Shrink courthouse site? Audit agrees with Metro Jacksonville

[thelakelander]

Audit suggests using less land, selling the rest to offset the cost.

By Mary Kelli Palka, The Times-Union

A new Duval County courthouse should sit on only one or two blocks of land near LaVilla, freeing up three other blocks that could be sold to help offset the cost of the judicial complex, according to a report released Monday by the Jacksonville City Council Auditor's Office.

The audit was done at the request of a Duval County grand jury that last year reviewed city open meetings and contract issues. State Attorney Harry Shorstein said the current grand jury has only one more meeting, so he said he might review the audit with a new grand jury.

Mayor John Peyton is trying to get the City Council to approve $350 million for the courthouse complex, which includes $64.6 million already spent on previous plans, land costs and other expenses.

The current plans call for a seven-story building that sits mostly on two blocks but also uses space on two other blocks.

The city spent $23 million, which included legal fees, tenant relocation and other costs, on six blocks of land early in the project. The city received the seventh block, which houses the old federal courthouse, as part of a deal with the federal government.

The city could recoup some of its money by selling three blocks, which would put the land back on the tax roll. It would also give the city more money to help pay for the courthouse project.

Chief Administrative Officer Alan Mosley said, in a written response, a low-rise building could save the city about $600,000 a year in operating costs. He said other cities often build taller buildings because they are constrained by land space or they are considering their skylines. He said the city also wants to keep the Clerk of Court functions on one floor, making it easier to access by the public.

The audit also suggested the city use less expensive finishes for the courthouse. Mosley said the finishes haven't been determined.

Much of the audit was about the history of the courthouse project, including issues that have been hashed out publicly for the past few years. Shorstein said he thought the auditor's findings were "stinging."

Here are some of the findings:

- The original budget of $190 million, which was approved by voters as part of the 2000 Better Jacksonville Plan, wasn't enough to pay for the courthouse complex on a new site near LaVilla. Former Mayor John Delaney has repeatedly said he didn't plan to move the courthouse to a new site, which pushed up the price, until after the Better Jacksonville Plan vote.

- The city wasted the $1.2 million it gave to its previous design-build team, Auchter/Perry-McCall, because its design work likely won't be used in the future. Mosley said the money wasn't a waste because the city can use some of the planning documents as it continues on the project.

- Contracts for courthouse work were flawed, including an agreement to pay the first construction manager, Skanska Dynamic Partners, about $500,000 in fees, even though construction of the main courthouse never got started. The city didn't dispute the finding.

mary.palka@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4104


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Break it down

Here's a breakdown of how almost $64.6 million has been spent on the courthouse project, according to the Council Auditor's Office:

Land costs, including legal fees and relocation, $23.1 million

Skanska Dynamic Partners, original construction management firm, $15.9 million

Cannon Design, original architect, $8.5 million

Jacobs Engineering, original program manager, $6.6 million

R.B. Gay Construction, installer of roof on old federal courthouse, $1.9 million

Auchter/Perry-McCall, second architect and construction team, $1.2 million

Other contractors, $5.3 million

Materials, $197,263

Renovations at current courthouse and City Hall Annex, $1.9 million

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041508/met_268359789.shtml

[thelakelander]

Chief Administrative Officer Alan Mosley said, in a written response, a low-rise building could save the city about $600,000 a year in operating costs. He said other cities often build taller buildings because they are constrained by land space or they are considering their skylines. He said the city also wants to keep the Clerk of Court functions on one floor, making it easier to access by the public.

I question this assessment.  A little more information is needed, imo. This would include:

1. How tall is the building with operating costs $600k above the current plan?

2. What's the difference in operating cost between a mid rise 14 story building and a lowrise 7 story building? 

3. Can the $600k in annual operating costs be recouped by selling three additional prime downtown blocks for complementing development that would pay property taxes annually?

[Steve]

You know, at the current ratio, we could use about 21 blocks and get it on one floor.

[Steve]

I've never met Alan Mosley, but it sounds like he is getting defensive from the tone of this article.

[Driven1]

in fairness to him, i believe Mr. Mosley has to get defensive.  he is appointed by the mayor and as such, i think has to defend the administration's position.

[copperfiend]

You know, at the current ratio, we could use about 21 blocks and get it on one floor.

Will that include a retention pond?

[DetroitInJAX]

No better use of downtown land than a retention pond. 

Honestly, why is this city hellbent on building something the size of the United States Capitol?

[Ocklawaha]

How high could we go with this idea? Not only would it "reflect the community" it should save us a ton of money!

Ocklawaha

[Steve]

in fairness to him, i believe Mr. Mosley has to get defensive.  he is appointed by the mayor and as such, i think has to defend the administration's position.

Well, since the administration has handled this so well from the start....

[thelakelander]

Downtown is not a clean slate.  The Northbank is not the Southside or off Pecan Park Road.

Even if they don't go vertical as the audit suggests, they should at least place this thing squarely on two blocks instead of partially ruining two other blocks in the process.  There's no need to alter the street grid if it decreases the value of other blocks that could be sold back to the private sector. 

[Steve]

Interesting Letter to the Editor:

COURTHOUSE

Shrink the site

The report by the City Council Auditor's Office was right on target! Years ago, a prominent local architectural company stated that building up is much more economical than building out.

Plus, like the auditor's report states, this would free up a considerable amount of property that could be sold and returned to the tax rolls.

The city should seriously consider selling the excess property to a developer and include specific design criteria. The criteria could include office buildings with enclosed parking facilities. The ground floors could have storefronts for restaurants, bookstores, travel agencies, etc.

The new buildings must be spaced out in a random manner to reflect a campus-type atmosphere, with meandering sidewalks leading to the courthouse. There could also be enclosed, air-conditioned, elevated walkways connecting the buildings and the courthouse.

With this approach, the taxpayers would gain in many ways. First, there would be savings in construction costs.

Second, the city would recoup millions of dollars from the sale of the property.

Third, the money generated from the property tax should be more than enough to offset all the operating costs of the courthouse now and into the future.

The city has wasted a lot of money on this courthouse project. Isn't it time to save some?

JAMES H. NEILL

Jacksonville

[Steve]

I was totally with this guy until this paragraph:

"The new buildings must be spaced out in a random manner to reflect a campus-type atmosphere, with meandering sidewalks leading to the courthouse. There could also be enclosed, air-conditioned, elevated walkways connecting the buildings and the courthouse."

What!?

[Jason]

Was he just poking fun?

A campus type atmosphere is what the city seems to be proposing... we need a vertical building that addresses the street, not a campus.

[RiversideGator]

I was totally with this guy until this paragraph:

"The new buildings must be spaced out in a random manner to reflect a campus-type atmosphere, with meandering sidewalks leading to the courthouse. There could also be enclosed, air-conditioned, elevated walkways connecting the buildings and the courthouse."

What!?

That was pretty strange.  I agree with the sentiment of building up and selling property off to recoop expenses though.

[JeffreyS]

This sounds like a bad edit by the T.U.  I know the last letter I wrote was edited before appearing. (most notably my mention for Metro Jacksonville.com)