06/09/1992 - Specialc;?y c
ommission
F
9cq
i f?\ sj
:-1
7
k
r
AGENDA
Clearwater City Commission Special Meeting
F-
1
y5? Ail"W
ti,
Clearwater City Commission
Agenda Cover Memorandum
Item N
Meeting Date: _06/49/92
SUBJECT:
PURCHASE THE SUN BANK BUILDING, 601 Cleveland Street
RECOMMENDATION/MOTION:
Approve the purchase of the sun Bank Building for $9.8 million plus closing
costs and authorize the City Manager to bring back a final contract at the June
18, 1992 City Commission meeting.
® and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same.
BACKGROUND:
Supporting documentation is in the attached staff report.
If this purchase is approved, a 3rd quarter budget review will include an
amendment providing the funds as outlined in this report and establish a
capital improvement project #315--1-4415 -- City Ball relocation.
Reviewed Ley: Driginating Dept: Costs: $9.8 million Commission Action:
___ ?A r
Legal N
Administration Total ? Approved
?
Budget
N/A
Purchasin
S 9
8 million ? Approved w/conditions
g
Risk Mgmt. N/A
User Dept: .
Current fiscal Yr. ? Denied
cis NSA ? Continued to:
ACM Fundincd source:
Other (3 Copitat Imp.
Advertised: ?
Operating Attaehrments;
Date: Q
Paper: Staff Report
uired
A Not R
5t#sn eq
Affected Parties
Appropriation Code; ? None
? Notified
€
A Not Required 31.5-1-4415
Cit Manag r
V
f
! '
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Commission
FROM: Michael Wri lit, 'ty Manager
SUBJECT: Staff.Report Regarding Reconimelided Purchase
of the Sets Batik Building
DATE: June 2, 1992 /,
There are, a number of specific reasons that led to the recommendation to purchase the property
commonly known as the Sun Bank building. Those reasons, as we]] as answers to the often-asked
questions, are detailed in the attached staff report. A synopsis of the report conclusions are listed
below:
o The building is of sufficient size to meet City space needs in the foreseeable future. It
consolidates employees from four outlying sites into one structure.
o It is located in the core of the downtown, adjacent to the Police and Fire Departments, with
ample parking for employees and the general public.
o It can be purchased for $9.8 million, which is $6 million less than the outstanding mortgage,
$1.6 million less than the appraised price, and almost $300,000 less than its taxable value.
o After paying 100 per cent of operating costs and for necessary renovations during the next four
and a half years, the City can expect an additional return of between $1.7 million on a
conservative basis and $2.7 million on a best-case basis, thus reducing the true acquisition cost
of the building to between $7.1 million and $8,1 million. That equates to an approximate cost
between $52 and $59 per square foot.
o In addition, if the building is purchased, the City will avoid more than $900,000 in one-time
building repair costs plus it will save more than $200,000 a year in operating costs once all the
outlying departments are consolidated.
i 4
o It will allow for the immediate development of the annex property because the employees
currently located here can be relocated to the Sun Bank building.
o The purchase can be made using iden`ified cash resources.
The desire for a consolidated, centrally located City Hall has been discussed by the City Commission
for a number of years. In my opinion, the acquisition of the Sun Bank building is the most cost
effective, common sense decision the City can make to achieve that goal. 1 do not believe it will ever
receive a better proposal.
Attachment
}
Acquisition of the Sun Bank Building
Overview and Background .. . .... . ........... ........ 2
Customer Service Benefits .. ........ ..... .. 7
Annual Operating Savings Gained by
Consolidation to one Location ........... ........ 8
Authorized Full Time Equivalent Positions ................ . 9
Adjusted Space Needs Summary for New City Hall ....... . 10
Cash Flow Projections ................... . ........... 1.1
Parking .............................. . '...... , . 13 !
Financing Alternatives ............. ..... ....... . ... ... 14
Taxable Values and Community Redevelopment Agency Considerations .. 17
1
Alternative Uses of Funds' Available for Acquisition
of the Sun Bank Building .......... ,......... 18 .
j
1
k
51 '
1
1 ?
K
?4.
t? )
f.
•1
.j
¦
it
OvervieNs, Md Thickground
Does the City of. Clearwater absolutely need a new city hall? The answer is no. Are there
significant economic and other reasons for acquiring a new city hall? Tile answer is yes.
The concept of a consolidated city hall facility has been discusser) by the City Commission at
a number of meetings for the past six years. In 1986, Commissioner Regulski outlined a general
plan to "stimulate downtown redevelopment and to increase efficiency by consolidating City
Hall," according to the June 16, 1986 work session minutes. That plan suggested the city would
need to issue a $10 million bond issue that would cost the city approximately $850,000 a year
in debt service. The ci;.y would repay the debt with money it received from "selling, leasing or
renting" the major portion of the city hall annex property.
In January 1989, the City Commission approved funding for a project to provide preliminary
consulting for a City Hall complex. One month later, the City Commission, acting in its
capacity as the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA), questioned whether or not the main
library should be included in the City Hall complex. The consensus was that a series of
decisions needed to be made regarding the options for a City Hall before actually proceeding
with the marketing of the annex property.
In March 1989, the CRA again discussed the concept of a consolidated city hall when it
entertained and subsequently rejected an offer from a developer to purchase the city hall annex
site at a purchase price of between $4.50 and $5.50 per square foot. Quoting from the minutes,
"the City is not yet prepared to make a decision regarding a new City Hall or City Annex
Building. Before any sale of the property (City Hall Annex), there should be an extensive
marketing effort to make sure the City receives an optimum price. Over the next eighteen (18)
to twenty four (24) months the City should begin a systematic approach to develop a new City
Hall building.' Once the Willingham study is complete, the staff can begin developing the
options for consideration by the City Commission. At the same time, and on a parallel track,
staff can develop a methodology to pay for the building and to identify any expenses that might
be eliminated through the discontinuance of existing leases, consolidation of employee functions
and other related expenditures."
Recommendation
The recommendation to buy the structure commonly known as the Sun Bank building and
located at 601,Cleveland Street in downtown Clearwater is a culmination `of the efforts outlined
above. It is believed the price of the building, coupled with net cash proceeds over the next four
and a half years and the obvious locational advantages, make the purchase the most prudent, cost
effective decision the City can make.
Two nationally known, reputable developers, both with local ties, are expected to be asked to
submit development proposals for the City Hail annex property. However, the results of thflse
presentations will not 'be known for several months and any subsequent development of the
property will not occur for at least one and possibly two years.
Development on the Annex property cannot occur until such time as the approximately 150
employees are relocated to another site. The City has several options it can pursue with regard
to where the employees are to be located, including the leasing of existing space, the purchase
,,
-2-
of an existing building or the constriction of a new structure, All these options were considered
and the most feasible action appears to be to purchase the Sun Bank building.
Throughout the remainder of this report, each aspect of the decision making process will be
discussed. However, it should be clearly pointed out, the City Commission also has the ability
to make no decision and let all matters remain status quo. The decision to do nothing will cost
the city the $907,000 in one time capital costs as well as continuing the $213,790 of annual
operating costs identified as potential savings.
Space Needs Study
In 1988 the City Commission determined that it was necessary to systematically review their
space requirements with reference to a consolidated City Hail. A competitive negotiation process
was initiated to retain the services of a space planning consultant to assist the staff in
determining space requirements and a utilization plan through the year 2000. The result of the
competitive review process was the award of a contract to Willingham & Associates on August
3, 1989 for a fe6. of $72,000,
The Willingham Study proposed the consolidation of four separate buildings into one structure.
Those buildings and their respective sizes are as follows: City Hall Annex, 71,951 square feet;
City Hall, 23,981 square feet; Utility Customer Support Building, 12,518 square feet; and the
Graphics and Purchasing Building, 9718 square feet, or a combined total of 118,168 square feet.
It should be noted the City Hail Annex contains a large community room and a Building and
Maintenance area that would not be included in the consolidated City Hall. When you subtract
this combined space of about 30,000 square feet from the gross area of the four buildings, it
leaves 87,518 square feet of space currently in use by the employees that would be housed in
the new building.
The scope of the project was divided into five phases: Identification of current needs; forecasting
growth; analysis of locational requirements and recommendations of a building occupancy plan;
site evaluation; and, construction costs and final report.
f
Study Conclusions
The report concluded that in 1990, 273 employees would need 106,705 square feet; in 1995, 322
employees would utilize 126,650 sq. ft; and, in 2000, 341 employees would require 130,684
sq. ft. These gross building areas include appropriate conference. and support areas and public
meeting rooms.
Since the report was completed in January 1991, the assumptions about the City and the growth
in staff have been reviewed. The original decisions about the departments and services to be
included in a consolidated building have also been reviewed and revised downward. The chart
on page 9 provides an analysis of all authorized City employees (per the 1992 Budget) and
indicates the departments to be included in the consolidated location and which services will be
provided from remote locations outside the consolidated building.
Using the Willingham methodology, the most recent staff analysis concludes that 281 employees
and the appropriate ancillary and public meeting space would occupy a building area of
-3-
approximately 97,576 sq. ft, This occupied area is then multiplied by a 25% "grossing" factor
to allow for external circulation between department boundaries for public use, area for stairs,
elevators, public restrooms, mechanical and maintenance rooms, resulting in a gross building
area of 121,970 sq. ft. The report was careful to point out that when designing public buildings
the accepted norm is to apply a "grossing" factor of 25% to accommodate public and commonly
shared facilities. Due to the public nature of these facilities, this factor is higher than the 11-15%
factor in general use in private sector office buildings. The chart on page 10 provides the most
recent analysis of space needs for each department to be eventually relocated into the
consolidated building. 11
The study paid particular attention to the space requirements fused not just on current
configurations, but on accepted space planning standards. The study includes detailed analysis
and calculations for each employee in each Department. Examples of space allocations:
Department Director's Office
Senior Planner
Senior staff assistants (secretaries)
File Cabinet
256 sq. ft.
196 sq. ft.
120 sq. ft.
13 sq. ft.
An additional consideration is the currently overcrowded conditions in the Police Department.
The transfer of the 46.6 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions in the Police Communications
Center wpuld serve to relieve the space concerns in the Police building as well as make the
Communications facility accessible to the handicapped. The 16,000 sq. ft. area requirement for
this function would increase the total need to approximately 137,970 sq. ft.
