The URL can be used to link to this page

CITY OF CLEARWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY (COCFS) - PROJECT FINAL DRAFT ------------------- Feasibility Analysis of Joint Use Facility For: Pinellas~~ County ,~ .....J ~.'.~. ~..'...~~.'er . : i . I . t - . & . . - . - - - --~ .:"a' ;r lC?s~] October 10, 2007 Executive Summary Study Objective Methodology & Approach ~ Project Assumptions: Cost an ~ "" ace Programming Standards Base Cases - C..it.y. ~.C'1.0..~.~fln.,y, & PSTA ~~~ potent~aIJOi~ \~ Facility Synergies Cash'\1f.i~~~Summaries & Comparative Analyses ,~nt Use Facility Review and Findings Appendix COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Ocl- 07 Page 2 ------------------- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Executive Summary . Project Objective: To perform a high level financial feasibility study to e~ClJl:Jate the potential for a joint government center housing various government91 a9rni~rative functions for both Pinellas County and the City of Clearwater and, if fea\l}~, 'ti~tegration of an expanded PST A transit facility. . Methodology and Scope: The scope of the study conf~~ses a Phase I evaluation of the technical and operational feasibility, fina~ci~~functional and developmental suitability, physical constructability, and d1;yeloprtef1( cost of a joint use government center, to enable a decision processq{Nth~~"d'visability of further pursuit of the project. Phase II of the study will providef~t1e~d~tail relative to the potential functionality and constructability of the prop' sef~i'itY: PSTA Inclusion: Fhr\~T evaluation is a "sub-evaluation" of the joint use analysis, giving the StUd~~co~ttttents the option to determine whether to move forward with a joint ~~v~r~~~~~t\.€enter.with/Witho.ut a t~ansit facility component, based upon cost, functl0r.ta~'i!.i;l1 or operational considerations. . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 4 ------------------- ------------------- Executive Summary . A shared facility can significantly improve overall facility utiliza~n and reduce construction and operating costs. '~ J - Development of a.~oin~ Use facility allows the City / ~~,~~nty__fo Detter leverage space utilization and shared space cOr:lcef:2t~\J - Results in a 11.5% reduction in ove~1 fgr@\\~pace needs. - Generates a 8.30/0 overall reducti0n ir\l~dTh~occupancy costs (with a Dedicated PSTA facility, res(llt~'\10~5% lower construction costs of $5.3 million and 'owe~ffe1at\?1'~ expenses of $5.3 million). - Conference rooms al'ii~\~~~Chambers can be extensively shared. - Minor Chal3gesto tli1e current City I County schedules for meetings requiririg 6~~<)f a broadcast-enabled council chambers can acq.of~:Cild!te most if not all meetings in a single room. Integ~~~he PSTA facility into the project will increase the overall cost. - Th~dded costs of an Integrated PSTA facility offset any cost saving synergies realized by collocation by $3.0 million more in constant (PV) dollars. . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 5 10 - Oct - 07 Executive Summary · Case studies demonstrate that shared facilities can wor{ . -fnd have resulted in significant reductions in capital and op~<Mti1!lt.lJ~ I sosts. - Most shared facilities have been driven by an acilli~rJt~tive or legally mandated consolidation of city and~~fo/'governments. - Implementation requires significa~tjinte , r~dictional cooperation and advance preparation for sUc,?ces ,. - Join~ ~?rking teamt n~(~l5e created to participate in further feasibility asses~r;FI~~elth a clear focus and charter. - Clear ani V.isfi~~~litiCal support to, the project is ~eeded to mak~et. lile'~Ject happen and sustam durable public support over t. ,\ Ime' ~; ents a unique opportunity to explore the benefits of public/private partnership opportunities. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 6 ------------------- ------------------- Executive Summary · A shared facility presents significant organizational and~~. imple~entation ~halle~ges.. . . ~.. ~\ - Critical operational, financial, and legal declsloJ~~~rnl:J'st be made early in the process: J~e~'Q - Deal structuring and transit orie~<!.I~evelopment issues, - Ownership and legalliabilitY;i~\U~ - Governance and p010~~~~~ such as access and security, - Operating cost 'SA~~o~and internal charges for dedicated uses, - Technol~~d\~'t,mmuniCatiOn protocols must be standardized, - Futu~p~~ expansion and contraction, ~~tal structure and financing, -\':Ihsurance and risk management, and - Design and construction principles and direction. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 7 Executive Summary Develop Analysis ... Perform Research Determine Options > COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 8 ------------------- ------------------- Executive Summary . Develop profiles of the base case requirements for a "dedicated" City/County'!.PST A facility including an assessment of space needs, functional requirements~~~~ potential shared use components. O~~ ~ Identify the potential construction and operating costs fO!)eac~\se case for comparison to a joint use facility. .. ~\~ Sum the total construction and operating costs ~$f three dedicated facilities for comparison to a joint use facility. ~~ 'V Define the spaces that can be s.l>1a~~~iermine the efficiency savings of a joint use facility and define any efficre~~~1th~t might be realized in operational costs. Develop a profile ota1'ij1its~\ti~e~oint use facility that includes the critical features of each dedicate""'dtfacilit\j:JJhile comprising certain shared features that could reduce the overall faci !~<fp~tPri nt". Proj!\\~ construction and operating costs for the joint use facility. \... Compare the alternative joint facility costs to the dedicated facility costs. Profile other joint use facilities developed and operated by interjurisdictional arrangement to understand the potential opportunities and issues. . . . . . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10-0ct-07 Page 9 Executive Summary Research Approach and Scope: · Interviewed the City departments within scope: <<1\' - Validated current headcount and growth as provided for in~tQe RDR study ("Conceptual Program for A New City Hall" APril2005~~ - Applied newly adopted "draft" County space0taffei'a~J~ to both County and City requirements. ~ ~-8''' - Defined potential "shared" auxilianl/co~m~n use spaces for consideration. ~/~\\ \4- ~ · Referenced the County data pr0~i6&~d~in previous Equis "Real Estate Financial Consulting and concePtual\~~~S~Planning Services" (February 2006): - County confirm~.e. \~~p~\};f ~'Alternative 2", departments to be included within a new building. ~\. \~~" · Incluqed~a<daitio.nal departments, provided by the County, currently located in the 315 Court~rbailaing~"Board of County Commissioners, County Administrator, County Attorrie~t 'and Communications (Assembly control room only). v · Extracted common use data provided in the previous Heery study "Countywide Government Space Needs Assessment" (April 2004). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 10 ------------------- ------------------- Executive Summary . 2. Potentially shared/Co-located: Conference - IT c1ose~~~ Training Room - Se I"'{er" Roo n:l. , .. ,\ ,\, ~ . TV I Broadcast~ ". .A~r\\~,,\.~~"{9j:1Uctlon 3. General & Common: - n ,~\\.,.~ Washrooms ..., 0" , - Reception / Lobby Amenities Mechanical ~ ~ ~\. Security Cafe Another"CrUCi~~~o:nt of shared spaces within the COCFS is the analysis of a City & county~c~~r~y~~COUncil Chamber Space with integrated audio and video broadcast capabilities. . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 11 Executive Summary 7,192 - \ It:. "..... fr ." (~~~2~ ~ \\'" .,. ,~~;! ~~2'" I , ...;' ...,," ' 2,4n 57 ~. ~~ ....3,908 3,731 ,... 81:~ ~\' " - 3,731 2,400 t '-e.5 5 ~ \ 2,400 "..1,448 fI' "\ 3 3 1,754 _~L...J~_ _~_ AlC'a or Function I -~~ Conference/Interactive Areas Rm Qty Combined SF Ratio SF/FTt Av.,.ge .. .~. 3,692 2,077 a6 692 2,169 22.6 434 185 1.9 185 4,431 46.2 4,808 SO.1 RmQty ComblMd SF Rftlo SF/HE Av."~ '" ~" 3,538 1 1,923 9 7,269 16.6 808 4 1,569 3.6 392 3 554 1.3 185 16 9,392 21.5 Chambers Conference Extra large large Medium Small Sub Total Conf. Seats 26- 50 16 -18 12 -14 4-6 Training 2,385 5.5 General Support Areas Copy/Fax/Print Mailroom ReceptlonIWaltlng Area 1,785 18.6 2,588 462 3,662 59 11 84 0.0 Food Service Coff../Breakroom 1,431 14.9 Storage Fllea SupplylMlsc. Ubrary lV Studio/Control Room MJiceUineou. LDedlcated o 0.0 o 0.0 308 3.2 -~~- - - 6,6.15_ -;---:: p f\(';i'-l~ -- Area needs includJ ': ff,'. ~ - 'Area needs ;ncluded ;n Rentable and Gross ~ '\ ~\ Rentable and Gross A:d;~:..'<ts , \ ') BuUd;n9 Factors ~\.a..J 0. IU ' 26,108 \ \ ~2.0 · 3,916 Unaccounted Dock - Recvg Security IT Server Dial. Closet ITotal Ulable Square Feet UtIlization (U5FlPer) 45,040 103.1 It\. 6,756 RentabJe Factor. Multiplier Total Rentable Square Feet 30,024 51,796 \ \'\:\lR8rt" v 312.7 11S.5 Gran Building FICI~MU'"PII.r 15% 4,504 7,769 ~ . Total Building Groll Square Feet 34,527 59,565 Combined Facility Total .~. 7,231 1 1,923 '2 9,346 700 9 3,738 375 4 738 185 25 13 823 __ _17.652___ 3,750_ 1 2't'o- ;X3.~ 10 7,000" ) 13.1 6 ',1 2,250 ,~.2 ' , 7... 1,295,2.4 24 10,545 19.8 ~~ j 3,500 6.6 3,692 " 2,625 5.0 1,747 462 1,050 2.0 2,612 1,838 3.5 2,070 5,2SO 10.0 (1,519) 2,625 5.0 (225) 1,050 2.0 704 2,288 750 71,148 36,983 16,513 133.5 69.. 31 10,672 5,547 2,477 81,820 42,530 18,nO 153.5 78.S 3. 12,273 6,379 2,849 94,093 48,909 21,839 · Shared space synergies in a Joint Use facility result in a net savings potential of 21 ,839 GSF. This sharing based savings represents a 9% reduction in overall space requirements in a joint use facility. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 12 - - - - - - - ------------------- Executive Summary Base Case - PST A 87,120 SF (2.0 acres) Base Case - City of Clearwater 88 FTE 43,229 RSF D Base Case - Pinellas County 437 FTE 134,348 RSF · Stand alone combined RSF Joint Use Facility 533 FTE 165,128 RSF . RSF savings of joint use COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10-0ct-07 Page 13 Executive Summary County Ave RSF City Ave RSF Dedicated PSTA Ave RSF Combined Base Ave RSF Case Usable SF 116,825 43,278 160,102 Site Rentable SF 134,348 49,770 184,118 Requirements Gross SF 154,501 57,235 87,120 Land 211,736 FTE 437 307.43 96 518.43 533 345.44 Op Ex Costs $ 28,210,360 $ 7.00 $ 10,450,568 $ 7.00 $ 10,392,347 $ 3.98 $ 49,053,276 $ 8.88 Other Net Costs $ 9,393,249 $ 2.33 $ 3,479,743 $ 2.33 $ 5,938,484 $ 2.27 $ 18,811,476 $ 3.41 Capital Expenditures $ 3,287,450 $ 0.82 $ 1,217,840 $ 0.82 $ - $ - $ 4,505,290 $ 0.82 R&M Costs $ 9,508,504 $ 2.36 $ 3,522,439 $ 2.36 $ 5,196,174 $ 1.99 $ 18,227,116 $ 3.30 Asset Impact Relocation Costs $ 235,301 $ 0.06 $ 51,691 $ 0.03 $ - $ - $ 286,991 $ 0.05 Parking Garage $ 11,612,512 $ 2.88 $ 3,442,032 $ 2.31 $ - $ - $ 15,054,544 $ 2.73 Construction Costs $ 37,438,574 $ 9.29 $ 13,869,173 $ 9.29 $ 4,010,335 $ 1.53 $ 55,318,083 $ 10.01 Total Cost $ 99,685,950 $ 24.73 $ 36,033,486 $ 24.13 $ 25,537,340 $ 9.77 $ 161,256,776 $ 29.19 PV $ 67,700,205 $ 16.80 $ 24,279,461 $ 16.26 $ 13,705,112 $ 5.24 $ 105,684,777 $ 19.13 Total Cost I $ 135,719,436 $ 24.57 Less PST A PV $ 91,979,665 $ 16.65 . . Baseline Information I f Combined Base Case (wI Dedicated PSTA) ~~p.:,~l{T~~of~e dedicated faci~i~ies comprises 217?36 gross square feet and sufficient land to accorpmoaate a 2.0 acre PSTA faCility on or near the site. T~t; costs for the sum of all of the facilities, including construction and Iifecycle operating costs and repairs and maintenance costs, is $136 million in current dollars and $92 million in present value costs (constant dollars). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 14 ------------------- Joint Use facility Synergi!l~su~n an ~o reduction in overall total construction and operating expenses. Cost savingsf:ft~~\'i7he analysis estimated to be $12.4 million ($8.0 million PV). 11.5%~~~tion in GSF, which translates to a 10.6% reduction ($5.3 million or $280/ Saved RSF ) in construction costs. ,--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Executive Summary Baseline Information II Combined Base Case (wi Dedicated PSTA) County Ave RSF City Ave RSF Dedicated PSTA Ave RSF Combined Base Ave RSF Case Usable SF 116,825 43,278 Site Rentable SF 134,348 49,770 Requirements Gross SF 154,501 57,235 FTE 437 307.43 96 518.43 Op Ex Costs $ 28,210,360 $ 7.00 $ 10,450,568 $ 7.00 $ Other Net Costs $ 9,393,249 $ 2.33 $ 3,479,743 $ 2.33 $ Capital Expenditures $ 3,287,450 $ 0.82 $ 1,217,840 $ 0.82 $ R&M Costs $ 9,508,504 $ 2.36 $ 3,522,439 $ 2.36 $ Asset Impact Relocation Costs $ 235,301 $ 0.06 $ 51,691 $ 0.03 $ Parking Garage $ 11,612,512 $ 2.88 $ 3,442,032 $ 2.31 $ Construction Costs $ 37,438,574 $ 9.29 $ 13,869,173 $ 9.29 $ Total Cost $ 99,685,950 $ 24.73 $ 36,033,486 $ 24.13 $ PV $ 67.700,205 $ 16.80 $ 24,279,461 $ 16.26 $ Total Cost Less PST A PV 160,102 184,118 211,736 53 345.44 87,120 Land 10,392,347 $ 3.98 5,938,484 $ 2.27 $ 5,196,174 $ 1.99 $ $ 4,010,335 $ 1.53 25,537,340 $ 9.77 13,705,112 $ 5.24 $ 49,053,276 $ 8.88 $ 45,065,715 9.10 $ 18,811,476 $ 3.41 $ 17,483,731 3.53 $ 4,505,290 $ 0.82 $ 4,040,606 0.82 $ 18,227,116 $ 3.30 $ 16,883,080 3.41 $ 286,991 $ 0.05 $ 286,991 0.06 $ 15,054,544 $ 2.73 $ 15,054,544 3.04 $ 55,318,083 $ 10.01 $ 50,026,105 $ 10.10 $ 161,256,776 $ 29.19 $ 148,840,773 $ 30.05 $ 105,684,777 $ 19.13 $ 97,613,932 $ 19.70 $ 135,719,436 $ 24.57 $ 123,303,433 $ 24.89 $ 91,979,665 $ 16.65 $ 83,908,820 $ 16.94 . . - - - - . (16,513) e (35.63) $ (3,987,561) $ $ (1,327,745) $ $ (464,684) $ $ (1,344,036) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ (12,416,003) $ $ (8,070,845) $ $ (12,416,003) $ -10.07% $ (8,070,845) $ -9.62% . Exclusive of PSTA, the Total Op Ex Cost savings for a Joint Use facility over term as compared to the Baseline are $5.3 million / $2.5 million PV ($196,863 average annual savings). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 15 Executive Summary Baseline Information County Ave RSF City Ave RSF Integrated PSTA Ave RSF Usable SF 116,825 43,278 Site Rentable SF 134,348 49,770 Requirements Gross SF 154,501 57,235 87,120 Land FTE 437 307.43 96 518.43 Op Ex Costs $ 28,210,360 $ 7.00 $ 10,450,568 $ 7.00 $ 7,274,643 $ 2.78 Other Net Costs $ 9.393,249 $ 2.33 $ 3,479,743 $ 2.33 $ 4,156,939 $ 1.59 Capital Expenditures $ 3,287,450 $ 0.82 $ 1,217,840 $ 0.82 $ $ - R&M Costs $ 9.508,504 $ 2.36 $ 3,522,439 $ 2.36 $ 3,637,322 $ 1.39 Asset Impact Relocation Costs $ 235,301 $ 0.06 $ 51,691 $ 0.03 $ - $ - Parking Garage $ 11,612,512 $ 2.88 $ 3,442,032 $ 2.31 $ - $ - Construction Costs $ 37,438,574 $ 9.29 $ 13,869,173 $ 9.29 $ 10,887,782 $ 4.17 Total Cost $ 99,685,950 $ 24.73 $ 36,033,486 $ 24.13 $ 25,956,685 $ 9.93 PV $ 67,700,205 $ 16.80 $ 24,279,461 $ 16.26 $ 16,829,923 $ 6.44 Total Cost less PST A PV (16.513) -11.50% e -11.50% -11.50% 345.44 - (35.63) $ 49,053,276 $ 8.88 $ 41,948,011 $ $ (7,105,265) $ (0.41) -16.94% $ 18,811.476 $ 3.41 $ 15,702,186 $ 3.17 $ (3,109,290) $ (0.24) -19.80"16 $ 4,505,290 $ 0.82 $ 4,040,606 $ 0.82 $ (464,684) $ -11.50"16 $ 18,227,116 $ 3.30 $ 15,324,228 $ 3.09 $ (2.902,888) $ (0.21) -18.94% $ 286,991 $ 0.05 $ 286,991 $ 0.06 $ $ 0.01 , 0.00% $ 15,054.544 $ 2.73 $ 15,054,544 $ 3.04 $ $ 0.31 . 0.00% $ 55,318,083 $ 10.01 $ 56,903,552 $ 11.49 $ 1,585,469 $ $ 161,256,776 $ 29.19 $ 149,260,118 $ 30.13 $ (11,996,658) $ $ 105,684,777 $ 19.13 $ 100,738.743 $ 20.34 $ (4,946,035) $ $ 135,719,436 $ 24.57 $ 123,303,433 $ 24.89 $ (12,416,003) $ 0.32 $ 91.979,665 $ 16.65 $ 83,908,820 $ 16.94 $ (8,070.845) $ 0.29 -9.62% · Joint Use facility sYne{9~~~n a 8.0% reduction in overall undiscounted construction and operating expenses. · Cost savingsr\1~~~ ofthe analysis estimated to be $12.0 million ($5.0 million PV) as compared to Baseline. · The reductio~~iJ\dministrative office space is more than offset by the increased PST A construction costs. An Integrated PSTA facility results in an increase in construction costs of $1.5 million as compared to Baseline. · Exclusive of PSTA, the Total Op Ex Cost savings for a Joint Use facility over term as compared to the Baseline are $5.3 million / $2.5 million PV ($196,863 average annual savings). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 16 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- - - - ------ Executive Summary Usable SF Site Rentable SF Requirements Gross SF FTE Op Ex Costs Other Net Costs Capital Expenditures R&M Costs Asset Impact Relocation Costs ParkIng Garage Construction Costs Total Cost PV Total Cost less PST A PV Cost ReductIon ComparIson I I Comparative (wi Integrated PSTA) Baseli.ne vs Ave RSF JOint Savings -11.50% -11.50% -11.50% -11.50% -11.50% -11.50% (16.513) (18,990) (21,839) 345.44 (35.63) (35.63) 309.81 309.81 $ 49.053,276 $ 8.88 $ 45.065.715 $ 9.10 $ 41.948,011 $ 8.47 $ (3,987.561) $ 0.22 -8.850 $ (7.105.265) $ $ 18.811.476 $ 3.41 $ 17.483,731 $ 3.53 $ 15.702.186 $ 3.17 $ (1,327,745) $ 0.12 -7.59% $ (3.109.290) $ $ 4.505,290 $ 0.82 $ 4.040.606 $ 0.82 $ 4,040.606 $ 0.82 $ (464,684) $ -11.50% $ (464.684) $ $ 18.227,116 $ 3.30 $ 16.883,080 $ 3.41 $ 15,324.228 $ 3.09 $ (1.344,036) $ 0.11 , -7.96% $ (2.902.888) $ $ 286,991 $ 0.05 $ 286.991 $ 0.06 $ 286.991 $ 0.06 $ $ 0.01 '0.00% $ $ $ 15.054.544 $ 2.73 $ 15.054.544 $ 3.04 $ 15,054.544 $ 3.04 $ $ 0.31 0.00010 $ $ $ 55.318,083 $ 10.01 $ 50.026.105 $ 10.10 $ 56,903.552 $ 11.49 $ (5,291.978) $ 0.08 -10.58% $ $ $ 161,256,776 $ 29.19 $ 148,840,773 $ 30.05 $ 149,260,118 $ 30.13 $ (12, ,03) $ 0.85 -8.34% $ (11,996,658) $ $ 105.684,777 $ 19.13 $ 97.613.932 $ 19.70 $ 100,738.743 $ 20.34 $ (8,070,845) $ 0.57 -8.27% $ (4,946,035) $ $ 135,719,436 $ 24.57 $ 123,303,433 $ 24.89 $ 123,303,433 $ 24.89 $ (12,416,003) $ 0.32 - 0 $ (12,416,003) $ $ 91,979.665 $ 16.65 $ 83,908.820 $ 16.94 $ 83.908,820 $ 16.94 $ (8.070.845) $ 0.29 -9.62% $ (8.070.845) $ -9.62% · The Integrated PSTA...s~e~io ~\~$6.8 million more to construct than the Dedicated PSTA scenario. · While the to~o~s'llh:e PSTA scenarios in current dollars are nearly identical ($419,345 difference), in constant dollars it is rrr~s~jhstantial - the Integrated PST A scenario is $3.1 million more costly on a PV basis. · The PV of the total costs for the Dedicated PSTA scenario passes the 5% acceptability threshold (8.27% PV savings). · The PV of the total costs for the Integrated PST A scenario do not pass the 5% acceptability threshold (4.91 % PV savings). PV savings identical to the Dedicated PST A scenario can be achieved with a 40% SF scope reduction. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 17 Executive Summary PSTA Impact on Joint Use Costs Baseline Joint + Dedicated PST A Op Ex Costs Other Net Costs Cap Ex R&M Costs Relo Costs Parking Structure Canst. Costs Worst Worst Worst Worst ... Mid ... Mid ... Same ... Mid ~t'~~~ T Same Best Total Costs PV Joint + Integrated P~ ~ (\ .l' ~~I B,est. -" Best Same Best Same Same ~~ ... ... Same Mid · The Baselin (City + County + Dedicated PST A) is the most expensive option. "" · A Joint Use facility + an Integrated PST A has lower operating and R&M expenses over time, however is more expensive (in constant dollars) than the Dedicated scenario. · A Joint Use facility + a Dedicated PST A has the lowest costs both in current and constant (PV) dollars. The savings delta between this scenario and the Baseline offsets the higher operating and R&M expenses. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 18 ------------------- ------------------- Executive Summary Joint-use facilities potentially offer a variety of benefits to the parties involved. Most commonly these benefits include cost savings opportunities, such as shared overhead cos.t.~.. "~. .~. tared design and construction costs, as well increased space utilization efficiency. The~~...e;, · Recurring Cost Savings: Once operational, services Su~\~ustodial, data and telecommunications can be consolidated to avoid the~~t~atCost of providing similar services to multiple buildings and billing aCto~~.~ ' · Department Consolidation: In a jOint-use\f~c~it may be necessary to maintain only one mail department, one payroll de~'a"~~f\and one security department. These departments would otherwise regqi}~ ~plication if agencies were housed in separate buildings. . \\\\~\~ · Public Benefit: Cectai~"ty~es of joint-use space lend themselves to direct and immediate r:lLJbJicl~~~fh, such as agreements for sharing school libraries and recreationc:ll.tfJciliti>>s~ith local municipal governments. Beyond the financial benefit for each1~aft~~ ~ublic community also benefits from additional space for public use. ~ 4\\~ 9". · Time~Efficiency: Schools also exhibit the potential of increased efficiency relative to sche~ling. Such joint-use agreements have the potential to increase the amount of time these facilities can serve their beneficiaries (e.g. students and the public, per above). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 19 Executive Summary In addition to the key benefits already described, other incentives exist that maYa make joint-use agreements even more attractive. · The State of New York ('05-'06 budget): Established the Shar:eC/(MuniCiPal Services Incentive Program (SMSI), a competitive grants program f~{).t'tt~r)more units of local government to apply together for state assistance~~~C9Y~,~\Co~ associated with the development of projects that will achieve savin€Js ai~mprbve municipal efficiency t~rough. shared services, cooperative agreerneri'~, mergers, consolidations and dissolutions. .. _ ~ (Q.\ - Twenty-two projects were issOe@Jan s during the '05-'06 budget year. · Seminole Community COIIJb~~Jbrnt-use facility is in the process of being approved for SCC and the universi,tYff @entral Florida. - Because th~lC'lclli~aliII include a library that will be open to the public, there are hOPes tl;)~Uj~Seminole County government will contribute to its funding, driven by do'~~r-edliar State matching of funds. \' · Additionally, there are examples where a city and county have merged to form one jurisdiction (Louisville, KY; Indianapolis, IN; Nashville, TN; Kansas City, MO; and Lexington, KY). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 20 ------------------- ----~-------------- Executive Summary Joint-use facilities demand specific project design parameters which may not otberwise be necessary in non-shared space: · Common Interest: The degree to which parties will benefit lrern joiot-use space is directly related to commonality of interest of those partiest!f'6~~xample, in the case of shared warehouse space, parties intending to stor~t~~JLar'products will find a joint- use agreement more beneficial than parties intendfR"gn1;t~ ~tore dissimilar products, ~\8f ~ · Design: Special design consideration~.;€@ flhance the potential benefits of joint-use space, In the case of shared librar.i~s'b~iVJeen schools and the public, discrete entrances and security cqnsid~f~tb9n~ tan help facilitate the smooth interaction of the separate interests.. \ ~.. W "tt A . A ~ ~t ;( d f I' 't 'f' , , t t ' · rI en gre~men:i:1 lie nee or an exp ICI , case-specl IC JOin -use agreemen IS paramouQt)~~~~~ S'Qccess of any joint-use facility, The essential "who's", "when's" and "hO'Q:.