensive to fix is just one huge crock of brown bananas............the entitled class at city hall aren't happy with their $200,000+ plus salaries they have to have brand new office space and brand new furniture..... does that mean maybe they can do their jobs without hiring so many consultants??? I doubt it.

    ReplyDelete

Your comment will appear after moderation before publishing,

Thank you for your comments.Any comment that could be considered slanderous or includes unacceptable language will be removed.

Thank you for participating and making your opinions known.