Site Evaluation and Construction Costs
The Sun Bank Building recommended to be acquired by the City has an outstanding mortgage
of approximately $16 million. Its appraised value is approximately $11.4 million, according to
the current owner and it is listed on the tax roles at gust under $10.2 million. It can be
purchased for $9.8 million, including land and parking. That equates to $72 per square foot
including land or $64 per square foot when the $1,117,700 value of the land, as estimated by
the property appraise;, is factored out.
It should be recognized that some renovation costs will be needed to accommodate departmental
needs if the building is purchased. It is estimated those costs should be less than $10 per square
foot, or a maximum of approximately $1.36 million. Those renovations are recommended to
be paid out of the positive cash from existing tenants over the next four years. On a
conservative basis, that net income amounts to $3 million and on a best case scenario, would
slightly exceed $4 million. Refer to the chart on page 12 for a complete analysis.
If the Sun Bank Building is purchased, it would be recommended that two of the four properties
discussed earlier, the City Hall Annex and the Utility Customer Support building, be sold. The
Annex property contains just under one million square feet of, land with an estimated value of
between $7 and $10 per square foot and the utilities property has an estimated value of at least
$558,004, according to the county tax roles.
It has been suggested the existing City Hall could possibly be used as an administrative support
-4-
building for the new library, which could easily save as much as $1 million in new construction
costs. If the library is not expanded on the current City Hall site, Calvary Baptist Church has
expressed interest in buying the property and there may he interest in Pinellas County acquiring
the site. It is recommended the graphics and purchasing building be retained and incorporated
into traffic engineering and gas utility operations.
How does the cost of acquiring the building compare to other alternatives such as building a new
facility, leasing existing space or purchasing other buildings? Those alternatives will be
discussed separately beginning with the concept of new construction.
New Construction
The State of Florida recently completed the construction of the State Regional Services Center
in Largo. That building is 165,759 square feet in size and built at a cost of $15,333,375,
including the value of land, architectural/engineering fees and impact fees. That equates to
$92.50 per square foot. Without factoring in the cost of the land, the building cost almost $69
per square foot. Construction took 19 months and was completed in March 1992. The State
used a "grossing factor" of 21 percent in its design.
In the space needs study, Willingham and Associates estimated the cost for a consolidated City
Hall to range from $12,§60,412 using the Campbell Property on North Hercules Avenue, to
$12,962,162 at the existing City Hall site and $14,015,200 at the City Hall annex site. All of
these estimates were made assuming no cost for the land, which in the majority of cases, is
currently owned debt free by the City. On a per square foot basis, without factoring in land
costs, the range for new construction is from $97 for the Campbell site, to $99 for the existing
City Hall site to $107 for the Annex site.
Other Existing Buildings
In addition to the Sun Bank building, the city staff investigated the potential acquisition of four
other buildings in the downtown area. Inquiries were made to the Redevelopment Trust
Corporation as to the availability of other suitable buildings anywhere in the City of Clearwater
and none were found.
Brief discussions were held with the owners of the Clearwater Towers building in the downtown
area along with its sister facility next door at 600 North Cleveland Street. It was quickly
concluded the owners were not interested in selling at any price less than $90 per square foot.
The Pioneer Bank Building, located one block east of the Annex on Cleveland Street, was ruled
out because it was too small to meet the needs of the Annex employees. The building has
slightly more than 41,000 square feet, not including a former gas station facility on the property
that was built in 1953 and the drive in bank facility. The building would have needed significant
renovations. There is currently a $3.2 million mortgage on the building but no asking price has
been established. The building sits on a three acre site of which 1.8 acres is owned fee simple
and the other 1.2 acres is under a 100 year lease. There are 170 parking spaces associated with
the building.
-5-
/1
The Coachman Partners Building, commonly known as the NCNB building and located at the
intersection of Cleveland Street and South Fort Harrison Avenue, is a property that is actually
three interconnected buildings with only 23 paved parking spaces on site. It has an estimated
useable building area of approximately 51,000 square feet. Tile City Commission and the
Community Redevelopment Agency recently approved an agreement that allowed the building
to be refinanced for slightly more than $5.1 million, or about $100 per square foot.
According to Building Inspector Tom Chaplinsky, one of the major buildings containing almost
one half of the total space was built in 1920 with a common brick finish over what is apparently
a hollow tile frame. Even after substantial renovation is 1986, Chaplinsky believes the building
to be marginally habitable because of deterioration of the brick facing and wood throughout the
building.
The 1100 Building, located at the intersection of Cleveland Street and Greenwood Avenue, is
a 15 story structure containing 150,000 gross square feet and 141,480 rentable square feet. The
building was constructed in 1972. A new roof was added in 1987 and $200,000 in elevator
work was completed in 1989. The asking price for the building is $8 million, or slightly more
than $53 per square foot. There are just over 400 parking spaces, located in five different lots
within one block of the building. While: the building price is attractive, it was ruled out from
further consideration for several reasons. The first significant reason was the age of the
structure, which is 20 years old, and its general, near windowless design. It would require
additional construction to accommodate the utilities drive through requirements and would also
require renovations much like those needed at the Sun Bank building. Finally, the location of
the building is outside the preferred core area of the downtown.
The Maas Brothers building was considered but ruled out because of the high cost of complete
interior renovation, a need to replace all heating and cooling systems as well as a new roof. The
building is in worse condition than the current Annex building and it was generally believed the
Maas Brothers site could be better used for an expansion of Coachman Park or for use by
others.
Renting
The final option that was considered for housing only the employees from the Annex was renting
of existing space in the downtown area. Again, the 1100 Building was considered because of
space currently available and it was generally believed this building would offer the most
competitive prices. .,No specific price was quoted. Instead, a range of $10 to $12 per square
foot was discussed as a minimum price, or about $400,000 to $500,000 per year.
-6-
Custottier Service Benefits
There are some spccilic cost savings for consolidating city business to one location. These include annual
savings of $213,790.
As the City's growth slows and other demands for operating monies increase, it becomes necessary to
look at ways to reduce operating cost while keeping service at a high level. Therefore, services must
be continually reviewed to provide better and more efficient ways of doing business. The consolidation
savings in annual operating expenses resulting from consolidation and the avoided capital costs of
$907,000 are part of this efficiency review. These quantifiable savings will help maintain the current tax
rate without reducing services.
The nonquantifiable benefits are not to be ignored and include:
(1) The ability of the Clearwater citizen to conduct business at one location;
(2) The increase in employee productivity due to improved working conditions;
(3) Improved communications between departments;
(4) The ability to reorganize can help consolidate tasks, i.e. central cashiering; and
(5) The ability for a handicapped worker to easily access city work sites.
In this age'of customer service where citizens expect excellent service, the one-stop City Hail that is
handicapped accessible, covered parking, and insulated walls for privacy, when needed, will add to our
overall commitment to quality service for Clearwater residents.
One-Time Capital Requirements
There are a number of identifiable one time costs that can be avoided if the Sun Bank building is
acquired. Those savings are detailed below.
Immediate.
City Hall Annex Roof $238,000
City Hall A/C control replacement 165,000
City Hall Annex A/C replacement 285,000
Utilities A/C replacement 62.D00
Sub-Total $750,000
Intermediate:
Utilities Building Roof replacement $ 57,000
Network Link Phase I and 11 CIS 100.000
(A one time capital cost will be avoided if
departments are consolidated in one building)
Sub-Tata1 $157,000
POTENTIAL CAPITAL. SAVINGS 907
}
-7-
;i
Annual Op erating Savings
G.iined By Consolidation To One Location
If operations and employees in the City Hall, City Hall Annex, Utility Customer Support and the
Graphics and Purchasing facilities are consolidated into one building, there are some specific operational
costs could be saved on an annual basis and are detailed below,
Telecommunications:
Data Lines $ 5,200
Fire and Burglar Alarms
r
1,200
Telephone Lines 8,900
Car Pool (reduction of 3 sedans) 7,240
*Electric Power Billing: 52,000
A consolidated City Nall would allow the
city to take advantage of the interruptible.
service rate. A gas driven 1200 KVA
generator costs ;approximately $270,000
and generates $70,000 in Savings. Using
15 years for the generator life, annual
savings would be $70,000 - $18,000 =
52,000.
Net Operations Savings from Utilities
Building, City Hall and City Hall Annex
Copy Costs:
Use of high speed duplicator in lieu
of smaller, departmental copiers.
Utility Costs:
Reduction in lawn watering
Reduction in Solid Waste Pickup
CIS Reduction:
Modem Maintenance
Use of E Mail
(Reduction of 2 mail deliveries per day)
TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS
.,
f
' i
i
5
i
f
i
e
53,870
40;004
18,000
9,000
2,520
15,965
?41?i1 J!+
AUTHORIZED FULL=I'INIE EQUIVALENT POSI'T'IONS
Current Facility/Department Authorized Consolidated Other
Starr City Hall rucilities
City 11alt:
City Manager 7.0 7.0
Administrative Svc & Internal Audit 26.0 26.0
PIO & Economic Development 5.5 5.5
Legal & City Clerk 18.0 18.0
Human Resources & Affirmative Action L I6.S
Subtotal 73.0 73.0
Annex:
Public Works & Traffic 81.0 52.0. 29.0
Planning & Development 53.0 53.0
Parks & Recreation Administration 23.5 23.5
Administrative Svc - CIS 15.0 15.0
Payroll & Risk Mgmt 9.0 9.0
Building & Maintenance 2_.0 2_7,,Q
Subtotal 208.5 152.5 56.0
All Other Departments:
Community Relations 8.0 8.0
Parks & Recreation Operations 168.9 1.0 167.9
Utilities Customer Support (Chestnut St.) 42.0 32.0 10.0
Purchasing & Graphics (Maple St.) 12.0 11.0 1.0
Grand Ave (Fleet, Radio, Admin) 49.0 49.0
Marina, Pier 60, Bridge, Beachguards 54.8 54.8
Gas (North Myrtle) 67.5 67.5
Infrastructure Complex 147.0 147.0
Solid Waste (Marshall St & 107.0 107.0
Transfer Station)
Polio (Main, Countryside, Beach, 376.2 376.2
N Greenwood, Condon Gardens)
Fire (6 Stations) 172.0 172.0
Library (Main & 4 Branches) 63.3 63.3
Water Pollution Control (3 plants) {12.0 ___. --62,Q
Subtotal 1329.7 52.0 1277.7
Adjustments for Ecluivalctit Positions:
Affirmative Action .5
Internal Audit - Volunteers -2-Q
Subtotal 3.5
TOTALS 1611.2 281.0 1333.7
-9-
ADJUSTED SPACE NEEDS SUINIMARY FOR
NEW CITY HALL
Department Number of
Employees Square
rootage
Administrative Services 56 18,158
City Clerk
Records Center 10 2,574
3,655
Affirmative Action 3 519
City Commission 0 4;786
City Manager 7 2,621
Economic Development 2 698
Internal Audit 6 849
Legal 8 2,962
Parks & Recreation (includes some
recreation employees not
included in original study. 24,5 8,801
Human',Resources 14 5)366
Planning & Development 61 14,650
Public Information 3.5. 1,794
Public Works 52 14,847
Utilities 34 7,138
Ancillary Rooms 6,658
EOC ('T'raining Room) 1,500
SUBTOTAL 281 97,576
25 °l Grossing factor 121,970
Police Communications or Vice: &
Intelligence, 46.6 16,000
TOTAL 327.6 137,970
?N
I`)
-la-
'M
Cash Flow Projections in Sun Bank
f
Building is Acquired
The chart on page 12 provides the cash flow projections through fiscal 1996. The basic assumptions
include:
1. Existing leases will be honored through expiration dates. City Departments would
incrementally occupy the building as space becomes available;
2. Ad valorem property taxes would be assessed and paid on the property on a pro-rata share
until the City is the sole occupant of the premises;
3. Building maintenance and custodial services would continue to be provided in keeping with
the "Class A" character of the building;
4. Contracted property management services would continue to provide professional leasing and
building management services.