~~flw\l'ifacilitY'S ~se .are absolute necessities and must be written down and agre~CJfupon by all parties Involved, COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 21 Executive Summary Joint-use facilities have historically displayed common implementation issues. to logistic and political issues, the following should be considered: · Dynamic Relationships: That the joint use parties have an a~icat)le relationship and share common interests today is no guarantee that UlE~~~~lne will be true tomorrow. Dynamic relationships can lead to a onc~ 'btr\~flCi~1 and feasible joint-use agreement becoming much less efficient, andJ:~~'effa-~e 'ftess beneficial. Regardless of careful planning, such changes in relatio~fi{f~elln be largely unpredictable. · Future Growth: The task of predi6t1n~1 planning for future growth can be further complicated by the need to c,~m'R~~ate for dynamic growth needs of multiple parties. , ~,,~~ · ContingenCieS:(Or.fE!$r mOre parties involved in a joint-use agreement may outgrow the availa~~e"\~aq~~llTe departure o~ on.e or more parties from joint-~se ~pace can lead to ar.t,I,r~€r~ase In cost (or reduction In revenue) for the other parties Involved. If no "a~~~~:Planned for, such events can have significant financial impacts. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 22 - .. - - -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------- Executive Summary I . According to the National Association of Counties many counties and c. ities ~v:\. developed the cost saving of a joint city county office building. Among them ""e1 Gainesville/Hall County, GA - Salt Lake City/Salt Lake County, UT City of Sumter/Sumter County, SC Wilmington City/New Castle County, DE Fo~ Wayn.e City/Allen county,........I..N tf~ Salina/Saline County, KS I"\~e\. Shreveport CitY/Bossi~ ~[~6'~;6; Pittsburgh City/ Allegheny Bounty, PA City of Modesto/~ili~~i~~us County, CA Sf\\. v Ci~ of lI!ta~~/Dane County, WI COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 23 Executive Summary Modesto Stanislaus (50%) (50%) IN Fort Wayne Allen 210,000 9 1971 Active No Yes County (') N/A No No (43%) (57%) KS Salina Saline N/A 3 1967 Active No Yes Equal Joint Yes Yes (35%) (65%) PA Pittsburgh Alle9heny 500,000 9 1929 Active Yes No Equal Joint (6) Yes No (55%) (45%) WI Madison Dane 463,000 7 1957 Active Yes Yes County(,) Joint Yes Yes (40%) (60%) GA Gainesville Hall 31,000 1977 Active No Yes Equal (10) Joint (11) Yes No (50%) (50%) NC Charlotte Mecklenburg 390,000 14 1986 Active Yes No City Joint Yes No (70%) (30%) DE Wilmington New Castle N/A 9 1977 Active No Yes County Joint Yes Yes (70%) (30%) LA Shreveport Caddo Parish 147,400 8 2000 Active Yes Yes City Joint N/A No (75%) 25% I sIzes and occupancy rates approximate (1) According to the city, the county originally established itself as the lead party, which was against the ~spiril~ of the partnership. However, -18 months into the arrangement the parties settled into their roles as equals, each subordinate to the established Joint Powers Agency. (2) Today, the project woos very well. However. the first 18 . 24 months posed a very difficult transition. especially following the nine-year process involved in planning and executing the project. (3) Positive about future, similar partnerships, though hesitant. Specified that if, and only it, they could take all knowledge from the former process would they consider going the arduous task again, (4) The county made it clear that as opposed to a joint-use agreement, the county owns the building and the c~y leases space in a standard LUTT relationship. (5) Although the facility has worked well for many years, the entities are now outgrowing their space and it is becoming more difficult to please all those involved. (6) Due to the age of the facility, much is unknown about the conception of the project. The city assumed that the project was developed jointly. (7) Because the building is so old, deferred maintenance is a real issue. When money for cap~al renovations is needed, it is rare that both entities will have sufficient funds for the improvements. Otherwise, benefits from shared overhead are nominal at best. (8) Although the arrangement works reasonable well, it is unlikely such a partnership would be considered today because the administrative functions of each entity has greatly diverged over time. (9) The county asserted that the parties were equals in the arrangement. However, the city firmly felt, because the county is responsible for the maintenance and administration of the building, that the county was the lead party. The city views the arrangement as essentially LUTT. (10) Generally equal although most charges are billed directly to the city and billed back, proportionately, to the county. (11) Due to the age of the facility, much is unknown about the conception of the project. The county assumed that the project was developed jointly. (12) Although there would be willingness to partner again, the county asserted that it would only be viable if joint funding were available and that the approval of joint funding would most likely be difficult in the current political climate. UGL Equis conducte~Jt:Phl~:rviews with both city and county officials, when available, in locations where it was known a~it~ll~~ounties share a joint-use facility. In addition bj~c ve, quantitative data, subjective, qualitative data was gathered pertaining to each shared facility. · For the purpose of the matrix [above], qualitative data was subjectively, though consistently, translated into quantitative values based on the responses of the interviewees. COCFS Study- Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 24 - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . To perform a feasibility study to evaluate the potential for a joint governm,e~~enter h~using various govern~enta~ ad~inistrati,ve functions for both Pinrlla~~~ur:yx.and the City of Clearwater and, If feasible, Integration of an expanded PST0ra.slt'faclhty, The PSTA evaluation is a "sub-evaluation" of the joint us-e Cl1;1~~S' giving the Study constitu~nts t,he option to ~eter~ine whether to ~~,f.&~~1 with a jo.int government center with/without a transit facIlity compone t, {Das~~;.u~on cost, functional and/or operational considerations. .... (2\ ~ The scope of the study comprises ~a.~tl'.l~ion of the technical and operational feasibility, financial impact,~~ctib~~I'~nd developmental suitability, physical con~t:uctability, an~ devild~,~e~~~o"st of a joint us~ governme~t center, to enable a decIsion process O~~ldvlsablhty of further pursuit of the project. . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 26 ~~------~--~------- I I .1 I I 'I I I I I ,I I I I I II I I I Develop Analysis > ,,' - - - - - - - - - - - I . .. ..I _ _ _ _ . A I I Perform Research Determine Options COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 28 .. - -.. - - - - -... - - _. " __~ - - - - I ------~--~--------- . Develop profiles of the base case requirements for a "dedicated" City/CoLlnty,lPST A facility including an assessment of space needs, functional reqUirements~a1i~d\. potential shared use components. ~\ l Identify the potential construction and operating costs fO&e~~'se case for comparison to a joint use facility. ~y I Sum the total construction and operating costs ~~~f three dedicated facilities for comparison to a joint use facility. .' \'i~\ \\ Define the spaces that can be sli1am~~termine the efficiency savings of a joint use facility and define any efficienci~~..\!~t might be realized in operational costs. Develop a profile df~a~ts~~~~~oint use facility that includes the critical features of each dedicatea~aJilitY\While comprising certain shared features that could reduce the overall fac.i!if ~<fpbtprint". projeG~\ construction and operating costs for the joint use facility. Compare the alternative joint facility costs to the dedicated facility costs. Profile other joint use facilities developed and operated by interjurisdictional arrangement to understand the potential opportunities and issues. . . . . . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 29 Methodology and Approach - Research Scope I Equis. Research Approach and Scope: · Interviewed the City departments within scope: l' ": - Validated current headcount and growth as provided for in..ttae HlDR study ("Conceptual Program for A New City Hall" April 2005) - Appl!ed newly adopted County space standard~t~l~)h County and City reqUirements. \. ~ - Defined potential "shared" aUXiliaryf~0n use spaces for consideration. · Referenced the County data pr0v.i@'~)~eVious Equis "Real Estate Financial Consulting and concePtua~ampa!s-"Planning Services" (February 2006): - County confirm:e!3l .t<!ope~;~'~ternative 2", departments to be included within a new bUilding;.f.f .... , · Includ(3d,acdtlltlonal departments, provided by the County, currently located In the 315 Court~ilsin~~ ~Board of C~unty Commissioners, County Administrator, County Attorne~ and Communications (Assembly control room only). y · Extracted common use data provided in the previous Heery study "Countywide Government Space Needs Assessment" (April 2004). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 30 ~M____~__~~_-______ .. - .- -- - - ~.. - - - - .. - - - -, - The scope of the COCFS analysis includes the following current spaces: Ci De artments/Divisions City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk Economic Development Human Resources/Equity Services Public Communications Community Redevelopment Agency Ci Clearwater Clearwater Clearwater Clearwater Clearwater Clearwater Clearwater Clearwater t '. Owned/ Space Leased T e Owned Office Owned ,Office 33756 Owned "pffi~e 33756 O~~iq~" 'o.ffic~ 33756 Owned Office 3V5.6 ~q~n~~. Office \3~79q q~nea Office ~37561!. Owned Office \\V Coun De artments/Divisions Community Development Planning Unified Personnel Systems - Testing & Training Board of County Commissioners Communications - BCC Control Room County Administrator County Attorney Culture, Education, & Liesure Property Appraiser Supervisor of Elections Tax Collector ..... ~ General Services - Administratlo General Services - F~itYJi~~~~gement ~ PSTA: Y 87,120 SF (land) /2.0 acres - extrapolated from Central Plaza project based on interviews with PST A staff. Suildin Location/Address 112 Osceola Ave - City Hall 112 Osceola Ave - City Hall 112 Osceola Ave - City Hall 112 Osceola Ave - City Hall 112 Osceola Ave - City Hall 100 S. Myrtle Ave/112 Osceola Ave 100 S. Myrtle Ave - MSB 112 Osceola Ave - City Hall -" Suildin Location/Address Ci 600 Cleveland St, 8th Fl~\l. \}.Clea-rWater 600 Cleveland, 7th &'9th" Fir ~ ,. . Clearwater 1704 Clearwater-kalgt R;ad1 Clearwater ,,~ ..ofI'ltl-lrr ~ ~ ~ 315 CourtSt,.5th Fi,lr\. V Clearwater 315 Court St~5th"\FI;J Clearwater ,31~~trt S~t~Flr Clearwater ~~1~ P9~rt St, 6th Fir Clearwater 2.?,J"Chestnut St Clearwater 315 Court St, 2nd Fir Clearwater 315 Court St, 1st Fir Clearwater 315 Court St, 3rd Fir Clearwater 201 Rogers St Clearwater 510 Bay Ave Clearwater Zi Code 33755 33755 33770 33756 33756 33756 33756 33756 33756 33756 33756 33756 33756 Owned/ Leased Leased Leased Leased Owned Owned Owned Owned Owned Owned Owned Owned Owned Owned Space T e Office Office Other Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Office Current Gross SF \\.J j N/A '''''"/ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Current Gross SF 9,150 15,007 4,205 10,105 2,166 5,810 12,945 6,132 20,313 7,746 19,471 5,814 4,480 .-\~, Current HC 5 10 13 11 11 19 14 4 Current HC 34 52 N/A 16 N/A 14 64 27 103 8 66 12 3 2020 HC 5 10 13 11 11 19 14 4 2020 HC 36 54 N/A 16 N/A 16 72 33 103 8 81 15 3 2020 SF 5,520 4,685 6,248 4,257 4,523 10,848 6,271 926 2020 SF 10,175 14,585 3,446 10,400 2,769 5,508 17,229 7,775 21,515 3,031 14,191 5,062 1,138 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 31 I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----------~--~----- . New project timeline assumes project approval in 2007, design beginning 1/1/08 (12 months) and construction (24 months) beginning 1/1/2009.' All required capital and operating costs are cash funded and all reCe perating, repairs and maintenance, and capital maintenance cost~a~~~~fundkd. Spa~e with the potential to be. shared is te~med "A~*iliat;~etomm.on space, and consists of conference I meeting rooms, kltche~e~~py rooms, file storage, etc. Non-financial operational considerationsAa~~0t~uded in the projections. t)\\r~ Financial feasibility is determinel:!.Q1~e..30 year projected cash flows discounted at a 4.50/0 cost of capital to deri~r~tQ~i8r.es~nt value of future costs. This is the mid-point between the City's (4.25?lo)'aA~"ttie County's (4.750/0) costs of capital. M. .t I · !\tfi\'\f\ ,., d . t d f 'I.t I.f I t' Inor capl a ~xHen~e~,1 or repairs an main enance an aC11 y I ecyc e preserva Ion are ~ctl(~~ $5.00/RSF (in 2008 dollars) every 10-years. Rentable~o l!Jsable Loss Factor is 850/0. \# . . . . . . . Gross to Rentable Loss Factor is 850/0. . Internal Circulation Factor is 350/0. . A 10010 Growth Factor is applied to the City Space Program for 2020. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 33 . The specific sites referenced in the analysis are sites numbered 1 - 4, as.su~plied by the City, County and PST A during the interview process. The cash flow projections do not incorporate the acquisition or dispG~itJ ' associated demolition or relocation costs of sites that ar~ vac~. '10::::1 The analysis incorporates no land costs. ,~ Relative to the specific sites included in theana~~~ .~ - Vacant land identified as County o~~[[~'iassumed to be donated to the project at no cost.\\" ' - No City owned land was~~fi~d as a potential site. - Land. currentIY;<?W{lt!2 );occuPied by a private sector third party would have to be acq u Ired ~t~~a~~rates. - AG9UisltibllJ.~f'County land currently occupied by other County tenants - e.g. tDtiliiie,s1H~i1ding, will require ancillary disposition and relocation activities, with a~s'0~iated costs and reimbursements. 'VfY - Acquisition of land identified as PST A owned will require reimbursement of Federal funds as necessary. . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 34 ------~---~~-~----- -~--~-------------- · The ~stim~te of c~nstruction c~sts u~ed for t~!S Study. wer~\~erived from Int~rvlews with selec:ted ~Ir~s with. ~peclflc exper,I~Q~~~~ developmg and constructmg similar facIlities. They In~a:e~. ~ Equis Client projects throughout the US ~~t~f.1e Southeast; and A number of local experts in the~e !g~and Construction business in Florida and the clearwat'\\t~~. "They include: - Bovis Lend Leas~;~ e~ ,;\\ - Creative Contr:actors, Inc.; A ~l ~. - Baker ~a~~~rcnitects; - O~S~o~th; \(~... .\~I'>(,Il!.t>\Gandella DMJM; and, \9~lIiers Arnold. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 35 . Citv/ County Governmental Center Assumptions for development of baseline costs " - Costs are based on a 200,000 GSF multi-level Class B+ to A- officA1 \II' f - Costs include 50/0 Contingency and 60/0 escalation to base year V - Costs are based on year 2008 estimates. . Escalation of 60/0 will be applied in years beyond 2~8J~ Site acqui.sition and investigatio~ costs are.~6~~eCli. . - Construction costs assume Flonda Sta,te ~~,I!dll'1~6oCle for Clearwater area, which accom~odates ~ ,Cat,ego,ry,3 storm ~~~~~g;;fj~O,I\JIPH). , - LEED Silver certification IS InC",I, ude, t,.rlm'COS~Slimates at a 5% premium, ~ &:\\ ,,\;~ . . ~I ~"('\'t ~ ' BUilding Cost Range (2~08~\(;)ollars) - Core & Shell ~ ,\ $110 - $1501 SF (includes site development) - Design 1 A&~ $ 5 - $ 9/SF Fit Up l\\. $ 50 - $ 751 SF 1!l6~&?1 ~\ $ 15 - $ 20/SF co~~i~bency & Escalation $ 8 - $ 16/SF - ToiAL COST RANGE $188 - $270/SF - MID- RANGE COST $229 ISF . . $37.60 m - $54.00 m $45.80 m COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 36 10 - Oct - 07 ------------------- - - - - - - -- - - - - .. Project Assumptions - Storm Specifications for Construction . Wind-bome Debris Region .. Oeslgnalod area _ Area! wrthirt 1 mile 0' tho C0801 M" _ 1500 feelo' the 001lS~1 .......n high water line Basic Wind Spood . Valuaa are nominal d..lgn. :kecond gUSI. Mnd spee<lS In rn4.. ,*!lOur (mplI) at JJ IMI (10 m) _ ground for Exposure C Calegoty, . Thl. map Is 8CCUfllla 10 lhe coonty local gO\'ornm<>ntll es_ apedfic wind speed'wlnd-bome debrIS line. \lIIIIg Il/lytital ~dmalh sutl\ U major road.. canals. riwra. and shorelines. . Island. and 00..181 area. oulllldeth. I.st conleur """" use the last wi~ contour 01 tho coastal area, COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a (1'" .......~...t? " . c:> 10 - Oct - 07 .. - - - - - I Equis. Page 37 . City/ County Governmental Center- Parking Structure Assumptions for development of baseline costs - Parking Deck will be concrete construction (cast-in-place or pre-cast):". - Deck will not exceed 6 stories. '(' Approximately 5 spaces per 1,000 SF ratio ba~~q Up,€it\lJli1: use and Assembly rooms. - Building size of 200,000 GSF. ~ Number of parking spaces is approXimat~~y~~o ased on the above. - Costs include soft costs (design), 5i(0~~li~b~ncy and 60/0 escalation to base year. C b d 2008 .tto, ~t" " \\ - osts are ase on estlma es~ ~"" Parking Dec~c~s'~1tnge (2008 Dollars) -- .. :\\~ :;~~ - TOTAL CO~J~RANGE $10,800 - $22,000/ space .. 1fI.\\:\ \ "",.iI' MID ~'QE COST $16,4001 space . . $10.80 m - $22.00 m $16.40 m COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 38 10 - Oct - 07 ----~-------------- ------------~------ Project Assumptions - Application of Space Standards Space Standards Office Applicable Positions * Office A Office B Office C Office D Executive Office - Elected Official, etc. Senior Staff Office - Department Director, etc. Staff Office - Asst. Dept. Director, Division Manager, etc. Staff Office - Asst. Division Director, Section Manager, etc. Senior Staff Workstation - Sr. Staff professional'~OR~~tc. \) · High Panel Workstation - Sr. Admin. person~,)~ I ~ ~ 1'0'\\\ ~,. Low Panel Workstation - secre.tary,~.[fiFe'Admin support, etc. ~\ ~\ '"" V:V Small Workstation - Clerk, 'TecQ~ician,\etc. '. .~~ Wks I Small wor~tation'~~hni~, Intern, etc. * Note: Refer to appendix for{f)rth~')~);/Jjble positions details t~~ \\ ~*, · The table abov~f$Ummarizes the workspace types of use - the projected users and space needs 'd t'f' -:.J~ ""/~rtJ'Af~t~~. t d I en Ile\.lia~ pa -0 ~ IllS S U y. ~~~~. . The samE\rspace standards were applied to all user groups for both City and County headcount data. Workstations WksE WksF WksG WksH COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 I Equis. Dimensions Area-i'1 3J~S~ '\ ~ . 240 SF 20' X 15' 120 SF 10' X 10' 100 SF 8' X 10' 80 SF 8' x 10' 80 SF 8' x 7' 56 SF 5' X 5' 25 SF Page 39 Project Assumptions - Operating Costs Current vs. Modeled I Equis. · Financial model assumes same costs are applied across all scenarios. Provides for true comparison of costs. Assumes same costs for City and County in Joint Use facility. Accommodates for variances between current City and County operating GO ts. Average total of Net costs is $8.59/RSF - used for all scenarios.. Joint Use Cost Assumptions Contract Services $ 1.39 pRSF Insurance $ 1.55 pRSF Communications $ - Security $ 0.43 pRSF R&M $ 1.73 pRSF Utilities $ 2.21 pRSF Cap Ex $ 5.00 @ 10-Yr intervals Deferred Maintenance $ - PILOT $ - WACC 4.50% FF&E $ - Incl. in Const Costs TI ~$ - Incl. in Const Costs Move Costs $ 1.61 pRSF Personal (onsite) Svcs $ 1.28 pRSF 0 Parking 533 FTE Parking 316 Visitor Parking 17 Service Ratio 5.24 per 1,000 Total 866 County Current Costs Contract Services Insurance Communications Security R&M Utilities Cap Ex Deferred Maintenance PILOT WACC FF&E TI Move Costs Personal (onsite) Svcs Parking Parking Parking Ratio Total City Current Costs Contract Services $ 2.72 pRSF Insurance $ 1.55 pRSF Communications $ - Security $ - R&M $ 1.20 pRSF Utilities $ 7.53 pRSF Cap Ex $ - Deferred Maintenance $ - PILOT $ - WACC 4.25% FF&E $ - TI ~l".:_ Move Costs $ 1.02 pRSF Personal (onsite) Svcs $ 1.91 pRSF Parking 96 FTE Parking 99 Visitor Parking 3 Service Ratio 4.40 per 1,000 Total 190 $ 1.58 $ 1.55 $ 0.02 $ - $ 0.61 $ 2.62 $ - $ - $ - 4.75% $ - -$" - ',' ~~,,-, $ 1.63 $ 2.69 pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF 437 FTE 217 Visitor 14 Service 4.97 per 1,000 668 Total Cost I RSF $ 8.59 Costs based on BOMA estimates for Tampa area. Total Cost I RSF $ 9.07 Costs based on previous Equis TCO analysis. Total Cost I RSF $ 14.92 Costs based on data provided by City. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a - - - - .. - - - - 10 - Oct - 07 - - - - - - - Page 40 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. Project Assumptions - Development and Operating Cost Profile - The financial model was developed using the following variables. Sources and definitions for data are contained in the Appendix. General Assumptions Inflation: Term (years): Rate (PV, Debt): U > R Loss Factor: R > G Loss Factor: Analysis Start Date: Move Costs I $ Construction Costs Construction Costs Construction Costs Parking Costs Parking Costs Parking Costs Parking GSF Collocated Building Program Usable Sq Fl: Rentable Sq Fl: Gross Sq Fl: U Shared: R Shared: Gross Savings: Circulation: FTE: Parking: Ratio: USF 1 FTE RSF 1 FTE GSF 1 FTE Garage Size: 2.50% 30 4.50% 15% 15% 1/1/2008 County Building Program Usable Sq Fl: Rentable Sq Fl: Gross Sq Fl: Year 2020 FTE: Circulation: Garage Size: 500.00 I pFTE City Building Program Usable Sq Fl: Rentable Sq Fl: Gross Sq Fl: Year 2020 FTE: Circulation: Garage Size: Low.Point pGSF Mid-Point pGSF High.Point pGSF $ 30.86 $ 46.86 $ 62.86 350 Low.Point pGSF Mid.Point pGSF High.Point pGSF GSF/Stall 143,589 165,128 189,897 16,513 18,990 21,839 35% 533 866 5.24 County Cost Assumptions Contract Services $ Insurance $ Communications $ Security $ R&M $ Utilities $ Cap Ex $ Deferred Maintenance $ PILOT $ (City + County. Shared) (City + County. Shared) (City + County. Shared) Year 2020 City + County per 1,000 269.40 309.81 356.28 FF&E $ TI.