Mayor opposes LaVilla elections office and questions Clay Yarborough's motives

[simms3]

Simms. The SOE is currently spending over $600 k a year to rent at Gateway, plus paying to maintain the headquarters building. The proposal is to build an $8 million building to house both operations, and Holland doesn't think it will cost even that much. When you factor in the savings from not paying rent, plus the potential to sell off the current headquarters, this would save money long term.

The city is paying $615K/year all-in for 50,000 SF currently, which equates to $12.30psf.  I don't know if that includes a net rent and opex/tax on top, a gross rent with a base stop, a flat ground lease, an industrial gross lease, etc etc.  I can guess it's above market like every government lease, but it's not far off from numbers I already used (that I pulled out of my ass) and it proves every point that to do anything other than continue leasing is a waste.

If the city builds new, that's an estimated $8MM all-in upfront ($160psf for 50,000 SF which is lower than my estimate probably due to the industrial component and value-engineering, aka "piece of shit" architecturally).  The costs don't stop there.  Assuming this upfront cost includes acquisition of land rather than ground lease, the city then has lost tax revenue each year.  Within the building itself, the city may not be paying itself rent or reimbursing a landlord for opex, but it is paying opex (utilities, insurance, maintenance).  In these sort of low-rent deals, this opex could be equivalent to half the base fixed rent!  For instance, at Gateway I don't think it would be unreasonable that of the $12.30 maybe $7 is equivalent to fixed rent and $5 for NNNs, figuratively speaking.

Let's be conservative here and say that at Gateway they are paying $12.30 total including opex however that is baked in and at this new building they may still be paying $5psf for opex (and however much more intangibly due to lost tax revenue should they own the land), so the true net delta is really only $7psf/year operationally, and then of course $8MM upfront.  $7psf equates to $350K, so without factoring in lost tax revenue associated with owning the land and having LaVilla redevelop, the city is looking at a 23 year payback here.  A person smoking crack could look at this and see the deal for how bad it is.

So again, I ask you to please justify other than financially a reason to build a new building.  It sounds like in addition to monetary reasons, there are other reasons *not* to build this.

And might I remind, it's logical for the Supervisor of Elections to lobby hard on his and his employees' behalf for this just like it was logical for Judge Moran to hold the courthouse hostage until he got his furniture just like it's logical for the Superintendent to lobby for the office space that the School Board has, etc etc.  It doesn't mean it's right.

[kreger]

How about FBC? Then the church can really have full control over the entire city.

[Tacachale]

^Your statement is full of holes. The city already owns the land a new facility would be built on, and a lot of other land that could be used. No additional cost or loss of tax revenue there. Even if they found a better site they don't own, there are still other options, for instance a land swap deal. The city does, of course, handle maintenance costs, and that's figured into the budget of all city property. In fact, I'd be surprised if some ongoing operational costs weren't included in the total cost estimates.

On top of that, you're forgetting the second building (the headquarters) they'd still have to maintain if they keep renting the Gateway space. Building a new facility for all their operations means they can sell that off (and not have to pay to operate there, etc.). This would actually be a net reduction in city-owned land downtown. Presumably, there's also a logistical benefit to having all functions in one place.

Those are the reasons to build this facility. The compelling reason not to build it is that we shouldn't erect an industrial-style facility in a prime location downtown. There are other ways to mitigate that without continuing to waste money renting a deteriorating second facility for elections operations.

[simms3]

So how does the city sell a building that they pay rent toward?  Have we established if they are on a ground lease or if they are a tenant in a MT building?  Are you sure the city doesn't in fact own the Gateway building?  Because the articles don't paint that picture.  Also, I'm sure the city does factor in an operational budget for their buildings - they have to, but unless this project is different from all others their operational budget is not part of the $8MM, which is cutting it close as it is for 50,000 SF of construction and it sounds like they want as much as 80,000 SF.  If the taxpayers were really adamantly opposed to government waste and inefficiencies, some outside analyst has got to look at this and factor in the prior sale of that land to the city (or imminent domain, whatever it was this damn city did to get that land), as well as tax revenue lost tangibly over the years by owning that dirt, as well as tax revenue lost intangibly over the years due to the city's inactions and poor policies with LaVilla, restricting its growth and leveling the potential tax base that was there.  That should all be factored in with upfront costs, similar to acquisition/land costs.

So the city already owns the land, as well as lots of other land in LaVilla.  Thanks for pointing that out.  Now I have even less faith in this city and its leaders!!!!  And how would the city doing a random land swap be related to this particular case?  Why are they just sitting on all that land and for what purpose?  That's taxpayer waste and lack of logic right there!  LOL

To pile on Lake's point, why doesn't the city just give the land away to developers for them to sit on and pay taxes on?  Not even a land swap, just flat out give away the land.  It's like an interest only loan for developers waiting to play the market and put something up, which means more coffers for the city in the interim, and hopefully a huge increase in time with higher intensity land use.  Even giving the land away with interim tax abatements until a private developer has a CO for a strictly approved/regulated high intensity development with market rate and affordable rate apartments or something means much higher tax base for the city and economic revitalization.