The cash flow from the leases net of all expenses, including the space occupied by the City for the
period, is $2,503,797. Projected savings from the elimination of the cost of operation and maintenance
of the City Hall Annex provides an additional cash flow of $1,590,653 for a maximum net flow of
r $4,094,450. ,
r
i.
-11-
r?
(r
i
.. co
c }
rr,c
-- ny
C IL ?
? U
3 a
(D
U U
cts r
E c
U o
d U-
4
J•
7.
m °
l `
°
d N m m
C to t
D
m o u
r
T-
O tD r r O to o
to
ti t
r)
co LO
V
0 m
cr)
N
O O C \f O sf
m
ca
o _
t
t
it O h O tD m (? M O rn m
N 1? t?3 C? r r m h M LO O
CD r r M N r ?t
to o r rn (D OD 0) m m co .-
O to r r N P? 1- r CD r O
to tr O to to (? v co 0) to C9
pmj a C r N C r c; v tt 4 rn
C%j N m to m
N to co U)
0) r
- m t
o m tt
to G M O N 0) r !? rn m n
co O N P- CO t` (D tD a) tD
b tD O h t) CD tD co 4m n m +-:
O
i
m r t t!) O tD t7) (6 O) r tD O
V co N m
m
V4
to co
r CO N w C9 m tD
h 0 CD .- tD r m t~ O O d
cn Q M r- N tt) IT tD to M CD
V* co o CO at r W) N In N m CV
cs3
0) O
Oo o)
O
ND
N (
?
co
N
'" C
D
M
C `
V
v
r r m N ?
n
to W m to
v to r CO CO .- N M m
to O h o) to C) m v r co v
m r O th "It d: r m co m m co
C) tq O ED rn m r'. CO tf t7 N CV
r m CO CO t> M N (- r co M r
OD r CV N CD CD co
r r ?-
w
co O O O tD CO r tD "Cr co
cq 0) V- am r
y CV a m ti a) C
) 03
C7 t0 a td a h m
N co
a N
c m
cd m O m m r- r CO C) tt tt) O
J co r r tY ,- to
(D C)
c
c
CD 3 `D ° cm ¢ tc
o
>
CD
o ` 3 0) t
E
to
Q b-
CL, m o O 0 0 LO
a " V) cu
N
O
C
to -
v tm
` co
J
cc 0 a
p Ln
cc E C a
m CL cm
>t?
a, 0
. - c
.
Z
, E
°
5
.
m E
.
cm
LL
c N
in cc%
I
•-
N
w a m a r d C
._
O (D 3 -0 0
? y
c
W
?
b 0)
I-¢
cn tu 7L
)
(n CD Cp r
4) (D
co
ra ?D
?.
cG
U
N W V
O «, •? .? N p io i7 V
i
i
•t
I
I
i
Parking
The availability of public and employee parking was a significant concern in the decision process. All consolidated
City Hall parking needs can be met in the Park Street garage with almost IOU spaces remaining. In addition, there
are an additional 378 spaces in the Garden Avenue garage and three nearby surface parking lots. 'I'liese facilities
are currently occupied at a 42 percent rate, leaving more than 200 additional spaces available to the public plus
all on street parking.
Ilia fallowing table details currently available public and employee parking spaces at various city buildinjes.
Fria or
Lot Location Metered Spaces
City Hall:
Lot #10 (Front of Building) Metered 59
Lot #15 (Lower Level Behind Building) Metered 62
Reserved for Employers Reserved 62
SUBTOTAL 183
City HMI Annex:
Front Lot: Public Parking Free 57
City Vehicles Only Free 32
South Lot: Public and Employees Free 309
SUBTOTAL 398
Combined Total City Hall And Annex 581
Other Facilities:
Utilities Customer Service
Reserved for Employees Reserved .57
Public Free 17
Purchasing/Graphics
Reserved for Employees Reserved 10
Public Free 9
TOTAL ALL SPACES AT CURRENT FACILITIES 674
The following chart details parking spaces available in the vicinity of the Sun Bank Building.
Lot Location Metered/
Attendant Spaces
Park Street Garage Attendant 409
Kravas Lot Metered 74
Lot #28 (Behind Sun Bank Building) Metered 25
On Street Parking Metered 27
SUBTOTAL 535
Garden Avenue Garage Attendant 270
Lot /14 (North Garden Ave.) Metered 9
Less: Average N of Parking spaces uses&by local businesses ( 80)
SUBTOTAL', 199,
Combined Total 734
Financittg Alternatives
Cash Purchase
On April 28, 1992 the City Manager presented his comprehensive plan for the Downtown Clearwater
area. An integral component of this plan is the cash purchase of the Sun Bank Building for a new
consolidated services City Hall facility. A summary of the sources of funds to be used is detailed below.
Funding Source Available' Restricted Unrestricted
General Fund Surplus, $23779,170' 2,779,170
Amount Over 10%
Penny for Pinellas 4,900,000 4,900,000
Special Development Fund 644,763 644,763**
Capital Improvement
Program: 161,920 1611920
Penny for Pinellas 1,287,884 1,287,884**
Special Development Fund
Bond Interest Fund 227,311 227,311
TOTAL AVAILABLE 10,001,048 6,994,567 31006,481
FUNDS
* Restricted to capital, infrastructure expenditures by State Statutes.
** Restricted to capital expenditures by City Commission Policy.
Debt Financing
..IN,
The City Charter, Article IX, Fiscal Management Procedure requires that "...revenue bonds for projects
in excess of one million dollars shall be put to public referendum with tine exception of revenue bonds
for public health, safety or industrial development and revenue bonds for refunding." Our Bond Counsel
Bryant, Miller and Olive has researched the issue and concluded that the City Hall project (whether
purchase of an existing building or the construction of a new building) meets the criteria and is not
subject to the referendum requirement.
By investing the cash and using the principle and interest to pay off the bonds over the life of the Penny
for Pinellas funds, the City could receive a present value savings of approximately a quarter of a million
dollars. A detail of the analysis is contained in the next chart.
In the course of investigating options for acquisition or construction of a new City Hall, City staff asked
our financial advisor, Raymond James and Associates, to provide us with their recommendation for the
most feasible and cost effective means of financing this project. Their suggestion was to issue City
revenue bonds secured by the "Penny for Pinellas" infrastructure tax.
-14-
i
As the following schedule shows, they estimated required annual debt service at approximately
$1,550,000 through 1999, when the infrastructure tax is scheduled to expire. Since bonding would
replace the need to reappropriate existing City funds, we have estimated the interest earnings on the
$10,000,000 of City funds which would otherwise be reappropriated, assuming investment at current rates
until needed for future debt service.
Because of the differential between taxable investment yields and tax exempt borrowing yields, the
schedule shows estimated excess earnings of $400,674 which would remain in 1999 after the bonds,
including all issuance expenses, have been paid off. This amount, which has a present value of
approximately $249,776 represents the primary advantage of financing this project versus reappropriating
existing City funds.
E
Disadvantages to financing include the administrative burden it imposes on City staff and the
Commission, an increase in our current low City debt and debt per capita statistics, and the added
difficulty in issuing subsequent debt secured by the same revenue source.
{
?. y
t
1}
i ,
f
t1
, -i
-15-
1
E
}
{i!1
I
1
1
¦ ? 1
II
N Cl 1 L. > Ot.-rto
NNNN
m cm 4) 1 4) L+ C'7 w C71 co N v co CD
I C)
? w
1 9-1 •°• a) M tap 00 W t-
o • to
i
Cd In CD I < I to r-i V' T-4 N C) C*3 c
:E: •• C7 t4 I 4.3 r ti a) d'M -t- D- MQ
I r-4 C) 0) v v ?t;to<rwWtr
t- TH ca i
1
N p A I CO t- to to +7• M r-1
1
ert .ta I .-I off
1 .
a) I
cd
4-r A I C70 f+ 1
O E 1
lw l w+ 1
.0 O l
iC t..t
4) 1 at 4) I C3 tr N to C) O C7 N I m 11
f3 'C! 1 en -0 1 O co +3• N ?v t Ch C) I to 11
4-) 4) I • ed r C) Cl +a+ -Y CD. t- (D N 1 O 11
M 1t7 I to A r •• - •• - " •. - - - 1 •• It
as
4) 4) I @} I to O W W cm CO w m I C? II Ca
4) I •W 1 Nt+CD Mto co COrH I N It
Z 4-1 r- I M to to +Y• M N N r-1 1 00 I
() I
1 -1 I
I t17
--? I 4) a ! N
II
II
H 4-? 1 (V W '
0 ? 1 ? ? I
L 7 t U t Ca ' 11
E rti
E- 1 t? II
a
l
n C" 11
M
r-i t r7 N co CO C7 O C) C] 1 (7) II to 11
td I to r-t to Cn O 1n to N I
CO 11
+-2 1 CO w co Ca co to CD @7 ,
I w I r O I I
E-• I cn tf'N N-+r4N N E O II In aC
U I, to to 1r} 1n to to to I N rl -P
to
to to to to to so to U) 1 v' 11 1n
N .C
41 " 11 U
'? r 1 11
tu] (d
e3
+J I rlN W CO CD C) 0b 1 C7 11 •w Ci
4) 0 N I CD w to m Cl to u,? N I w 11 '[I rn
N Q7 1 CO ri W O W to tD M I r-1 11 \
?
tr
? 47 1 Cn Ot? t+C71tGtiN I O Il U \
> CJ 1 M M C!N tr CON to w { w II '-i
0 17• 9 1 N ct• M t" 9 N N r-1 J r-•1 11 • 4 ra
C4 a " I II
0 N II 4-J 9
X
In
O
Erb ••-1 I CDOOCDOOOC) 1 Q 1 U v
ti3 I CDOC>CQCOCa00 I.C) 1r tD
d) 1 OtDOno CaOO i O It -) n
O 4) w L) .1, o kn to to to to In C5 1 C7 II ? 0 C?
