The rest of the story on the cost of filling the mine:

On May 29, The Bulletin published an article titled, “What’s it cost to fill a mine?” Using only this article’s information, a reader might conclude the mine can be “filled” for about $7.5 million. Let’s check the facts. The pumice mine’s depth averages about 70 feet. If the proposal’s 400,000 cubic yards are spread over the bottom of the mine, this fill decreases the depth by about 13 feet. The partially filled mine is still about 57 feet deep.

This proposal is based on an outdated concept plan dated November 2013. The first concepts were shown to the public in December 2013. On Feb. 6, 2015, the school was given a detailed 30-page critique of both the concept and KFPP’s cost estimate. This critique found the November 2013 concept unbuildable. Here are a few of the problems. The access roads to this campus in the bottom of a bathtub are too steep. Buildings and access roads are shown inserted into the mine’s overly steep slopes, which ignores the school’s geotechnical report recommendations. One of those overly steep slopes is composed of demolition landfill debris, which encroaches into the mine’s property. This concept shows no parking. The November 2013 concept seems to be a sham.

KFPP’s estimate of about $7.5 million is slightly above the upper range of the estimate range the school presented to the Oregon University System in September 2013 when the school was seeking permission to purchase the mine. The Feb. 6, 2015, critique of KFPP’s estimate found their estimate to be incomplete and inaccurate. KFPP neglected to include the “soft costs” and many of the minor construction items that make a complete cost estimate. A complete cost estimate on this concept would be about $9.8 million. In a KFPP letter dated Feb. 19, it admitted its early estimate was incomplete. Also, KFPP claims the overly steepen slopes can be flattened to 1½ to 1 even though geotechnical report and building codes require a maximum of 2 to 1. Its estimate claims to reduce the remediation cost by using buildings to retain overly steep slopes, but then ignores the added cost to the building and the impossible logistics to perform such construction.

Why should we be concerned about the cost of the purchase and remediation of this landfill pumice mine? According to Vice President Becky Johnson, “the state university cannot pay more than the fair market value for a property.” The school has a fiduciary responsible to the public to not pay more than what the property is appraised for. So how much is the school proposing to pay for this campus at the bottom of a bathtub? This flawed concept’s $9.8 million remediation cost and the $7.9 million purchase price is $17.7 million, which is 70 percent more than the fair market value of $10.4 million the school submitted in September 2013. How can the school proceed with this purchase?

Now for the rest of the story. The school’s appraiser established a highest and best value of $225,000 per acre if the site is remediated. If the entire 46 acres is remediated, the parcel would be worth $10.4 million. However, the cost to purchase and remediate the entire site is about $34 million. To solve this problem, the school proposes to remediate only about 22 of the 46 acres. After speaking to three different appraisers, the appraisal industry standards would lead to a fair market value of this “proposal” is only about $5 million (22 acres times $225,000 per acre), but the estimated cost of $17.7 million for the purchase and remediation is over three times this proposal’s fair market value.

The school needs to present a buildable concept, a complete estimate and an applicable industry standard appraisal or it is at risk of intentionally failing its fiduciary responsibility to the public.

— Mike Walker lives in Bend.