You basically just opened a can of worms as to how shitty Jax leadership really is, beyond just this SOE issue.

[Tacachale]

I'm sure the SOE knows more about this issue than someone who doesn't know who owns Gateway.

The city doesn't own Gateway, hence the renting. They do own the SOE headquarters building, which is separate. Once again, building a new facility for all operations on land the city already owns would get them out of paying rent at a deteriorating facility, and additionally open the current HQ for sale. Hence, it could save money, improve logistics, and upgrade the facility, and add one more downtown building to the tax rolls, all in one.

And if they did find a more suitable location that the city doesn't own, they possibly could still use city land toward an arrangement with the current owner, maybe a land swap. I don't know that that would work, it's just a suggestion.

The bottom line is that the SOE has made a suggestion that may save taxpayer money in the long term, but he's getting shot down at every turn. That's not helpful in the least.

[Spence]

The televised news spot showed looping footage of a somewhat recently constructed building along State or Union Streets which sits empty (which family tells me was originally meant to be a restaurant), is this possibly ENOUGH room for Mr.Holland and the necessary functions related for his office?
Or was Mr.Piggot just showing an example?
The brick and stucco one level building with a standing seam green metal roof appeared small-ish?

[thelakelander]

Mr. Holland would most likely demolish that structure to construct a 65,000 square foot facility with surface parking on that site.

[vicupstate]

Mr. Holland would most likely demolish that structure to construct a 65,000 square foot facility with surface parking on that site.

Really?!  I envisioned a conversion/expansion.  This makes no sense when the city owns land all over the city already that is vacant.  Why destroy a  nearly new building.  Surely SOMEBODY can find a use for the building.

BTW, since being close to transit is important, why not add 65k of space to the Transportation center or near it. 

[thelakelander]

It's a 7,000 square foot box for a TGI Friday's style restaurant.  Looking at the design requirements mentioned a while back (65,000 square feet, with 2 loading docks, 150 parking spaces, one story, and on a bus route), I guess it could be used with a 58,000 square foot box added next to it.  However, it would be a horrible use or complement to the Ritz, Genovar Hall, Old Stanton High, Richmond Hotel, LaVilla School of Arts, etc., assuming this city had any vision of better utilizing and building up the area around these nationally significant historic structures. 

Another option could be to build everything east of Madison Street, meaning the restaurant parcel isn't used.  You would end up with a square box on one part of the site and a full block of surface parking on the other half.  That would be following the typical substandard redevelopment pattern of the office buildings in the vicinity of Adams and Monroe.

[Tacachale]

^Those are reasonable objections. Unfortunately those are not the objections expressed by the Mayor's office.

[Noone]

Good for Mayor Brown.
Who will be getting the multi million dollar pay day for Palms Fish Camp and they never even opened the doors?

[carpnter]

Interesting that the Mayor opposes this building but was all for rebidding the Old Federal Courthouse project which happened to come in higher than the GMP the previous construction manager gave the city. 

I doubt that the Mayor has even seriously analyzed any of the options for the SoE Office that are out there.   If he thinks there is an alternative then he needs to direct his staff to find one because the situation at Gateway needs to be addressed.  That place is a dump and is getting worse.   The SoE says he has looked and is willing to look at any building that would fit his needs, the Mayor needs to step up and lead instead of dismissing ideas.

[downtownjag]

Few thoughts.... And I admittedly haven't read everything here yet. But you can build an office building with 4/1,000 for about $185psf. Gateway is a retail center so it's probably a net lease.

Personally, it sounds to me like the SOE just doesn't like the Yates because the lack of a loading dock is a ridiculous reason to exclude a building.

[carpnter]

Few thoughts.... And I admittedly haven't read everything here yet. But you can build an office building with 4/1,000 for about $185psf. Gateway is a retail center so it's probably a net lease.

Personally, it sounds to me like the SOE just doesn't like the Yates because the lack of a loading dock is a ridiculous reason to exclude a building.

The issue with Yates is the security.  If he is correct and it is a secure building, having the SoE office on the top floor would require everyone needing to go to the office to check in at security.  This would create an excessive burden for security and anyone needing to go to the SoE office at election time when there are more people visiting the office. 

[thelakelander]

I thought the mayor suggested SOE taking over the entire Yates building if necessary?  If that's the case, SOE could reconfigure the interior to fit their needs.