41 •--1 .:4 *-1 w In n to N cn t-
I v I I
tr
o
t-) :2 1 F 1. F) • r1 r-1 N N M Cl kv 1 N I I 41 ?•
c. a '0 . , I" .. .. .. - .. .. .. 1 11 41 44
1-
4
0
I O 11
41
41
. r-l It
? 44
0 w U 7 O
a: CV U) 0 ar al ark bit 0 aY a: aQ
'+1
W
IN " C>a (.) I CQ C) O to c CD o o
t;! W 43 W 4j 1 r•'1 t- b• t- ? N .4:r to ? a
L)
?
I
?
•
U
a
L+7 t"7 v" •d? 1n, to to to
? '
?
?'
"Ci
T] t+ 4) i
t,. 47 4) O t} Q) I N M V to W L- M m 4J 4J"
O 1n 0 td +?' W MCAal MM(M O d m 'm
O C td 1 \\\\\\\'\ 13 4)
:>b 04.0 0) A 1 r-•1 r-1 r--I r-1 rl w r1 r^1 H VI
d-) O M -1 \ ?. \ \ \ \ \ \
+ •i•) 43
A t4 (1) -e-1 1-4 w r-1 w .-1 w r-4 4^i V) to
04 A Cis r r-1 r-1 rl r^1 r•t ra r-1 w ja4
-?G-
Taxable Values And
Community Redevelopment Agency Considerations
The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and the Redevelopment Trust Fund were created in 1981
in accord with Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes by resolution No. 81-466 and 81-795 of the Board
of County Commissioners of Pinellas County and by Resolution 81-67 and Ordinance 2779-82 of the City
of Clearwater, as a tax increment financing district.
Funding for the. CRA comes from the increased district property values that have occurred since the base
year. The ad valorem property tax millage (excluding any General Obligation Bond debt service millage)
of the City of Clearwater and Pinellas County is applied to the calculated increment value. This . Tax
Increment Financing (TIF) mechanism allows the Redevelopment Agency to leverage both City and
County tax dollars for redevelopment projects. A history of the taxable values, the tax increment and tax
increment revenues are detailed below.
FISCAL YEAR
FINAL TAXABLE
VALUE TAXABLE
VALUE
INCREMENT
OVER BASE
YEAR TOTAL
INCREMENT
REVENUES
Base Year
1982 $84,658,490
1983 91,093,130 6,434,640 49,450
1984 93,888,410 9,229,920 55,335
1985 104,126,274 19,467,784 102,103
1986 119,363,020 34,704,530 297,281
1987 143,738,950 59,080,460 482,868
1988 155,771,600 71,113,110 670,261
1989 161,405,820 76,7471330 716,517
1990 158,802,070 74,143,580 725,880
1991 159,216,500 74,558,010 736,449
1992 138,333,100 53,674,610 -T -539,741
*Total Increment Revenues includes funds received from the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County
and a small payment from the Downtown Development Board.
When the Sun Bank building is completely removed from the tax roles, tl}e CRA will lose approximately
$100,000 in revenues. There will be virtually no negative impact on the General Fund due to the
structure of the tax increment financing district. However, the General Fund would significantly gain
from the value of the Annex property being returned to the tax role from its current tax exempt status.
-17-
Alternative Uses of Funds Availnble
for Acquisition of the Sun Bank Building
Recently several suggestions have been presented proposing alternative uses of the $10 million identified
for acquisition of the Sun Bank building: An analysis of the funds identified for purchase on page 14 of
this report indicates that $4,900,000 in Penny for-Pinellas Funds and $162,000 of the Capital
Improvement Program balance are restricted as to use by Florida Statutes Section 212.055.
The relevant portion of 212.055 requires these funds to be used, "... to finance, plan and construct
infrastructure and to acquire land for public recreation or conservation or protection of natural resources.
Neither the proceeds nor any interest accrued thereto shall be used for operational expenses of any
infrastructure." The statute defines infrastructure as, "any fixed capital expenditure or fixed capital costs
associated with the construction, reconstruction, or improvement of public facilities which have a life
expectancy of 5 or more years, and any land acquisition, land improvement, design, and engineering
costs related thereto," and then goes on to say, "Counties and municipalities shall not use the surtax
proceeds to supplant or replace user fees or to reduce ad valorem taxes existing prior to the levy of the
surtax authorized by this subsection." This last restriction either prohibits use of tax proceeds to reduce
an user fees, or it prohibits use of tax proceeds to reduce user fees existing prior to 1990 (when the
infrastructure tax was first levied). The following analysis assumes that these proceeds can be legally
used to reduce user fees imposed or increased after 1990, although a stricter interpretation would prohibit
the reduction of any user fees.
In addition to this restriction imposed by Florida Statutes, the remainder of the Capital Improvement
Program balance ($1,287,884) and the Special Development Fund balance ($644,763) consisting primarily
of interest earned on road and drain millage collections, have been restricted for capital use by City
Commission policy. The $2,779,170 of General Fund surplus and the $227,311 from the bond interest
fiend are truly unrestricted and can be appropriated by the City Commission for any lawful purpose.
A summary of these spending restrictions is as follows:
Restricted for Infrastructure by Florida Statutes
Restricted for Infrastructure by City Commission Policy
Unrestricted
$ 5,062,000
1,932,567
41
$10,001,048
1t
Within the parameters of these restrictions, we have examined the possibility of using these funds to
reduce or mitigate increases to several of the City's utility funds, specifically the Solid Waste, Sewer,
and Stormwatcr utility funds. These utilities were considered because of their city-wide nature. Neither
the gas nor the water utilities cover as wide an area within the city limits.
Solid Waste
- The Solid Waste rate study currently in progress by Camp, Dresser and McKee projects revenue
requirements for 1993, 94 and 95 of about $12,650,000 per year. Of this amount, approximately
$200,000 is for debt service on . the new Solid Waste complex being proposed for the Campbell property,
and approximately $350,000 is for ongoing capital iraprovements. Both of these items would qualify for
funding by the restricted funds identified above. Using the restricted funds in lieu of Solid Waste
revenues would reduce revenue requirements by $550,000, or approximately 4.3% of the total. Given
-18-
the current rate structure of $15.42 per month, this would equate to a potential savings of about 67 cents
per residential customer per month. Since rates may need to be increased in the near future, this would
really result in a reduction of the proposed increase rather than an actual rate reduction.
Wastewater
To determine the potential impact on wastewater utility rates, we used data included in the December
1991 study, also prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee. For 1992, 93 and 94, they estimate Sewer
revenue requirements of approximately $18,000,000 per year, of which $5,400,000 is debt service on
the outstanding bonds, and $1,400,000 is for continuing capital improvements. Assuming the entire
amount of available restricted funds is allocated ratably over the next five years, this would reduce
annual revenue requirements by about $1,400,000 per year, or 7.8%. Applying the 7.8% reduction to
current estimated monthly rate of $17.76 for an average residential customer produces a potential rate
decrease of approximately $1.38 per month over the next five years. After five years, the restricted
funds would be exhausted, and Sewer rates would need to be increased again or an alternate funding
source would need to be identified.
Stormwater
The potential impact on Stormwater rates was estimated based on the 1992 budget, which shows
approximately $1,046,420 of capital expenditures, or 32.7% of the total $3,200,000 budget. Applying
32.7% to the existing $3 per month Stormwater utility fee would yield a potential rate reduction of 98
cents per month. These estimates can be summarized in the following table. It should be noted that the
options shown are mutually exclusive, that is rate relief for more than one utility at the same time would
result in smaller savings for each utility.
Table 1: Impact on rates of allocating funds restricted for infrastructure, to the maximum extent
possible.
Duration of
Current Rate for Potential Rate e stimated Rate Relief if
Typical Relief for Typical Duration of Rate Penny for
Residential Residential
Relief Pinellas Funds
Customer Customer Are Not
Eligible
Solid Waste Utility S 15.42/month $ .67/month 10 Years 4 Years
Sewer Utility $17.76/month $1.38/month 5 Years 1.5 Years
Stormwater Utility $ 3.00/month $ .98/montli 7 Years
T
2 Years
-19-
The above estimates relate only to the use of the restricted funds identified as available for the Sun Bank
purchase. In addition, the Commission could appropriate the $3,006,481 of unrestricted funds to reduce the .
utility rates but this would be contrary to the City's longstanding philosophy of having the utility funds
subsidize the general fund, and also contrary to the basic philosophy of enterprise funds, namely that all costs
of operation are born by the users of the enterprise. For purposes of analysis, however, we have estimated
the potential impact of allocating the unrestricted funds to each of the three utility funds evenly over a three
year and five year time frame, as follows. As before, all options shown are mutually exclusive.
Table 2: Impact on rates of allocating $3,006,481 of unrestricted funds.
Rate Relief
Over 3 Years Rate Relief
Over 5 Years
Solid Waste Utility $1.22/month $ .73/month
Sewer Utility $ .99/month $ .59/month
Stormwater Utility $ .94/month $ .56/month
?r
f
r
J
-20-
i
4 ?
.,
ERGONOMICS DIVISION 0F.',"J .
r _.
alA
- - OFFICE b SHdWROOM
IROI ULMERTON RD,
SUITE ,!, VIRGO, FLA. 34641 %Too
PHONE W6-5383 C E N I E R C O R E
DEALER
r
Clearwater Beach Association
S Mr. Fred Thomas
14480 62nd Street N.
Clearwater, Florida 34520
June 8, 1992
RE: SPACE REQUIREMENTS, SUN BANK BUILDING.
To whom it may concern:
We at Pioneer Ergonomics have been asked by you to comment on the
proposed acquisition of the Sun Bank Building, by the City of
Clearwater as an appropriate site for the new Clearwater City
Hall. We respond as follows:
Pioneer Ergonomics, Division of Charger Enterprises, Inc. and its
predecessor, Pioneer Concepts, Inc. have been involved in the
design of efficient office space since 1984.
