Councilman Clay Yarborough recently filed a bill to appropriate $8 million for a new 65,000 square foot Supervisor of Elections Office (SOE) in LaVilla. Mayor Alvin Brown opposes because he believes SOE's needs could be accommodated in one of the many underutilized and already owned COJ buildings.
QuoteBrown was asked by a reporter Thursday about speculation Yarbrough could run for Supervisor of Elections in the next cycle.
“I had no idea that he had an interest in running. It’s his choice. It is interesting though that he has voted against every spending (legislation) in this City. I can’t imagine why, all of the sudden, he would want to introduce a bill to spend $8 million that generates no revenue,†said Brown.
Yarborough responded in a message this morning about the speculation.
“That is not something I plan to do at this point and I support the project regardless of who the next supervisor of elections is because it saves taxpayers money in the long run versus staying at Gateway and paying more,†Yarborough said.
full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=538215
I absolutely agree. There are many other buildings downtown that are more than suitable for the SOE office.
regardless money will have to spent to renovate or build. this mayor doesnt seem to want to spend on anything.
New construction = $200-$300psf all-in with annual expenses running slightly lower than a larger/older DT COJ building (maybe around $7/SF?...don't know the Jax office market very well), and additional lost tax revenue each year as another parcel is taken off the books (~$5psf/year?).
Leasing space in an underutilized COJ building = $100psf tops LLW (landlord being COJ) and operating expenses including insurance probably running in the $10psf range/year (plus maybe an opportunity cost of ~$14psf NNN rent/year and $5/SF lost tax revenue opportunity a year). Do the math, it's a lot more cost effective to put them in an existing city-owned building that's hard to return to the tax rolls anyway rather than building a new office in LaVilla, which will only cost a boatload more and further make that area inhospitable to future private development (and thus huge tax boon opportunity for city).
Your CFs with new construction are:
Year 1: -$250
Year 2: -$12
Year 3: -$12*3%
and so forth
CFs with utilizing existing COJ building:
Year 1: -$100
Year 2: -$29
Year 3: -$29 * 3%
And so forth
Obviously super simplified with completely fictional numbers that I pulled out of my ass, but even if I were "far off base", the difference is so clear that financially it just makes no sense whatsoever to build some new office in LaVilla (and then factor in the difficulty in converting yet another former city office to private use and the intangible damage this office could do to the area and future tax rolls).
I just shot these numbers in Excel real quick - even discounted there's a significant difference over 10 years at the simple project level, and it's not until year 9 or so that using an existing older building catches up in negative cash flows to building new.
And where are the COJ analysts who take these sort of projects and build complex/precise models that factor in real cost estimates, real opportunity costs, intangible results, scenario builder, iterations, sensititivies, s-curves, this that and the other. The problem with COJ is that there doesn't ever seem to be any analysis done for any decision. It needs to be run more like a company and less like a panel and less like a lobbying firm, LoL.
Clay Yarborough - typical city council member with no critical thinking skills and no brain.
No. Yarborough has it right for once. If there's an adequate existing building that would be great, but if not then building one new building will be better in the long run than continuing to lease space plus maintaining an office building, and that's what we'll end up with if the mayor keeps fiddling. His plans seem to be pretty inscrutable, at best they're penny wise and pound foolish.
While I don't know if the Yates is a better alternative, I believe a new SOE building at the LaVilla site is bad for that general area and whatever heritage it has left. Everything, even this, seems so isolated and disconnected with a long term goal of what's left of LaVilla should become. Despite blasting the historic neighborhood to pieces, there's still a decent cluster of nationally significant historic buildings in the vicinity of the desired SOE site. Old Stanton, the Richmond Hotel, New Center Hotel, Globe Theatre, Genovar, the shotguns, the masonic lounge, etc. provide an excellent foundation to work with. However, there is zero discussion about what to ultimately do with them and that area in general. I'd like to see a little more effort put into the process to find an alternative that meets the needs of the SOE, COJ's budget, downtown revitalization, and LaVilla.
