Minister for Planning, Lands, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure Hon. Kurt D. Tibbetts answered questions from the Leader of the Opposition Mr. McKeeva Bush concerning the Glass House Friday morning in the Third Meeting of the 2015/16 Session of the Cayman Islands Legislative Assembly.

Following are the questions posed by Mr. Bush and responses from Mr. Tibbetts:

QUESTION: Can the Honourable Minister explain:
(a) Why the former Government Administration Building is being torn down, and why it cannot be redeveloped for various uses by the Government which is still paying rent for various departments?
(b) Whether it could be developed and used for the New Police Headquarters? And
(c) What is the total area

ANSWER: Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that the glasshouse is a very inefficient building by modern day standards and it would cost more to refurbish it to an acceptable standard than it would to demolish it and provide equivalent space in a new purpose built facility.

1. Two studies have previously been carried out on the renovation of the glasshouse. In March 2006 the GOAP project team and independent quantity surveying consultant JEC produced a joint report on the glasshouse, specifically looking at the pros and cons of refurbishment versus demolition and replacing with new office space. In October 2009, the GOAP team and independent quantity surveying consultant BCQS produced a joint report on renovating the glasshouse to become the Financial Centre of the Cayman Islands. The reports highlighted the following issues:
a. The glasshouse has a very inefficient layout resulting in 28% of the floor area being used for service areas and circulation. The norm for modern office space would be 15%.
b. The glasshouse is an inefficient building by modern standards as it is some 45 years old. It would cost more to refurbish it than what it’s worth.
c. The glasshouse has a number of code violations, some of which would be difficult and expensive to fix. The worst of these is building egress with the elevators and both egress stairs being in the central core of the building. Two enclosed, external staircases would be required to correct this. Access would have to be provided through existing office area on each floor to each external stair. This would increase the floor area for service areas and circulation to an even higher level than the current 28%.
d. The glasshouse has inadequate thermal resistance and inefficient mechanical and electrical systems resulting in very high running costs. The new Government Administration Building is six times the size of the glasshouse. The monthly power bill for the glasshouse was $55,000 compared to $85,000 a month for the six-times larger GAB.
e. A structural survey by independent firm Cayman Engineering Ltd. concluded that there would likely be a need for strengthening of some structural elements if the building were to be renovated.
f. Due to the base condition of the building, even with major renovation, it would not be able to match the energy efficiency and seismic and hurricane resistance of for example the new GOAP.

2. In the 2006 report, independent Quantity Surveyor JEC estimated that the cost to renovate the glasshouse would be $9.6 million. JEC estimated that it would be $2.69 million cheaper to provide the equivalent usable space in the new GOAP than to renovate the glasshouse.

It should be noted that JEC confirmed that whilst construction costs have increased since the 2006 report, at present it would still be cheaper, by a similar order of magnitude/costs to provide space in a new office building, rather than to renovate the Glass House.

3. In the 2009 report, no cost comparison of renovation versus new build was done. However, the report provided 2 estimates for renovation which were both higher than the earlier JEC estimate. These were $12.91 million (for renovated building with similar appearance to GOAP ie; punched windows) and $15.69 million (for renovated building with similar appearance to existing glasshouse) (Note these estimates include $0.6 million for rental / rehousing financial entities from glasshouse during construction and relocation costs – not included in JEC estimate)

(a) Whether it could be redeveloped and used for the new Police Headquarters?

In light of the findings in the 2006 and 2009 reports as detailed above, it is not considered practical or value for money to renovate the glasshouse for any other use.
(b) What is the total land area?
About an acre excluding the police station and the parking lot in front of Radio Cayman