II
Among projects completed, were government offices for a variety
of departments in Pinellas, Hillsborough, Pasco and Polk County
as well as well as Federal projects for HUD, FBI, Mac Dill Air
Force Base and the Veterans Administration.
Additionally we have worked with a number of commercial accounts
that include Mental Health Providers, Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co. and General Motors Corporation.
Though our experience is broad in scope, we do not claim to have
the ability to accomplish by design and space planning alone, the
bottom line results that dedicated, resourceful office managers
can create through motivation, planning, simplification and
monitoring results.
Those who create the success stories understand objectives, and
the human factors that must be managed to achieve them. Good
space planning requires that space be put to productive use. No
outside consultant knows as much about the running of departments
and how. to simplify things, than the people who work at all
levels within an organization, not just management.
"PIONEERS IN THE EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE AND PEOPLE"
9 e
w s50 5 At
err,
-UN 0
overcomg_ the old--attitude- _th..at big is good. bigger J6
better-and -the biggest Is the best. T_he_v are _811R_o
forcing us to Jes n e ea
_teamwork._ _P_eople _. working, tether in -a-h- environment
.that e cou s es nt racy s
„Ji_me!_ And the_ duality of -their work la much better-as
el ! Our ?4u40 il?dus _ry has _hed L2 i"rn this _the herd
&A ,E..:_
In the field of office planning and design, over the years, -,thee
size of one's desk or work station became a symbol of stratus.
rather than a tool for accomplishment. This mind set still perme-
ates a large sector of American business and government. But the
current recession and the budget constraints of government at all
levels will not be denied.
Down sizing is today's buzz-word. But right sizing is more mean-
ingful. To illustrate; A junior clerk collating numerous multi
page legal documents, may well need more working space than a
director of asset management. If a clerk needs BO square feet of
file space to do his or her work, that should be the determining
factor. But most clerks will need much less to do their jobs
productively.
Thus well managed agencies within the federal government now must
live with the constraint of total space per employee. How that
space is divided among departments and employees will determine
the overall efficiency and morale of each department.
With that background, what is our view of the proposed use of
space as outlined in the reports recommending the purchase of the
Sun Bank Building? Having reviewed both the Staff Report and the
voluminous Willingham Report a few things jump out at us.
h The total need for space per em to ee is far-greater
tan that now dictated for federa overnment s encies
by federa_1 re ul a t.i on . Federal_Pno_p_e?t?? Haag emen_t
e ulations contained in he edera a iste Vol.- 0
Section 101-1-7.200 dated August 20., 1991, proscribes-an
allocation of 125 SQ.-Et. per m In ee ccu ant. t
explains "The 125 Square feet reflects the amount --o f
space occu led b employees In GSA office ace --
clerical, administrative ara ofessional in g! n a g -
and xecutive -- using the o vent a a 'cure or
furniture- s stems. he 25 uare eet a son 's
the thEeshold utilization rate for Jhy_ PriApa_ry_ area for
new as-s1onments der this a a . "
Additionally provision is made of for support areas. This provi-
sion of up to 229 additional space is for specific needs. It
explains: "Space for Secondary or shared work stations is provid-
ed in the Support area. In addition to secondary/shared worksta-
tions the Support Area, the Support area consists of reception
2
areas, conference rooms, storage areas, processing areas, Ii.
braries, file areas, and extraordinary circulation."
As one looks at the "Adjusted Space Needs Summary For Now City
Hall" on page 10 of the Staff Report the need for space by var--
ious departments is hard to justify. Perhaps something in miss-
ing? For example, Administrative Services with 66 employees
requires 18,158 Square Feet of space or 324 Square Feet per
employee. That is about the size of a family room 14' x 231. The
14 employees in Human Resources needing 5366 square feet are to
receive 383 square feet per employee. That's about half the size
of many mobile homes in Clearwater.
According to Don Harwig, Facilities Manager for Hillsborough
County, even the liberal numbers generally recommended by Peat
Marwick to the county are not as high as those included in the
Willingham Report. For future planning including growth factors,
they recommended 195 Square Ft. Per Employee, including all
supplemental areas.
Carl Barron, Director of General Services for Pinellas County
feels that the federal standard is too generous. He requires
that county departments justify space requirements by functional
need. Thus the county uses less space per employee than the
federal standard. That directive from his office applies to all
levels of work and management.
In the March 1989 issue of Government Executive Magazine the
comment was made regarding the earlier 135 Sq. Ft. Federal Stand-
ard: "Aside from saving leasing and administrative costs, efforts
across the country to consolidate federal offices are giving a
boost to GSA's three-year old plan to reduce the size of individ-
ual offices to a maximum of 135 Square Ft."
Some agencies at first ignored the space edict convinced that
pushing employees into 135 Sq. Feet was nearly impossible, and
that up front costs of systems furniture wouldn't fit their
budgets. Yet today the average office workstation has dropped
from 159 square feet to 149 square feet, GSA reports, Moreover,
in many refurbished offices or newly leased facilities, individu-
al workstations are averaging about 122 square feet.
2. While the economic Justification for the move, is the apparent
intent of the reports, the efficient use of space and people
seems to have been given low priority. We would ask why? Who
determined that workstation assignments C;, D or E are related to
function, need or the efficient performance of work. These eight-
hour-a--day offices are larger than the bedrooms"in which many
residents of Clearwater, spend similar time. And many of those
are shared by two!
What is needed to turn each type of workstation into a more
efficient tool? How mach file space is required? What provision
j is made for VDT accommodation? What essentials can be placed
i? within the primary work zone? That is the 36" radius from the
3
worker's head.
Will new facilities be designed for maximum functidn and produc-
tivity at minimum risk to workers? ?Wiil ergonomic chairs replace
some of the dangerous four prong monsters that'-fill many city
offices today?
WM a both ourselves and the Willingham Group have been forced by
space availability to design work stations as small as 30 square
feet, this is not recommended. Payroll is a large part of the
cost of operating an office, and too little space wastes that
investment. Conversely, poorly designed oversize offices and work
stations not only detract from the performance of work but they
require more time walking between them. Psychologically this
interferes with needed interaction and communication.
3. According to the Staff Report Study's Conclusions on page 3,
something again seems to be missing from the text, It projects
that in 1995, 322 employees will occupy 126,550 Square Feet of
Space. (According to the Willingham Report on page 11, the build-
ing contains 130,684 Square Ft.) .That emounts__t_o393._3
,kgvare_feet__Pe_r_em_gU_o_Y ee. That is More than 2- 2 'mes
the space al loco t ion-threshold 'n the fede to lord
in_cludin,c__sup2_art- areas!
Under normal circumstances the new federal standard would allow
no more than 49,105 Square Ft. for 322 employees projected for
1995. (The current report indicates 281 current employees require
121,970 Sq. Ft. with the grossing factor. (97,676 Sq. Ft. with a
26% grossing factor = 121,970 square feet.) That works out to 434
square feet per employee using the Willingham study.) If each of
the current 281 employees were given a workstation the size of an
"A" office with 280 square feet it would add up to a total of
only 78,680 square feet. Add in a 25% grossing factor and only
98,350 square feet would be required.
At a conservative rental rate of $15.00 a Square Ft., even if the
city purchased the Sun Bank Building, it could probably rent
this prime downtown office space for $1,153,175.00 as the economy
improves.
While much diligent research has gone into creating the mathemat-
ical basis for projecting future employee growth, this area needs
the least justification, Anyone who has,lived here for five years
or more can feel it.
lJowever. ro 'ected ace rrqui1:e_we_n s greeip to be
the want a t
JUstiLied mpre
floor s ace use ma be a nt to stgrt et
it seems to be__used as the basisfor future v3annJ12A.__
There are many tools that federal agencies and commercial offices
are using to reduce floor space needs. High density filing sys-
tems, electronic data storage, cluster work stations will all
play important factors in reducing floor space needs. (Cluster
4
workstations allow placing five or six people into the apace
normally occupied by 4 desks. The Federal Government has spent
hundreds of millions of dollars on this space reduction tool.)
The inclusion of more storage in workstation componentry will
also tend to reduce floor space needs.
One' other final observation: Many federal and commercial offices
are now designed with low wall acoustic panels. The reason why
fewer offices are built with studs and drywall, is fourfold. 1.
Frame and drywall offices waste space. 2. They create ventilation
and air conditioning problems. 3. Offices interfere wiih the
ability to supervise, and productivity decreases overall. (Obvi-
ously there are some, justifiable needs for private offices, but
in most cases they are status symbols, provided at taxpayer
expense.) And 4. They reduce flexibility in office design and
reconfiguration.
The often used argument that certain size work stations are
needed to compete with the private sector is not necessarily the
case. The recession 'has caused many corporations to reduce the
size of work stations where possible. Some have even turned
departments into profit centers, and charge rent for space usage.
Thus standards developed in New York City or Chicago now have
little influence on companies like Raymond James, Critikon, Silor
Optical or Home Shopping Network in the Tampa Bay Area. Function
and profit generation are becoming the deciding factors in space
allocation, rather than position, demand or wish.
Thus we see a lot of clerical work stations that occupy 36 to 80
square feet, supervisors offices that occupy 64 to 80 square feet
and middle managers offices that occupy less than 200 square
feet.
We do not intend thial, comment to be accusatory. There may be
missing information that has not been made available to us and
the public. We are therefore using this as a means for generating
further questioning and discussion so that the ultimate decision
will not be made on partial or distorted assumptions.
Our observation is that there seems to be opportun',Ay for better
use of office space, currently and in any proposed new facility.
This will provide the opportunity to reduce the cost of mainte-
nance, depreciation, heating and cooling and risk exposure in any
decisions the City's elected officials may make on behalf of
their constituency.
S i nce.re_),y ,
Charles Wolfersberger, President
Pioneer Ergonomics Division
Charger Enterprises, Inc.
5
pccCts 419/f zt,
(YL9 -??
Prepared For
Clearwater Beach Association
Fred A. Thomas, President
.
i REVIEW AND EVALUATION
of
".CLEARWATER CITY HALL SPACE REQUIREMENT
AND UTILIZATION PLAN: FINAL REPORT
19911,
and
"STAFF REPORT: PURCHASE OF SUN BANK BUILDING'
601/CLEVELAND STREET"
f '
f
F?
Prepared By
Mudano Associates,Architects, Inc.
4625 East Bay Drive - Suite x`221
c:iearwater, Florida 34624
Phone 813/539-8737
r.