$. Move Costs $ Personal (onsite) Services $ 303,100 GSF Parking Parking Parking Ratio Total Note: Cells in WHITE are calculated. YELLOW cells are inp"uts. Total Cost 1 RSF S COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 116,825 134,348 154,501 437 35% 233,800 43,278 49,770 57,235 96 35% 69,300 - - - - - - I Equis. GSF SF 1 FTE 450.81 518.43 596.20 GSF 1.39 pRSF 1.55 Estimate Estimate 0.43 1.73 pRSF 2.21 pRSF 5.00 @ 10. Yr intervals 4.50% Included in Construction Costs ...' . Included in Construction Costs 1.63 pRSF 1.28 pRSF 437 FTE 217 Visitor 14 Service 4.97 per 1,000 668 8.59 Page 41 ,F Project Assumptions - Development and Operating Cost Profile Cont'd I Equis, · The financial model was developed using the following variables. Sources a nd definitions for data are contained in the Appendix. -.A\" Dedicated PSTA Central Plaza Integrated PST A Central Plaza 1.1 Acres 1.1 Acres 47,916 SF 47,916 SF $ 1,750,000 cost (not including land) $ 1,750,000 cost (not including land) $ 36.52 pSF Cost (2002) $ 36.52 pSF Cost (2002) Synergy discount Est. Op Ex - 30% Est. Op Ex Security $ 1.67 Actual Security $ 1.17 Calculated @ discount Water $ 1.10 Estimated Water $ 0.77 Calculated @ discount Electricity $ 1.83 Estimated Electricity $ 1.28 Calculated @ discount R&M $ 1.46 Estimated R&M $ 1.02 Calculated @ discount Dedicated PSTA Integrated PSTA 2.0 Acres 2.0 Acres 87,120 SF 87,120 SF $ 41.32 pSF Cost esc to 2007 - - 50% $ 112.19 Structured parking costs + (Based on Central Plaza costs) additional costs for PST A infrastructure items City Cost Assumptions Joint Use Cost Assumptions Contract Services $ 1.39 pRSF Contract Services $ 1.39 pRSF Insurance $ 1.55 pRSF Insurance $ 1.55 pRSF Communications $ - Communications pRSF Security $ 0.43 Security $ 0.43 pRSF R&M $ 1.73 pRSF R&M $ 1.73 Utilities $ 2.21 pRSF Utilities $ 2.21 Cap Ex $ 5.00 @ 10-Yr intervals Cap Ex $ 5.00 @ 10-Yr intervals Deferred Maintenance $ - Deferred Maintenance PILOT $ - f'ILOI WACC 4.50% WACC 4.50% FF&E $ - Included in Construction Costs FF&E Included in Construction Costs Tl -$. .^~",._" - Included in Construction Costs TI .. -~,. ._'._;'-n~' Included in Construction Costs h"'_~' Move Costs $ 0.96 pRSF Move Costs $ 1.61 pRSF Personal (onsite) Services $ 1.28 pRSF Personal (onsite) Services $ 1.28 pRSF Parking 96 FIE Parking 533 FIE Parking 99 Visitor Parking 316 Visitor Parking 3 Service Parking 17 Service Ratio 3.98 per 1,000 Ratio 5.24 per 1,000 Total 198 Total 866 "j;otal Cost I RSF $ 8.59 Total Cost I RSF $ 8.59 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 42 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----~-------~------ Project Assumptions - Scenarios and Models for Analysis I Equis. . Baseline Information: Analytical foundation of each stakeholder's costs for ' ilding a dedicated facility for their own use. ..... ~l - City Base Case: Stand-alone (Dedicated) City facility based on~..~.rrE'lrv. G:i!y requirements. ., \\JI \\ - Cou~ty Base Case: Stand-alone (Dedicated) CountYJaGilit~t:)~sea on current County requirements. ~ " - PSTA Base Case: Stand-alone (Dedicated),-\e~m.~.ell'based on current PSTA requirements. ~ ,~~ 'Y Combined Base Case: Summation of all th~ee\ Baseline models above. Represents the combined baseline to which all fina. nci~. I.... of,1.<. tiorti'slare compared. Provides the analysis with comparative referential integrity. ~t\5)~ \\ "V -. City Base Case : ~ou~ty~~~~~~ase + ~STA Base Case (Dedicated). . JOint U.se: Propo~ed J~InJr~s~\'~~clhty InteQr~tlnQ the three stakeholder's requirements, and leveraging potential ~l3Itlh~a~on'and cost efficiencies. a) Joint Use,:t..Dear~~t~'d PSTA: Assumes Joint Use facility located adjacent to, but not integrate,d With, P'STA terminal. b) J0inh~KJ~I~teqrated PSTA: Assumes Joint Use facility fully integrated with PSTA teriminal~ Scena~i\;'Comparisons for Analysis: Baseline vs. Joint Use model variations a) and b) above. - Combined Base Case vs. Joint Use + Dedicated PST A. - Combined Base Case vs. Joint Use + Integrated PSTA. . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 43 10 - Oct - 07 I I I I' I I II I I I I I I I: I I I I I I I I ------------------- City of Clearwater Detailed Programming Report ~ I I Consensus Projection 2020 Staff QIy. Area - Sort .Group Personnel I Clra.llation Factor City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk 35% 5 5,520 10 4,685 13 6,248 11 4,257 11\ 19 10,8,8 11 ~~ ..~ ~4'523 n~ 14 1,271 926 . 35% 35% 35% Human Resources/Equity Services 35% Economic Development Public Communications 35% 35% Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) ~tt """" .A tf]~...\\ """,Total Staff ~'" ~ rt...J ~'~'a . Total Usable Square Feet .,;n~ OVerall Utilization (USF I Staff) V 96 43,278 15% I 450.8 6.4921 49,770 . 518.4 Rentable Factor. Multiplier r Total Rentable Square Feet OVerall Utilization (RSF I Staff) Gross Building Factor - Multiplier I Total Building Gross Square Feet ,,~ I "~'I 57,235 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 . The City Hall was constru9~~1964. with 3 fioors. and is a tota({f)f<<~~~' Currently 7 Ci.t~epaftments are located in, and fully occup'~iie'City Hall. Each of the departm~rft~ ate'i'ocated within their own suite. ~\\ \\~ Q~current design of City Hall does not allow for \~timal efficiency of space utilization, and creates redundant common use support spaces (i.e. conference rooms, copy areas, file areas, break areas, etc.). Also in scope are 2 City departments located in the Municipal Services Building (MSB) - a total of 9 City departments are included within the COCF:S study scope. The ~anticiPates very little growth through the year 2020. . . . The total City's 2020 programmatic requirements are 96 staff and 49,770 RSF. Overall space utilization: 518 RSF/FTE. Page 45 : ~:: :::: ~~; :: :::~: ::: ~: ~~~ ,I' :: 14 2,156 ~ ' l' )' ~ 462 4 711 ~ (5\\\ 92 N/A t.,t:= \'~ <.J A ",' ." \'; \~ Total Staff ~ ~... ~ Total Commom Space Type Usable Square Feet Overall Utilization (USF I Staff) ~"1.. .' .:i' , ",. , · The CitY'S~[l~I~!b; space needs for auxiliary space indicates a high need for conference/interactive spaces and dedicated ~P!ioii~ Areas for 5 of the 9 departments. · Any departrri'Emt specific use space (i.e. conference, training, secured files, etc.) is protected within the "Dedicated" column. All other common use spaces are viewed as a potential shared use space. · The City's common space a total of 26,108 USF - 60% of the overall 43,278 USF space needs. · Overall utilization of common use space is 272 USF/FTE. City of Clearwater Detailed Programming Report Sort . i :Group Personnel I Crculatlon Factor City Council 35.0% City Manager 35.0% City Attorney 35.0% City Cieri< 35.0% Human Resources/Equity Services 35.0% Economic Development 35.0% Public Communications 35.0% Community Redevelopment Agency (C 35.0% Public Comm. TV Studio 35.0% COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a - .. - - - - _\~\ ~ 111\\ "" 2020 OffIce Space 892 Conference/Interactive Space - General Support - Storage 2020 He 2020 U OYmbers Conference Training Supply Ubrary Dedicated SF SF 5 1,320 3,692 508 1,069 354 308 1,223 123 462 1,323 369 1,231 246 123 6731 4431 4808 1785 1431 1.4311 308 ~I 6615 6.615 1 1 68.9 3 15.969 I 166.3 9 I 96. .17 170 ~. 1 17.170 I 178.9 1.78511 18.6 14.9 3.2 10 - Oct - 07 - - - - - - - - - - - ., 5,520 4,685 6,248 4,257 10,848 4,523 3,233 926 3,038 "3 278 43.278 1 450.8 Page 46 - - ------------------- Building Name: I --------,-l,,.:;;:~}.n]fr,.:,-~ --- - - -- - - '~cl):/ "_ wJ.:J t___________ . .. .... - ,-- ..~ ---. .- -- . . .- - -- . -" -- Cost Element Name Low Mid High L - Cost I M - Cost I H - Cost! SFT SFT SFT - -- - - ------------. - Design/Construction Costs Estimate $ 10,760,171 $ 13,106,804 $ 15,453,437 $ 188.00 $ 229.00 $ 270.00 Core & Shell $ 6,295,845 $ 7,440,544 $ 8,585,243 $ 110.00 $ 130.00 $ 150.00 Fit up $ 2,861,748 $ 3,577,184 $ 4,292,621 $ 50.00 $ 62.50 $ 75.00 FF&E liT $ 858,524 $ 1,001,612 $ 1,144,699 $ 15.00 $ 17.50 $ 20.00 Land Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Design I Architectural $ 286,175 $ 400,645 $ 515,115 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 9.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Contingency on Additional Project Costs $ 457,880 $ 686,819 $ 915,759 $ 8.00 $ 12.00 $ 16.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Parking $ 2,138,400 $ 3,247,200 $ 4,356,000 $ 10,800 $ 16,400 $ 22,000 Building Construction Budget $ 12,898,571 $ 13,106,804 $ 15,453,437 $ 188.00 $ 229.00 $ 270.00 Building + Parking Budget $ 15,036,971 $ 16,354,004 $ 19,809,437 $ 262.72 $ 285.73 $ 346.11 Bldg. GSF = 57,235 Bldg. RSF = 49,770 Bldg. USF = 43,278 Parking Spaces = 198 Construction Time Line: 1-Jan-08 Start Date Design 12 Months Construction 24 Months Move-in 2 Months · Constru~~~ costs for the City building and associated parking structure are estimated at Low, Mid and High points. · 2008 mid-point costs of $229/G8F for building, and $16,400/8tall for parking structure were used in the analysis, and escalated to 2009/2010 levels by 6.00%. · Total building size estimated to be -55,000 G8F. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 47 City Facility Costs USF 43,278 RSF 49,770 GSF 57,235 .. FTE 96 Costs $ I R,,~fil ~ Op Ex Costs $10,450.568, /1\'" ~" " Other Net Costs $3,479~7:;, ~ ~.~ $2.33 Cap Ex $1 ,217,840\ ~ $0.82 ^~ ft" '\(, R&M Costs \ ~...$3.,5221AB9 $2.36 Relo cos~ """ ~ . ''{\~~:-1 $0.03 pa:i~ ~~tG\i $3,442,032 $2.31 Constructloneosts $13,869,173 $9.29 ~""'t ~ 10" .. T tal Costs PV @ 4.5% $36,033,486 $24,279,461 $24.13 $16.26 . Note: All costs represent the total costs for the base case scenario with the costs averaged over the 30 year period. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 48 ----------------~-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Pinel/as County Detailed Programming Report ill SOft Group Penonnel I CrculatJon ,octo< Community Development 35.0% 36 10,175 Planning 35.0% 54 14,585 0 Unified Personnel - Training 35.0% N/A 3,446 Board of County Commissioners 35.0% 16 10,400 Communications (BCC Control Room) 35.0% N/A 2,769 County Administration 35.0% 16 County Attorney 35.0% 72 Culture, Education, & Liesure 35.0% 33 General Services - Admln./Lease Mgmt General Services - Facility Mgmt 0 Property Appraiser 21,515 5upervlsor of Elections 3,031 Tax Collector 14,191 0 ... ~l ~\TO~(~"\ \\ .. 437 , ...i ~ ~'l;",.6,' Total Usablo Squa.. Foot 118,825 0 n~' 267.3 150/0 I 17,524/ Total Rontable Sque.. Foot 134,348 .r#" Overall Utilization (RsF,/'StlIlf) 307.4 y Gross Building Factor. Multiplier 15% I 20,1521 tTotal Building Gross Squaro Feet 154,501 o Currently 7 County dep.artrj)~~re located in .. <1'1''''' 'I;l~~"" "otl$ 315 Court bUilding (~ounty\ ~ourt.DbUse). Each of the departme:N'r~teo within their own suite. The 6the~'ep.a'rtments within scope are located in~~a~~~~,!g.ne"buildingS or leased spaces in a ItIDJnant buildings. There is a redundancy of common use support spaces throughout the County. The County anticipates very little growth through the year 2020 - a total of 38 staff. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 - - - - - - - - - - - The total County's 2020 programmatic requirements are 437 staff and 134,348 RSF. Overall space utilization: 307 RSF/FTE. Page 50 - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pinellas County Detailed Programming Report U.....ay-G1 Conferencennteracllve Space - General Support -- m!!I ,I~,\;'ljla!!,t \:""," 431~ -ZL!M. - ,"ll.1I<iI\'/'" Tollll Commom 5pa~ T:=~,,"',"bI', $cIulf. foe, t, .' 1P C!Mill c::::::::!Jill1 2.477 I ~ I 9,514 I f OVerall UtIlization (U5f I Stall)," ' 42.9 15.4 5.7 17.3 2.4 The count~la~d alone 2020 space needs for auxiliary space indicates a high need for conference/interactive spaces. Any department specific use space (i.e. conference, training, secured files, etc.) is protected within the "Dedicated" column. All other common use spaces are viewed as a potential shared use space. The County's common space a total of 45,040 USF - 39% of the overall 116,825 USF space needs. Overall utilization of common use space is 103 USF/FTE. r-, I Sort I Group Penonnel Community Development Planning Unified Personnel - Training Board of County Commlsslone", Communications (BCC Control Room) County Administration County Attorney Culture, Education, &. Llesure General Services. Admln./Lease Mgmt General Services - Facility Mgmt Property Appraiser Supervisor of Elections Tax Collector . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a e"",1otIon ,.- 2020 Office Space 2020 He 35.0% 36 35.0% 54 35.0% N/A 35.0% 16 35.0% N/A 35.0% 16 35.0% 72 35.0% 33 35.0% 15 35.0% 35.0% 103 35.0% ".. . ~ cth ~\~\ Storage 10,175 14,5B5 3,446 10,400 2,769 5,50B 17,229 7,775 5,062 l,13B 21,515 3,031 14,191 - 116.1125 2020 US eom...nce TrainIng Copy/Faxl Print Rec:eption/W.i 'no Bre.kroom/Cof Fi~" 1li:'~1y '1 "'Ubrllry Dedic:attd ~i .. . y"" Nr.: 462 462 2B3 277 462 1,385 , 277 323 2,769 lB5 154 369 769 154 615 738 308 538 123 538 369 115 831 154 385 462 1,231 1,877 769 462 1,231 369 Mailroom Cham.... SF SF 6,615 8,985 . 231 769 fv,ft 3,446 3 - ~5 ".\ ~~..~ > ~ ':~ c} ~"Ii, ~. ::;. · :: 9t".l1~ .l f!: 265 231 t~',~ ~~ 92 '"'1654 2 ",,' 1,385 615 2,477 3 5,415 692 3,538 3,785 12,622 5,083 2,289 523 462 615 185 231 185 1,000 692 462 3,538 11,315 3,908 462 3,662 3,731 9,514 2,400 1,446 2,477 17 2,588 11&.825 I 267.3 10 - Oct - 07 Page 51 Building Name: Cost Element Name Low Mid High L - Cost! M - Cost I H - Cost I SFT SFT SFT -- -- ------.~-~- Design/Construction Costs Estimate $ 29,046,104 $ 35,380,627 $ 41,715,150 $ 188.00 $ 229.00 $ 270.00 Core & Shell $ 16,995,061 $ 20,085,072 $ 23,175,083 $ 110.00 $ 130.00 $ 150.00 Fit up $ 7,725,028 $ 9,656,285 $ 11,587,542 $ 50.00 $ 62.50 $ 75.00 FF&E lIT $ 2,317,508 $ 2,703,760 $ 3,090,011 $ 15.00 $ 17.50 $ 20.00 Land Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Design I Architectural $ 772,503 $ 1,081,504 $ 1,390,505 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 9.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Contingency on Additional Project Costs $ 1,236,004 $ 1,854,007 $ 2,472,009 $ 8.00 $ 12.00 $ 16.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Parking $ 7,214,400 $ 10,955,200 $ 14,696,000 $ 10,800 $ 16,400 $ 22,000 Building Construction Budget $ 36,260,504 $ 35,380,627 $ 41,715,150 $ 188.00 $ 229.00 $ 270.00 Building + Parking Budget $ 43,474,904 $ 46,335,827 $ 56,411,150 $ 281.39 $ 299.91 $ 365.12 Bldg. GSF = 154,501 Bldg. RSF = 134,348 Bldg. USF = 116,825 Parking Spaces = 668 Construction Time Line: 1-Jan-08 Start Date Design 12 Months Construction 24 Months Move-in 2 Months · Construdtr!n costs for the County building and associated parking structure are estimated at Low, Mid and High points. . 2008 mid-point costs of $229/GSF for building, and $16,400/Stall for parking structure were used in the analysis, and escalated to 2009 / 2010 levels by 6.00%. · Total building size estimated to be -155,000 GSF. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 52 ------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The countMa~d alone 2020 space needs for auxiliary space indicates a high need for conference/interactive spaces. Any department specific use space (i.e. conference, training, secured files, etc.) is protected within the "Dedicated" column. All other common use spaces are viewed as a potential shared use space. The County's common space a total of 45,040 USF - 39% of the overall 116,825 USF space needs. Overall utilization of common use space is 103 USF/FTE. Pinel/as County Detailed Programming Report =--' I Sort Group P.....onnel . I! Community Development Planning Unified Personnel - Training Board of County Commissioners Communications (BCC Control Room) County Administration County Attorney Culture, Education, 8tUesure General Services - Admln./Lease Mgmt General Services - Facility Mgmt Property Appraiser Supervisor of Elections Tax Collector ... .,. \.A l~tal.~tat'\ '\ "" _ _~ UII 4' ~- Total Commom Space:rype Usable 5ciuare Feet _......IJ>.\i OVerall utilization (USF I Stall), ," . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 11"'."'" dl~tIl ...," 1 Ol'O.ltation 'octo< General Support -- 10,175 14,5B5 3,446 10,400 2,769 5,508 17,229 7,775 5,062 1,138 21,515 3,031 14,191 - '1i12S, Storage Conferencennteractfve Space - 'iilllm 2020 OffIce Space 2020 He 2020 0........ Confe,,,,,,, Tralnlnv Copy/,.., Mailroom Receptlon/w. "'~ ",'I \'" DedI",... PriM .... Fi~...,:;~ Ubf1Iry SF SF .... ,:11' 35.0% 36 6,615 1,385 615 462 462 283 35.0% 54 8,985 2,477 3 769 462 1,385 35.0% N/A 3,446 35.0% 16 5,415 3,538 692 277 323 35.0% N/A 2,769 35.0% 16 3,785 354 185 154 35.00/0 72 12,622 354 369 769 154 615 738 35.0% 33 5,083 308 308 538 123 538 35.0% 15 2,289 265 231 369 115 831 35.0% 3 523 92 154 35.0% 103 462 615 385 462 1,231 1,877 35.00/0 231 185 769 692 462 185 1,000 462 1,231 369 9,514 9.5141 I 2.4 2,477 3.731 2,400 1,446 2.477 I CMillI 5.7 17.3 2,588 462 3,662 c::::!Jill I 15.4 3,538 11,315 17 3,908 Qi;iliJ 42.9 11...25 ') 267.3 10-0ct-07 Page 51 Building Name: Low Mid High L - Cost I M - Cost I H . Cost I Cost Element Name SFT SFT SFT .---- - Design/Construction Costs Estimate $ 29,046,104 $ 35,380,627 $ 41,715,150 $ 188.00 $ 229.00 $ 270.00 Core & Shell $ 16,995,061 $ 20,085,072 $ 23,175,083 $ 110.00 $ 130.00 $ 150.00 Fit up $ 7,725,028 $ 9,656,285 $ 11,587,542 $ 50.00 $ 62.50 $ 75.00 FF&E liT $ 2,317,508 $ 2,703,760 $ 3,090,011 $ 15.00 $ 17.50 $ 20.00 Land Cost $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Design I Architectural $ 772,503 $ 1,081,504 $ 1,390,505 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 9.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Contingency on Additional Project Costs $ 1,236,004 $ 1,854,007 $ 2,472,009 $ 8.00 $ 12.00 $ 16.00 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Parking $ 7,214,400 $ 10,955,200 $ 14,696,000 $ 10,800 $ 16,400 $ 22,000 Building Construction Budget $ 36,260,504 $ 35,380,627 $ 41,715,150 $ 188.00 $ 229.00 $ 270.00 Building + Parking Budget $ 43,474,904 $ 46,335,827 $ 56,411,150 $ 281.39 $ 299.91 $ 365.12 Bldg. GSF = 154,501 Bldg. RSF = 134,348 Bldg. USF = 116,825 Parking Spaces = 668 Construction Time Line: 1..Jan-08 Start Date Design 12 Months Construction 24 Months Move-in 2 Months · Constru~tr8'n ~osts for the County building and associated parking structure are estimated at Low, Mid and High points. · 2008 mid-point costs of $229/GSF for building, and $16,400/Stall for parking structure were used in the analysis, and escalated to 2009 /2010 levels by 6.00%. · Total building size estimated to be -155,000 GSF. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 52 ------------------- ------------------- County Facility Costs USF 116,825 RSF 134,348 GSF 154,501 FTE 437 Costs Op Ex Costs Other Net Costs Cap Ex R&M Costs Relo Costs tf Parking st1:u~r, cor1s~c:!~tsts ~,,\ ~ v" V Total Costs PV @ 4.5% .. $1 ~~~\~ @:tJ"- $$00 $2.33 $0.82 $2.36 $0.06 $2.88 $9.29 $99,685,950 $67,700,205 $24.73 $16.80 Note: All costs represent the total costs for the base case scenario with the costs averaged over the 30 year period. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 53 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- . PST A requirements are based on interviews held to validate the PST A regui~ments for a new facility. The most recent PSTA facility - the Central Plaza Facilit ~ "?'~prises the following: ., - 1.1 acres (47,916 SF) ~ , - $1.75 million project cost / $36.52/SF (2002) 3..~~ - Accommodates 12 buses ~ ~ PST A staff indicated desire for a new site ~t\could accommodate 16 buses. This base case requires a dedicated site larq~'\.en~u~H'to accommodate the following: ~~~~ - Estimated 2.0 acres (8\~1~J;.j for stand-alone site. - $41.32/SF est~atJtprd~ct cost (2007) O . (!.~ t"\>> t d t b - ng:ngR\~a lAg cas s assume 0 e: ~:ljritY: $1.67/SF Utilities: $2.93/SF - R&M: $1.46/SF . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 55 PSTA Facility Costs USF NtA RSF Nt A GSF 87,120 (land) FTE Nt A Costs Op Ex Costs Other Net Costs Cap Ex R&M Costs Relo co~s fj Parking Stn~tu~ C. ~~u~~osts ~,( \\... ... .. Total Costs PV @ 4.5% Notes: $10,392,347 $5,938,484,,\ $0..00.."" \~; \.,.. ~"'\, ~~ ;$p~W'~'7 4 ~~oo $0.00 $4,010,335 $.3".98 $2.27 $0.00 $1.99 $0.00 $0.00 $1.53 $25,537,340 $13,705,112 $9.77 $5.24 · All costs represent the total costs for the base case scenario with the costs averaged over the 30 year period. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 56 ------------------- ------------------- Baseline Information II Combined Base Case (wI Dedicated PSTA) County Ave RSF City Ave RSF Dedicated PSTA Ave RSF Usable SF 116,825 43,278 Site Rentable SF 134,348 49,770 Requirements Gross SF 154,501 57,235 87,120 Land FTE 437 307.43 96 518.43 Op Ex Costs $ 28,210,360 $ 7.00 $ 10,450,568 $ 7.00 $ 10,392,347 $ 3.98 Other Net Costs $ 9,393,249 $ 2.33 $ 3,479,743 $ 2.33 $ 5,938,484 $ 2.27 Capital Expenditures $ 3,287,450 $ 0.82 $ 1,217,840 $ 0.82 $ - $ - R&M Costs $ 9,508,504 $ 2.36 $ 3,522,439 $ 2.36 $ 5,196,174 $ 1.99 Asset Impact Relocation Costs $ 235,301 $ 0.06 $ 51,691 $ 0.03 $ - $ - Parking Garage $ 11,612,512 $ 2.88 $ 3,442,032 $ 2.31 $ - $ - Construction Costs $ 37,438,574 $ 9.29 $ 13,869,173 $ 9.29 $ 4,010,335 $ 1.53 Total Cost $ 99,685,950 $ 24.73 $ 36,033,486 $ 24.13 $ 25,537,340 $ 9.77 PV $ 67,700,205 $ 16.80 $ 24,279,461 $ 16.26 $ 13,705,112 $ 5.24 Total Cost Less PSTA PV . Combined Base Ave RSF Case 160,102 184,118 211,736 533 345.44 $ 49,053,276 $ 8.88 $ 18,811,476 $ 3.41 $ 4,505,290 $ 0.82 $ 18,227,116 $ 3.30 $ 286,991 $ 0.05 $ 15,054,544 $ 2.73 $ 55,318,083 $ 10.01 $ 161,256,776 $ 29.19 $ 105,684,777 $ 19.13 $ 135,719,436 $ 24.57 $ 91,979,665 $ 16.65 The"sUrii~~~e dedicated facilities comprises 217,736 gross square feet and sufficient land to ~'w~Mt a 2.0 acre PST A facility on or near the site. The'7total costs for the sum of all of the facilities, including construction and lifecycle operating costs and repairs and maintenance costs, is $136 million in current dollars and $92 million in present value costs (constant dollars). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 57 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------------------- · Descriptive Approach to Sharing: Copy / Workrooms Breakroom / Pantry Storage 2. Potentially shared/Co-located: . Conference - IT closet~.\ Training Room Se~~eu;.,\~~I1J' TV I Broadcast m~(~~auction 3. General & Common: tf\1 ~ Washrooms 'fI ~~ ~ Reception / Lobby Amenities Mechanical l' ~ Security Cafe Another-Cn:lCi~~r:nponent of shared spaces within the COCFS is the analysis of a City & counf9.~~. ~~~e~~Council Chamber Space with integrated audio and video broadcast "... 4l'~' ".. capabilities. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 59 An?a or Function Conferencellnteractlve Areas Rm Qty ComblMd SF RatloSFIfTE AV.rIIge RmQty ComblMd SF RatIoSFIfTE AV.rIIglt .. .,.. '" .Iz. 3,692 3,538 1 1,923 2,077 21.6 692 9 7,269 16.6 808 2,169 22.6 434 4 1,569 3.6 392 185 1.9 185 3 554 1.3 185 4,431 46.2 16 9,392 21.5 4,808 50.1 2,385 5.5 1,785 18.6 2,588 5.9 462 1.1 0.0 3,662 8.4 1,431 14.9 2,477 5.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 308 3.2 3,038 31.7 I ----:- ~. - ~i7 Combined FacIlity Total Combined FacilIty Adjusted Requirements Qty 7,231 1 1,923 12 9,346 9 3,738 4 738 25 13823 7,192 . Comblrwd SF R.uo SFrFTE'.". \. ...... '. $IlYlngs ." 1, ~. 1 ::~~ ~~3'~ ! \ ~)1 10 7,000 '[13.1 I il ~2,346 6 '.. 2,250~ ,:4.2 1,488 7"",- :\ 1,295"" P 2.4 (557) 24 - 10545 19.8 .)