^Now that, I can understand. But I still think there would be a ways to either better integrate the new building, or else move it somewhere less obtrusive if they really do need an industrial-style building. Even still, just shooting down every idea and then fumfering about it rather than finding another solution isn't going to get us anything but another unnecessary lease extension at Gateway.
Now you are singing my song Ennis and I like hearing it. ;D Over a decade ago I put together a workable, walkable plan for the remaining historic structures in LaVilla. As you know the cornerstone of the effort was the renovation of the "Historic Brewster Hospital". The plan was ignored back then because the land grab, free money mentality was still in full swing with millions and millions of dollars wasted i.e. Genovar Hall and the never opened Jazz club and restaurant. The LaVilla area could still retain some charm. Did you know the city spent over $100,000 to move the shotgun houses over next to the Genovar and then let them sit unattended? Did you also know that I inquired with a renovation expert whether or not they could still be salvaged and the answer was a definite yes This city could and should do so much better when it comes to how are communities are planned and how our historic fabric can enrich those plans.
Diane M.
^Is your plan still around today? I'd be interested in learning more about it.
Buried somewhere I am sure. I gave it to Steve Diebenow way back when. I don't know what happened to it. Perhaps we can have coffee the beginning of the year and I will share the ideas with you. The plans are buried somewhere in the boxes of all my material from the dozen or so years lol. I do know the preservation office had written a paper to name the shotgun houses historic and it had quite a bit of info in it.
Diane M.
Maybe they do need an industrial building, but continuing what both Lake and I have stated, it makes no sense, financially or longer term, to put some new city office/industrial building in what is essentially the city's largest untapped revenue resource.
Also, especially in a city like Jax, leasing always makes more financial sense than building new (this isn't DT SF in 2000 when lease rates were increasing $1 per week for 6 months at a time and the replacement cost of a new building was half of what it was to buy an existing). Rental rates are low in Jax all across the board and the city is still a tenant's wet dream (it's such a tenant's market that even the city will step in and help landlord give prospects millions of dollars before a lease is even executed...Parador Garage, LoLoL). There is no reason the city shouldn't take advantage of this when it can. NNNs and fixed rents as operating costs for the city are immaterial compared to $8MM upfront costs, NNNs AND loss of future tax revenue. Sign a 10 year deal and the landlord will pay to fix up the space for you so you don't incur upfront costs. And we're still debating this?
Politicians and voters talk out of the sides of their mouth and through their assholes. It's so silly. Here is an opportunity to continue to not waste taxpayer money (I'm not even saying here is an opportunity to "save" money as the choice is really about city fiduciary responsibility or city shitting on taxpayer's face once again). All anyone ever talks about is wasteful spending. Clay is in the party of anti-wasteful spending, and here he is actually trying to waste money. OMG What's his background in all of this? I'd rather hear from some analysts on what this means, not some redneck dork Baptist idiot fucktard who somehow is in a position to make decisions on behalf of taxpayers. This sort of idiocy is, yawn, getting boring.
Example of this lunacy: "We can't afford to mow our medians or landscape public spaces or take care of public parks and facilities. We need to shut down libraries. We are in a fiscal emergency here." 1 day later "We need to spend $8MM on a new facility for the Supervisor of Elections so they aren't in Class C retail/industrial space at Gateway". LOL there is no other city in America with as much hypocrisy and lunacy as this bunch.
Do you still have any questions?
I agree that Clay's position on this, as presented in the article verses his past actions, seems strange and highly questionable. However, let's try an refrain from calling the guy names. We'd like to keep our level of conversation up a notch above the FTU's discussion boards. :)
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.
Clay did try to get money put back into the budget for MOW. Have to at least give him credit for that. I think he was successful at getting some of the budget restored. My questions about the Yates Building is what about the city offices that are there now? are they moving? do they have that much vacant space?
I think the earlier stories said the Property Appraiser would move from Yates to Ed Ball. But Holland says the top floor of Yates won't work - no loading dock, no freight elevator (he apparently has some equipment that won't fit on the Yates elevator), and Yates is a security building - thus all citizens going to the SOE would have to check it at the security desk.