I INTRODUCTION/SCOPE OF SERVICES
i
On May 29, 1992 Fred A. Thomas, President of the Clearwater Beach
Association, contacted Mudano Associates Architects, Inc. and requested
that we.conduct a complete study and evaluation of the "Clearwater City
Hall Space Requirement and Utilization Plan Final Reportt, January, 1991",
prepared by Willingham and Associates Architects, Inc. This study was to
be completed in a total of nine (9) calendar days, with delivery of.the
final product no later than 12:00 noon on June 8,' 1992.
On June 3, 1992, Mr. Thomas added to the original agreement a
request for our.firm to review and evaluate the "Staff Report: Purchase of
Sun Bank Building at 601 Cleveland Street", and include our findings in
the final June 8th report.
With a radically compressed time frame, and without the luxury of
being able to interview various municipal department heads, it was
necessary to assume that the existing statistics compiled by,Willingham
and Associates were.correct.t Current available data relating to, the
number of staff and square footage being utilized at various locations was
also taken as fact.
Portions of ;"Space Utilization Studies: Municipal Office Space
Consolidation City of St. - Petersburg, Florida 1991" by the Architects
Design Group, Inc. of Winter Park, Florida were utilized in our analysis
for comparison purposes. It was felt that this study, conducted during
the same time span, for a city located in the same county with similar
limited ability for continued growth, a population two and a half times
larger than Clearwater's and with municipal services scattered in eight
separate locations would provide an excellent yardstick.
In addition, information obtained from the Bureau of Economic and
Business Research at the University of Florida was taken into
consideration to confirm existing population figures and projected growth
for the City of Clearwater.
Like the City of St. Petersburg, Clearwater has limited land
remaining for new development, which will severely limit future population
growth. With reduced development and restricted potential for future
growth, it should follow that governmental requirements will stabilize and
eventually begin to get smaller rather than continuing to grow. The
introduction of computers on a city-wide scale for data processing,
storage, retrieval and interconnection of departments should also
logically reduce the amount of building area required to conduct the day
to day business of the municipality.
Consolidation of departments under one roof will further increase
the efficiency of Clearwater's government. With consolidation,
duplication of typical physical space needs will be reduced, so that a
"fluffing factor" will occur naturally, rather than one needing to be
artifi'c'.'ially added to the actual space needs.
Utilization of open space planning concepts, reduction in size of
2
}F
? ?? 1
II SUMMARY OF WILLINGHAM STUDY
The Willingham Study Appendix B, page 1 indicates five "Forecast
'r
Methods" used in the study that are based on projections of historical
data to estimate future growth and needs. These methods blatantly ignore
some important factors, such as t}e rapidly shrinking amount of
developable land area remaining within Clearwater's boundaries, planning
trends that continue to control attainable densities, the unsolved burden
of our inadequate road systems while we continue to depend on the
automobile for population mobility, and other key factors that impact on
{ future growth.
Projected growth in the'study far exceeds that of the St. Petersburg
study, which indicates an increase in staff area requirements of 6.3% by
the year 2001 and a further increa>e of 1.8% in personnel to handle staff
increases through the year 2011.
' i The revised staffing table included in the "Purchase of Sun Bank for
a",Consol.idated City Hall" supports the fact that minimal future growth can
be?expected by the City of Clearwater.
The limited time available did not permit us to verify the 281
employees by category. A conservative approach was taken to confirm the
total square footage required to meet the needs of the city. It was
assumed that the Willingham Work Station sizes are correct, and that a
Work Station F of 344 square''feet is more than adequate as an average
s i ze'.
The 144 square foot Work Station was increased by 25% for "fluff",
? ? 4
and then increased an additional 25% for the addition of separate
conference rooms, council chambers, storage rooms, and other sundry
spaces, both ceremonial and utilitarian. To this total was added 12% for
walls, stairs, elevators; rest rooms, equipment rooms and other
miscellaneous small areas, leaving us with a final figure of 70,912 square
feet.
a ?l
Work Station f
25% "fluffI, •f
Sub Total
Staff
Sub Total
25% increase for
related uses
Sub Total
12% for fixed elements
GRAND TOTAL
144 square feet
,36 s uare feet
180 square feet
281
50,580'square feet
12,645
63,225 square feet
7.587 sauare feet
70,912 square feet
It is our opinion that building area requirements listed in the
Dillingham Report and Revised Staffing Table included in the "Purchase of
,-
Sun Bank" are greatly overstated. Our analysis indicates a total space
needs requirement of 70,912 square feet, compared to the 121,970 square
feet listed on page 10 of the "Purchase of Sun Bank" document.
It should be noted that no area was budgeted for relocation of the
Police Ummunications Department. '
5
1
E
I N,
III ANALYSIS - "STAFF REPORT: PURCHASE OF SU14 BA14K BUILDING"
The asking price of $72.00 per square foot for the Sun Bank building ,
is a good value. The $10.00 per square foot being suggested for
renovations is extremely low.
Conversion of the building to a City Hall facility will require
numerous modifications:
• Air Conditioning
• Electrical
• Plumbing
• Americans with Disabilities Act Conformance
• Partitioning
• Ceilings
• Decorating
• Floor Covering ,
• Demolition of Existing Facilities
a Installation of New Communications Systems
• Computer Networking
• Audio-Visual Systems
• Addition of Private Toilet Facilities (in some
areas)
• New Furnishings
• Equipment That Cannot be_Easily Relocated
Fees for Various Design Professionals
The cost for this work should be•budgeted at $45.00 per square foot,
rather than the $10.00 per square foot listed in the staff report.
6
At $45.00 per square foot, the additional costs for conversion of
The Sun Bank Building are $6,120,000 or a total cost for the new City hall
of $15,920,000.00 (This amount is based an the City's space need
requirements).
The Sun Bank-building has not been surveyed by professionals to ,
determine its useability, adaptability, and feasabil ity. as a City Hall.
Until such a study has been conducted, a decision to purchase should not
be considered. The suggestion that 9.8 million dollars should be
committed to the purchase of the Sun Bank Building without conducting a
proper study appears highly frivolous. The building area required is
available, the City Hall will remain downtown, and a parking structure is
conveniently located pd connected to the Sun Bank building. All of these
features are positive, attractive traits that need to be considered, but
when all is said and done, do we really know the costs of converting the
building into a City Hail?
The 545.00 per square foot for renovation takes into account written
suggestions of the city's Energy Officer, who implies that the Sun Bank
building is the most energy inefficient building in V earwater. (Memo
attached). Unless suggested changes are made, energy costs are projected
to be double the amount of money per square foot when compared to energy
efficient buildings. No mention is made of this fact in the Manager's
f iemo .
In 1989, the city received an offer of 54.50 to 55.00 per square
v ;
foot to purchase the City Hall Annex property. Since 1989, the commercial
markets in the community have suffered more than any other segment of the
development industry. 4Shopp 6('---Centers continue to lose tenants,
7
foreclosures continue at a staggering rate, the RTC continues to sell
developed properties for 30 to 40 cents on the dollar and there appears to
be no end in sight. Why would any developer in his right mind pay the
city between $7.00 and $10.00 per square foot in a depressed market, when
4 $4.50 to $5.00 was offered in an "up" market?
i
a?
-. i
IV CONCLUSIONS
• The Willingham Space Needs study far exceeds the actual needs of the
City • 70,012 square feet versus 121,970 sugare feet.
• The cost of conversion of the Sun Bank Building to a City Hall is
understated - 510.00 per square foot versus $45.00 per square foot.
• The 136,000 square foot Sun Bank Building versus an actual need of
70,912 square feet forces the City of Clearwater into a developer's role,
placing the city in direct competition with the local developers.
• The value of the City Annex property is greatly inflated at $7.00 to
$10.00 per square foot,.taking into consideration the urgency to. vacate
it.
• The Sun Bank Building has not been surveyed and-studied by
professionals to confirm its viability as the City Hall.
• The urgency expressed in the "Staff Report, Purchase of Sun Bank
Building", when a 9.8 million dollar expenditure is being requested is
questionable.
• With so many options available for a new City Hall, have all
possibilities been properly and adequately explored?
"1
9
l
V EXHIBITS
I) Adjusted Space Needs Summary for New'C.ity Hall
2) Memo Jahn T. Peddy, Energy Manager re: Sun Bank Building'
3) Excerpts -","Space Utilization Study, Municipal 'Office Space
Consolidation" City 'of St. Petersburg, Florida'(4 pages)
4) Description of Firm - Mudano Associates Architects, Inc.. (2
pages)
• r
5,
•
E
i
r?k
i (?
AD,TUSTED SPACE NEEDS SUTADtURY FOR
NEW CITY I-L LL
f.
bep: rtrrfe.?t
1um, ber or
1rmployefs
Squpre
FooU e
:tNmive 5:??cec 56 18,158
Ci:v Cie-.I:
r.ecor cs Center 10 2,574
3,655
a.1ve Ac'.icn 3 519
Ci:y Ce w?ris?ien 0 4,756
City'.;-.Gper 7 2,6?1
f Ecv-,,-mic 1,Jev"Oopmen't .2 698
Auc'ft 6 649
LegJ 8 2,962
'2rl•s & Recre-ation (includes some
Ze:re:ctlon efifrlo`'ees not
inctvded in oricinal s,adN, 24,5 8,801
Furn ) 1?C5111TC?5 14 5,366
Plmni,g & Development 61 14,650
N,blic In forma-Jon 3.5 1,794
F,:blic Wc-, s 52 14,8;7
'utilities 34 7,13$
[-Ancil!an- Rooms 6,658
EOC (Training Room) 1,500
5U TOT4L 281 P7,576
25% Grassing Factor 121,970
Police Caf,.r,I'micGtions or trice
Intelli-Enfce 46.6 16,QDJ
F TOTAL 327.6 ? 137,970
11
f
C 1 T1'' or CLEAit14AT ER
interdepartment Correspondence Shce-f'
10: Floyd G.- Carte!', General Services Director
FR0f-ti: Jchn T. Pedc'y, Encr'gy IEanager- !% iV'
SUBJECT: Sun Lank Building
DATE: hiay 19. 1992
The Sun Banc; 91da. is a very eneroy inefficient structure. This is due to poor thermal
efficiency and inefficient mechanical and electrical systenrs.