... *;~~3'500 700 375 185 .. slz. Chambers Conference Extra Large Large Medium Small Sub Total Conf. Seats 26 - 50 16 -18 12 -14 4-6 Training 6.6 3,692 General Support Areas ~f3i~ '\ <tj , 2,625 5.0 1,747 .~ "" 462 . 462 ir - \ ~2~1 1,050 2.0 2,612 .. 3,908 1,838 3.5 2,070 3,731 5,250 10.0 (1,519) 2,400 2,625 5.0 (225) 1,754 1,050 2.0 704 ~ 2,288 750 - - _1,7,652_ - CopyfFaxlPrlnt Mailroom ReceptlonlWaltlng Area Rentable Factor. MulUpller ~m ~rL Food Service Coffee/Breakroom Storage Flies Suppty/Mlsc. Library TV Studio/Control Room Mls"!lliineoua LD"e~c.a,l!>d .-J Dock - Recvg .... ^., Area needSi.".CIUded"lr:'. ~n. R.e. "la. ble and GrosS~ ~. ~ \ ~ Building Fadors " .l "'iilI,'~ :'/(, ~ ~fI!-.\ ',L~U';l, 26,108 '\\. ~2.Q ... 3,916 Unaccounted Security IT Server Dlsl. Closet I Total Usable Square Feet Utilization (U8FlPer) 45,040 71,148 36,983 16,513 103.1 133.5 69.-' 31 6,756 10,672 5,547 2,477 51,796 81,820 42,530 18,990 118.5 153.5 79.8 3. 7,769 12,273 6,379 2,849 59,565 94,093 48,909 21,839 30,024 312.7 4,504 34,527 Shared space synergies in a Joint Use facility result in a net savings potential of 21 ,839 GSF. · This sharing based savings represents a 9% reduction in overall space requirements in a joint use facility. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------------- Base Case - Pinellas County 437 FTE 134,348 RSF D Base Case - City of Clearwater 96 FTE 49,770 RSF I Base Case - PST A 87,120 SF (2.0 acres) "~\\ \) ~.~ .. "Combined Stand Alone Facilities 533 FTE 184,118 RSF . Stand alone combined RSF Joint Use Facility 533 FTE 165,128 RSF . RSF savings of joint use COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 61 Meth~dology ., . . :!\.. t\ · JOint use of City / County council chambers was evaluated by comparing City and 'unly schedules for these rooms over a six month period. ~ 1 · All scheduled meetings (except as noted below) from February - July 200J taking place on a weekday at either City Hall, or main County facilities (e.g. 440 Court, 3;(~~ou'rt-.;etc.) were plotted and analyzed for conflicts. 'Q. ~ ~ "(II · Analysis only included City meetings taking place at C!!~~Hall.""'a~d,..: ertaining to regular City business. . ~ Assumptions ~ · Spa.ce and time permi~ting, both t~~ City an~t,~1:>~~ntywould prefer to schedule most regular buslnes~-related meetings ~t the JOIn.t.~it~CIJ!ty.~ . .. . · Non-business related meetlng\o....~ffi. e\~nts;or meetings that relate directly to an off site facility would continue to be held offsite. ,\\~ ,.... · The main council chaLPq~~Om\Will be larger than all the other conference rooms, and will be fitted with broadcast ~Chn~lbg~\for adherence to State Sunshine Laws. Analysis caveat~\. '\.. .. · SChed,UllngfdaproVlded did not speCify the number of people attending the meetings, the length of the m~1;iibg\ or Sunshine Law requirements for each meeting. Therefore, this analysis assumes all regula~~ii/I County business related meetings could be accommodated in the main council chambers (with access to broadcast technology), within the scheduling parameters available for analysis. · Additional conference room space (non-broadcast capable) will be available for scheduling smaller meetings and meetings not subject to broadcast requirements. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 62 ------------------- ------------------- Scheduled meetings available for analysis can be categorized into three main grou~" · Interdepartmental I Staff . ~ 1 - Can take place in non-council chamber (conference) rooms, · Public non-broadcast . ;~ - Space permitting, can take place in non-council Cbamai(~nferenCe) rooms. · Public broadcast ~ '" - Must take place in council chambers....t"\~ ..... - Consists of 4 County groups an~~itNlrouPs, · EvenNts b' I t d S ~ ~I ~1~ I 'tt' t k I "th 'I h b - on- uSlness re a e. pacell~cHeuu e perml lng, can a e p ace In el er councl c am ers or conference ro\~~ti;~ Off$it~. as required" - These we. rewat. ~lncluded In the analysIs, ~..~ ,\ ,,~ . ~\~ ~ COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 63 Conflicts analysis · Over a six month period, only 16 meeting conflicts were identified. · Of these 16 conflicts, only 6 appear to be regularly scheduled meetings. · These 6 meetings occur Tuesdays and Thursday at 9:00 AM County CitYA 14 , :\ ~. · Planning & Zoning Hearing (Thursdays @ 9:00 :!TI)~ ~enSion Advisory Committee (Thursdays @ 9:00 · Other Miscellaneous Meetings (Tuesday,s ~9.~~' am) am) \:...JI \ · Pension Trustees (Tuesdays @ 9:00 am) :t · N & A H A B (Tuesdays @ 9:00 am) Findings ~~ · With mino~re~ct:ie,duling efforts, all regularly scheduled business related meetings for both the Cityt~~9ft~~ounty coul~ be accommodated in !3 single joint use facility, containing a single broadcast capable council chamber, and an ancillary large or extra large conference room. · A joi6t"u~e facility may be able to accommodate more City and County meetings and events in a single location as compared to the state quo. Note: The scheduling analysis is an exercise to test the feasibility of sharing a hypothetical council chamber, and is presented for illustrative purposes only. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 64 ------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Joint Use Facility Scheduling - Conflicts D t D Time County I Equis@ . Pension VISO 0 . . Zonin Examiner's Hearln City 2 I . .. 9:00 AM Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board Special Master Hearings 9:00 AM CANCELLED-Board of Count Commissioner/School Board Joint Meetin 1 :00 PM CANCELLED-Board of County Commissioners Work Session 1 :30 PM CANCELLED-Board of County Commissioners Work Session I .. ,1,. :.... 13-Feb 13-Feb 13-Feb 13-Feb - .. . . . . . .. . . ...... . Tuesday Tuesday Community Redevelopment Agency Community Redevelopment Agency City Council Work Session Pension Trustees 3 4 5 6 22-Feb Tuesday 6:00 PM Board of County Commissioners Zoning and other Public Hearings 23-Feb Wednesday 7:00 PM Tierra Verde Town Hall Meeting Traffic Calmin Public Meetin 26-Feb Monday 1 :30 PM Livable Communities Task Force Meeting 26-Feb Monday 5:30 PM Pinellas Women's Forum-A Panel Discussion 28-Mar Wednesday 3:00 PM Pinellas County EMS Advisory Council 18-Apr Wednesday 4:00 PM Tourist Dev Council d/b/a SI. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Conv & Vis Bureau 10-May Thursday 9:00 AM Development Review Services Planning and Zoning Examiner's Hearing 15-May Tuesday 9:00 AM Pinellas County Cultural Affairs Department METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION Local Coordinatin Committee 14-Jun Thursday 9:00 AM Development Review Services Planning and Zoning Examiner's Hearing 27 -Jun Wednesday 3:00 PM Pinellas County Health and Human Services Coordinating Council Admin Forum 10-Jul Tuesday 9:00 AM The Pinellas Trail Security Task Force 12-Jul Thursday 9:00 AM Development Review Services Planning and Zoning Examiner's Hearing 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Budget Task Force Council Candidates Forum City Council Work Session Budget Task Force Cancelled - Municipal Code Enforcement Board Environmental Advisory Board Pension Advisory Committee Pension Trustees Pension Advisory Committee Municipal Code Enforcement Neighborhood & Affordable Housing Advisory Board Pension Advisory Committee 16 scheduled meetings appeared to be conflicting from February - March 2007. 6 of these meeting conflicts appeared to be regularly occurring meetings for either the City or the County. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 65 Design/Construction Costs Estimate $ 35,700,581 $ 43,486,346 $ 51,272,111 $ 188.00 $ 229.00 $ 270.00 Core & Shell $ 20,888,638 $ 24,686,572 $ 28,484,506 $ 110.00 $ 130.00 $ 150.00 Fit up $ 9,494,835 $ 11,868,544 $ 14,242,253 $ 50.00 $ 62.50 $ 75.00 FF&E liT $ 2,848,451 $ 3,323,192 $ 3,797,934 $ 15.00 $ 17.50 $ 20.00 land Cost $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ Design I Architectural $ 949,484 $ 1,329,277 $ 1,709,070 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 9.00 $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ Contingency on Additional Project Costs $ 1,519,174 $ 2,278,760 $ 3,038,347 $ 8.00 $ 12.00 $ 16.00 $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ Parking $ 9,352,800 $ 14,202,400 $ 19,052,000 $ 10,800 $ 16,400 $ 22,000 Building Construction Budget $ 45,053,381 $ 43,486,346 $ 51,272,111 $ 188.00 $ 229.00 $ 270.00 Building + Parking Budget $ 54,406,181 $ 57,688,746 $ 70,324,111 $ 286.50 $ 303.79 $ 370.33 Bldg. GSF = 189,897 Bldg. RSF = 165,128 Bldg. USF = 143,589 Parking Spaces = 866 Construction Time Line: 1..Jan-08 Start Date Design 12 Months Construction 24 Months Move-in 2 Months · Constru~tron costs for the Joint Use building and associated parking structure are estimated at Low, Mid and High points. · 2008 mid-point costs of $229/GSF for building, and $16,400/Stall for parking structure were used in the analysis, and escalated to 2009 / 2010 levels by 6.00%. · Total building size estimated to be -190,000 GSF. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 66 ------------------- ------------------- Joint Use Facility - PST A Scenario Assumptions I Equis@ . The Dedicated PST A scenario assumes 87,120 SF (2 acres) of land will bei~<;1uired for an at-grade surface facility which is adjacent to, but physically separate fr..\.ro\''i'f,~j~t use facility. \V) ~ ~ , - The Combined Baseline analysis includes only the D~,diGa~WSrA scenario. To preserve the comparative integrity of the analysis, the'I~~afed PSTA scenario also as~~mes 87,120 SF of required area, integrated 1irub. fl. ~.' ~arking structure of the Joint Use facIlity. ~ ~... - Because below-g rade construction. ir.l;ttf~learwater area is logistically challeng ing, and since it is unlikely that t~e tJ~t~~~e parking structure footprint will cover 2.0 acres (87,120 SF), a mUlti~~~~&T A terminal integrated into the parking structure is postulated.. "" ...... ff. ~ .. .. . , - A multi-Ie.. vehte. romlnal Will result In higher construction costs (reinforced structure, . AA. 'i\\ \,~U "" ln~re~~rlH't,A:e needs, etc.)... . . . It1l'ls~s~med that a PST A terminal Integrated Into the JOint Use parking structure )~Mult in synergies relative to operating expenses, therefore a 300/0 reduction I~ these associated costs is assumed in the analysis. . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 67 10 - Oct - 07 Joint Use - Dedicated PST A Facility Scenario This scenario assumes the development of a stand-alone PST A site, 10cat~djaCent to the Joint Use facility. ~ J - Facility would be developed at-grade similar to eXiS~ng ~ sites. - Some synergies may be abJe to leveraged by coll~ ,4~K ~1- i.e. security. 1, \>eo."'~ . Assumptions fo~egra~STA facility: ~ - Estimated 2.0 acres (87,12t~{f~~modate 16 buses. - $41.321/SF estimate1~~~6'st (2007) - Ongoing operatin "osts assumed to be: ft.b ~ " - Je.c' ~~)$1.67/SF bLtilitles: $2.93/SF - R&M: $1.46/SF . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10-0ct-07 I Equis" Page 68 ------------------- ------------------- Joint Use - Integrated PSTA Facility Scenario I Equis. . This scenario assumes the decision to consider an integrated PST A facility i~4largely driven by the lack of an available parcel for a dedicated facility, and a desi!iE\t0 potentially offset construction and operating costs through COllocati~\3'~C9~S. - Facility would be integrated into the ground f1oor(s) of th\!g,~t ~sJ facility parking structure. .. ~~v Assumptions for an integrated PSTA facility: e ~ - Estimated 2.0 acres (87,120 SF) for e81~I~ra comparison to dedicated model. - Double ceiling height (due to buS<h~~nd HVAC requirements). $95.71/SF estimate~ ~r~jg-~~~~2007) - Mid-pointqb.i~t\1~e'~uctured parking construction cost + 50% increase for structu'~al ~r~Q!~rcement, HV AC and other related costs. - OragOir<lg'l~\atingGOsts assumed to be lower than dedicated site due to 4l'~~. , 11'" ., III .' synergies: 1 \); - Security: $1.50/SF - Utilities: $2.64/SF - R&M: $1.31/SF . COCFS Study- Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 69 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------- ----- Cash Flow Summary - Comparison of PST A Scenarios Baseline Information ------ I Equis. Integrated PSTA Ave RSF Dedicated PSTA Ave RSF Usable SF Site Rentable SF Requirements Gross SF FTE 87,120 Land Op Ex Costs $ Other Net Costs $ Capital Expenditures $ R&M Costs $ Asset Impact Relocation Costs $ Parking Garage $ Construction Costs $ Total Cost $ PV $ 7,274,643 $ 2.78 4,156,939 $ 1.59 $ 3,637,322 $ 1.39 $ $ $ 4.17 $ 9.93 16,829,923 $ 6.44 87,120 Land $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 25,537,340 $ $ 13,705,112 $ 3.98 2.27 1.99 1.53 9.77 5.24 · Operating / R&M 6XP@~\.'Mr ~::g:ated scenario are 30% lower than the Dedicated scenario, resulting in a $6.5 million II': ~A 'I' (:t v."" savings over'\~erm bf.,the analysis. · Construction c~st~:r the Integrated scenario are 64% higher than the Dedicated scenario. Note: Compounded inflation accounts for 14% of this increase. · Total costs over the term of the analysis differ by 2%, which is $3.1 million on a constant dollar (PV) basis (23% difference). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 71 Baseline InfonnaUon County Ave RSF City Ave RSF Dedicated PSTA Ave RSF Usable SF 116,825 43,278 160,102 143,589 (16,513) -11.50% Site Rentable SF 134,348 49,770 184,118 165,128 ~~:~;> -11.50% Requirements Gross SF 154,501 57,235 87,120 Land 211,736 189,897 -11.50% FTE 437 307.43 96 518.43 533 345.44 53 309.81 (35.63) Op Ex Costs $ 28,210,360 $ 7.00 $ 10,450,568 $ 7.00 $ 10,392,347 $ 3.98 $ 49,053,276 $ 8.88 $ 45,065,715 $ 9.10 $ (3,987,561) $ 0.22 " JIS Other Net Costs $ 9,393,249 $ 2.33 $ 3,479,743 $ 2.33 $ 5,938,484 $ 2.27 $ 18,811,476 $ 3.41 $ 17,483,731 $ 3.53 $ (1,327,745) $ 0.12 -7.59% Capital Expenditures $ 3,287,450 $ 0.82 $ 1,217,840 $ 0.82 $ $ $ 4,505,290 $ 0.82 $ 4,040,606 $ 0.82 $ (464,684) $ -11.50% R&M Costs $ 9,508,504 $ 2.36 $ 3,522,439 $ 2.36 $ 5,196,174 $ 1.99 $ 18,227,116 $ 3.30 $ 16,883,080 $ 3.41 $ (1,344,036) $ 0.11 -7.96% Asset Impact Relocation Costs $ 235,301 $ 0.06 $ 51,691 $ 0.03 $ $ $ 286,991 $ 0.05 $ 286,991 $ 0.06 $ $ 0.01 0.00% Parking Garage $ 11,612,512 $ 2.88 $ 3,442,032 $ 2.31 $ $ $ 15,054,544 $ 2.73 $ 15,054,544 $ 3.04 $ $ Construction Costs $ 37,438,574 $ 9.29 $ 13,869,173 $ 9.29 $ 4,010,335 $ 1.53 $ 55,318,083 $ 10.01 $ 50,026,105 $ 10.10 $ $ Total Cost $ 99,685,950 $ 24.73 $ 36,033,486 $ 24.13 $ 25,537,340 $ 9.77 $ 161,256,776 $ 29.19 $ 148,840,773 $ 30.05 $ (12,416,003) $ PV $ 67,700,205 $ 16.80 $ 24,279,461 $ 16.26 $ 13,705,112 $ 5.24 $ 105,684,777 $ 19.13 $ 97,613,932 $ 19.70 $ (8,070,845) $ Total Cost $ 135,719,436 $ 24.57 $ 123,303,433 $ 24.89 $ (12,416,003) $ 0.32 -10.07% Less PSTA PV $ 91,979,665 $ 16.65 $ 83,908,820 $ 16.94 $ (8,070,845) $ 0.29 -9.62% .' ~ . Joint Use facility Synergie~r~ult in an 8% reduction in overall total construction and operating expenses. . Cost savings 0Ye',~ ~~f~e analysis estimated to be $12.4 million ($8.0 million PV). - 11.5%:\au~on in GSF, which translates to a 10.6% reduction ($5.3 million or $280/ Saved RSF ) in construction costs. "r' · Exclusive of PSTA, the Total Op Ex Cost savings for a Joint Use facility over term as compared to the Baseline are $5.3 million / $2.5 million PV ($196,863 average annual savings). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 72 - - - - - - - - - - IIiil .. - - .. - - .. - .. - - - ~ .. - - II!!!I - - .. - - - - -, -- Baseline Infonnatlon Site Requirements Usable SF Rentable SF Gross SF FTE County Ave RSF City Ave RSF Integrated PSTA Ave RSF 116,825 134,348 154,501 437 518.43 307.43 43,278 49,770 57,235 96 87,120 Land 160,102 184,118 211,736 533 345.44 143,589 165,128 189,897 533 309.81 (16,513) ~~~ - (35.63) Savings -11.50% -11.50% -11.50% Op Ex Costs $ 28,210,360 $ 7.00 $ 10,450,568 $ 7.00 $ 7,274,843 $ 2.78 $ 49,053,276 $ 8.88 $ 41,948,011 $ 8.47 $ (7,105,265) $ (0.41) '"1.6~94% . Other Net Costs $ 9,393,249 $ 2.33 $ 3,479,743 $ 2.33 $ 4,156,939 $ 1.59 $ 18,811,476 $ 3.41 $ 15,702,186 $ 3.17 $ (3,109,290) $ (0.24) Capital Expenditures $ 3,287,450 $ 0.82 $ 1,217,840 $ 0.82 $ $ $ 4,505,290 $ 0.82 $ 4,040,606 $ 0.82 $ (464,684) $ R&M Costs $ 9,508,504 $ 2.36 $ 3,522,439 $ 2.36 $ 3,637,322 $ 1.39 $ 18,227,116 $ 3.30 $ 15,324,228 $ 3.09 $ (2,902,888) $ (0.21) Asset Impact Relocation Costs $ 235,301 $ 0.06 $ 51,691 $ 0.03 $ $ $ 286,991 $ 0.05 $ 286,991 $ 0.06 $ $ 0.01 Parking Garage $ 11,612,512 $ 2.88 $ 3,442,032 $ 2.31 $ $ $ 15,054,544 $ 2.73 $ 15,054,544 $ 3.04 $ $ 0.31 Construction Costs $ 37,438,574 $ 9.29 $ 13,869,173 $ 9.29 $ 10,887,782 $ 4.17 $ 55,318,083 $ 10.01 $ 56,903,552 $ 11.49 $ 1,585,469 $ Total Cost $ 99,685,950 $ 24.73 $ 36,033,486 $ 24.13 $ 25,956,685 $ 9.93 $ 161,256,776 $ 29.19 $ 149,260,118 $ 30.13 $ (11,996,658) $ PV $ 67,700,205 $ 16.80 $ 24,279,461 $ 16.26 $ 16,829,923 $ 6.44 $ 105,684,777 $ 19.13 $ 100,738,743 $ 20.34 $ (4,946,035) $ Total Cost $ 135,719,436 $ 24.57 $ 123,303,433 $ 24.89 $ (12,416,003) $ Less PST A PV $ 91,979,665 $ 16.65 $ 83,908,820 $ 16.94 $ (8,070,845) $ -9.62% ~ ~ ... . Joint Use facility synergfitbesult.in a 8.0% reduction in overall undiscounted construction and operating expenses. . Cost saVing't!l~t~ ~~the analysis estimated to be $12.0 million ($5.0 million PV) as compared to Baseline. . The reduction irldministrative office space is more than offset by the increased PST A construction costs. An Integrated PSTA facility results in an increase in construction costs of $1.5 million as compared to Baseline. . Exclusive of PSTA, the Total Op Ex Cost savings for a Joint Use facility over term as compared to the Baseline are $5.3 million / $2.5 million PV ($196,863 average annual savings). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 73 Cost Reduction Comparison I I Comparative (wI Integrated PSTA) Basel~ne vs Ave RSF Jomt Usable SF Site Rentable SF Requirements Gross SF FTE Op Ex Costs Other Net Costs Capital Expenditures R&M Costs Asset Impact Relocation Costs Parking Garage Construction Costs Total Cost PV Total Cost Less PSTA PV -11.50% -11.50% -11.50% (16,513) (18,990) (21,839) Savings -11.50% -11.50% -11.50% 345.44 309.81 309.81 (35.63) (35.63) $ 49,053,276 $ 8.88 $ 45,065,715 $ 9.10 $ 41,948,011 $ 8.47 $ (3,987,561) $ 0.22 -8.85% $ (7,105,265) $ (0.41) -16.94% $ 18,811.476 $ 3.41 $ 17.483,731 $ 3.53 $ 15,702,186 $ 3.17 $ (1,327,745) $ 0.12 -7.59% $ (3,109,290) $ (0.24) -19.80% $ 4,505,290 $ 0.82 $ 4,040,606 $ 0.82 $ 4,040,606 $ 0.82 $ (464,684) $ -11.50% $ (464,684) $ -11.50% $ 18,227,116 $ 3.30 $ 16,883,080 $ 3.41 $ 15,324,228 $ 3.09 $ (1,344,036) $ 0.11 -7.96% $ (2,902,888) $ (0.21) -18:94% $ 286,991 $ 0.05 $ 286,991 $ 0.06 $ 286,991 $ 0.06 $ $ 0.01 0.00% $ $ 0.01 0,00% $ 15,054,544 $ 2.73 $ 15,054,544 $ 3.04 $ 15,054,544 $ 3.04 $ $ 0.31 0.00% $ $ 0.31 : 0.00% $ 55,318,083 $ 10.01 $ 50,026,105 $ 10.10 $ 56,903,552 $ 11.49 $ (5,29'1,978) $ 0.08 -10.58% $ $ 1.47 ':z,79% $ 161,256,776 $ 29.19 $ 148,840,773 $ 30.05 $ 149,260,118 $ 30.13 $ (12, , 03) $ 0.85 -8.34% $ (11,996,658) $ 0.94 $ 105,684,777 $ 19.13 $ 97,613,932 $ 19.70 $ 100,738,743 $ 20.34 $ (8,070,845) $ 0.57 -8.27% $ (4,946,035) $ 1.20 $ 135,719,436 $ 24.57 $ 123,303,433 $ 24.89 $ 123,303,433 $ 24.89 $ (12,416,003) $ 0.32 0 $ (12,416,003) $ 0.32 $ 91,979,665 $ 16.65 $ 83,908,820 $ 16.94 $ 83,908,820 $ 16.94 $ (8,070,845) $ 0.29 -9.62% $ (8,070,845) $ 0.29 -9.62% · The Integrated PSTA~S~~iO ~~~6.8 million more to construct than the Dedicated PSTA scenario. .... ~,,~ · While the tol~ftb1~ QM50th the PSTA scenarios in current dollars are nearly identical ($419,345 difference), in constant dollars it is ~~stbstantial- the Integrated PSTA scenario is $3.1 million more costly on a PV basis. · The PV of the total costs for the Dedicated PST A scenario passes the 5% acceptability threshold (8.27% PV savings). · The PV of the total costs for the Integrated PSTA scenario do not pass the 5% acceptability threshold (4.91 % PV savings). PV savings identical to the Dedicated PSTA scenario can be achieved with a 40% SF scope reduction. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 74 ~-...- ~"__IiiI____" ... - -, -- ------~--~~~~-~-~-- Financial Impact over Term of Analysis - All Cash Flow Models IEquis@ CUmulative Present Value - All Models $100,CXXl,CXXl $OO,CXXl,CXXl $OO,CXXl,CXXl $7O,CXXl,CXXl $6O,CXXl,CXXl $&:l,CXXl,CXXl $4O,CXXl,CXXl $3O,CXXl,CXXl - -- ------ -- - - - - -- .--- -- - -- -- - .. - -- - ---. -- 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 Year I - Q.x.nty Baseline - my Baseline - GJrrbined - DJdicated FSfA -..tint L6e - htegrated FSfA I COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 75 Financial Impact over Term of Analysis - Comparison of Joint Use + PST A Scenarios I Equis. $90,000,000 Cumulative Present Value - Joint Use + PSTA Options $100,000,000 $80,000,000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $- 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 Year 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 -Joint + Dedicated PSTA -Joint + Integrated PSTA COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 76 --..-.........-..........- --...-- ~-~~~----~------~-~ Financial Impact over Term of Analysis - Comparison of Baseline vs. Joint Use I Equis. CUmulative Present Value - Combined Models $50,001,001 $- $100,001,001 $00,001,001 $00,001,001 $70,001,001 $00,001,001 $40,001,001 $30,001,001 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 - ClJrTtined -Joint LBe Yea- - Joint + D3cicaled FSTA - Joint + Hegated FSTA COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 77 PSTA Impact on Joint Use Costs Joint + Baseline Dedicated PSTA Op Ex Costs . Worst .... Mid Other Net Costs . Worst .... Mid Cap Ex . Worst .... Same Same R&M Costs . Worst ....M~ Best Relo Costs .... Same I~ame ' Same l1l'Io." ." '" Parking Structure ....Same I. ..., \i.. Same i ~ Same Canst. Costs ....Mid ~ \\f f Best Best .".iI '((\\ ,",,' Total Costs ~. '<t.QLst .... Same .... Same PV I Worst t Best .... Mid . · A Joint Use facility + an Integrated PSTA has lower operating and R&M expenses over time, however is more expensive (in constant dollars) than the Dedicated scenario. A Joint Use facility + a Dedicated PST A has the lowest costs both in current and constant (PV) dollars. The savings delta between this scenario and the Baseline offsets the higher operating and R&M expenses. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 78 ~-~~~----~~-~-~-~-~ - - .. _. - - .. - .. .. - - - - - - ... .. - . Development of a Joint Use facility allows the City / County to better leverag~l..pace utilization and shared space concepts. , J - Results in a 11.50/0 reduction in overall (gross) space needs." .' - A Dedicated PSTA facility results in lower constructiofl C0S'~~ $6.8 million and lower operating expenses of $6.5 million. .. ~l\~ Conference rooms and Council Chambers can b~~x~sively shared. - Minor changes to the current City I cOlJ.Pl~~j~'efes for meet~ngs requiring. use?f a broadcast-enabled council chambers\~lja~}aCCOmmodate most If not all meetings In a single room.. ,tt~' \\ ... .. The low-cost option on a Total~Goet"0f Occupancy baSIS IS a JOint Use facIlity. - $161 million "Base...O~se't~e~sus $148 million Joint Use (w/Dedicated PSTA). - $12.4 millien'in ~~~ ($8.0 million PV) over term. The a~~cS5~\~flan Integrated PSTA facility offset any cost saving synergies realized by cOlldcatl{irt1) - $3,JA,illion more in constant (PV) dollars. - A smaller PSTA scope (400/0 reduction) may level the playing field. . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 79 10 - Oct - 07 Overall USF I FTE CITY 451 Growth> 2020 9 272 USF / FTE (6.. 0.;.."lO.Yo.?)).~ A ,Qt t~ 3.28\.~ ~~- ~ j1i\ Dedicated GSF _ tt ~1i5~~bo"0 -155,000 · Utilization differential betweenJi~~~C~~~ty space assignment could be better synchronized. - County utilization(off26\USF/FTE versus City utilization of 451 USF/FTE implies City and County standards fo~~pckt~~lbcation by job classification are not aligned. - Ti9htJ!~S~ce'\\asSignment standards by the City could result in even more space and s~dci'at~d cost savings. - Di ~re\c:' between Common space allocations imply the City's space design allows for more ~ common areas (or larger common areas) than the County's. · 100/0 growth anticipated for City Office space needs versus 11.5% growth for the County. · In the Joint Use facility w/Dedicated PST A, the City will have 4.5 X the overall costs allocated per FTE. - $1.5 million I FTE City versus $340 I FTE County. Common Space Ratio Parking Ratio 4.97 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 80 ~-~-~--- ~~~~-~--~ -- --~ I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I II I I Joint-use facilities potentially offer a variety of benefits to the parties involved. Most commonly these benefits include cost savings opportunities, such as shared overhead co~t~~ared design and construction costs, as well increased space utilization efficiency. TheSeirf~~eJ · Recurring ~os~ Savings: Once o~erational, se.rvices~~~ustodia!, ?ata a~d telecommunications can be consolidated to avo!d t!t' " '~a~ost of providing similar services to multiple buildings and billing ac.cou'1t~.~ · Department Consolidation: In a jOint-U?,e~acili~it may be necessary to maintain only one mail department, one payroll d~~~~~~~and one security department. These departments would otherwise re<f.6i~~ ~~plication if agencies were housed in separate buildi.ngs.. " \:.. ~ . · Public Benefit: Ce~al~tYI3~es of JOint-use space lend themselves to direct and immediate P.,Ublicl~9~fit, such as agreements for sharing school libraries and recreationaltfa~liti~s with local municipal governments. Beyond the financial benefit for eac~\~~ A~ "Public community also benefits from additional space for public use. · Tjm~ffiCienCY: Schools also exhibit the potential of increased efficiency relative to scheauling. Such joint-use agreements have the potential to increase the amount of time these facilities can serve their beneficiaries (e.g. students and the public, per above). COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 82 - - '. - - - - - - ,- -,- - ... - - .. -, - ----~---~--~--~~~-- In addition to the key benefits already described, other incentives exist that joint-use agreements even more attractive. . The State of New York ('05-'06 budget): Established the SharetJ{runiCiPal Services Incentive Program (SMSI), a competitive grants program f~{\~~(more units of local government to apply together for state assistancecto~c~~&Co's~ associated with the development of proj~cts that will a~hieve savin~,s a~~l'lIprove mun~cip~1 efficiency through shared services, cooperative agreerz)"ents, mergers, consolidations and dissolutions. .. ~~~.. - Twenty-two projects were iss~~@rants during the '05-'06 budget year. Seminole Community COII~~~jbint-use facility is in the process of being approved for see and the Uni~e'fi~f ~ntral Florida. - Because th,.@lacili~~l1i11 include a library that wil.1 be op~n to th~ public: there. are ho~,~ J.~pt~t~rSemmole Co~nty government will contnbute to Its fundmg, dnven by dOI~~r~lIar State matching of funds. Additionally, there are examples where a city and county have merged to form one jurisdiction (Louisville, KY; Indianapolis, IN; Nashville, TN; Kansas City, MO; and Lexington, KY). . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 83 10-0ct-07 Joint-use facilities demand specific project design parameters which may not otherwise be necessary in non-shared space: · Common Interest: The degree to which parties will benefit !n!>rl1 jOl.ot-use space is directly related to commonality of interest of those parties~:~'xample, in the case of shared warehouse space, parties intending to sto~(s<rrMiLarproducts will find a joint- use agreement more beneficial than partiesintem<V~'tb ~tore dissimilar products. · Design: Special design considerationS-€~\hance the potential benefits of joint-use space. In the case of shared librari~~'bE!t~en schools and the public, discrete entrances and security consid~~~'s can help facilitate the smooth interaction of the separate interests, '. ~~..~ W "tt A 4 t. t ~ d f I' 't 'f' . . t t . · rI en gre~men:~ lie nee or an exp ICI , case-specl IC JOin -use agreemen IS paramouQJjt~1tt:1~ s'tJccess of any joint-use facility. The essential "who's", "when's" and "hO'f.~..'~.!'~f4,b'e'\facility'S use are absolute necessities and must be written down and agre~<bapon by all parties involved. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 84 -~--~--'-------~~--- -~--~~--~--~~---~-- Joint-use facilities have historically displayed common implementation issues. to logistic and political issues, the following should be considered: · Dynamic Relationships: That the joint use parties have an fu~icatjle relationship and share common interests today is no guarantee that ~~~~lJle will be true tomorrow. Dynamic relationships can lead to a onc~~J)~n~lfi"ci~1 and feasible joint-use agreement bec?ming much less e~icient,,~n(tt~e@~btk\ress beneficial. ,Regardless of careful planning, such changes In relatlensnlps~ean be largely unpredictable. ~ '>~ · Future Growth: The task of oc.edi6t1~1 planning for future growth can be further complicated by the need\~tPate for dynamic growth needs of multiple parties. · ContingenCies:foFie~r more parties involved in a joint-use agreement may outgrow the available~pai~~Tire departure of one or more parties from joint-use space can lead to ar;1~i~~~as~ in cost (or reduction in revenue) for the other parties involved. If nottC9r~~~. planned for, such events can have significant financial impacts. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 85 . According to the National Association of Counties many counties and cities ~avi.. developed the cost saving of a joint city county office building. Among the, ' "'e1 - Gainesville/Hall County, GA Salt Lake City/Salt Lake County, UT City of Sumter/Sumter County, SC Wilmington City/New Castle County, DE Fort Wayne City/Allen County, IN Salina/Saline County, KS tt. Shreveport City/Bossier Rafii~b'I!A 11 \\ ~ '" Pittsburgh City/ Alleghleny @ounty, PA City of Modesfu/S?a~~I~us County, CA Cit~ Qf Ma1fj~~b;'e County, WI . ~v COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 86 _..__..._-_.._-~-------- ---------~-~------~ . In October of 2003, Pinellas County, FL and St. Petersburg College entered into an Operations Agreement (OA) establishing the Epicenter joint-use facility in La'gb~'FL. The OA in conjunction with a simultaneously executed Interlocal Agreemer::fJ~cf~~i1~~tthe respective rights and obligations of the County and College r.el.a~vtilto\tt.l.~~CqUi~itiOn, construction, use and funding for the Project. ~ ~~" - One party was clearly established as predominant. ~ll\t~&;c.;, the Project Site is owned by the College and the College servesfS\the\fi~d'al agent. - According to the agreement, the project waoft~ fiR~~~ with $8 million from the County and $8 million from the Florida Legislatu(~'h~)sale of SPC's old administration building and two federal grants comp'l~t~Q'gne construction package. To furth~r facilitat~ the process, bQ1t.J~~i~ ~greed to jointly plan, design, construct, furnish and equip the ProJect. \\\\~ ~ - Per the OA, Both(par.ti'Efs agreed to furnish and equip the Project by incorporating the County and the Goll~g~;s existing furnishings and equipment (as was feasible), to r~?uc~ t~~{~~~~ 'Of ~he furnit.ure and equipment ~udget. . . Speclflc<p~~r~tl~were detailed relative to the Collaborative Lab, Board Room/Auditorium, Classroorms'anCf Computer Labs and Conference Rooms. - AlthJb~h the parties share identical rights to some of these areas, it is specifically described that "the College shall have first priority in the use of the Collaborative Lab" and that "the College shall have first priority in the use of the Classrooms and Computer Labs." . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 87 10 - Oct - 07 ~- I I I . In order to reduce redundancy, the College provides services for WhiCh. t. he cO~i.ty reimburses the college: ~, - Reception, security, custodial, maintenance, landscaping, handlin~n~ cEliving and all other services necessary for the operation of the Project. ~, " . Per the OA, the College's proportionate share in Building 1 ~f126~9a~ SF total) is 65.660/0 and in Building 2 (171,473 SF total) is 72.430/0.. ~... - The College's greater physical presence in th . . ~einforces the colleges predominance in the joint-use space. ..~, The Of:\ specifies the establishment of an~~~tiv.e Oversi~ht Management ,Team. compnsed of three members from eaGl:1tQa~t-Ier, with overSight by an Executive Officer appointed by the College. Th~~Ii..~~~'esponsibilities of the EOM Team include: · Determination of nece<~~DY common space coverage; · commU~ic_ati~'C~ c~~dina~ion betwee.n the Occupants; · Develo~rten~an~i administration of a Policy & Procedures Manual; t..l \' ~ · sc~e~lingPthe use of [shared use] spaces; · 0& 'S\t~ice, Parking Policies and Dispute Resolution. . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 88 10 - Oct - 07 .. .. - - - - - - - - - _.. - - - - - - '.. I ~~------~---~~----- Joint-Use Facilities Example: California School Districts I Equis. . In December of 1998, the California Joint Legislative Audit Committee (JLA~{~ublished a report titled Partnerships Between Public Schools and Private Developers. ~~ - The report explored two school districts that have engaged in 'jOin~e ~ r~'J partnerships with the private sector to develop school distri~t-\wn~"broperties. Its purpose was to gauge both the benefits and the costs of qtili~Ln~ this innovative school construction procedure. ~ \~ The study found that "school districts encou~ter\.~ significant problems and complications that appear to have far outweighed the DB~tl~tthat the projects' proponents promised to the school districts. Issues identifi~~iltde: - Minimal return on their in~~~e~rom the projects; - New ~na.n.ci~: ad~i~~tat~li~ and legal obligations requiring increased expenditures and SlgnlfICan~aff~attentlon; and - probJe~~~tifl9 ~xternal financial obligations. . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 89 10 - Oct - 07 \ (1) According to the city, the county originally established itself as the lead party, which was against the ~spirit. of the partnership. However. -18 months into the arrangement the parties settled into their roles as equals, each subordinate 10 the established Joint Powers Agency. (2) Today, the project works very wen. However, the first 18 - 24 months posed a very diffiOJlt transition. especially following the nine.year process involved in planning and executing the project. (3) Positive about future, similar partnerships. though hesitant. Specified that if, and only if. they could take all knowledge from the former process would they oonsider going the arduous task again. (4) The county made it clear that 8S opposed to a joint-use agreement. the county owns the building and the city leases space in a standard LurT relationship. (5) Although the facility has worked well for many years, the entities are now outgrowing their space and it is becoming more difficult to please all those involved. (6) Due to the age of the facility, much is unknown about the conception of the project. The city assumed that the project was developed jointly. (7) Because the building is so old, deferred maintenance is a real issue. When money for capital renovations is needed, it is rare that both entities will have sufficient funds for the improvements. Otherwise, benefits from shared overhead are nominal at best. (8) Although the arrangement works reasonable well. it is unlikely such a partnership would be considered today because the administrative functions of each entity has greatly diverged over time. (9) The county asserted thai the parties 'oNere equals in the arrangement. However, the city firmly felt, because the county is responsible for the maintenance and administration of the building, Ihalthe county was Ihe lead party. The city views the arrangement as essentially LUTT. (10) Generally equal although most charges are billed directly to the city and billed back. proportionately, to the county. (11) Due to the age of the facility, much is unknown about the conception of the project. The county assumed that the project was developed jointly. (12) Although there would be willingness to partner again, the oounly asserted thai it would only be viable if joint funding were available and that the approval of joint funding would mosllikely be difficult in the current political climate. UGL Equis co'J.all~\el~~:e interviews with both city and county officials, when available, in locations where it was kn~n~flia~ti~ and counties share a joint-use facility. In addlr>>ciibjective, quantitative data, subjective, qualitative data was gathered pertaining to each shared facility. For the ~pose of the matrix [above], qualitative data was subjectively, though consistently, translated into quantitative values based on the responses of the inteNiewees. Modesto Stanislaus (50%) (50%) IN Fort Wayne Allen 210,000 (43%) (57%) KS Salina Saline N/A (35%) (65%) PA Pittsburgh Allegheny 500,000 (55%) (45%) WI Madison Dane 463,000 (40%) (60%) GA Gainesville Hall 31,000 (50%) (50%) NC Charlotte Mecklenburg 390,000 (70%) (30%) DE Wilmington New Caslle N/A (70%) (30%) LA Shreveport Caddo Parish 147,400 (75%) (25%) All sizes and occupancy rates approximate . . . 9 1971 Active No Yes County (') N/A No No 1967 Active No Yes Equal Joint Yes Yes 1929 Active Yes No Equal Joint (6) Yes No 1957 Active Yes Yes County (9) Joint Yes Yes 1977 Active No Yes Equal (10) Joint (11) Yes No 1986 Active Yes No City Joint Yes No 1977 Active No Yes County Joint Yes Yes 2000 Active Yes Yes City Joint N/A No 3 9 14 9 8 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 90 .. .. - - - ... ... - - - - - - all - - - - - I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I () I I I -~-~~---------~-~-- · Appendix A: Detailed Cash Flows . . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 93 . City Baseline Cash Flow County Baseline Cash Flow PST A Dedicated Cash Flow . . . PSTA Integrated Cash Flow . ~"\. ~ (.l~ Combined Baseline City, coun~~.t~.,,1\;R.~a;~ Cash Flow ~H ' Joint Use Facility Cash .\~... ,~-,.. ,. Notes & Assumn1i@fl~\![to Cash Flows t', t!' ' . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 94 -~-~~~--------~---- ,- - - Projections: Bill Period Year Beginning Inflation I Op Ex / SF (2.50% Ese.) $ .. Annual Expense [t Net Exp / SF (2.50% Ese.) $ .. Annual Expense rs I $ $ rt $ rs $ $ rs $ $ r$ $ rs $ n $ I CapEx/SF .. Annual Expense R&M / SF .. Annual Expense :atiI Relocation / SF .. Annual Expense ~!.klL8:;:lli;'ijkjf--' . Bond Debt / SF .. Annual Expense Garage Construction / SF .. Annual Expense Construction / SF .. Annual Expense Biillil E ui Building Summary Per Sq Ft Total Per Annum Total Cumulallve Total PV Cumulative PV - .. .. - - - - - .. .. .. - - - - '.. .. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Inflation: Term: Rate (PV, Debt): 2.50% 30 Years 4.50% USF: RSF: GSF: FTE: $ $ $ -$ $ _t $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -$- $ .l $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ $ 0-$ - - 0 $ $ 34.58 $ 34.58 $ $ 1,721,0111 $ 1,721,016 .$~ 8.05 $ 135.31 $ 135.31 $ 400,645 $ 6,734,264 $ 6,734,264 $ 400,645 $ 8,455,280 $ 8,455,280 $ $0 1$ 8.05 $ 169.89 169.89 $ $ 400,645 $ 8,455,280 8,455,280 $ $ 400,645 $ 8,855,925 17,311,205 $ $ 383,392 $ 7,742,754 7,409,333 $ $ 383,392 $ 8,126,146 15,535,479 $ V 43,278 49,770 57,235 96 Total Op Ex: Cap Ex: Other Net Exp: R&M: Relocation: $ 5.14 $ 5.00 $ 1.71 $ 1.73 $ 0.96 pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF Analysis Begin: Analysis End: $ 8.59 1/1/2013 1/1/2014 1/1/2015 1/1/2016 1/1/2017 1/1/2037 30-Year Total m~ 1J 5.97,% 118.8Z:Y. 121.84% 124.89% 2Qd.,~ $ 5.82 $ 5.96 $ 6.11 $ 6.27 $ 6.42 $ 10.52 $ 289,6.08_$_ 296,BJJl. S ~4'f70 .t _ 3"1,):S76-t _ --11l!,.2LL..L _523,822~ ~$_..l!l,4,5,ll,~8. $ 1.94 $ 1.99 $ 2.04 $ 2.09 $ 2.14 $ 3.50 $ 96,431 $ 98,842 $-ui1.313-$ f03,a4lj'"$ 106,442 $ 174,418 1~"i9:t43" $ 386,040 $ 395,691 $ 405,583 $ 415,722 $ 426,115 $ 698,240 $ 13,930,311 $ $ $ $ $ 6.24 $ 10.23 ..; $ -$.. $" _J ~$- _31Q,Q.?_S. _5.2,9,2~ .$--.J,m,!!2,. 1.87 1.91 $ 1.96 $ 2.01 $ 2.06 $ 2.11 $ 2.16 $ 3.55 92,911 95,234 $~']"f5$-r0n:n55-$-;62."55r$ 105,120 $ 107,748 $ 176,558 ~$-n22"39~ 92,911 95,234 $ 97,615 $ 1 00,055 $ 102,556 $ 105,120 $ 418,525 $ 685,802 S 4,740,279 1.04 $ $ $ $ $ $ 51,691 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 51,691 51,691 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 51,691 0.00 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 0 $ 0_$_ 0 $ 0_$ 0-_$ ..9_$- _ ___ ...;... .$___.O~ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S -$ $, $ .$- -- .;... .$~,!i2,On, $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ "$-13)69-;'173" 0 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ S 17,311,205 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S 0 10.29 9.48 $ 9.72 $ 9.96 $ 10.2.t .$ 1.0,j7 $ 16.97 $ .1lli 512,040 471,858 $ 483,654 $ 495,745 $ 508,139 $ 520,843 $ 644,640 $ 1,384,041 S 36,033,486 17,823,245 18,295,103 $ 18,778,757 $ 19,274,502 $ 19,782,842 $ 20,303,484 $ 21,148,124 $ 36,033,486 429,377 378,643 $ 371,396 $ 364,288 $ 357,316 $ 350,477 $ 543,887 $ 369,539 24,279,461 15,964.856 16,343.498 $ 16,714,894 $ 17,079,182 $ 17,436,498 $ 17,786,975 $ 18,330,863 $ 24,279,461 Note: Pro forma contains hidden columns for years 11-29 to accommodate page size limitations. 10 - Oct - 07 Page 95 ProJections: Bill Period Year Beginning Inflation I Op Ex / SF (2.50% Ese.) 4 Annual Expense Net Exp / SF (2.50% Ese.) 4 Annual Expense -I .El Cap Ex/ SF 4 Annual Expense R&M / SF 4 Annual Expense -I ' Atil Relocation / SF 4 Annual Expense :OtiI ,'V' Bond Debt / SF 4 Annual Expense Garage Construction / SF 4 Annual Expense Bldg Construction / SF 4 Annual Expense BjiIICl.!7ffJliL(i:.iii .0Iil E uit Building Summary Per Sq Ft Total Per Annum Total Cumulative Total PV Cumulative PV ~~ Q.~ln. New staM:slone sl!]gls-<lccUllancy llUilainll Projected Costs for Space / Billing Period is January. December Inflation: Term: Rate (PV, Debt): 2.50% 30 Years 4.50% USF: RSF: GSF: HE: 116,825 134,348 154,501 437 Total Op Ex: Cap Ex: Other Net Exp: R&M: Relocation: $ 5.14 $ 5.00 $ 1.71 $ 1.73 $ 1.63 pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF Analysis Begin: Analysis End: 1/1/2016 12~ 6.27 841,882 2.09 280,323 1,122,205 $ $ $ $ $ $ $-- $ $" $ $ . -$ $ 0.00 $ 0-$ $ $ $ $ o $ $0 2.11 283,762 283,762 · Note: Pro forma contains hidden columns for years 11-29 to accommodate page size limitations. $ $ $ 0$ $ $- $ $ $ rr- --:--$'--~$- $ $ $ $ $ $ ~$-- ---.S---- -~ - -$ $ $ $ ~$ $--- -: -$- .:~< $ $ $ $ $ $ r$- - --=--$- ~ -$- - $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ i$- --: -$- 0 $ $ $ 43.22 $ r$ $- -5:8667256-$- $ 8.05 $ 135.31 $ r$-r681.564$"'1s:i78,535 $ $ 1,081,504 $ 23,984,791 $ I 8.59 1/1/2012 1/1/2014 1/1/2015 1 JO,3,l!,'y, 11,5.97'l'. 118.87% $ $ 5.68 $ 5.82 $ 5.96 $ 6.11 $ $ $-il;2:Y64$-i81)i1$-a'ii'i~315-$ 821,348 $ $ 1.84 $ 1.89 $ 1.94 $ 1.99 $ 2.04 $ -.-$-- 24i)6'5-$- - 2537959~.$ - -26~:fcj8-r- 266,815 $ 273,486 $ $ 991,866 $ 1,016,662 $ 1,042,079 $ 1,068,131 $ 1,094,834 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ .- -$ -- -. -$- ---:--$ $-~$ $ $ 1.87 $ 1.91 $ 1.96 $ 2.01 $ 2.06 $ -. - -$- -256:805-$-257:ll75-$- - -263:502-$--270:089-$- 276,~$ $ 250,805 $ 257,075 $ 263,502 $ 270,089 $ 276,841 $ $ 1.75 $ $ $ $ $ -$- 235,301 $ - - .- _$" - -:--$-- --=--$ $ $ 235,301 $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 6-$- - -0 '$- - ----0-$---0$ 0 $ --0$ 43.22 $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,"81i6,256'$- $ $- $ $ $ 135.31 $ $ $ $ $ $ 18,178,535 $ $ $ $ $ $ 23,984,791 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1/1/2017 1/1/2037 12:L8~._2M.64:'{. 6.42 $ 10.52 862,929 $ l,414,llJO .$-2a7i1il:3'60~ 2.14 $ 3.50 287,3'31 $-;ji6~8i5' '$ 9,393,249 1,150,260 $ 1,884,835 $ 37,603,609 6.24 $ 10.23 838,913. $ l,3i~ '$-3;287,"450. 2.16 $ 3.55 290,856 $-;jitl~6'()2' "$-9;508;504' 1,129,770 $ 1,851,259 $ 12,795,953 $ $ $ 0.00 $ ll-$ $ $ $ $ o $ $0 30.Year Total "$-i3'5;301' $ 235,301 ) __ _0. -;,- .$ .!l.,UM1l.. '$-3i:'4:i'8:57~~ $ 49,051,086 $ 0 1$ 8.05 $ 178.53 $ 178.53 $ 11.00 9.4jl $ _9J2 9.96 $ 10.21 l,Djz .$ 16.97 $ _2m $ 1,081,504 $ 23,984,791 $ 23,984,791 $ 1,477,971 1,273,737 $ 1,305,580 1,338,220 $ 1,371,675 1,405,967 $ 2,280,030 $ 3,736,094 99,685,950 $ 1,081,504 $ 25,066,295 $ 49,051,086 $ 50,529,057 51,802,794 $ 53,108,374 54,446,594 $ 55,818,270 57,224,237 $ 59,504,266 $ 99,685,950 $ 1,034,932 $ 21,963,592 $ 21,017,791 $ 1,239,369 1,022,112 $ 1,002,550 983,362 $ 964,542 946,082 $ 1,468,174 $ 997,537 $ 67,700,205 $ 1,034,932 $ 22,998,524 $ 44,016,315 $ 45,255,684 46,277,795 $ 47,280,345 48,263,707 $ 49,228,249 50,174,330 $ 51,642,504 $ 67,700,205 ...- COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a - - - ~ - 10 - Oct - 07 .. - .. .. - - - .. - Page 96 .. - - - .. .. .. - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - [DjJllcateJ!.:f.ST A Projected Costs for Space / Billing Period is January - December Inflation: Term: Rate (PV, Debt): 2.50% 30 Years 4.50% Acres:~ SF:~ Total Op Ex: Cap Ex: Other Net Exp: R&M: $ 2.92 $ 1.67 $ 1.46 pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF Analysis Begin: Analysis End: ProJections: $ 6.05 1/1/2014 1/1/2015 1/112016 1/1/2017 111/2037 30-Year Total 1t5,9JJ'o U6.67~o 121.64% 12~.89.r.._2~~ $ $ $ $ 3.39 $ 3.47 $ 3.56 $ 3.65 $ 5.96 $ $ $ $ 295,195.$ 302,5J5-$~3TO,139 $ 31.7.,8.92 $ _520,~ :$::-19:392:'347 $ $ $ 1.60 $ 1.64 $ $ 1.94 $ 1.96 $ 2.03 $ 2.09 $ 3.42 $ $ $-';56:639-$ 160,555 $ $ 166,663 $~i2~9t)b-$ 177,222 $ 161,653 ~9IT59' -$ 5,938,484 $ $ $ 430,756 $ 441,525 $ $ 463,877 $ 475.474 $ 487,361 $ 499,545 $ 818,563 $ 16,330,831 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ .$ -- $ .$_ - -=---$ -$-- ~:s_ $ $ $ 1.57 $ 1.61 $ 1.65 $ 1.69 $ 1.74 $ 1.78 $ 1.82 $ 2.99 $- $ $-137:059-$ 140,485 $ 143,997 $-a77597-$~5'j~287-$ 155,069 $ 158,946 $-260'52' "$-5,196,174 $ $ $ 137,059 $ 140.485 $ 143.997 $ 147,597 $ 151,287 $ 155,069 $ 158,946 $ 260,452 $ 5,196,174 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ '$ $ $ "$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ $ 0 $ 0 $ b-$ 0-$ 0 $- 0 $ 0 $ 0 .~ .0 $. .- _:S __-2 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -$- $ $ $ $ $ -- .$. _:$..- --~ $ 42.35 $ 44.50 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,955,665 $-27054,670-$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -$ 4,010,335 $ 1.955,665 $ 2.054.670 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ $ 4,010,335 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $ 0 ;";'''1 ;-......" ' Bill Period Year Beginning Inflation! Op Ex / SF (2.50% Ese.) $ 4 Annual Expense r$ Net Exp / SF (2.50% Ese.) $ 4 Annual Expense f$ $ $ r$ $ r$ $ $ r$ $ $ r$ $ r$ $ r$ $ I Cap Ex/ SF 4 Annual Expense R&M / SF 4 Annual Expense :iliI Relocation / SF 4 Annual Expense ~---.- Bond Debt / SF 4 Annual Expense Garage Construction / SF 4 Annual Expense Construction / SF 4 Annual Expense :otiI E ui Building Summary Per Sq Ft Total Per Annum Total Cumulative Total PV Cumulative PV ~$ $ 22.45 $ 23.58 $ 6.52 $ 6.68 $ !L85.. .$ 7.02 $ .1.19~ $ q] $ ~7.56._ $ .,12A $ $ 1,955.665 $ 2,054,670 $ 567,815 $ 582,010 $ 596,561 $ 611,475 $ 626,762 $ 642,431 $ 658.491 $ 1.079,015 $ 25,537,340 $ $ 1,955,665 $ 4,010,335 $ 4,578,150 $ 5,160,161 $ 5,756,721 $ 6,368,196 $ 6,994,958 $ 7,637,388 $ 8,295,880 $ 25,537,340 $ $ 1,790,861 $ 1,800,501 $ 476,148 $ 467,035 $ 458,096 $ 449,329 $ 440,729 $ 432,294 $ 424,021 $ 288,097 13,705,112 $ $ 1,790,861 $ 3,591,361 $ 4,067,509 $ 4,534,544 $ 4,992,641 $ 5,441,970 $ 5,882,699 $ 6,314,993 $ 6,739,014 $ 13,705,112 · Note: Pro forma contains hidden columns for years 11-29 to accommodate page size limitations. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 97 ProJections: Bill Period Year Beginning Inflation. Op Ex 1 SF (2.50% Ese.) $ 4 Annual Expense "$ Net Exp 1 SF (2.50% Ese.) $ 4 Annual Expense r$ iT. I $ $ r$ $ r$ $ $ n $ $ n $ n $ r$ $ I Cap Exl SF 4 Annual Expense R&M 1 SF 4 Annual Expense 1I€lli1 Relocation 1 SF 4 Annual Expense Qtl)Jii6.ii;JJ.I iAtiI . Bond Debt 1 SF 4 Annual Expense Garage Construction 1 SF 4 Annual Expense Construction 1 SF 4 Annual Expense E uit Building Summary Per Sq Ft Total Per Annum Total Cumulative Total PV Cumulative PV l!!2.!....egrateQSI~ Projected Costs for Space 1 Billing Period is January - December Acres;~ SF;~ COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Inflation; Term; Rate (PV, Debt); 2.50% 30 Years 4.50% $ 2.05 $ 1.17 $ 1.02 Total Op Ex; Cap Ex; Other Net Exp; R&M; pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF Analysis Begin; Analysis End; $ 4.24 - .. - .. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ $ 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ 114.99 $ $ 5,309,494 $- $ 5,309,494 $ 1/1/2013 111/2037 1,13,,14% 209,64% $ 2.20 $ 2.26 $ 2.31 $ 2.37 $ $ $ 4.19 $--r91.882-S-i'96:679-$-21J1,S96-$-206763-6-$ $ $~6'1,633 ~$ $ 1.26 $ 1.29 $ 1.32 $ 1.36 $ 1.39 $ 1.42 $ 1.46 $ 2.39 $~b97'~7-$ 112,388f"'-fls:19S-$-1'187078-$--r21.0'30-$-124-:'05S-$-=;27:i5r$-20873'61 "$-4:156:939' $ 301,529 $ 309,068 $ 316,794 $ 324,714 $ 332,832 $ 341,153 $ 349,682 $ 572,994 $ 11,431,582 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $- $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.10 $ 1.13 $ 1.16 $ 1.19 $ 1.22 $ 1.25 $ 1.28 $ 2.09 $-95;941-$--98:340-$- - -100)98-$-103:318-$--105:901-$-1087549-$-11'(262-$-=;82:316" .$-3:63i~322" $ 95,941 $ 98,340 $ 100,798 $ 103,318 $ 105,901 $ 108,549 $ 111,262 $ 182,316 $ 3,637,322 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - -$ $- $ ~$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ ~$ ~$ ~$ ~$ ~$ ~$ ~$ ~$ o $ 0 $-- 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 .$ 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -~$ $ $ $ $ $ -$ -- .$... 120.81 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,578,288 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 5,578,288 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 30-Year Total 7,274,643 "$ "$ $ - -~$ ___0. ;._ :s__ _ _ .:. "$ $ $ 10,887,782 10,887,782 o 1$ $ 60.94 $ 64.:93 $ 4.56 $ 4.6ft $ 4.79 $ _ 4.l!! $ _5.Qi _$ 5.J.6 _$ ~29 $ ~ $ $ 5,309,494 $ 5,578,288 $ 397,471 $ 407,407 $ 417,592 $ 428,032 $ 438,733 $ 449,701 $ 460,944 $ 755,310 25,956,685 $ $ 5,309,494 $ 10,887,782 $ 11,285,253 $ 11,692,660 $ 12,110,252 $ 12,538,285 $ 12,977,018 $ 13,426,719 $ 13,887,663 $ 25,956,685 $ $ 4,862,063 $ 4,888,234 $ 333,303 $ 326,924 $ 320,667 $ 314,530 $ 308,511 $ 302,606 $ 296,815 $ 201,668 16,829,923 $ $ 4,862,063 $ 9,750,297 $ 10,083,601 $ 10,410,525 $ 10,731,193 $ 11,045,723 $ 11,354,234 $ 11,656,840 $ 11,953,654 $ 16,829,923 Note: Pro forma contains hidden columns for years 11-29 to accommodate page size limitations. - - 10 - Oct - 07 Page 98 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - .. - .. - - ProJections: ~c.:Qtnblnll.d eil): + Cou.nty, + 'PST!\: 1M sep'!!rete sl!lllle-occup.ancYJili!9!2 Projected Costs for Space / Billing Period is January - December Inflation: Tenm: Rate (PV, Debt): 2.50% 30 Years 4.50% County County City USF: RSF: GSF: FTE: 116,825 43,278 134,348 49,770 154,501 57,235 437 96 Total Op Ex: Cap Ex: Other Net Exp: R&M: Relocation: $ 5.14 $ 5.14 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 1.71 $ 1.71 $ 1.73 $ 1.73 $ 1.63 $ 0.96 $ 8.59 $ 1/112008 100.00% $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ -- $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ o $ 77.80 $ 7,527,272 $ 312.97 $ 26,868,464 $ 34,395,736 $ _Iiliilan-..~ .~ Bill Period Year Beginning Inflation L Op Ex / SF (2.50% Ese.) $ 4 Annual Expense rt Net Exp / SF (2.50% Ese.) $ 4 Annual Expense f$ $ $ rs $ rs $ $ IS $ $ r$ $ 1$ $ r$ $ . ~'uiZt!f1..:....:.:..- Cap Ex/ SF 4 Annual Expense R&M / SF 4 Annual Expense ~~'U:ZJJ' Relocation / SF 4 Annual Expense ~ Bond Debt / SF 4 Annual Expense Garage Construction / SF 4 Annual Expense Construction / SF 4 Annual Expense E ui Building Summary Per Sq Ft Total Per Annum Total Cumulative Total PV Cumulative PV 16.10 1,482,149 1 ,482, 149 1/1/2012 1/1/2013 1/1/2014 ,110.38..'1'. J13,.1.!!% 115.9L% $ $ 1~~ $ 14_ $ 1~~ $ $ . $ J ,32.6,2).9 .$ 1,3&9,3Z4 $"':"'"1.393':~59 $ $ $ 5.62 $ 5.76 $ 5.91 $ $ $~0il7'593-$-521~30i $ 534,340 $ $ $ 1,834,811 $ 1,880,682 $ 1,927,699 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ . $_ $ ,s. _t $ 5.31 $ 5.44 $ 5.58 $ 5.71 $ $-:rS6:774$-492)94$-565711;r'$ 517,741 $ $ 480,774 $ 492,794 $ 505,114 $ 517,741 $ $ 2.79 $ $ $ $ $ 286,991 $ $ $ $ $ 286,991 $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ $ 0$ 0$ .0.$_ 0$ $ $ $ $ $ .$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.00 o 77.80 7,527,272 315.12 26,967,470 34,494,742 $0 City Analysis Begin: Analysis End: 8.59 30.Year Total 1/1/2015 1/1/2017 1/1/2037 118&?%o 124.89..% 204.64% 15.70 $ 16.50 $ 27.03 1,428,.ll!.3 _$ _ 1,50g,495-$. _ 2,45J!,~.~ J9,053,276. 6.06 $ $ 6.36 $ 1Q.43 547,699 $ $-575~26 $ 942,902 1,975,891 $ $ 2,075,921 $ 3,401,638 $ $ 12.49 $ 20.46 ____$ _ $. _1,~-:S90-$. _ flS3,2,QQ. $.~,5,q5,~~ 5.86 $ 6.00 $ 6.15 $ 10.08 530,685 $-5437952-$-557:551-$ 913,612.$ 18,227,116 530,685 $ 543,952 $ 1,707,241 $ 2,797,512 $ 22,732,406 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ o $ 0 $_ 0 .$ $ $ $ $ $. . .t _ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0$ 0$ 0$ $0 $0 $0 18,811,'l76 67,864,752 $ $ 286,991 286,991 _'_ ~$ _..0_ '_ .$-1E,~,a '$-55,318:08'3~ $ 70,372,627 $ 0 IS 8.05 $ 186.81 $ 187.3,? $ 13.89 $. 12.64 .$ 1.2~6 .$ 13JJ! $ _1~J!.1 .$ _ 13.95. $.. 20A5 $- . ~ $ 1,482,149 $ 34,395,736 $ 34,494,742 $ 2,557,826 $ 2,327,605 $ 2,385,795 $ 2,445,440 $ 2,506,576 $ 2,569,240 $ 3,783,161 $ 6,199,150 161,256,776 $ 1,482,149 $ 35,877,885 $ 70,372,627 $ 72,930,452 $ 75,258,057 $ 77,643,853 $ 80,089,293 $ 82,595,869 $ 85,165,109 $ 88,948,270 $ 161,256,776 $ 1,418,324 $ 31,497,206 $ 30,227,625 $ 2,144,894 $ 1,867,789 $ 1,832,042 $ 1,796,979 $ 1,762,587 $ 1,728,853 $ 2,436,082 $ 1,655,173 105,684,777 $ 1,418,324 $ 32,915,530 $ 63,143,155 $ 65,288,049 $ 67,155,838 $ 68,987,880 $ 70,784,859 $ 72,547,446 $ 74,276,299 $ 76,712,381 $ 105,684,777 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 · Note: Pro forma contains hidden columns for years 11-29 to accommodate page size limitations. Page 99 ProJections: rJolnt Use cOiiiiiin.j(jc~y + County Builainq Projected Costs for Space / Billing Period is January - December Total Op Ex: Cap Ex: Other Net Exp: R&M: Relocation: $ 5.14 $ 5.00 $ 1.71 $ 1.73 $ ....1.61 Infiation: 2.50% USF: 143,589 Term: 30 Years RSF: 165,128 Rate (PV, Debt): 4.50% GSF: 189,897 FTE: 533 Bill Period Year Beginning Infiationt Op Ex / SF (2.50% Ese.) $ $ $ $ 4 Annual Expense n $ $ $ Net Exp / SF (2.50% Ese.) $ $ $ $ 4 Annual Expense r$----:---$ $ $ oets 1 $ $ $ $ Cap Ex / SF $ $ $ $ 4 Annual Expense r$ $ $" $ R&M / SF $ $ $ $ 4 Annual Expense t$ $- -=--$---:--$ I. $ $ $ $ Relocation / SF $ $ $ $ 4 Annual Expense r$-~$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ QOO $ QOO $ r$ $ 0 $--0-$ $ $ 45.58 $ 45.58 $ [$. $-7:527~272-$-7:521:~7r$ $ 8.05 $ 135.31 $ 135.31 $ r$~329727i-$-22:343:247-$-22.343,247 $ $ 1,329,277 $ 29,870,519 $ 29,870,519 $ I H Bond Debt / SF 4 Annual Expense Garage Construction / SF 4 Annual Expense Construction / SF 4 Annual Expense Iii E uit Building Summary Per Sq Ft Total Per Annum Total Cumulative Total PV Cumulative PV $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.87 $ 308,264 $ 308,264 $ 1.74 $ 286,991 $ 286,991 $ 0.00 $ 0-$ $ $ $ $ o $ $0 pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF pRSF Analysis Begin: Analysis End: 8.59 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.91 $ 1.96 $ 315,971 $ 323,870 $ 315,971 $ 323,870 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0-$--0-$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ o $ 0 $ $0 $0 1/1/2017 1/1/2037 124,89% 2~.64,% $ $ $ 6.42 $ 10.52 $ $ $ 1,060,627 $-u37,900 .$-34,6i!3'ef $ $ 2.09 $ 2.14 $ 3.50 $ $-344,545-$-353:159$-578'7'691 .$-11;545;247 $ $ 1,379,303 $ 1,413,785 $ 2,316,652 $ 46,218,615 $ $ $ 6.24 $ 10.23 $ ---:--::$ $ l,031,ll!,!l .s 1,61l..9,~ )~~03o:&if6" $ 2.06 $ 2.11 $ 2.16 $ 3.55 $-340,266 $-348~772-$~5i::r92-$-585)9j!" .$-j(686:906" $ 340,266 $ 348,772 $ 1,388,600 $ 2,275,383 $ 15,727,513 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0-$ 0-$ 0 ~$ 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ - _$ - _$_ _-_$. -~.$~,~.~ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ H H H H 30-Year Total 2.01 331,967 331,967 .$-286,991 $ 286,991 __ .$__0... '$-46'761i(7io. $ 61,070,314 $ 0 1$ 8.05 $ 180.89 $ 180.89 $ 10.9,9 $ 9.18 $ 9.72 $ 9.96 $ 10.21 $ 10.47 $ _ .l6..!l.Z.. $ ---1Z.ll. $ 1,329,277 $ 29,870,519 $ 29,870,519 $ 1,814,358 $ 1,565,551 $ 1,604,689 $ 1,644,807 $ 1,685,927 $ 1,728,075 $ 2,802,385 $ 4,592,035 $ 123,303,433 $ 1,329,277 $ 31,199,795 $ 61,070,314 $ 62,884,672 $ 64,450,223 $ 66,054,912 $ 67,699,719 $ 69,385,646 $ 71,113,721 $ 73,916,106 $ 123,303,433 $ 1,272,035 $ 27,353,328 $ 26,175,434 $ 1,521,450 $ 1,256,278 $ 1,232,234 $ 1,208,651 $ 1,185,519 $ 1,162,829 $ 1,804,534 $ 1,226,073 $ 83,908,820 $ 1,272,035 $ 28,625,364 $ 54,800,798 $ 56,322,248 $ 57,578,526 $ 58,810,760 $ 60,019,411 $ 61,204,930 $ 62,367,759 $ 64,172.293 $ 83,908,820 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a - - - · Note: Pro forma contains hidden columns for years 11-29 to accommodate page size limitations. - - - - - 10 - Oct - 07 Page 100 - - - - - - - - - - - -~----------------- . City insurance estimate based on input from Sharon Walton via Mike Quillen: $0.501$100 of value, not including additional Loss Limit value. Same value used for County. . .. ~ Parking estimates based on data from HEERY and HDR studies for year 2020, and validated th'$ugl:i"int~l€!ws conducted 5/07. Square footage estimates from Programming Analysis developed for City and County (separat~\ l>are~lon ~Iidation interviews of HEERY, HDR and previous Equis studies. . f\.~ 't;/I.. FTE estimates from Programming Analysis developed for City and County (separat ),S:asea~ on validation interviews of HEERY, HDR and previous Equis studies, at 2020 load levels. '" ~ . '-l' City WACC of 4.25% from Mike Quillen. l ~ County WACC of 4.75% from Andrew Pupke. .. ~ Financial analyses WACC is average of City and County WACC~1.5 ~.. fe~c~ntinuity purposes. Collocated building type assumed to be pre-cast concrete w/steel~f~ame\ 5-10 stories, at union labor rates. Single-occupancy building type assumed to be pre-castlftcoii'Ct~(e \W/steel frame, 2-4 stories at union labor rates. PSTA construction costs based on development costsf'as~t~i~~t~ with Central Plaza, escalated at 2.5% to 2007 (5-years). Pinellas County space standards were applied ~lailts~~ta~ro' programs. Differences in SF I FTE can be attributable to variations in personnel work space assignments, d~p'artft1ents~ahd auxiliary space needs. Security, R&M, Utilities, Cap Ex and onsit~\{rab)>~)~costs based on BOMA 2006 data. Cap Ex based on estimated minor~caRi'tal ~p\rirs occurring roughly every 10-years (interior refurbishment and systems repairs). Move costs based on estimate~&~i~~d in HEERY study. Parking costs based orf$52/SF\~~i'age development costs @ 350 GSF/Stal1. Cost and scale estimate developed by Equis architectu~al c_onta,?~~~?Sr'td~n recent local garage projects. ..... . construct~o~tc~.~t~aJ~'estlmated based on the av~rage costs of recent ar~a bUlI?I~g projects of similar size and scope. Constructlon!Cost~are based on a 200,000 SF multi-level Class B+ to A- office bUilding. Construction~C6~ts are based on year 2008 start. Cash flows include escalation to 2009 I 2010 of 6.0%. "... Site acquisition and investigation costs are not included. Parking Deck will be concrete construction (cast-in-place or pre-cast) and will not exceed 6 stories. Construction Costs include soft costs (design), 5% contingency and 6% escalation to base year. For the purposes of this analysis, Op Ex costs include contract services, insurance and utilities. Other net costs include security, communications and on-site labor. R&M costs include small capital repairs - paint, carpet, light bulbs, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 101 10 - Oct - 07 . Analysis performed using publicly available web-based schedules for botm City and County. ~ Analysis examined a 6-month period from February - July 200:4. . Analysi~ plotted only ~ity / Cou~ty regularly schedule~\~~r.titl9S that were related to the business of operating the City / County, and '~I~meetJngs that currently occur at City Hall or the main County buildings. Non-business related meetings, evel'ilts~~c0nferences were not plotted. tt~\~~ Weekend meetings .were not\~l(:). ttee? ...... \ ~\\ ~ . Off~s~te meet~~s o~ve1ts were not Plotte~. . . . . Anticipated, SlztQf meeting groups, and anticipated duration of meeting undetermined. City meel~ngs are indicated in Blue, County meetings are indicated in Orange, and conflictfd time slots are indicated in Green. . . . . . . . - Note: Due to page size limitations, font sizes cannot be adjusted to accommodate consistent details of meeting descriptions. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10-0ct-07 Page 102 --------~---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 8 15 22 2 tt1.1996\\:6 n,. J ~~. 4 11 18 25 5 12 19 26 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 .. ,,' Sunday Mund.l) Tllesd.l) Wednesday Thursda) Prid.IY Salurd.l) 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM ~. 3:00 PM ,(.~ " 3:30 PM _ ~ ( , '\ 4:00 PM <'" ~ ,\ \. ~ 4:30 PM ~~ W /1. \. VI' 5:00 PM \fl .." ... 5:30 PM ,..R .,.. 6:00 PM ...... 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM Bc.d d County CcrnrnIuIonenl Work Selsion ".^ U..)'" · 4' ... A" \\\~ ~ 4"'\.~\ "" ... If H ,......:. V ,~ ~ DRS Board of Adjustment Haering ~\<r Pinllll;lCOI.fIlyFr'endll'ipTl'IiI~COmmllM t'\ - " ,rH ~~ *~.....,f()\'''' W\,,"-""' A.~ I^\\~ ~. - (.,1( ,,........ y ,,~ ~\ \'\,;. "'" , EMS AdIIt80ry CounctI Nom~ Comrnlt.. ..... #Iff t r. "'-' \\ "tle\ taU n~ y. .,\ \'t. ,.. .........-OIl........F............CnoIk,...... COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 103 .. 0 1 2 _ 'a "\\J.' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ~Y>J \ ...... if 17 18 19 20 21 22 ~\\ 24 25 26 27 28 0 . 0 Sunday lIIonday Tucsda) Wcdncsd.IY Thursd.l)' Frid,l)' Saturc.l.\y 7:00 AM ..... tf.J~ " ,~ 7:30 AM 4- .",y 8:00 AM ~ A:"\.'~ n- 8:30 AM 1;::ft1 ~" "tI 9:00 AM fi\ ,.~liIo """'Iy 0,.... ClIyICounly Publ~ _ 9:30 AM &c.do:leo..nyCom~ReguI.PublicMletlng \\ \:\ '" , 10:00 AM Il'nt,.'" "" 10:30 AM #~,~ In '\. \'''' 11 :00 AM <I!r' '\. ~\....~ 11 :30 AM ^ h~'U \~ ~ 12:00 PM . .,.. ",... .... y 12:30 PM '" ~~1_ 1 :00 PM \ . \A 111. '<!oil" Women's Roundtable Meeting 1 :30 PM ~, AU' -. 2:00 PM W'. 6~ \. 'h ..... Women's Roundtable Meeting Security Panel Meeting 2:30 PM 11. f. .... ~,.. 3:00 PM tr~' l'\ ~'" Airpark Advisory Board (CW) 3:30 PM _ t~'( " ". 4:00 PM ... ft"t\.~ Ufo 4:30 PM ::~ \"}" "l'- ,... 5:00 PM .l ..... '" 5:30 PM ...... V 6:00 PM ~ Budget Task Force (GW) 6:30 PM Budget Task Force (GW) 7:00 PM Budget Task Force (GW) Traffic Calming Public Meeting 7:30 PM Budget Task Force (GW) 8:00 PM Budget Task Force (GW) 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study- Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 104 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o 7 14 21 28 1 8 - -15- 22 o 2. . a. \\'tA 3 Jf9~ 10 16 17 fA \23.1' "...... 24 . f'\." '031 0 Suud,lY i\!ond,IY Tuesd'l) Wednesda) Thursda) Frida) Salurda) · """ U,).J. ~;;t yo .. 11 '10,\ \!\...IJ ~~\1 't\- F\'leh CuN8I FG.IIldlIIion 8c8'd d Dinlctcn 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1 :00 PM 1 :30 PM 2:00 PM I. r' 1'-' \ l 2:30 PM 4, ("Ill"" Y. 3:00 PM f'\!r.) -----...., 3:30PM ~ ., r~\ \I' 4:00 PM .. ,"" n ,." 4:30 PM ,1'i~1t.. 1'3' ....l'\..,. 5:00 PM lI'\ U" V 5:30 PM \-,II..1tit V 6:00 PM ~ 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM ~ CANCELLED-8UIding BoaI1l of Apoeols County ~ Clty1County PI.I>Ilc__"ll , Pinellas Suncoast TransR Authority f~\ ", _l...I\ Ir, \. \P .f!'-'" ''\ \ \. V . A I......' 'l \$..... ~f \.,...~ V ,"'-Ii ~~ \\...'-.'9 \ .,... P.......MdllIityI~(PMlIS'-lnGConwnlllM METROPOlITAN P\.AHNIIIG ~TKlN (MPO) EO-IoIod~co.nrCollwrilllllr-.Wlllts.... dC--'YCommIIIIlonINWart dCourty~W"" l!o.-.ec..ddCooonly~W""'s.uion PinelIas County Health Facilities Aulhority .IoIntMeebng.CityCcurd .BudgetT_ Fon:elCWI Job Corps Town Hall Meeting City Council Meeting (CW) JolnIMMbng.CIIyCcud.8udglII T_ Fon:e{CW) Jon:MNbng oCilyCQundl.8udglIl Tall Fon:e(CW) .IoinlMeebng.CllyCourdoBudglll TIBk Force(CWI COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10-0ct-07 Page 105 .. 1~ 152 _;3 1:_ __ _ __ 185 ff~(\~ 1_ ~~ _ _ J ;- 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 O. ",U "6' 0 Sunda) Munda) Tucsday Wedncsday Thursd.IY Frid.l) Satur".I) ~ ~ \A:~ ~ '"' 'q" c ll\ n \>>' \\ """'" ',," ~, \l\ -~ t n'\ Vi _ ,iI;...;.\ N H .... ~.j ~'_"'m' A, ,~"'It\l}' \f.' _~i"1r; ",.~ " f!"k\ 'Ii....... ... ~ Commun;ty Development Boar1l (CW) Pinellas Planning Council "a \t -"""',--.,..,........ """ fir'>>' \..... ..4U~~~ ~ ~''''\l \A ~ 't<'~ \~".., .,;~ " ..... Cltoooly~___I<t"""~ Regional Transportation FOfUm Meelllg 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1 :00 PM 1 :30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM .. J 3:00 PM ,~~ ~ 3:30 PM _" It' -. 4:00 PM li'I ti"J,,~" ~.. 4:30 PM ~I\ \ (' ff ~ ,. 5:00 PM ~'A ~.~ \\ ...~ 5:30 PM t,\.M'" 6:00 PM V 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a ... ~Cc:u1ryPatllsIl'lllR<<....ion~Bon ,",' """. PWleIl.-CalnyEmpIowMIAlNIayColnd:A"Il~ F"I.a.~E~~CalndRlplolllltWlg bnl ofCcull)'CCrnminlonM ReguIIr PubIc MMling Pinellas County Historical Commission Chel1er R8\4eW CommIt.. EJr8clMwl SeIllion Environmental AdvisOI)' Board (CW) ~---~-,~"'" Budget Task Force (CW) Council Candidates Forum (CW) 10-0ct-07 Page 106 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o 7 14 21 28 1 8 15 22 ----0- SUI"J..) Mond..)' Tnesd..)' Wednesday Thursd..)' Frid..) Salurd..) 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM It I.....:.. ...~ 2:30 PM .A ~'''~, \ f\ ~ 3:00 PM , t , \" .....:.; 3:30 PM _ ~ ,f"H " ~ 4:00 PM .. U"'l'l. '\ Local Planning Agency 4:30 PM l.!P '" f /(1'\"'" 5:00 PM" \'\ \ \ \V 5:30 PM ",".Jo' V 6:00 PM ~.:P' 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM ID-.fIclnrlCouriyColmollalClnltlWOlt ~.... hl>> ~ ..... H" ,,... .A!"'lII. ~,\.~ 'tit. ~ W1.' 1 "+",,, "... ,'.....J CANCELLED-PlurnI>ng Bo8<d '" Aweal' , ,,'" GoodI McMIn'lenAlMlory Corm*tee (GMAC) C"OOWT_....'_~~(fSWCCI-. Historic Preservation Task Force MeetIng ~....\ Nl\ \'lJ ~,. '~ \,It. '-' 4. fn\U Q'" ~ t f" Y... .. \ \ ~:\ \.L '-'" \'.,,,n""" '\ " " Board of Coonty Commissioners Board of Coonty Commissioners MunqJal Code Enfocement Board (CW) JQ1NTCITlZENS MNISORY COMMITTEE (JCAC) Budget Task Force (CW) Budget Task Force (CW) Budget Task Force (CW) Budget Task Force (CW) Traffic Calming Public Meeting COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 107 .. 1 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 27 28 29 SlInd.,y Monday Tllcsd.,y Wcdncsday Thursday ,~~ ~ft' 1" t~ - ~~~ t~ ~ 24 30 31 .. 1'\" Frida) Sa,urday - - ~,~:. I'h,l\. \,,\ 'E. tf\ M .. ~.l~~ 1F \i\ .- ,~ In \ ,\ ~ l' ' "' ff 1'\ i 'ft"I" \ H" ,.. It.. """" \). v ... t# r ,,.... "'" 'V ...~ ('l./'\' 'f~ ~ '~"~\*4 .., 11\\\ ... : f'\. ...... . ..... \t \, ~ ~ ~~,\~ ~'( 1,.J ~~ ~ "'"~ DRS Board of Adjustment Hearing - \ .... 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11 :00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1 :00 PM 1 :30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM _ A 3:00 PM '(.~ ~ 3:30 PM ..-., ~'. \ 4:00 PM >PI ~ \ '\ .... 4:30PM~'(" .~tjIO 5:00 PM 'rA ~ ~ .. 5:30 PM '<'\.A .... 6:00 PM \lllii' 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM ~,' ...' ....._ ~_R..-c;;;;;......,_... ~8li_~~on~~ P.....C4JUntyHcmelllMl~Nelwortt City Council Meeting (CW) COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 108 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - .. 0 0 0 0 1 2 ~L.2..- - ----;r- - - 5 -"'6 -7- - 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 \~i?)\ \\~ v 17 18 19 20 21 22 (\~ 24 25 26 27 28 29 4> 31 Sunday "Ionday Tucsd.\y Wcdncsday Thursd..y Friday S.llurd.IY 7:00 AM ,'~ ~ t..v ' \ .... 7:30 AM .... "'\ VttJi 8:00 AM ",..... ;0;'" ,,'\\ '\ H ~ 8:30 AM , { 'l,* \~~ 9:00 AM r--ThtSdwld,.,.,.....,.w.t)'c:omrr-l8TSCl Pension Adviusory COmmittee (CW) 9:30 AM - ,\ 'lai\. . , 10:00 AM rn \ '\i\ ,.,. - 10:30 AM ~il ~,\ ({ l\. \iii' 11 :00 AM Cfl '\\'i\V 11 :30 AM IL ,.,..,.