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

[thelakelander]

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.

Brown 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

[RiversideLoki]

I absolutely agree. There are many other buildings downtown that are more than suitable for the SOE office.

[fsujax]

regardless money will have to spent to renovate or build. this mayor doesnt seem to want to spend on anything.

[simms3]

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.

[Tacachale]

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.

[thelakelander]

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.

[Tacachale]

^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.

[Cheshire Cat]

Now you are singing my song Ennis and I like hearing it.   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.

[thelakelander]

^Is your plan still around today?  I'd be interested in learning more about it.

[Cheshire Cat]

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.

[simms3]

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?

[thelakelander]

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. 

[Tacachale]

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.

[fsujax]

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?

[Charles Hunter]

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.