A tv,,6-year history (5/90 through 4/92) of the electrical consumption was obtained from
Florida Pov;er Cerp. (FPC). fhese records show for the latest 12-month period the
subject building used 3,610,500 KwR and an average monthly demand of 920.41 kW. The
cost of electrical po-•;er° for the subject building for this 12-moth period was
$235,720.73. Eased on 67% occupancy makes the electrical cost $2.23/ft /yr. With full
occupancy, it is estimated the subject building's electrical cost will be $316,240.00
or X2.41/f t2/yr. The ENERGY NEWS repots indicate that the average office building for
the geographical area has, an electrical cost of $1.47/ft2 /yr. The City Nall Annex,
v.hich is an old and eneroy inefficient structure, operates at an electrical cost of
$1.65/ft2/yr. The City has several new eneroy efficient buildings whose electrical
cost range from S.85 to 41.04/ft2/yr.
The air conditioning system installed in the Sun Bank Building is the lov,est first-cost
type of equipment that could have been used for this structure. It is also the most
costly to operate. The eneroy consumption for the A.C. system installed in the subject
building is 1.51 kti.h per delivered ton. The energy consumption for a chill water
system similar to the one installed in the Annex is 1.12 kWh per delivered ton. The
longevity of the type of air conditioning equipment installed in the subject building
is i5 to 16 years.
The existing air conditioning s steer introduces 8904 cfm of outside air into the
building, This is one-third (1/3? the amount of outside air that i-muld be required to
meet recommended requirements for proper indoor air quality, To increase the outside
air to recommended quantities %%,ould require the installation of seventy-five (75) more
tens of air conditioning equipment. The capital cost 5f this retrofit is estimated to
' be $50,000.00. More important, it v;ould add {0.19/ft /yr. to the electrical bill.
The- plans indicate that there is a 45 k1'a step-down transformer on floors 3 through 9.
This transfcr'r.er service`s the 200/110 requirements for a Given floor. With only
45,000 v:atts of pcvrer available per floor for FC's, typev.riters, word processors,
calculators, ccpy r-achir,es, tall: liahtina, etc., the full utilization of the space will
M.p c?YEI-el j' ,`.rcir'f:.1.
J'IIF f J
12
Stu
. _+r. .•.?- ?Y'' ?<`/i.:y;'s?r''v?'".'r. y'''?'?f+?.. ?.::?:'?•.:?r' •F•. ./??/` •??•.;...•/.?a..?•:i...
sac
,,y '?Ty??'' ^; •l? ?1 ••?? ?'.ti: -: ?r± ••? ?-• ?."'?r' ..•• "_r.•' ?• 1. ?1 PI`. ...? ?l :... I:i-1+{^i + .
?i«,}? I?r .?... -,_ .. K: MJ•?r yy '1,•r? ?^ •'•r••+yf: ar ,•. .Yr. i:, w,•: ;.4 . wJ 1. ... •.?•.' ..•.i:{; ?ti J. '•.
sWw?tL v ''Y'.' t ?. •r' a•,. • .nr?^?'-?.''.. ?.y !r•.K :. .3 ,,'1'•+- ..-. ? .. .. - {•, fv. •.y
C+L?'w ?'?YYS j '?: _ + r Yi _ `I:i., r4.r'1 ?;f\. G .i.r iL ?r ?~ =.ti•:
/2'r' :i :?'•.r:: `` •`T.•T. • ?.« •- l' _ ^ `.. - ? ,s ..,?, i? ? ??? - i- : ?. ?.?! ` J •'Fi ? yt.? • ?1,w.1•aN? :J•.
?.r - - - - •i_ '_a• •.n r • y: - -?'': ? . ?^',.. __ ?rR : '?+`. ,r+M A.? -.r• ?$... •+, 'W._ . cy .. ? .:,?••
+1? L ~'r r ?f•_.l /La'1f. •• •.'!••r? •? ? !s. !? ~- f .r j• '. • 1T'.l ??.??3..w?.. w
.? _ •V. _ ,V 111•. _1 rr•. .?..• .F'V M.•1''-_•l •.1iv :. 1,•. i'. • l r . ,..1
?:.'i? Wit, _ -? w ;I•« _ _ ;r:...w?.r'.. .iti- "-?•."M. ..?•?-tir: t p..
4? :Z
..li:al.aTa?.+:.??...wL•.lw-w.?..,.-:.+'i..?i :i:??-..:i ?'•: ,?.?.4..?'+ :? ;,. r ._. -.,\?•,? .i +x'.^? '._ •yti,t..?•
~ '•'/t tirl?i ' _'rr - ? . •-• • •. `?•-•±-• ei ?:•l.?7.?T•rr'•?.? •'Y y^i rn 9i?? ?v?..+tiy? `ra2iif'? '? ""y.`•::,
_ 7 1 ??. ?. ,••t l LI `i r« .,,{•\+,Yfi^orr?' 14"!•x•,' 'Ni .J'i •?f 1 ?r'•+.-?.1 y«J.'?+ •
' •w'w t"' rTtiwra,,a I?,s• ?..'r•-...- 1,..? is J?.y:..l C•??N t.
r ? s?_ 'l '• /1 " + :+ ? f ^.?.r+?......••-i.+a?iL..•1..a?..:•a••.-twS.k ..,1.,? ?1 ?^^.? ='y? .? µ. e,.w?'W.: i„+.? ,+•.r:
:?- ..a , «Y•r .. .?..'. •r _'r?Y: -• w'.?ti•1
• ?: '7 !.- ? tom, : ??.,? yi rri; v F.' •S
•t' t.•.r • r, •. ._r r•X C:?7<ii.?: rr,?--?•Y:i.:lr.... rri.
• i -...,ate wtT FP'.1?!d:'r ? xYi r::r/ ...7 ?1.+:?:ai^.;k ?±??r:?.r?l ?4i_•`Y_'•'_..
MuTL•?l • V : t: 1rM+l : F•+?
i. !
rV'7? •
+CL_Y '«r1'"r??s; ??•`'4?:?`?'; "'. .?•-•.T v`'? :'...• 1!.••::' i=?fs:.-yJy': ?i ?•T i'•1 +. _,.i? _ _
f
1,
1510, J - I
T
1 to-p
17
• x'1
•
`+i ,•
.
•
/
• a>
r f
?, Y.] :!? . ?... _
1
'
1,
_?
.
.?.
.i.?,c?r
11
` OR
r1 '
?- . .. _ •?
-» _ . .+
13
.L.
LW
VV
POW
r.M
C,
U
_ a
-
" s
_
?
. J•
• ? ? r
4
r
a..
1. G. _. N
y ,? c ? v v
W
C > N =0 > o
C ? V
_U U
??'r ? ? C c v
r? Cb G?
4 N
c
r
r
N
r CQ C G y
- 0.J
r_ Ll c
>.C
(, y
w U
L
O
r
C..:.d
?
G C
-V G
C h
?
O
J
-p G
U u 4.
ca
-
r ';
r. -
k) ? -
r C ccl
to ?. Gr
G _ C
y O 7 L' 43 U
K N CZ N Q G
v
-?
?
' o u Uc?
v
,
o,,;
'
N r U
? a V a...
U
ju
"?
p
`
o
t
?
'
C w ;
n a
Z :» v
u
'z ? C':
rA
L
1 GA CJ C.1 ? _C
./7 Q =.+
n LM
1 t
G
? L
? _G
•
•
U•
4.1 U =
r.
U
"C
J
r
U cl1
r
e C
r? O
r_
L U.
.. ,
Ln Cn ci3
7) k.:. O
v
'r1
4.
a
o
V
i
S[
'
V f
v
?? X
L } =? r
w ,fir ?-:
J
CIy
w '? Vf ?
C
E
J i :.
Lam. y ?..i
25
U
o .?
r
"' U :4 r C crs
•
O .»
J7
•
G
w y '_ C u r
' '
y Z.- r-
is x
o
? V
V tl C • .
> Lr.
H
^; '
U J W ?Z
r
U
Mai
U
C.a
J
Yt
r
W ?
J ?
'J
C
C/f
O to .d Cn _?
J C U ?A C
•
? ? Gn ? r
w
i1 , C rJ y G r1ry
:.1 • C .+ ? ? w+
N
` r u
., x `.
CO)
Q
Z:
a da , ? ?
^Cl', • ?. .--. "ZI
•
° ?" tn
?U °' V U U
Li C:
o .. u
_ o
L7
'
t 1 J
-'
-? ca.
, C
. .
v
4n
o
V1
C U v.
G ? tQ
Q mo'
h w C I
.,
•-- U ° o C: C-
tj
DG !ti "' A
ci ? lz?
w o
a3A? t' ? r.
Li
?
_
CT fn
=13 [ U
1= C
IONA
"W
c:
Y O
W
• t!
^I
J
U
9T
t
i.
i
MEMEMMEM
roes '?/.A.I®
r IBEX 11 11 MUDANO ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, INCORPORATED
Description of Firm
Mudano Associates Architects, Inc. celebrates over twenty-seven years of 'a
thriving, successful architectural practice. During this time we have designed
and built more than 60 million square feet of buildings, 'ranging in type' from
commercial shopping centers and corporate office buildings to recreation centers
and educational facilities. Over the last thirty-five years, Frank R. Mudano,
FAIA has been responsible for the design of more than $300 million dollars worth
of projects.
Mudano Associates offers our clients the following services:
Site Analysis
Land Use Planning
Space Planning
Master Planning/Site Design
Landscape Design
Construction Administration
Architectural Design
Construction Documents and Specifications
CADD Technology
Cost Estimating
Building Systems
Analysis/Studies
PHILOSOPHY:
The management framework of Mudano Associates Architects, Inc. is developed
,around the concept of the design team, where individuals from within the firm are
selected for a particular job because of their specific expertise. Frank R.
Mudano, FAIA, as Principal-In-Charge, retains responsibility for coordination of
the design team and client. Mudano Associates also believes that longevity of
personnel has a noticeable effect on overall client satisfaction. Over the past
five years, we have averaged a total of twenty-two employees, maint;i-ining a
minimum of three project teams at any one time. The current breakdown of staff
consists of seven registered architects, one intern architect, one specifications
writer, one CADD system manager, three draftsmen, three administrative personnel,
and two contract administrators.
Complementing our regular staff is a diverse and experienced pool of engineering
consultants. From this impressive array, we are able to select-those firms who
have the expertise required to solve specific client programs and building
requirements.
Mudano Associates' unswerving commitment to providing the highest quality
architectural services available has,been its own reward, returning to us several
awards for our work and a long list of satisfied clients, most of whom have
returned to us with repeat business.
17
IF ./Ask I
WENEEMEN
FRANK R. MUDANO, FAIR
President
}
RESPONSIBILITY: Mr. Mudano is the Senior Principal and founder of the firm.
