According to the Daily Record, the Supervisor of Elections is possibly going to have to leave its Gateway Mall office and find a new location.
The possible locations are:
-The former Park View Inn site at Main and State streets. Holland said it would cost $7.5 million to buy and renovate the property into a 72,000-square-foot office. It would combine the existing Downtown main elections office at 105 E. Monroe St. and the Gateway operations.
-The former State Farm building at 6400 Atlantic Blvd. in Southside. Holland said that space, about 110,000 square feet, would combine the Downtown main office and the Gateway operations and also could handle traffic court and the traffic division of the Clerk of Courts. Holland said that would save the City $350,000 a year. He said that the negative factor would be leaving Downtown, although early voting would be available at the Main Library.
-A design-build development along the Arlington Expressway where a shopping center was torn down and a roundabout built. Holland said that $6 million, 56,000-square-foot project would accommodate the functions now at Gateway and that the main office would remain Downtown.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=535802
This looks like it could be a situation where the Supervisor of Elections is stacking the 3 alternatives to favor their desired outcome.
On paper, it will look a lot better to "save the city $350,000 a year" and streamline various offices. However, it seems to me the $7.5 million seems like a high price tag to redo the Park View/EHT site. I've been in there and it is a little rough, but it also has some great features and is in better shape than you would think.
Will be interesting to see more detailed proposals...
It should be unacceptable to move all elections offices out of downtown. Moving to the Park View might cost $7.5 up front but it would have the same annual savings as combining the offices anywhere else.
This is not for the downtown office. This is for their offices at the Gateway Mall, which are less than adequate.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2012, 03:27:27 PM
It should be unacceptable to move all elections offices out of downtown.
Why should it be unacceptable?
Quote from: downtownjag on March 01, 2012, 03:57:35 PM
This is not for the downtown office. This is for their offices at the Gateway Mall, which are less than adequate.
Nope. Only one of the three proposed alternatives keeps the Supervisor of Elections in its current location. One closes it and moves all functions to the Southside. The other closes it and moves all functions to another downtown location.
'proposed' plans. hard to see http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14414#p14414
what do you think? very beige to me
Quote from: copperfiend on March 01, 2012, 04:18:57 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2012, 03:27:27 PM
It should be unacceptable to move all elections offices out of downtown.
Why should it be unacceptable?
Why should it be acceptable to move it out of the geographic and political center of the city?
Quote from: downtownjag on March 01, 2012, 03:57:35 PM
This is not for the downtown office. This is for their offices at the Gateway Mall, which are less than adequate.
According to the article, if they moved to the Atlantic Boulevard site they would be moving both the Gateway and downtown operations. I agree that Gateway is less than adequate.
Quote from: copperfiend on March 01, 2012, 04:18:57 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2012, 03:27:27 PM
It should be unacceptable to move all elections offices out of downtown.
Why should it be unacceptable?
I don't believe it's in our best interests to move the main office and all operations out of downtown, which appears to be the plan they move to Atlantic Boulevard. Dowtown is much more centrally located and accessible for more people for such things as early voting than an office building out on Atlantic. And we shouldn't be moving employees out of downtown without a really good reason; I don't think this quite cuts it.
^Not to mention there are housing/transportation issues for the low to moderately paid employees if it moves to Atlantic.
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2012, 05:03:53 PM
Quote from: downtownjag on March 01, 2012, 03:57:35 PM
This is not for the downtown office. This is for their offices at the Gateway Mall, which are less than adequate.
According to the article, if they moved to the Atlantic Boulevard site they would be moving both the Gateway and downtown operations. I agree that Gateway is less than adequate.
Quote from: copperfiend on March 01, 2012, 04:18:57 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on March 01, 2012, 03:27:27 PM
It should be unacceptable to move all elections offices out of downtown.
Why should it be unacceptable?
I don't believe it's in our best interests to move the main office and all operations out of downtown, which appears to be the plan they move to Atlantic Boulevard. Dowtown is much more centrally located and accessible for more people for such things as early voting than an office building out on Atlantic. And we shouldn't be moving employees out of downtown without a really good reason; I don't think this quite cuts it.
To be fair, it's only 4.7 miles from the Park View Inn to the office on Atlantic they are proposing.