If there is vacant space in the Ed Ball Building (or are there more dominoes of moving offices?), why not move the SOE to Ed Ball? Their front-end could be in that large training room on the first floor. The attached parking garage could provide loading dock access (may have to knock a hole in the wall).
The LaVilla site is a non-starter for me, too. Plopping a warehouse style building there will hurt future development in the area. And what is behind Clay's sudden largess with tax money? Is he interested in the SOE position? He didn't really deny it in that article. Although, I suspect he will run for Lake Ray's Legislative seat, just like he did for the Council.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 07, 2012, 03:54:06 PM
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.
How about FBC? Then the church can really have full control over the entire city.
^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.
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.
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.
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?
Mr. Holland would most likely demolish that structure to construct a 65,000 square foot facility with surface parking on that site.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 08, 2012, 04:15:12 AM
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.
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.
^Those are reasonable objections. Unfortunately those are not the objections expressed by the Mayor's office.
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?
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.
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.
Quote from: downtownjag on December 10, 2012, 09:03:01 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: carpnter on December 11, 2012, 09:27:41 AM
Quote from: downtownjag on December 10, 2012, 09:03:01 PM
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.
Gotcha, thanks. There certainly is a way around that though. They have another building right down the street, they could move offices around, or maybe re-work Yates so the public office is on the first floor before the security check.
There is no security check if the offices occupying the building today are relocated to other half empty city-owned downtown buildings.
The lack of a loading dock and freight elevators was mentioned by Holland. A new facility would largely be a warehouse to store equipment. Conceivably an office building like the Yates would not be prime for that.
The warehouse thing keeps pushing me back to this needing to be on the fringes of downtown and not a gateway corridor.
^It would be nice if that was the objection of the Mayor's office. We might see some positive movement.
I'm working on an article about LaVilla for tomorrow's front page story. My hope is to show the significance of what's left in that area and why it's overall future should become a part of the SOE discussion.
I wonder if the armory could be converted. It has the huge gym space in the middle doesn't it?
Quote from: Tacachale on December 11, 2012, 11:51:57 AM
^It would be nice if that was the objection of the Mayor's office. We might see some positive movement.
It would be nice to see the Mayor's office actually come up with a workable proposal instead of basically saying no, nope, and not happening.
I think their true goal is to suburbanize the office of elections. They want to put it out of Dt in a huge ss style atmosphere with parking lots completely surrounding the building. As it stands now, I can just walk to the supervisor of elections office to cast my vote. It's just more walkability they're trying to eliminate. That's their true motive. Look at Hemming Park, the Courthouse, the stupid pocket park on Main. The urban movement is really starting to pick up steam, So the city is trying to destroy everything urban and walkable they possibly can before the the urban minded take over.
Quote from: blfair on December 11, 2012, 12:08:29 PM
I wonder if the armory could be converted. It has the huge gym space in the middle doesn't it?
That was considered by SOE a while back but it was deemed too expensive to renovate.
Gateway's new owner has made a counter offer, which includes $450,000 in renovations to the old JCPenney store. One Imeson has also presented an offer that's cheaper than Gateway's. In response, Councilman Yarborough has deferred legislation paving the way for relocation to LaVilla until February.
QuoteGateway Shopping Center has cut in half the price it wants to charge the Supervisor of Elections Office to lease space there â€" information that has led the Jacksonville City Council to pause for a bit before finding out how much it would cost to build a headquarters for the office.
http://m.jacksonville.com/news/premium-news/2013-01-11/story/gateway-offers-cut-rent-elections-office
From reading the article, the decision of renting vs. buying seems to be based on a 10 year basis, but if you buy, then you have a building that can still be used for 10,20,100 more years beyond the original 10 years.
^Yeah, pretty much. This shouldn't even be a question. Talk about penny wise and pound foolish.
I'd still like to hear more about potential existing city-owned buildings that could be utilized for the SOE needs. If a loading dock is an issue, it's still cheaper to add something like that, or a freight elevator, to an existing city-owned structure then building from the ground up.