Frank directs the activities of the team including planning,
budgeting, scheduling, documentation and personnel. He also
participates in presentations and negotiations and obtains
necessary project data and assists in establishing program
requirements. Frank maintains a positive working
relationship with the clients and consultants.
Frank was honored in 1979 when the AIA elected him to the
College of Fellows for his service to the profession. He is
also a recipient of Florida Association/AIA Gold Medal, its
highest honor.
EDUCATION: Graduate - The Gilbert School, Winsted, Connecticut
Georgia Institute of Technology - Bachelor of Science
Bachelor of Architecture - 1952
Registered Architect - Florida 1958 - #2531
MARITAL STATUS: Married, 5 children
EXPERIENCE-: Mudano Associates Architects, Inc.
Southeastern Engineering Company, General Manager
PARTIAL LIST OF Clearwater YMCA, Clearwater, Florida
rMAJOR PROJECTS:
Belleview Biltmore Spa, Belleair, Florida
Countryside Mail, Clean;pater, Florida
Barnett Bank, Clearwater, Florida
The Long Center, Clearwater, Florida
Florida Sheriff's Youth Ranch, Safety Harbor, FL
Cypress Trace Condominitcros, Safety Harbor, Florida
18
%
June 0, 1'392
RPHEN SALIGA
CASL R AR.
-' RWATERJI,34t;m
TO*. Mayor and ComminoJor:uru, City of Oloarvin:or Vlorida.
FROM: Staphun A. SuIiCa, Citizen/Tnxpayor.
SUBJECT*. Oun Bank Building as a City Hall.
(?t??altf??i?
I u6geo vilth 13111 Jonson, Coalition of Cluurrrratur Homomincru l Associations,
with my own personal obsu.,?vutioiirr and mwicnta.
Th profoasianal P03.lstura idulltify tau as "...n ropru:3entativo aumplo of
residents..." bocuuse, till the tuxpayoru I poraosrall.y know uro AGAIIIS'T nponding
410-1.1ILLIM for a Tu j L:uhal City hull.
Thosa I know, would rather give our overworked Comaissioners and City start'
a raise, to prune the local oconomy, instuad of "padding the packets" of sa rev)
stockholders (out-of-townurs ?) of the sun bank "Group".
The "t30STO14 TFA P1U=11 sweeping the country is u s OKOUS Tux;3uyers Revolt
aguinat wasteful spending and Special. Interests' influence on our elected officials.
:,U%aTIONS L EM ASkal*.,
1. V1hy the SUDDEN emergency to r7ovo 150 City or;rployees to Sun Bunk?
2. Is sun'13ank losing money? In the City buying to "save" an S & L crisis?
3. ?'' 1hy only OIZ OPTIOII offered to you for a YES or 110 decision? 1.1here
are alternative proposals...liko the Mans building, the IZ11171 COMITY
OmQ;D building acroso the stroet from prosant City 11a11, or a plan to
build on-to the present City hall. over the parking lot?
4. Ho-a can "Smart People" make outlandish claims that 1110 more City
Employees will "revitalize Downtovrn", when 1.3-dIILLIOJ tourists visit
Cleanriatar each year, and spend at the rate of 42-MILLION per day has
failed to "revitalize" ovor these past yearns?
3. iao o:ia accepts the ";?oL- Pot,er-To-l'cxy-Yuul" deceptive accounting plea.
,t . t .
Is.T'S I10T FORCIET:
The US.t is -4-TRILLI0I? in debt--•3obo uro decli.nint, ut the rate of 400 000
pur weak--buying Tourists are duclininj; due to dapreio:3cd econciny---Proporty values
are declining; with the Tux j ruse--All iadicators prodict u serious decline Taft;,r
till elect ion--tiyinr, tourists will U1301111d, oocuping; the Cold Ilorth_.hursgary
,.rid iio Jobs. `].'he Jdl Gl?iiSS City Holl viould be very vu iumblo to resentful, hungary,
no Joou 'Tourists"
Let's take off otir liooo Colored Gltrs: e:r:..Iook rat what im havc...be
thankful..,and hove r.LIRCY on the IF'E3TM flENERAT1011s....
I;0 hDRE DEBT- ----112DUCE TlZtX'Ji
RoUt?crctfzilly,
,A c;anon J?. ,5u1 i??a
E
C rte! G L lFG /[ f •J
r
F
3.
Caoverremertt
needs feedback
from the people -
Have you ever met an elected official who thinks
she is out of touch with her constituency?
If anything, most elected officials, and even gov-
ernment administrators, think that they're in touch
too well: If the ACLU or the NRA isn't on their case,
then Parents Against Hormones or the Committee for
Five-Week Months is phoning them at midnight.
Claiming to know what the communit wants is
the most popular lyric in a hundred song of policy
advocacy heard every week in City Hall. Yet these
debates, in which advocates claim to represent the
point of view of thousands of people they have never
met,rtend to take place a t?_he bigi it &e, where a
few new 1 rggamsxompete forlimitednew funding.
Meanwhile, no one is asking what welfare recipients
think about the quality of their job counseling, or how
well Medicaid patients feel they have been treated by
their doctors. No one is asking residents to evaluate
the quality of such bread-and-butter services as street
repair or trash collection.
As we in government become swept up in the joy
P of innovation, we overlook the central questions that
politicians and administrators should be asking: Ha
good a job are we doing already? How well do our
"customers" ?--• the people who use olir services and
pay for them -- think we are perforating?
41 Not all administrators or politicians are eager for
the reply. If attorneys are loath to ask questions
whose answers they don't already know, man politi-
cians and public administrators ' et downri tit sic at
t e t-ou TT"
But what t "ubl'ic thinks about Po, quality of
government -- focusing on outcomes, noinputs may be as close as we'll ever come to the bottom line
4 L a non-profit npII1y. Around tltfcountry, those
/cit-mans ers,, ounci members ano county commis-
San`rs w to arbor an eittrepren curial spirt are
i
pn aside to bring the typical
wi ??'governuient --- no dust
ar interest groups, such as the
of Commerce or theleague of
representative sam Ie of resi-
My colleagues and I have collected and integrated
surveys done in more that??ities and counties. In
the surveys, residents were ask d to evaluate city
'services -- to quantify ho wellolice protected the
community, the value of library services, the quality
of 'arks. More than a _ uarter of a iliion eo le
e?spsRd.?t4..t1 outcome surve s,
The result is a mt of solid enchma s of service
quality. Now any local government can compare its
own bottom line to the bottom line of others. Govern-
ments can discover if a "gpod" evaluation of local
police service is better than the average police rating.
Administrators can learn whether a "fair" rating is all
that can be expected of a street repair service,
Surveying citizens is not difficult. Simple precepts
and assistance (ram a college extension program can
provide the basics. Lspecially useful, even for those
jurisdictions that already have conducted their own
surveys, is a template fo u iform sur% uestfor?s
which is.. -vai a e ram the Center ar urv ?
W, I ns; in t its way, resuf s ease y catt?c it into a
na ojla] debase for jaterjurisdictional c Lseon . -
Comparisons among locales can provi ee heightened
motivation to improve, just as comparable data about
educational quality drives school districts to shoot for
higher goals.
.The '90s are shaping up to be a decade running
j all of reaft , `materially unllke the
uff-and-puff 'SOs. ' is is t e time for local and state
goverrunents, and even the feds, 14.Vt seririous_abouto
rin i ub . o inion into sincere
o -- to.dare tolls w al ye e rea??ak
clco tot ye the result! wtth natt? oan?tirtg as we
develop standards o excellence-fo? pttblic.trust,
a Thomas I. Miller, director of research and evaluation for
the city of Boulder, Colo., Is founder of the Center 4---
He - k Is also co-author, svith Michallo A.
Miller, of Citizen Surveys; How to Do Them, How to Use
Thom, What.Thoy Moan, published !7y the latemational
CIWCounty Management Association, a
.40 GavernkV Mbg&A e; d10rlbuled by 6uippi Wwai d Now Servke?
P,&. I ??J)-- gez eBQz
P .L ((
Notes for the Clearwater City Commission Meeting
June 9, 1992
Reference: Sun Bank Building.
Good evening.
I would like to bring up, three points of order regar-
ding the proposed building purchase.' They deal with:
1. Recorded position of the City Commission
regarding the future of Clearwater's existing city
hall building;
0 2. Legal and/or appropriate use of budgeted
funds; and
3. Need for a general referendum for a decision of
such magnitude, in terms of dollars spent and in'
terms"'of relinquishing our existing city hall.
1
1. Recorded position of the City Commission
,
regarding the future of this city hall building.
0 It is any opinion and desire as a voter and
taxpayer, that the city commission go on
record officially, as to its position regarding
the future of our existing city hall. Until the
commission establishes its position and
demonstrates a need for another city hall, it
should not be procuring a building such as the
Sun Bank Building for a new city hall.
0 When the city commission jumps at every
possible opportunity to procure or build a
new city hall with out first having set some
sort of policy, voters such as myself view the
city commission as functioning in a vacuum
and some what at a loss of control over its
own destiny.
• If the city indeed wants and can justify a new
or different city hall, it should plan and bud-
get for it just like other budget item.
!k
• . 2. Legal and/or appropriate use of budgeted
funds.
0 If the city commission is going to spend $10
million of city resources, it should be done in
a planned and organized manner, such as
through the budget process. A procurement
of this magnitude should be made only after
thorough and open planning and budgeting.
To take money that has been set; aside for
other purposes, without going through the
budget process, deprives citizens such as my-
self, a fair and due process.
0 Within the federal government it is a felony
to spend money for procurement not general-
ly designated for such procurement. If it is a
felony to misdirect appropriated money with-
in the federal government, why should Clear-
water voters tolerate it within the city govern-
ment? If it is not illegal for Clearwater to
misappropriate money, it certainly is immoral.
0 Going around doling out money for unbudge-
ted items to the tune of $ 10 million makes a
mockery out of our budget process.
e 3. Need for a general referendum for a decision of
such magnitude, in terms of dollars spent and in
terms of relinquishing our existing city hall.
® I don't know what the guidelines are for
putting issues to general referendum. But, I do
know that when you talk about replacing our
city hall,, every Clearwater citizen should have
a right to participate in approving.
0 Our existing Clearwater City Hall has a beau-
tiful view and a unique location. It belongs to
the citizens of Clearwater. Any attempt to
remove or replace it should be approved by its
owners, the citizens of Clearwater, a process
commonly referred to as a general referen-
dum.