\ \'\ -.,l ~ IIIlCn.lFtnaW'OChIi1I~~ 12:00 PM _ ~ t \.,........ . "'c.IbIIF~W'OChIirt~~ 12:30 PM 'p tflh \ ~ \. ......., "'~FlllIldIoW>Oo..~CmwNllIe 1 :00 PM ,~\\ n V _Cto*"FloIldIoW'OChIi1I~c-.. 1 :30 PM ~I- \U _c;.,.FloIldIot.FOo...~~ ~ 2:00 PM ,(. 1.....\ ~n ... Security Panel Meeting "'cenIrIlFIoIidiIM'OChIi1I~c---. 2:30 PM . A ~(\~ '. 'V 3:00 PM "'r,~i ~~~Councll 3:30 PM _t..(" \. ~ 4:00 PM "" Wl.. n W 4:30 PM "~\f" ..~.. 5:00 PM \~ ~\, "'" 5:30 PM ,(-~.J J .... 6:00 PM ",.... Budget Task Force (CW) 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 4 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 109 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1 :00 PM 1 :30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM ~ A 3:00 PM W..1. f;. 3:30 PM ~ t.'t'l ~ 4:00 PM ... ..".\ ~ V 4:30 PM ~lli.." Wit" .. 5:00 PM __ '" 'J. ... 5:30 PM "-.I~ "" 6:00 PM .... 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM o 7 14 21 28 ... .J' ~^\.., 130 16 17 ~Vi\i~ 24 30~ 31 1 8 15 22 29 o 6 13 20 27 o 5 12 19 26 Sunday Munday Tucsd.IY Wcdncsd.l~ Thursday Frida~ S.llurday :f'\ .>> . "' ... .... . ~\ ,,~ ..... ~~ \\ . Pinellas Poice Standards Council CNoCEL.l.ED-I'lnIlllItCUll.....F__tOIIs-dolo..ca. ~_&A~Hau.-.g~1l<*ll (CW) -------- &.dofO:ull)'COm~~PublicMlellng ......-......-.---- Bo8rd d County CommiBIicn!lI'8 Wall Sesllm ~(I -..'" ,~. ~~1i' A. l~"'f.'\ 't.f,. \)" _ ~~ 't'r'" .., ... 'i" ~ "...." t<f8' U \~ \A - rNlCEl.I.ED-f'nII.~P"',&~~_ ~AN PI..>>INNGORGANlZATDN(MPOI r< ffh'i t'K'~ f~' \ Ct)'Co.otlCIIW"..,s-m(CW) ~T_(CW) .. ~-~_ol"""""""~(CW, D.""_.....,_fPMIl """".... V PlnelI88 County Health Facilities Authority City Council Meeting (CW) Teacher Training Workshop _"",.....,__""",_,CWI Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop 10-0ct-07 Page 110 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. .. 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 r - -- - - 18 19 20 21 22 23 - 2'\,. - 25 26 27 28 29 .. f\'i "'30~ I 31 Suuda) Mond.l) TlIcsdil~ Wednesday Thursd.l) Frid..) Satllrd.,~ 7:00 AM 'of'\ 4 c.>> .. ........ 7:30 AM All. 'It "\ ,,\...Ill 8:00 AM City CouncA Special Meeling (CW) - 8:30 AM ~ T."".,..A4vWyCGnmllw (PTACI....... , C l'" r--C'.any~~CIlurclIDIIIg-.......-.; 9:00 AM 1.......<anJt:~ 9:30 AM - ,,\ \'\ ~ 10:00 AM 1 n \ \\ ~ r-o- -- 10:30 AM _of s,nl\.Y 11:00 AM PQI_ COI.r1ly FrIenlMhip Tr.- o-.Igtll Com"'*- fWIll "1 Art:hkturIIR.-.C4:mmlll8eforOldCo.Jrthcge 11:30AM A. lA.' 1t\ ,It. .... 12:00 PM .. ~ \Y..... 12:30 PM \'\ ~~~'."" 1:00 PM . C8ncllIlfId-Cor'r1munityoDewJlcpmenlBolrd(CW) Pinellas Planning Council 1:30 PM f"d~ ~ PhtIsa CotrIly eor.tru::tion l..Jc:.enU1g Boerd 2:00 PM H". (~,\, 10" PInIIIICclPCyE~""""'CDundI_MIIlRg 2:30 PM ... ;, 1''''- U ~ _Ctr.nyE~~C<1undI,...MM8'lg 3:00 PM r't"J~ . ~~ toaflldCounly'~__PuIlIic~ -~._-~-- 3:30 PM " rH ,~ "-CcullyE".......~CaundI.....toINllng 4:00 PM ....d;n~H. Local Planning Agency Environmental Advisory Board (CW) 4:30 PM ... ,,'" t If.....\. 'v 5:00 PM \ \'\H V 5:30 PM t', J'J \" 6:00 PM ~".P ShIll Key PreIerve MnIgIrrW1I PIIn tl'lllllting 6:30 PM "'CclIn,~lIDf*'4I"-~-' 7:00 PM Pi'IeIII CourtyNllc ~ AlMIory Ccuw::I -......-.Orgort-.~ _<CAe. 7:30 PM Pi'IeIII Cculty Ptbk: ~ MviIory Ccu1cI 8:00 PM PhIIIII Courty PlM: Ace-. ~ Col.rd 8:30 PM -eo.ny---"""" 9:00 PM -eo.ny---"""" 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 111 0 0 0 o 1 2 ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . 10 14 15 16' .. 17 11 12 13 .!!.. _ ____ _ 22 .. ~ 24 18 19 20 - - -2'5- - 26 -- - 27 28 29 30 31 Sund.,y i\lond..) Tuesd..) Wednesd.l) Thursd..) Frida) Salurd..) 7:00 AM '4 U~ ~ t "'" 7:30 AM ... \i '1. ,,:\At 8:00 AM ~ ~~" '\A 8:30 AM .V. ftt.~\W '\# 9:00 AM t\ ~ ,'~" 9:30 AM Plumbing Board of Appeals fir' 10:00 AM ::....-.r...,..8irol&Ult4MCa*<II~(TNt,IOCC/ 10:30 AM fit .....\ In \ .. 11 :00 AM ~ ~\ '"",P 11 :30 AM A, ~'\ ...' -~- ---.-.....--. 12:00 PM ~ f~ \"5'1'".,4 \Ii' 12:30 PM t<\ ~....~ "\.. ~ 1:00 PM Livable Comrmrilies Ta9k Force Meemg .\,\\ ''I./!-~' 1 :30 PM ~ ',\ \" 2:00 PM """. ~'" ", - - 2:30 PM A " if' \i\ Il~ 3:00 PM f (J0{i ~ t'\~ 3:30 PM ~ >( ,..,r\ ~ ~ 4:00 PM ... ~'\ \'\ ...; 4:30 PM .#i':lA 1;;"'" In""", 5:00 PM &\\. \,\ 11,,\ ~, 5:30 PM " ~) , -- 6:00 PM If''jIV 6:30 PM 7:00 PM Traffic Calming Public Meeting 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 112 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I .. I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ ~,,- 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 f\\\ 28 29 30 . SlIlIda) Mnnd.,)" TlIcsda) Wcdllcsda) Thursda) Frid.,)" S.,turd..)" 7:00 AM ~..... U~ '" ,\ ..... 7:30 AM ""'" 1:4 \'\,~ 8:00 AM ~ ~.....,. " - 8:30 AM If'"''t1 ~.,,) 9:00 AM OASllond"",,-HInICI P8TAs...ddo.-. \V,j 9:30 AM brdcllCounlyC~Regu"'Publil:MMling -" \, " er.ddColoI'Iy~luclpIt""""'''''~ 10:00 AM (f)" " p .. 10:30 AM -<(" ....,:\ f( It.. "" 11:00 AM .. '\ :1.,\,,-, r-"~~PDIcJ_FIlflIIntCllolwllllN 11:30 AM It. t~,.~ ~- 12:00 PM ~t t' \""'1'... ~ 12:30 PM "" :'1.4" v... "" 1 :00 PM \: l\\\~ 1 :30 PM City Council Work Session (CW) .~ \J . C<loIlIi'_l___~ 2:00 PM U ....3\'\\ ". 2:30 PM A. ~ iH- un 3:00 PM '(l; \\ "'"'" 3:30 PM . r'ti ,... 4:00 PM - ,,..,,, \\ " 4:30 PM d..~ 11 "'I( ltt/t. v ........~~,---"--*"" 5:00 PM \, 'f'" '" ,\t;!,j' .......PIMNlg~T.......,.,"'-"IIb'I 5:30 PM ,aI\ .t"" 'V ~~~T~_ 6:00 PM \lP" City Council Meeling (CW) MIIopdIIoI"*"*'lI~ -"'*'" 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 113 .. 1 2 3 4 5 ---.!..._~~ 7 - - - - - I 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~:;>>, ..V 1V 21 22 23 24 25 26 At 28 29 30 0 0 0 - 0 SlInd..) Mond..) TlIcsda) \Vcdncsd.,y Thllrsd..) !'rid..) S..tlltda) 7:00 AM ....... .'4>> .... lV" 7:30 AM ....W\,~ 8:00 AM .~ ~~\, \\ - 8:30 AM - ~ ~i 9:00 AM The Pine.as TraM Security Task Force - Pension Advisory Committee (CW) CJIS User Policy Board 9:30 AM .,....o;i'CooMIy~IkdgIIII""""*lOIls..on SCHOOL ~8PORTATK)N lW'ETYCOMMITTEE .. 10:00 AM fn,),_ .... . 10:30 AM . ~ ~ r.. U.\,'" 11:00 AM -~ ,'\....v 11:30 AM .4\, ~~ ~.. 12:00 PM _ ~"" \7"'"..... 12:30 PM "- f'Ji . ~ n~ '" 1 :00 PM ~I \d,,- METROPOUTNt Pl....AHNHG ORGN<<lAllOH (WO) 1 :30 PM p~ MlIbilllyInllillrYe(PMII&e.ingCommlllee " \\ . 2:00 PM t;r f .., \~ ... c:..:.-.~_"'''''-'~(cwl s.cu.;IJ"-'oI.......U811_"....,.r.""~ 2:30 PM j. ~.I1l~ ,,\0 3:00 PM ~ r .11'* .....-~""-"e..-Alt-..yT... G""'P 3:30 PM .' ~r#t.~ " 4:00 PM _ 4IJ"\i\ \\ .) 4:30 PM _ t"V I"V 5:00 PM ~ .n V' 5:30 PM ^M 'tIl" 6:00 PM '.. 6:30 PM 7:00 PM Traffic Calming Public Meeling 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 114 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM ~30PM 4 3:00 PM tr1- 3:30 PM ~ :f'~ . 4:00 PM .. ~\ " !;i}> 4:30PM""""" If., \. V 5:00 PM '" ,\ 'W\ V' 5:30 PM . 'A. .B " 6:00 PM ~ 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2 3 4 5 A~'^,_174 8 9 10 11 12 - -- Tii ~ -19 I 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ",t \~~~ 28 29 30 0 0 0 0 Sunda) Mllnd.l) Tucsd.l) Wcdncsd.l) Thursda) Friday S.lt1orda) """'" ,~n. .....,. U..),)" l" ",,\\\\\y ..........~14 \\- PInBIIII CIAnI FOU'ldItIan ao.d d Dnctcn Building Board of Appeals ~ Selection Advisory Committee ~ ~\ ., /"" \ " _ ~ I \"r .... ~ , \ fM.-l \~ '-' " r. Community Development Board (CW) City Council Work Session (CW) \ ,~ ~ PLtlIIc: Art & Desigl Advisory Board (CW) ao.dDfCou/llJ~lkodgiItt""""iIn__ Pinellas Planning Council PNlllCaunty~MwItooyCouncl""'''''''' _L___"'oun.d>F~T_ C,/H \\ \l "~ y &o.ddCowlly~""vu*FllblieMMting Pinellu County Heal" Fadtities Authority ....,alCaonr~Zarlrv"...""'*.... City Council Meeting (CW) ~"CDuMr~""'~II>"'_ Traffic,Calming Public Meeting COCFS Study- Final DRAFT v7.3a 1 0 - Oct - 07 Page 115 .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~ 7 8 9 10 11 12 tffi~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 - - -"24- - 26 . 22 23 25 27 28 29 30 0 0 0 ~ <<'.ll 'ci.? 0 Sund.,y l\lund.IY Tucsd.ty \\'cdtlcsd.IY Thurs".ty Fri"..y Satu'''.,)' 7:00 AM .. "'- . .) '\ ..., .... 7:30 AM ... it \., u..JJ 8:00 AM ~ ~'\,til ~\ -. 8:30 AM - - - .,.c,_ ,,'t"'''~t ~. "t' 9:00 AM _ec.r.ly~~""'AtJHoc~ IooaLAI~T~.<.uT~~OI'DII'l!CTOIII '~1 9:30 AM Bc:8'd rJ. Cwnty Carmlnlonen Wcrk Seulal Plumbing Board of Appeals Ilf>>nlClfCo<ny~1ltJdDII1"1I:ItmIlI...S-.... 10:00 AM It"i \ _ "'" 10:30 AM 4 Jt\ 111 fl " 11:00AM ~i " , ~ "", 11:30AM ,. ~'\ ~\ 11" 12:00 PM ~ ~ "'If \I~ ":" \> 12:30 PM ~ :fJ;..\ "~ '-"" 1:00 PM - \l '" V"" 1:30 PM ~ 't ........~_~~T_Gra4l 2:00 PM U &-:-." ~ I"'nIIl.-Courity~FundAcMlo'yConmitM . ...- 2:30 PM .. f~ H~ i\\II PlnelllCaurlyE~Furo$~CorNniIlle 3:00 PM U~ ThelJvableCcmrunlli8lT_Force~ ~COunlr~FundAcMlcry~ "-ri::Ipa1 Code Enforcement Board (CW) 3:30 PM .l .,,~l .. ~COunIy~FundAlMloryConmilM 4:00 PM -~\\ ,~ 4:30 P.M ~N"A\,\\J 5:00 PM ~ ..~" ,,~.. 5:30 PM ..~ I". \~ 6:00 PM \/ - . 6:30 PM ",-~~~~--. Grievance Hearing 7:00 PM --.. _~o-_-. -............,.~CIka+o-,~(CAC) 7:30 PM - - 8:00 PM ~-~~--. 8:30 PM City Council Budget Meeting (CW) 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 116 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. 1 2 3 4 ~ 8 9 10 11 12 r~.. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 " 21 22 23 24 25 _ __ _ 26 _ -""- .,27 28 29 3ii . 0 0 0 0 0 Sund.lY ~lt)l1da~ Tucsd.lY \\'cdncsd.l}" Thursday Frid.l)" Saturd.lY 7:00 AM ~4"11 U~, \'" 7:30 AM '" ~ln'ttA 8:00 AM ..... '" ,~" ,It. .- 8:30 AM \~ ~ ,. 9:00 AM 1&. "'~ ~ "'~I 9:30 AM b'df1Coun(y~ReglMIPI.oblleMeeli"CI ~ \, "',. 10:00 AM The Goods Movement AdvIaory Committe ,,,, tA ~ 10:30 AM d< \ If 1 '\ V 11:00 AM ~\ , '.l" ,. 11:30 AM A. l~' \'\ '1 .. 12:00 PM .. f ''''::--':.t \J 12:30 PM \"'\ "'--' \" ~ ,.... 1 :00 PM ,. "1 \1 V' 1:30 PM City Council Work Session (CW) ~ \j. . 2:00 PM IT Board Meeting .; 2:30 PM " ~,,;rt'" '\aU 3:00 PM f I' h.."'I ---- - 3:30 PM ~ ..... ---... - -- 4:00 PM _!,.n\ \\ , - 4:30 P.M ~ tJ:t Nl'l '. '" - 5:00 PM . ~~ \\ ~. 5:30 PM %i\ W V 6:00 PM '\l1..V 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM '* COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 117 6 13 20 27 7 14 21 28 1 8 15 22 29 Sumla) Mond.l)' Tucsd.l) Wcdncsda) Thursda) Frid.l)' S.llurd.l) ~4 i1f'>>" ~ ., ~ " \\ \lIUf ~ ~ "l}'~ \'\ .- \7r'w .~~.. · " " 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1 :00 PM 1 :30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM .~. 3:00 PM IF" ~ 3:30 PM ~ !i\~ 4:00PM ~ "\ '. 4:30 PM :;lfli" P'! ~ ~\ '() 5:00 PM '\ \,;l 'I" ~~ 5:30 PM '\, ~.., V 6:00 PM\..V 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM ~ H I'YI>. ~ \ ,fl oJ '" -n ",. \\ ..."" V ~dCcu1ly~Regu"'Public"""*'u ~ Th. Good, Mo,.""", """''''Y eomn;n.. t fft. \J.\. .... <>,\ H\.)' \. ~ , . \1ti. V'f A ~'\ '('\ ., ol.~'~\a t'\ ;\I .\ t\" ~ t~ \'l. \.\ ,'" ,\" .. ,,~ "bnl""Counly~ll\I9l""""IUI'ts...". '" PhebI Colriy HcrneIllsa l.elIdfIrshIp N8twat ". W..n~AuIhorIfy~HeMng HelIlthllrld........,SeMceI~Fl7lJII1 HeeIIhlndHulTWlSlrMlelAdrTlni81rllllvFcrum HIIIlhllrld~s.-.;c.~Fcrum Airpark Advisory Board (CW) City Council Meeting (CW) COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10-0ct-07 Page 118 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00AM 11:30AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM .. 3:00 PM I f 1 "! 3:30 PM ~ I""r 4:00 PM = jl"",). \ \ ' .i> 4:30 PM "'<<1' ~1lt ' ", V 5:00 PM \ '1,.,1 \,\ \.~. 5:30 PM ;"\.'1 ... 6:00 PM \' iI" 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 10 17 24 31 ..!.... _.A.) \,\,,'\ 5 11 12 ~~,\\V 1if ~: ~ ^'\\ 0 0 1 ------- 8 15 22 29 2 9 16 23 30 SUllda) MOlld..)' Tllcsd.l) WCdllcsd.l) Thursd..) Frid.l) S,IIUrd.l)' 'off>, It.u , .... U \~ ,~ "'" ~ ,\\.t\ \ \ - PiIleRa. Police Standard. Counc~ I....C,;. ,. lV ~'~HouIinlIAd-...oIys-d(CWI Bal'ddC<u'lty~WorkSeuicn ..... f't' '" Pinellas County EMS AcMsory CouncM A 1'",,"\1\ ,).'" """'COIIIOIyCotnroiMlonwsIludgll"*,,,,-s-lon , \~\ \\. "-J; ~ Enterprise Zone Developmmt Agency (ON) METR<:POUT.tN F'l..NtNNO ORGANIZATION (MPO) ~u U "'....\.. \\ 1", "J t'\ \\ U '" '"7~" \. "" '" ~ ------~ _CartyEM._~ ~'--._'-,,"I Security Panel Meeting --...,,-.---,,", Sister C~ies Advisory Board (CW) B.LEO-ArleIn~""""FdltiesAllChor1ty ....,glCou...,~......~"..._ 10 - Oct - 07 Page 119 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a .. 0 0 1 2 3 ~~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 .-- -13 -- - - - . -- 1"9' 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 22 23 24 <<', \2PJ ~ " 26 27 28 29 30 31 4 0_ 0 SUIH"') .Mond.,y Tucsd.l) Wcducsd.IY Thursda) Frid.l) S.lIurd.l) 7:00 AM ",oIL U.)6" \V' 7:30 AM """ '" ,,\ t.\,.S 8:00 AM Crty Council WOOI1< Session (CW) ~ ~ ,,'\.tt H.- 8:30 AM CONSUlTANT SELECTION COMMITTEE "r'M Pinelas QIlural Foundatial Bon d Oi'ectas 9:00 AM Building Board of Appeals 9:30 AM U. ,,~ ~ .- - 10:00 AM CANCalHl~Cow~~MYIIoryC-" ",., \ ~ ~ 10:30 AM "'" \ #\~~ 11:00 AM 4Ml '\ ~ \J\ V" 11:30AM ., IP.' 'l '\'" 12:00 PM ~,~..,. 12:30 PM ~ "",_/\ \i\, \.:"',}' 1:00 PM 'ilL Community Development Board (CW) 1:30 PM PNlaMobllllyl~(PMl)SIeerinslCOlvn'" PNIIs CoI.I1ty Cor8truct1on lIcensi'lg Board P-..... County e......-y (;.auncIRIp MIIIII'l\I ~_..._-- 2:00 PM ", ~\~ '" P-...OounIyE~1vlvWotyCalndRlp~ iMlIB Coufty SeI8ction AcM80ry CorrrnIIlee 2:30 PM / ~u. 'U'" ~CounIy~~CllurlCIRlpllMting A 3:00 PM ,., 't~ \\~I llcaddCountyConwnl......~PllblicMsollln8 ~CounIye~.-yCou<ldlRlp.u.tlng 3:30 PM ~, ~CtNntyI1stwic~TakFon::e 4:00 PM M\\l ''''\ 4:30 PM ~~~'K\~v 5:00 PM ~ 'UU .... 5:30 PM '" l4 ... 6:00 PM \ti\V City Council Meeting (CW) 6:30 PM ~d('AullyCclnwnllUllw'Zrilgnoo..HM*lp 7:00 PM PhlII Courty F\dc~ AdWaory CouncI 7:30 PM PInllIIll Ccuty Pubi::Acc:.I ~ CounclI 8:00 PM PInllIIll Courty NIle Acc8I AlMIory Counci 8:30 PM PInllIIll Ccunty NIle Acceu AdwiIorf Counci 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10-0ct-07 Page 120 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. 0 0 1 2 3 4 ~] 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 1~ 19 - ~- I 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 . ~U '0./ 0 Sund.l} l\Iund.IY Tucsd.lY Wcdnc..I.IY Thursday Frid.l} Satllrd.l~ 7:00 AM ....... U,.U\ I..... 7:30 AM 4>- . \.,\ \,~ 8:00 AM -- .........,\.. ,,\- 8:30 AM ;-~~ ATONAD't'IKJIlY~~..,./lC) , r"\ \ \,.oV ..... 9:00 AM ft ".. " 'v, ~CIAooIA_~c:.AnI_~ 9:30 AM bld"'CaunIy~""'I""""""'s..a. PlumblnglMochanlcal BOlIId of Appeal. lIoeo:IolCaunly~""'ln/omWiDns..a. 10:00 AM f~ \ \\ .. 10:30 AM A '\~ I" V 11:00 AM P.....CounlyffBldlhipTI1lIOlWIigHCoITlm... ~, . \\ \".. 11:30 AM A. 4'-"- ''\ ' ,\. .... 12:00 PM ~, ,'+-':. 'tl 12:30 PM 1ft. ~.... ",.." 1:00 PM '''' \ \ \\ '\J1t 1 :30 PM .,.I. \ , \;\ "'- 2:00 PM ,~ A"l. H 1" . - - ,- 2:30 PM . ~ )U ....\" 3:00 PM 1''' ~ ..., .'H. \.'W/ Municipal Code Enforcement Board (CW) 3:30 PM .l ),,-- tJ PileUs. County Historical Commisskln The lMlbIe CommurOl Task Force MHIing 4:00 PM ~\,,\ l local Planning Agency Environmental Advisory Board (CW) 4:30 PM ~ ~'~""'I\\" 5:00 PM . '\\\ \""f'\'" 5:30 PM !\ ii' U 6:00 PM '1111" 6:30 PM .. Grievance Hearing 7:00 PM lIotoplbl-,,~ClI --'~(C.lIC1 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM .. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 121 ~~ 5 6 7 8 9 10 JJ.'1~ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18\ ' 19 20 21 22 23 24 2~ 26 I 27 . - - 28- - - - 29 --- 30 31 - 0 - 0 Sl1l1ll..~ i\I<lI1U..y Tucsda~ W'l'dncsda~ Thursu.l~ Frida) S.'lurd.l~ 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1 :30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM j, 3:00 PM C f .J.. ~ 3:30 PM n '" If" '\ 4:00 PM ... h"),l \, r/!.1 4:30 PM 'itA' r ^,'i"t.,. Y 5:00 PM l!\ ,,\ \~ V 5:30 PM ~ j"f ,,~ 6:00 PM 'tlF'" 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM ~ U' ~"\.,~ 10, 11'" ~.,. \.\ ~; T>io "A U>> ' ..,^ t.~ \..~ ~ ,.., \!Ml \\ - -~.,~, = Teacher Training WOrkshop 'V"-"'J Teacher Training Workshop ".. Teacher Training Workshop <t' Teacher Training WOrkshop .p., " Teacher Training Workshop A 4'~ ,.'- \1 Teacher Training Workshop _ flJ;t \";' ... '{.. Teacher Training WOrkshop \~ ~ "f\",', '!If Teacher Training Workshop ,.. . , \ \. \ 'IIiIJII' Teacher Training Workshop ~ 1\ ~ ~ Teacher Training Workshop IV Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training WOrkshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training WOrkshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop Teacher Training Workshop , ~. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 122 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- - -- ------ '* .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (~~ 'oJ 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 .. f\. \\ 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Sunday Munday Tuesd.IY Wednesday Thursday Frid.l)' S.llurd.IY 7:00 AM '"" i~ . \ .... 7:30 AM A "'\ ~ 8:00 AM ........ ~~ \.'\ 8:30 AM \lr l' l'..,,...,, " 9:00 AM '\\ \' .. ..'-"::::.I - 9:30 AM - H. 1\ .. ; 10:00 AM h"1~'\. ... . 10:30 AM -. .... \ In\. .... 11:00AM ~ \ \'\ '" , 11 :30 AM Ii. Ir\ '\ ~. \)- 12:00 PM _ t r ,y.. y 12:30 PM \:: ~,\>""~ 1 :00 PM - ~HHU- 1 :30 PM oV \.V. --- . 2:00 PM .~~, ~,\\ to- 2:30 PM , ... \. t \\ ft\> 3:00 PM - (.~ ,j \ \. "'"'" 3:30 PM .-" 1/>' :\ ' > 4:00 PM ... rn \ "\ v 4:30 PM :rlfi,. '" \ r- In\. ,~ 5:00 PM ~\ \A \\ .......... 5:30 PM l1' '..4,0 \ 6:00 PM \. 6:30 PM PineID Cowlty Unlted PenIOM8I eo.d MIg 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 123 0 0 0 0 - 4"- 5 6 7 11 12 13 14 18 19 20 21 25 26 27 28 ~w. 2 ~~,\~'" 1V ~ 2~ 30 5und.l)' Mond..)' Tue.da) Wedne.d.l)' Tit ",,,I..) Frid.l) 5.II",d.l) .. f\.l 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00AM 11:30AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1 :00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM .. 3:00 PM U' Ji\tti 3:30 PM ~ .~ 4:00PM ~ 1\ ~~ 4:30 PM ":~l.. ~ . ....... \\II- 5:00 PM \ _\\ ~.. 5:30 PM ~\ . \~ 6:00 PM ~.~ 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM . ~. ,""S'\ \IA ..e. :..Ii A"'H. "'" (\116 ~ \ "ftt. \.. ,... A "'"'~ \10- ~'t-~,... \ ~ .u ", '~" ;....", V'HH"V City Council Work Session (CW) ~ '; \' tf ... \11 ". ~)""il\~ ,,'t ,,1\1' ~ otCculfy~Reuu*PublicH..nng .."", ~>> " #- t'l \\ ... ~ ~~\l ,!'!. - W',.. ~. " WJ " ...... ..... '\.... Security Panel Meeting oICou""~"""t""""""'S.1ion City Council Meeting (CW) PineUas County Personnel Board COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 124 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 3 4 5 6 7 ~, 9 _ __ I 10 1f 12 ., j'"- - -- 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~" \2YJY T 23 24 25 26 27 28 ... 29 30 Sunday ~llInday Tucsd.IY Wcducsd..y Thursday Frida} S.lturd.IY 7:00 AM ...... U..v < , ..". 7:30 AM A_'\.~ 8:00 AM ~ ~~ \) . 8:30 AM __Pda_~"",,"~ f \4io"'... ~ 9:00 AM --..---- .-.- 9:30 AM -- --.- --. - , 10:00 AM -..---- .-- 10:30 AM -~ -- - _. 11:00 AM ff' '\U"'" 11:30 AM A.. ~,- \,t" 12:00 PM ... ..'t \.~....'" 12:30 PM ~ f't"" ~ ~ 1 :00 PM 'lI ~ ,\ \\ - METROPOLlTNI PI..>>l~ ClRG.'HIZA1l)N (MPO) 1 :30 PM PWlIIa~~(PMI)s.lngComm"" ,~ \) --- -- 2:00 PM PC". t,...., \\. .. BuiIclinWFlcod8olnldAdl~6Appetlls(CW1 ----~--,- 2:30 PM A t t,~ U~ --- ~--..- . 3:00 PM 1,(_1 .) ,~~. ~-...--~ 3:30 PM -~'\ V 4:00 PM ... t'N\ \'\ \...~ 4:30 PM of'.~ vr ft'b.... 5:00 PM '?\ ~\\ ..... PlneIIas County Health Facilities Authority 5:30 PM \.'\.4'4 ~ 6:00 PM .... 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM 4 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 125 .. 0 0 0 0 0 1 ~ 2 3 4 5 6 7 <'8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 . - - . I 17 18 19 20 21 22 - . 23 24 25 26 27 28 .. ~" ~297 30 Suud.,) ~londa) Tucsda) WcdncslJ.,y Thursd.l) Frid.l) S.lturd.l) 7:00 AM """" ~~ \v' 7:30 AM -. fP4\~ 8:00 AM ~ A':'\'\\n H -. 8:30 AM \,<!i ,,~ ~. V 9:00 AM tlI\ 'Ij~ .~ 9:30 AM \\ \111\ '. . - ~ 10:00 AM ,.... Cotny Selection Advi80ry Canmltee I~J\\,Il *'" 10:30 AM .-' -'\ If H .... 11:00 AM f'WI ,~ \i\.'....* 11:30 AM .. 1,.....\'\'\ ~,,"' 12:00 PM ~ fillt> ,.,.. ,Of . 12:30 PM '" ~'\~...... I 1:00 PM " Community DeveJopment Board (CW) 1:30 PM CllyCounc:lW.nlMniantCW) p.....-,T~tCW) :~ \>.. 2:00 PM ..t. I'J!'\ '">\ ~ PIrlebICouIltyE~,..".,CourdI'-'~ 2:30 PM A ~ ;U' \'\ \~ ~~E~AcMIoryColrdlRWIUNllng 3:00 PM ft:"J,~: .~ ~""J iCi,d-oICoulttec.mm;.IiaPtnRllg......PIblieMeelinil PlntIM~E~~CcIUIldlt:t.p....... 3:30 PM n. ~ "''t''\ '\ .. 4:00 PM ... "." \ \ \. Local Planning Agency Environmental Advisory Board (CW) 4:30 PM .t',.i '\. Y"r Nl~ \010 5:00 PM f\ -n \J." 5:30 PM .. \ol> 6:00 PM """ City Council Meeting (CW) 6:30 PM oIc-ty~z..-..__"'-~ 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM ... COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 126 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - o 4 11 18 ~-- o 7 14 21 28 SlIlId.\y Mond..) TlIcsda) Wcdllcsd.\) Thursda) Frid..y S.ltIud.l) 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00AM 10:30 AM 11 :00 AM 11:30AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00PM 1:30PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM ... 3:00 PM t ,.~" ~ 3:30 PM -C... f'~ \ 4:00 PM .. "",11 'U. .a- 4:30 PM ~';\,., '+t .<<'1' ~ V 5:00 PM '" \4 \. \ '\iIJI' 5:30 PM ~ ~1 ~ ' 6:00 PM \,..il" 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM B<&d d CoIriy CanmiuIonen Wcrk Seuion -4". fl.Jl,ill .. A l' \\,~ """'"' ,;::"\. "\.U 'l\ - ~,(":I ~. '\J \l'i1.... .'-J 1. ~ .. /II" "'" , ..... ,...~ ( 'ill. \ \,l ~t~\ H ~ 1" U t\ \\ tn\ \\ ~_'\lIn\lll' f\\.l ~.~ \\ V It.. fn"~ "'.. ~ .. ~ \ 7.;., 't> " C\lo.. 1. "" '-........ ", ,\ ,\ """" t\ ",t. ~ v '.. I - __ - - __ "'""" _u_ COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 127 3 10 17 24 31 5 12 19 26 7 -\ 1 ~~ 28 1 8 15 22 29 4 11 18 25 ~1f 20 27 Sunday "Innday Tucsd.IY Wcdncsd.IY Thursday Frid.l) S.llurd.l) ~ (\, 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1 :00 PM 1 :30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM,. A 3:00 PM ~ (,$ III 3:30 PM _ ( t" \ 4:00 PM .. ".,'~ "l I\.. V 4:30 PM ~~!\ \1 r It ~ft.. ' ". 5:00 PM ~ \ '" ..." V' 5:30 PM l'\A ! ' 6:00 PM 1fjw 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM '4'\ lU> . A \\ '''~ ~ 4't":,~", ,. \\l pll t~ .. "~ \ ... ","_~s..r~($TSCJ(1"_) DRS Board of Adjustment Hearing fIN" t Ie /ffI,J...;'\.. Ur. ... rn .. y. \,It.~ ...... l\. .. N1i\. ~ (f ......~ Ii 1 \ v 11'/ ~....~ ' l\\~ ~ '11\ ..- . ... t'l W..... \.. ,,~ f"'I".\ \'\..;. ,..... , ~ \\ 1'\ ....... ~\ \ ~ t" -.. ifP >!i' p~ Qurty HaneIeu L8lderII'ip Network "~ !Io COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 128 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM. A 3:00 PM . U .. 3:30 PM _ ~.~ ('. \ 4:00 PM ... , t) \ \ \ \" 4:30 PM ~ \ \ r i:'( 14 ,,, 5:00 PM lj\ l\", '" ~ 5:30 PM 'V,~ .... 6:00 PM V" 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM I ~ ~ 130 1~ - -&-----~_Tr- 15 16 17 18 19 1 ~o~'\\ "tv V 21 22 23 24 25 26. fi ~7 I" 28 29 30 31 0 0.. t\" 0 _ 0 SlIl1d.,y ;\llJlIday TlIesd..y Wedllesday Thursday Friday Saturd..y .~ 8il>> . Ii) .... ...... \l \l \.UI ~ tt:"'\'\ \lfll ,\ Pinellas Police Slandards Council ~~ '9 brdolCOunlyCOnl~~fPublieMeetlnll ......