I thought there was a study a while ago on all of the large vacant spaces downtown, that would be viable. Also, there is plenty of space at Regency. While I think it is important to keep this central/downtowm, I don't think it is critical to the functioning of the office. I think it would be great to have redevelopment of the old mall on the Expressway. If looking at vacant land, what about Lavilla?
Quote from: copperfiend on March 02, 2012, 08:33:51 AMTo be fair, it's only 4.7 miles from the Park View Inn to the office on Atlantic they are proposing.
What type of message would it show that a city who "talks" about the importance of downtown revitalization, then turn around and do the exact thing it wants the private sector not to do (leave for the burbs)? I wonder if there are other opportunities in downtown that have not been fully vetted.
I fully agree Lake. Leaving DT should not even be discussed.
To me, this is just another reason why you don't immediately spend millions to demolish the city hall annex and courthouse once the new courthouse complex opens in May. Nothing in this town (in regards to downtown development strategies) is ever fully vetted from the public sector level. Considering the city already owns the land and building, how much would it cost to revamp the courthouse annex as a mixed use tower, with SOE being one of the tenants? I doubt it costs $7.4 million. Even if it isn't a permanent solution, it could still be a short term option in the event they have to leave Gateway soon.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 02, 2012, 08:49:19 AM
Quote from: copperfiend on March 02, 2012, 08:33:51 AMTo be fair, it's only 4.7 miles from the Park View Inn to the office on Atlantic they are proposing.
What type of message would it show that a city who "talks" about the importance of downtown revitalization, then turn around and do the exact thing it wants the private sector not to do (leave for the burbs)? I wonder if there are other opportunities in downtown that have not been fully vetted.
Spot on, in addition to the fact that 4.7 miles can be quite a slog if you're relying on public transit. Downtown is a bus hub, I doubt many run by some random building on Atlantic Boulevard.
It seems to me that there would be many other suitable options downtown. Perhaps, though, the ones they looked at are simply more expensive and/or time consuming compared to what they can do at the Park View site. Either way, we should not be talking about moving employees out of downtown without a much better reason than this.
I suggest the City and SOE buy back the former Haydon Burns Library building. After many years, the adaptive reuse of this 100,000 square-foot marvel has yet to achieve any traction. I wouldn't be surprised if it's principal owner, Wm. Cesery, wouldn't mind putting some distance between his firm and what has evolved into a white elephant.
Some of the pluses:
1. It removes and renews what has become a downtown eyesore.
2. The Haydon Burns building is one block from the SOE headquarters.
3. The building was designed as a clearinghouse for regional libraries. Floors are overbuilt to handle heavy loads of books. Loading dock and elevator could be adapted to handle distribution of voting equipment and supplies.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 02, 2012, 08:55:43 AM
To me, this is just another reason why you don't immediately spend millions to demolish the city hall annex and courthouse once the new courthouse complex opens in May. Nothing in this town (in regards to downtown development strategies) is ever fully vetted from the public sector level. Considering the city already owns the land and building, how much would it cost to revamp the courthouse annex as a mixed use tower, with SOE being one of the tenants? I doubt it costs $7.4 million. Even if it isn't a permanent solution, it could still be a short term option in the event they have to leave Gateway soon.
I'm not opposed to keeping it downtown. I like the idea you propose about the courthouse annex. I wish there were a way to consolidate offices like like Supervisor of Elections, the School Board into the northbank core.
Old JEA tower?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/JEA-Tower/i-NkRVnCK/0/M/DSC0102-M.jpg)
^Who owns that now? I think part of what the Elections office is looking at is owning rather than renting.
Either way I'd have to imagine there'd be enough room in the old City Hall.
Surely someone can find them space in Springfield? Aren't there enough empty spaces along Main Street? Jax Bargain Plywood just pulled out, surely that space is available. There is no reason to move them to downtown when there are good spaces around where they are now, just outside of the Gateway Mall.
Considering that new election technology or other factors may reduce their sq. footage needs in the future I would prefer they lease 72,000 sq. feet downtown and save that huge up front capital cost and not possibly build a bigger structure than they may need in the long run. Also it won't take property off the tax rolls. Is there that much suitable space for lease downtown?
