ITD campus still a puzzle

Debate over the Idaho Transportation Department budget — which delayed adjournment of the legislative session last year — is certain to return to the Statehouse in 2025.

Where to put the agency’s employees and how much money to dedicate to the process will continue to be the focus of many lawmakers’ questions after a report was released last week showing a cost estimate nearly twice what was appropriated to renovate the department’s abandoned headquarters.

The Division of Public Works commissioned a report from a team of consultants that concluded the total cost of renovating the main building was between $64 million and $69 million, depending on the level of renovations and replacements sought.

In 2024, the Legislature provided $32.5 million to renovate the headquarters in the ITD budget bill — this number was based on a public works estimate provided to lawmakers at the time.

“We acted in good faith on the numbers that were provided,” budget-writing committee Co-Chairperson Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, said in an interview. “So, the discrepancy between that number and the one we’re seeing now I expect will be a subject of robust conversation.”

Joint Finance and Appropriation Co-Chairperson Sen. C. Scott Grow, R-Eagle, had the same question as Horman. The agency previously started to move operations to the state’s Chinden Campus, and the Legislature had already authorized about $37.5 million to renovate that building.

“Comparing the Chinden campus, there’s only about $5 million (difference), it costs less for us to stay at State Street, and we’d still own the 44 acres. That seemed like a very easy decision,” Grow said.

Grow said he asked for more recent cost comparisons between the Chinden renovation and State Street project, and the Chinden estimate has gone up to $45 million. He expects JFAC members to reevaluate what to do with the new information provided in the most recent report.

During the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers weighing what to do with the building asked the Department of Administration and Division of Public Works to create a cost estimate for renovation and rebuilding. The estimate provided at the time, obtained by the Idaho Press, included about $2.7 million for asbestos abatement, $23 million for construction, and $6.5 million in “soft costs,” which can include engineering and architectural design fees. The total estimate to demolish the existing building and rebuild was about $63.2 million.

The calculations included appear to be based on cost estimates per the square footage of the building.

“This estimate was generated quickly — a rudimentary ‘back of the napkin’ approach — in order to give legislators an initial gauge of the financial requirements for the project. It was based on standard costs typically associated with renovation projects,” Department of Administration spokesperson Kim Rau wrote to the Idaho Press in a September email.

“Legislators were told the estimate was developed ‘sight unseen’ and did not take into account the extent of flooding damage and HVAC repairs required. Legislators were told final costs may vary as more detailed assessments and planning are completed.”

Grow said Friday the committee wasn’t given much information on how the initial estimate was reached.

“We weren’t given a lot of details because we assumed that they were doing their job and they would give us a decent estimate,” he said.

The transportation agency left the main building on its 44-acre property in 2022 because of a flood and sought to sell the whole campus for nearly $52 million.

The State Street campus’ main building was completed in 1961 and although parts of it have been updated, the 213-page report found that much of the mechanical systems are “beyond their useful life” and that asbestos used at the time as a fire suppressant would require extensive remediation. It was estimated that around 40% of the building was damaged by the flood, but the age of the building seemed to trigger many of the recommended renovations in order to bring the building up to current standards and codes, including ADA compliance, according to the report summary.

Other buildings on the large campus located near downtown are still occupied by employees.

A recent tour of the building provided to members of the press showed that a large portion of the northwest side of the building had areas of visible damage, including holes drilled into several walls to drain the water that had been flowing in them. Mold was visible in some areas on the wall as well as the fire-proofing spray that included asbestos.

The report outlined concerns about some of the visible mold and determined that some of it was likely caused by past incidents and “landscaping overspray.” There was also concern from the consultants about microbial contamination, such as Legionella bacteria in the water systems, which can develop in water sources “after extended periods of non-use.”

More testing will be needed to determine if there are other potentially harmful substances, the report said, which could include lead-based paint, and toxic poly-chlorinated biphenyls. Mitigation for potential hazardous materials was expected to total more than $8 million, the report found.

The “Level 1” recommendations in the report are what the consultants and writers believe would be the minimum to allow occupants to “move back to a safe, secure, and comfortable building which meets the standards of a typical state office building.”

“Level 2” recommendations included all the Level 1 upgrades as well as recommendations for “further floor plan or systems modifications to create an open floor plan design to allow for future adaptability and long-term building occupancy.”

Major costs under the Level 1 recommendations include, $3 million to replace ductwork, insulation and add air terminal units; $2.2 million to replace HVAC piping; and nearly $2 million to replace roofing systems.

Large costs recommended for Level 2 include $918,000 for a new fire sprinkler system, $357,000 for a fire protection standpipe system, and $560,000 to resurface and seal cracks in the parking lot.

The co-chairpersons also questioned if the 20% cost contingency included in the report is reasonable.

“That seemed high to me, “ Horman said.

Questions will likely come up in budget hearings in the upcoming session, which starts Jan. 6. The sponsor of the 2024 ITD budget, Rep. Kevin Cook, R-Idaho Falls, did not respond to a call requesting comment by press time.

A vocal opponent of the decision to sell the State Street property, House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, also was not able to respond by press time.

Guido covers Idaho politics for the Lewiston Tribune, Moscow-Pullman Daily News and Idaho Press of Nampa. She may be contacted at lguido@idahopress.com and can be found on Twitter @EyeOnBoiseGuido.