Here's an update:
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-07-12/story/duval-elections-supervisor-looks-move-office-although-mayor-said-idea
QuoteTalk of moving should wait until 2013, DeCamp said, "when all the stakeholders can be part of the discussion.â€
But that’s too late, Holland said: With the busy election year of 2014 around the corner, the move has to begin sooner.
His plan: Sell his Monroe Street office for around $1.2 million and then build a $5.8 million building on land the city owns near the LaVilla School of the Arts.
Borrowing costs would be about $25,000 a month, half of the Gateway lease, he said.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 12, 2012, 10:48:39 PM
Here's an update:
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-07-12/story/duval-elections-supervisor-looks-move-office-although-mayor-said-idea
QuoteTalk of moving should wait until 2013, DeCamp said, "when all the stakeholders can be part of the discussion.â€
But that’s too late, Holland said: With the busy election year of 2014 around the corner, the move has to begin sooner.
His plan: Sell his Monroe Street office for around $1.2 million and then build a $5.8 million building on land the city owns near the LaVilla School of the Arts.
Borrowing costs would be about $25,000 a month, half of the Gateway lease, he said.
Well it sure would be another empty lot occupied. YO, whassup with that Lavilla Grille building. It looks complete, why arent we doing anything with it? Could they just convert that to the supervisor of elections office?
The office is currently housed in a former JCPenney. I doubt the LaVilla restaurant is large enough for their needs. However, you raise a great question. We need to do something with that space.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 02, 2012, 08:55:43 AM
To me, this is just another reason why you don't immediately spend millions to demolish the city hall annex and courthouse once the new courthouse complex opens in May. Nothing in this town (in regards to downtown development strategies) is ever fully vetted from the public sector level. Considering the city already owns the land and building, how much would it cost to revamp the courthouse annex as a mixed use tower, with SOE being one of the tenants? I doubt it costs $7.4 million. Even if it isn't a permanent solution, it could still be a short term option in the event they have to leave Gateway soon.
If the city has to bring the building up to current codes it could very well be cost prohibitive to move the SoE offices into it.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on March 02, 2012, 02:02:28 PM
Considering that new election technology or other factors may reduce their sq. footage needs in the future I would prefer they lease 72,000 sq. feet downtown and save that huge up front capital cost and not possibly build a bigger structure than they may need in the long run. Also it won't take property off the tax rolls. Is there that much suitable space for lease downtown?
That's only two floors in Everbank Center DT.
Quote from: carpnter on July 13, 2012, 08:03:20 AM
If the city has to bring the building up to current codes it could very well be cost prohibitive to move the SoE offices into it.
I seriously doubt bringing it "up to code" would be more cost prohibitive than constructing from scratch. It's not like the place is getting ready to fall into the river.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2012, 06:17:58 AM
The office is currently housed in a former JCPenney. I doubt the LaVilla restaurant is large enough for their needs. However, you raise a great question. We need to do something with that space.
Its carzy. The building is complete pretty much. Even if they incorporate that building and just contruct the rest that could save some money I would think.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: carpnter on July 13, 2012, 08:03:20 AM
If the city has to bring the building up to current codes it could very well be cost prohibitive to move the SoE offices into it.
I seriously doubt bringing it "up to code" would be more cost prohibitive than constructing from scratch. It's not like the place is getting ready to fall into the river.
When you factor things in like asbestos removal, installing a fire sprinkler system, replacing other outdated and aging mechanical systems (plumbing and HVAC) it can very easily become cost prohibitive.
^You have to do these things with most older buildings anywhere. It's common practice.
Not in Jacksonville, where you just tear it down and wonder 20 years later why downtown died and you have all these vacant lots.
Quote from: carpnter on July 13, 2012, 10:23:04 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2012, 09:26:02 AM
Quote from: carpnter on July 13, 2012, 08:03:20 AM
If the city has to bring the building up to current codes it could very well be cost prohibitive to move the SoE offices into it.
I seriously doubt bringing it "up to code" would be more cost prohibitive than constructing from scratch. It's not like the place is getting ready to fall into the river.
When you factor things in like asbestos removal, installing a fire sprinkler system, replacing other outdated and aging mechanical systems (plumbing and HVAC) it can very easily become cost prohibitive.
I assume cost was the deciding factor as to why the old Claude Nolan/Park View Inn location is no longer being considered for this, as well.
Probably. The Claude Nolan is a century old building that's been sitting empty for years.