-.-- ._~ ----- ._.a.- ,; ----- ~ - - -- .- -~ ~ ^. t", '" ....1. (,'1"".... ,~ ~\ \\t,""""" . \\HH- ~~"""'(9WlJllINMg~(T_1 \ \.' ..... y' M1ETROPCUTAN IVH~ ORGANIZATlCIN (MPO) PiwlII8I County HcmeI8I1 L~N8lwortl k~ 1....."\ \\ \ (1\ H'to) H~ ..... ,___d....._U_ICW) Security Panel Meeting o Pinellas County Health Fadlitles Authority COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 129 1 8 15 22 29 3 10 17 24 31 ..."t\ 4 11 -18 25 o Sunday ;\[ouday Tocsd.l)' Wcdncsday Thursday Frida)' S.,turd.IY :~ .~ 'n- .4 n \'- \:\..1'.1 ~ IL"'D 'H .. t/( 'U l ~"'. "" ,,~.~ ~~'7 "" 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM'~-'~- n 9:30 AM_ \\ 10:00 AM .......C<urty--~ r() \ "'\ 10:30 AM .1fJ\ ffu\.' 11:00 AM _""""'_T",,,,,",,,,,Comm'" 'IfIIII" .,~ )\ ",""Y 11:30 AM A.I,...\'A \#1>' 12:00 PM _ ~ r t r... .. 12:30 PM \It (&It'\I '\ 14'~ '-' 1 :00 PM , Commun;ty Development Board (CW) 1:30 PM ClyCllutdWorll;~(CW) "-llnT........lCWl '\ \~ ~C<luntyE~.IoMIalyCOUndlRlllt.lelllr9 2:00 PM 'J~ J""...~ ~ P"''''Art & Design Ad_""Y Boa", (CWI -""""--"""""'- 2:30 PM . j. ~ ~1' H. \;i .. -""""--"""""'- 3:00 PM _>1) l' ~ """"--"""""'- 3:30 PM ..... t .( . ~ ,... 4:00 PM ,. ff'llt. t\ Local Planning Agency 4:30 PM am"" 'Ii'" 1/ a'" 5:00PM" .. 1," ~ 5:30 PM U'" f/I'" 6:00 PM .. 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM Environmental Advisory Board (CW) City Council Meeting (CW) PineI8ll County PIJlIc Aoc8aI AcMeory Counci Pinel8ll County PtilIic Acceu Mieaty Counci COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 130 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - .. .. - - - - - - ~ - - - - .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ~, 7 8 9 10 11 12 ~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 -2-3 - - 28- - - 22 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 0 0 .~ ,,-t\ ....0...:'/ 0 Sl1lld.,~ ~1{)l1d.,~ Tucsda) Wcdncsd.IY Thursd.l} Frida) S.llurda) 7:00 AM . f"\ tl j,) + ~ ... 7:30 AM ...... ... ,\ ~Vl 8:00 AM I'lnIIIIIC<ull)o~or-AoMIoryCo.lrdDtltgM~ ~'" H --" 8:30 AM .. - _Ccuol)'~~Ca.IIIIlIo..g.........,. I~V 9:00 AM - .'" 'OJ'" 9:30 AM r-CcaMr~MwIIor)oCo.ln:l~""'''9 ~ 10:00 AM rn\ ,~ ~ 10:30 AM -~ ':- \ I{1 ,,,,, 11:00AM ~, \ "V 11:30AM . f"...\', ... .. 12:00 PM ~ ~ f ,...r""".... 1IIJ 12:30 PM " ~\ U....,,, 1 :00 PM '+ \\ V.. .... 1 :30 PM ~ ." U" 2:00 PM H' I....'\, , ~ - 2:30 PM '" ( ~r\\ 'U \,.\ 3:00 PM . r ~~ e-dolCounly~~PubllcM8llltlg MiJ1idpal Code Enforcement Board (CW) 3:30 PM ~ < t"" V 4:00 PM ..~\\ ~ 4:30 PM "'~~'T I!f't.\ 'Y' 5:00 PM it. \~ \'" .". 5:30 PM \\.14 .. 6:00 PM ..... 6:30 PM I'-Il"'c:...nr~z-.g....._...--. 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM J' COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 131 I .. ~ ~ 130 1~ 152 i~ tf\ \' 174 ~~ _ ~~ _ ~~ _ __ ~~ ~: jL~~~ 't , _ ~ _ 29 30 31 0 0 0 0 Sund.lY i\loI1l1a) TllCSUa) WCdIlCSU.I) Thursu.l) .. "'" fil...lei ~ '" ..... .... " 't, \..\..n ~ "'~ ,~ - _'11 . 1ft, ". '(.il ......... ." ";'" , Vel' , ,.. Frid.l) Satllrd.,~ 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:00 AM 11:30 AM 12:00 PM 12:30 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 2:00 PM 2:30 PM .\ 3:00 PM r: f .r .. 3:30 PM .. -t ~"H 4:00PM .. ~" (::.'I 4:30 PM ~ l:T if.. \l' 5:00 PM.~ \~ '\ 9 5:30 PM f\.A1 ". 6:00 PM ~ 6:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:30 PM 8:00 PM 8:30 PM 9:00 PM 9:30 PM 10:00 PM ~ -~ It,':..\'" .,....\(.J\?' ~V · ~ \\' ' A Iv ,,\\,,\ ~... .~ \ "; '- \~ ~ ~.,). l'\,.. " . n .. VII" City Council Work Session (CW) '\ V . W I'~\\ ..... , "loA ,,~ .. .. "'v,/ .W' COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10-0ct-07 Page 132 - .. -, - - - .. - - - - - - - ~ - - - - --~------~~~-~--~-- Appendix C: Sources for Joint Use Facility Research I Equis. 1. School Business Affairs (2002, September): Sharing Services and Facilities: Making it Work. 2. CA DGS: New Directions in School Facilities - Section 5.5. (http://www.excellence.dgs.ca.gov/NewDirections/S5_5.5.htm ). 3. Green Tree Gazette: Epicenter Operations Agreement. " 4. State?f New York - Division of Local Government se~~\~ared. Municipal Services Incentive Grant Program (http://www.dos.statetBV~~jl~ss/smsl/smslhome.html). 5. Orlando Business Journal: Stars Almost A~~'fO~;;;8 million SCC-UCF Building. 6. Partnerships Between Public SCh~eleTfp~P"vate Developers: A Report of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. \. ~ \9 7. Telephone inteiws~~vailable existing government-oriented joint-use facility directors. i(~\' COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 133 · County Program · City Program · Combined Program - Common Space ~ ;~ ~:~\ ~"'ti f#> ~ \\(.1.~ \,; . ~"" \ "" . ~ ~\.../i~ .... COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 134 ~-~----~~~-~-~--~-- - - - .. iIIII - - - - - - - - - -; - - - - Pinellas County Detailed Programming Report Current Con.alld.ted Son I .Group P.rsonn" Cln::ul.tion Facto< StaffQty. Community Development 35.0% 34 35.0% 52 35.0% N/A 35.0% 16 35.0% N/A 35.0% 14 35.0% 64 35.0% 27 35.0% 12 35.0% 3 35.0% 103 35.0% ~t' 35.0% n' 66 \ ~fr\\ \\ ... Totlll Staff 399 Planning Unified Personnel. Training Board of County Commissioners Communications (BCC Control Room) County Administration County Attorney Culture, Education, lk lIesure General Services - Admin./Lease Mgmt General Services - Facility Mgmt Property Appraiser Supervisor of Elections Tax Collector ITotal U.eble Squ.re Feet Overall Utll1zat1on CUSF I Staff) -~~~ 15% I .. ~ -f'n,\',....... Rentable Factor. Multiplier , II' ~.," '" Total Rentable Squere Feet Overall Utilization CRSF I sum ~.'; Gross Building Factor. Multiplier 15% tTotal Building Groll Square Feet .... 9,868 14,215 3,446 10,400 ,..... 36 10,175 36 54 14,585 54 N/A 3,446 N/A 16 10,400 16 N/A 2,769 N/A 16 5,508 16 16,312 72 17,229 72 7,098 31 7,468 33 5,062 15 5,062 15 1,138 3 1,138 3 21,515 103 21,515 103 8 3,031 8 3,031 8 71 13,329 76 13,760 81 419 <30 437 114.369 116,088 273.0 270.0 17'1551 I 17'<131_1 131,525 = 133,499 - 313.9 310.5 19'7291 I 20'0251 I 151,253 - 153,524 _ 10,175 14,585 3,446 10,400 2,769 5,508 17,229 7,775 5,062 1,138 21,515 3,031 14,191 118,825 267.3 17'5241 134,348 307.' 20.152/ 154,501 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 2,769 5,262 15,488 6,729 12,898 111,422 279.3 16'7131 I 128,135 _ 321.1 19,220 I I 147,355 _ 10 - Oct - 07 Page 135 Pinel/as County Detailed Programming Report -. ltort I GroupP,_1 II Con"'rence!lnlll,actlveSpaell a........ ,- mOOfllcel!lpac. T......... Communtty Development Plannlnt Unified Penonnel . Tnlln1r19 lINn! of County Commissioners Communiatlon. (BCC Control Room) County Administration County At:t:omay cutture, Education, . Llesure Genenl5ervlces. Admln./Lease Hgmt Genenl Servk:es. F.dllty Hgmt Property' Appnlser SUpervisor of EtectIon. Tax Collector 35.00/0 ]. 35.0% 54 35.0010 N/' 15.011/0 1. ]5.0% N/' 35.0% 16 35.0% 72 35.0% ]] 35.0Il1o 15 35.0% 35.0% 10] ]5."'" 35.0Il1o 81 6,615 1,385 2,417 8,985 TotalSt.ff ],446 5,415 3,538 on 3,785 877 12,622 1,331 5,083 877 2,28' .62 523 ]0. 14,831 1,654 1,846 9,791 on . -~ if.\~ '~i. ... 'lholt. "'. 3,538 17 3,tOe I '1';'21 .U TotIil Commom S~ TJJMI UAbM Squ_ Feet Overall utlllzatlon (USF I StIlt) COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a - - .. - - - - - CAvIl''''' .... O......aISupport IMIi '"""'" \.W~'175 .. '",585 ]..... .K8pI:.....,w. '''' .15 7.. 231 231 )~ 277~' t\~ ~t." '~2,70. \if .1'1 ;'!;,,~ "615 7]8 :Pi~ 538 831 154 ~ :: ~:: ~: .~l ~~ \i - (4.2:,\ 615 ,. ]85 '" ' ... &~1 \~ 185 - ,0 :!} 1,000 462 > 154 277 154 462 1,131 1,877 70. 1,231 ].. 2,588 ],662 3,731 2,400 1,4411 11,514 -dtI1.IZI 462 2,477 c=Mill c:::tmJ 15.4 c:M:m I 17.:1 ..514 I I 10 - Oct - 07 ... - - ~ - ....'."'rll..;;I.llisJ.1-~ ~ 10,400 2,769 Map Room/Equipment Room Gnphks StonIge/Graphks Production 1 Testh-v Ubs - Dally UN 4. per week Private ToUet/eo.t doset - Commlsslonen Contr04 Room/Equipment Storage - Chambers 5,508 17,229 1 Wttness Intervtew Rooms/PL Workroom Marketing Stonge/Event ~ge/5hared otnce for Park 5upervl~ Wo.......... 7,775 5,061 1,138 n,515 Map Stor. . Plotter Rm/Appralsen Training. Cont. Rm/HVAC Computer Equip. Earty Voting Aru 3,031 14,191 116.1151 267.3 Page 136 - - - - - .. I I I I, 1 I I I 'I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I" " ...: :. .IU...!.H.! .II.HI" ..~*""~ -..-...!. .... ..... ."" ." ...r...................... .? - n '::"'::':'..:::':: .... ...' ~i~I""""'"'''''' .UI...LH.!.II.!H!.BI..!. ..., II I' ... ... ........ "'. ~"~,",.'..'.'!"""""""."~"'" _ ._ __.. ._. _~ ~ o. -J-~ .,rv ..~~ IT .m...'.".'.!'. m'.w.'. ......... I [I_! u u ni_ULUUiii ULi mi mi:. os: I ell Iii i ill 1 ~h _= t i i Ii i Ii i Ii i Ii! I i u I [I~ 1 i ! ! ! I I II 1 i ~ I ~!' 1 I : Ii III f I ~ 1 ~ iJ l i ~ ,II! IH, II II ~ ! II I ~! j'lj.thf j'm IhllP I'J1t IHI I !l~. JJ If I Flt r-- C't") Q) Cl ro 0. ~II E r1r ... , w' I I 5 H ~ ~p ,... o , t5 o I o ..... I m!l I Hj PI p, iii !H III M r-.: > ... LL <( 0:: C "iij c u: t !IJ ~ ! ~I'i -g ! I", - Id ~ LL o o o !!!' mr' HI] H'" !!! j , j; - IH1 - ~ m ~:~ I III I f'- ..::.':.::::' ~"lll'f..' I!! P P : '" ~ . 11 "\U III I II I ~ "1"""'" ..H..... :~~'ln.r... '''!l! j; - -=. -:. -. ... !~ ~ n - I ... I i~~tH...H "':lm ..,,., r II ! U' -L I' I !..!!!..!~~..!~..!I !. .!!! ..!;. ..!...U.!........ ......... Ur !.. !!".. !!"..!"..!".".... .... U!!. !.... 'l~ I ! [I~ i iii iii h ii i im miL ii' I lid Id i! II! !II c: I I I I ! I ! I I I L . H Pl I r ! h ' . I I d ! ! t ~. I I . II ~ J 15d L I 1 I .! I J II i ~ !~ . i1 ~ ~ ! I 1 j I ~ i j!JlI! i! Ilj f I f III II! il Jillthf IH !HIIU jlh 1m co C") ..- I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I Q) OJ ctl a.. C'Cl ('I) ,...: > ~ 11. c:( 0:: C iij c: u:: I >> '0 ::;, - U) U) 11. o o o I 1\ I I~ I I I I I .1 I I I I I I I I I ,. ........... ..... ....v'ti ~.ILI ...... .!~I....."........"......". iJ.... € ~ ... .,,~ .............. ..,...... 1 .., ~.~.' ....._.~._,..... ~. ................ ~~ .~...j;I< !)1~~_ ~/........ ."."""".~,, "" "". II I IT~ . ,., .'. ... J.. ' . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . .. Vtl281111 111............ -I I J [I[ - I f ! I J I J 1(1 J~ ~ jll C . . , , , . . !~I . II ,."" .HI"". Uii mn lil~ II ! j~j~ ! Ii .I J ~ ~ ~; ,. / hljii! H 'I! fI f t i i I ~! j I j!hHf fh !Iu In iln Ji I i en C"') ..- Q) OJ ro a... B! !~. "._ - ~ . . I H Is ~o '!I "- .. _.. ft 0 ~ ~ . u o I o ..- I l' I. ~. Ill' .. ..; ~ ! ... ~ !!!\m III M r-: > l- LL < IX: C iii ! r:: j I . u: Ij'lfff I j '. . >- 111!li-g !)I~ ~Ui li!!dcn LL (J o (J !!'pp~~A m ,,'r' ... ....P W r m ~!s . I I I · '-"1" ...................!...!.... ~nl! II~ ~ -.. =- ,.; ~:!. - I II -;~\,.I . pp. ~~.. .'f .'......... ""II rn' .~~~ . I 1IJ ! ,"'P p........ .... ..... gl'1~'.... "'!I m Hl~ . u.... .. . I ~ ';i.iJlr'~~"'t!..... W . ................... u.:.!un _ I l~ I D~JU I J! I P lfl _t d i .Ii l- UI I .!~.; .B.!.......... .............. !i i1 I 0 II ~ T'"" Q) OJ ctl I ll.. I I I I I I ,.... 0 I , tl 0 1 0 ..-- I I I I I ,I I II I -- -1m iim: III M r-.: > I- u.. ~ C iii c I _ u::: i 1 i Ii I I . . ii! >. } i ~ II" -g i 1 ~ I~ - Ci) i l ! 1i i CJ) .... u.. I (J o (J i J I I II' J l! I I ~ j Ii !l ' J 1 ~ q!! ,! !illl!1 Hili ij! I ' J I t, i i IHhf! In liiJ IH illH Iii I. I I' I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I' I A . ,.~," 8,- ........ I ..................... u!!.!.... I- I I D~ c-- _ ____ immii I i I t i I I I ~f J~ ~ jf! r- "II _1 t i ..,...... .......... .. I II I............ "....."""",,1. " :> \'\ t .J" I'll ..... ...J L .... " .... .. " .. .. .. .. ~:J l~~ . u ........... .!. ....... "I J. · I i ~ IIi h J I ~ f III 11 ~ I!j j j !! III f I f I i t 1:< U .1 II!! I j n . ~ . .. i ill j Will lH liB in iHH )1 I! ~ I I .,.... ..q- .,.... Q) Ol C\l a. !i~ ~ ' ~ I I b ~1~5;! t, ~ 0 . I o ..... . I ~ I!.! ; ! ! 1 ~ I!_ ~' !. " " . i III M .....: > I- u.. <( r:x: c jij c 1 u: I I . I' >- Hi 1 i H "'C PI!I~i.a Hi f ! II ~ ii. i J' I u.. ..J. ~.u '0 u .... .... ..... m'rr"'" I ~ "'.1JI""",,,,,,,, ... ......................_. ............ .'ll.' .......,.... __. _____H _ po I - I ~ - '1<"'... ~ \. .. .. .. ... .. . .... ~~I'll' ...., .L....... 'f~lI ",.,~. I I",,':',," ......... .... ..... "'111("" , ,.,r ~ a I! If .u~.!..!!!... ............... U!!.!.... 2 0: j [II ..."....... I C m if :Iii LL Ii I ~f I _1 ~i j i'" . dJ :'1_ .I!I.!!.!!!I.! ,I,., " I ,I, !I Illl Hi H Il]1 i t Hi H Hh I j ~iin Wii i I I }1!'!! I 1 'd~ i ~ 1 ~ ~ . I H ~ f I!JJIJ j! IIi f II II! ill i jllhf Iii IJh iH iH: j N "'" ...- I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I 'I I I I <1> Cl ro CL ,., ! m I II ,., r m r-- 0 , t5 0 I 0 ..-- I II '" I' m - - 06 .. . I I I I I U '''-m : :: 5 .. ! a III M r.: > l- Ll. c( D:: C iii 1 t:: u: ! } . I ! It! i ! 1 >- lUll 'tl I ::;, . I. ! - . en j I ! . p! f ! en LI. CJ 0 CJ I I I I' I ,I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ... · I1 :.. p .... ....,.",....... II I I ....p...p......""'. .... ..... ,',.. .T....P.... ...... - r - - "".....\\."11 II ..::::::: .......... .... .p.. ~i~rr.p.'... ~~ II ,....:.::::ppp p.. ..P. , !l ,'~"P'" '1r ~ U 3 3, --..- ...... .. ... . - - --...- ..... . .. . - - ~r .un.~!".'.'.............." u~n"" l~ I Dr lnniu~i_~ _ - ]UIiUi"i !f I ~I f J~ " ! !-- U ILl. r , f! I . ff i fI~.: J i~rJI :!f I I d ~ H. f _ 1 J 1) B! II - I J i! I ~ J hi j J ~ ~ f I Hill f Itlll!1 !! Iii II H J! I II ~ I' illl,li IiI !HI III jm II!I C") -::t ..-- Q) C> Ctl c.. lo.rfr ... , W' I ; I .~ ~I.' = r-- .. -.. ::: .. ;. I;; '7 tl o I o ..-- '" I, ~' ... , W' I ~ I Ii' ~. "'W' I'll M ,..: > l- LL < a:: c c;j I .: . LL ~ I I I HI ! i q >. t~ljil'"'C H-!!Ilm n! i i II ~ o o o .... ..... '" I'f r . ......... I I I .A."..".......... II I I ..,"'..............'^". .... ..... ''I ..ll..........."....... ~ 1 - I I -.....!t.\~n I I .!m.......... ....... ..... .... ..... i!i~LI..'....!. ~:.'l r:. I I 'a~~ ~ ~v- II II I ,......... ................ ......... "'1 ~ ,~~..... ... . ........ "1,......11 I I ;; ~ !!'" [Ii I iijjJ 1_I~fiJ.J ! Ii "'f f ~ ! . f HI -- .1. d .. .1... .::! .I!!.. . UU!u:: n. !.. mi miL i J 1 J I i j!; !~ ~ J 1 H ! l~ i i Ii ~ tWill H Hi t11li!f ih I I Jj lllnll filii !,i! III ji III jll! "<t "<t ..- I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I Q) Cl ro 0... '" I' m : I PS I! ~ n ~ t5 o I o ...... I sis!!!i I ! i i IE rnLE1. _ N~_~l " I I I . III M ,....: > l- LL <t D:: C iii c ! u: ! 1 , ! t i 1 t 1'1 I Pi 1 ! i ~ Iii I ~ I ~ J5i!!1 en LL u o u I ,I I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I Ii ,I I ""'"'' !i! r- ~'!r;;qr" !'!! ~i ...". .... ..... 0" " II . UJ ! I ! . ! "~II' . . . . .!. . . . . . . 'II " " . " . · .! " " ~ EE I. · II - _ .3-51 t; , tl o ~ I -. I ."..."'......q _""",,!! I 00 ~ ........ q.. ...q ~'~L' · I "'0 nno ~~c::llqrr.. ~~l II i H ,., ~......(...l......... ! rJJ , !!!! !!!~! ... .!!,I.!!!!!... II I r-l:. . !!!", !!"... .. . . IT ! D~ Ui! Hm , . . . . . . . . . .. U!!, !.... . ! - -nil iiul I J j J j ) t t !JI LL L II. ~II C I ! j ! ! ~,~ J l.l!: b I III l If I dfJIJJ IJj III q f f Is i ; II jHhf Iii ,HI III i'b Jill It') """ ..- Q) Ol ell a... , " " rfi' .. . W' ..! II "Hm III M ,...: > I- u- ~ c iii I C i I . u:: !'lli!f I Ih II Ill; :g Hi !! i;;; H I [! i !' i l/) 'u- o o o !.I 1 . .......... ...... ........ .... ..... II I Ur !,I,I..........""",....,.. U!!,!Un r I I [l~ i . . - - - I;' -= :.~__ . _ miiim Itl I I 1 II ! 2 i tfl L il i at " ! I i II 1 j I l., I' i I ~l Ii ! ~ l~ I j If I ~ hJljJ Ij !It if If! I : ~ II ibid Iii ,Ill III iIi/II I I i Q) C) & I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I, I <D '<t ...... t- o , U o 1 o ...... 111 M r-: > I- u.. ~ c ia , l: i I J u::: i i!!I:~ ~ I"i"" !fl!li ~ ! i!ld U) u.. o o o I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .. -.. ='1 .. -..:. .. .. ":1 -I I I. !!!'. . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . ,. , .. I!!! S.... e I [II C cu. 1_ i HiL_ __ d J i ~f I L I i ~h l- III I. mimH I J ~ I 1 11 !! i ~ i I h Ii J 1 ~ r p ~ II I Villi I! III f II H II! ~i Ii jhhf III !H~ iH i'h IH I"- '<t ..-- Q) C> co a.. !!il m I: II nia~~. ~ .. ..,. ::; .. z," , u o I o ...... ",', m. d. , w' . .. I. ~. I~I . 0\ "ll ;; "t ... ~ .. ... N .. Z" I i 1 1 J i PI II "I q. 2 u 1 111 C") r-: > I- u.. <( D:: C iii r:::: u: i ! i I . r >- ! I i -g ! ~ U) i II ~ o o o I. H!! .... ..... pg .;.........1..................1..... ~p",^ I .. ~i! ,!.........!....,..".........! ! '!!;! . , . . ..... .~"'"!" ~ ~ .....'",,\,11 .... ................ .... ..... ~~~.. ~ Ir" I.H!........................ .... ..... In" I .;.........1.......... .......!..... I' - - I I I ~ ~r ! .!.a.. ........ .... .......... -, I D~ } iii J I 1 ' I > i ~:ffL_tiii .sit - H I ~ I u!..!un __ nUmiL 1 j I _ I I 1 ! : q: h 11 ~ ~ Ii q1i i j!I!!1 h 'II f J f !1 ,n tii It .h!!- Ii! h 'I r III I!; ~ i' Illll! Iii Inl II I,ll Il co .;;t ..- I I I I ,I r I I I I I I I I I I I I, I Q) Cl co c.. ."r m t::;;S~!5 I I Hss'n r-- 0 , t5 0 I I 0 ...... I ....m :;:: = ~ ... 5 I II ... r m :;:: S ~ .; 5 I I I l\I I M I ,..: > l- I u.. <( I IX: C Iii l: u:: ! J l ! I ! ; ~ t >- " 1 .t ! I; :J . . ! - i l . U) i ! ) I U) u.. 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .... rr "d" W! rn; ...,.,..........;:;:""_........ ,,," . n llJ . 1 " '1' "III" ~ ". ""!. ",!"!!",,, I II . !!! I 'I: ~ I " - . 6 ......."'\~II . II .... ".1. " I. U. . . t~ ~ I ~ - - - -- . I' ..,.,.... ...d..... d.. d'd "j:'1 "1.1 '~"~l"~""""!""'!"U"" I,n -. ~Ial- I dUO ... !' " ... ....... ~ ! 5.!l, .. ..=-~ ! .I~!!".",,,. """"".", .. "'=-:1 rr · .... d.... ....dd. .dddddd' "'".... ! [Ii} ~h~ _ _us; Jm jmi ell I I L t d' 'r ! ~ i ~! r II ILl I i (J) "<:t ..-- CD Cl co a.. ~ I U III M r..: > I- u.. ~ C iij ~ c i 1 u: Ji~ I I I pi i I. ~ HI .t 'II,,! ;:, z'Ji! '~Ci) ILlidU) . u.. U o u i ~ II. h ! ~ ~ · jl~~} ~ J!J!!S !~ IJt j J fl If t J .: I .J !!J if Ii 1.1" I" ~ j! pM Iii !hllll jllljll City Council City Manager City Attorney City Clerk lAl,"nl Conadld.ted ClrculMion ,,<to< StaffQty. ""'. 35% 5 5,400 350/0 10 4,469 350/0 13 5,931 350/0 11 4,095 35% 19 10,546 35% 11 4,338 350/0 14 350/0 4 5,400 5 4,469 10 4,685 5,931 13 6,248 4,095 11 4,257 19 10,546 19 10,848 11 4,338 11 4,523 6,075 14 6,075 14 6,271 862 4 862 4 926 City of Clearwater Detailed Programming Report I ~ Sort Group Personnel . Human Resources/Equity Services Economic Development Public Communications Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) o~\f Total Staff <i" )" ~ '" A UA> ,,\ \:~ ~'.. ~,:~ 87 87 87 96 Total Usable Square Feet 41,717 41,717 41,717 43,278 479.5 479.5 479.5 450.S 6.4921 49,770 518.4 7.,961 55,171 7.,961 55,171 47,::: t:1 551.4 7,196 t:1 55,171 _ 7.4651 57,235 Overall Utilization (RSF I Staff) ~ ... Gross Building Factor. MUltiplier I Total Building Gross Square Feet 15% I 15% I 6.2581 I 47,974 _ 551.4 6.2581 I 47,974 _ 551.4 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 150 - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - City of Clearwater Detailed Programming Report Son I Group Paraonn.' 2020 OffIe. Space c__ ,.dD< 2020 He City Coundl 35.0% 1,320 City Hanager 35.00/0 10 2,369 City Attorney 35.0% 13 3,486 City Clerk 35.0% 11 1,780 Human Resources/Equity Services 35.0% 19 3,317 Economic Development 35.0% 11 2,031 Public Communications 35.00/0 14 2,156 Community Redevelopment Agency (C 35.0% 4 711 Public Comm. TV Studio 35.0% NfA NfA Conference/Interactive Space - Storage Ic~n.. - (Oed..... 50_) 5,520 (2) Private Bathroomsf5IorfHed.Conf. Rm 1,069 4,685 RecepfPrlvate Bathroom/ Hed.Conf.Rm/Stor. 1,223 6,248 RecepfPrlvate Bathroom/Hed.Conf.Rm /5Ior. 892 4,257 RecepfFlre& Teft proof File Rm 1,323 10,848 RecepfFllefWork RmfSupply 1,231 4,523 RecepfFllef5Ior.f(2) Sm.Conf. 246 3,233 Equipment Room 123 926 Storage 3,038 2020 us eon..""", Copy!f.../Prt Receptkln/W. nt/Workroom Itnt Brukroom/C A 0"" '1IeI! ,.:'pply ~~ ~. \~. ~', !, ~ ~~ ". ,&~2~ · 369 Chambers Tralnlnfl SF 3,692 1,062 2 62 877 2 3,038 400 ~ 24~~ ltt~~' ~~~~: \\'" \'f\~ ~ 1,062 2 692 4,808 3 369 369 4431'1 \'9 ... 4 808 ~I Total Staff 96 17 170 6 731' [!l;ill]~ \\ :l7i",r, ~ Total Commom Space Type Usable Square feet Overall utilization (U5F I Staff) 1 785 1 431 ~ c::::::!:lliJ 18.6 14.9 308 c::E1 3.2 6615 &.615 I I 68.9 43 278. 43.278 I 450.8 3 15.969 I 166.3 ,,~ COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 151 n.,.......... ..., ~""...,d: ,....~... "....... n.. ,.",.",...,....",.,.. ..., If. ... , ... .... II I rr H.".......""..,... IT, J' [1- . - - -- I I: it_____ ,. Uo:. !u:. Jm miL ~ ~ l J ~I' I J II ~ 6 I~, ~ ~ t ~Il I .1 1 i ! ~ ~~ ~ . . . . . , . , . . . ,II: . . ~l!l . . .. ifi. "....,..... ,2, ,l!ll!:, 2 :Ill!: ! I. i ! 11..... i . , H ! ~ I' ! ! I liiH~ I llllll Ii III II! ,. II U ! ~ II jllh! 1M !lll III ilitlil N L{) ..- I I I I I I I I I I' I I I I I I 'I I I C1> OJ ro 0.. ~ i! !! m,', I IW ml!~' : I II ~ S! I! ~ 5 ~ I ~..II'm. ... . w' I1l M ,..: > l- LL <{ 0:: C 'iij c: ; ii: ! 1 . l' I I j! I ~ } i i Ii ~ i . I I UJ · it . LL U o u I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (") LO ..-- Q) C> co a.. ! !~!~a '. ..,., lJhii. - - .HU mH- ~; III M ~ > I- U. < 0:: C iii c: u: t !!il g iiH. I ....- ., .... ..... "''''U' r; 'r P, 'I m' II II' LI II . ~ ""I'n'T'T ""m ~ ~ I - 1 ~. n - T- W ~ .. ..... .~. ~~"iI. ....II.'j:. p'r m "~"".:l' .. .\''j'' "'i'm' ~," - fl - -I" I W ~, ~Lt o ~ ~ Jili iiiii ~! ~ ~ . !> .1~.H!'. ..".. .1~.I~!I..................... .... II I u....... .. J D~ ru iiii.- - . . . . . . . .. ..... !IIU 1 rl j I J j;' I I H ii I t U: r- L 6i Ill. , ~J I L J I "<t LO ..- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q) Ol ctl c... III C") .....: > I- u. < [t: c iii ! .!: ! i u. lljit!1 I !""i- >- 1 H j i Ii ~ lnldiCi) ii',' 11 J! en ,u ...! U. lJ o lJ I . i i! i I i L HIlt I~ i ~ f IHH {, ll!111 I! !lll f I J Ip! H II ,!I I}H )~lfll,1 II ~I lu j~, Ilf jdhf JH I!!!! I pi ilh - - '- - - - - - - - - - - .. - - .. - - CIty of C/edrwater 0tDIM Pf't1<(pnmlng R4JOff ........~- -~- otyC_J.,.dll1IIt CItya..tlIr.Ibff-. ..... - ...., ... W... .. W... .. w... .. ..... ... ,~ w. - ". .n ,w ". ,w ,w ,.. ". ,w '" ." '" '" '" '" w. '" '" ~-l L_ --I ~Q_~.I 11._.,..,... to.N ..~ ........-A.....,.., ". m '" -"' ..... ..... ...., ..... Wh' ..... ..... ..... ...., - ,~ ... 'W ... .. .. .. .. ~~ ~ 1b. , .~ -- , , ~'::_fll__~~. no ~:-r-;-::;= ~. - . . .....~_. ...- f ...--t ..--. ..--.-. ......c.r- 2010_, \l~_ __1__ __1__ _ _1__ ::::.:...~ Ik"I!..:::: -=1E:~.... ?t _ =w ~.. = ~i :._ _'-1: :." _ _1 :." ""'::'.......- \ _IIT_._ _..........o-a ... .. A\' l( \::: ~ '~".' \ t'\ \ ~~.~"... l~II):UU~ $','- ". '.~ ... US! ... 1.~~: l,no .u_om.......'_ C""_'__III Ill. __0lII0I1q.....,_ '''00_'_.....111'''.... ___Iq....'__a_ &.....-=.Aii.. ~Ftiiiifhiii. ......... - _P..try_CoffM'" _-=- _t '.._~ "II _.--. :,,--, -.- -.- "'...- -- ,......'TMft_ .- -- =-- -- -,~... -==-, "'. . 110' II ",- ...==, . . ;" ..._.....,...,......,.. Cft........'_.MllltlpI.' --.-"......,- ',1'0 .., ,"', "-_~'_.M~ r-'OIiil.........IiiiiiinF... UIII_(~""""",, 0,;;:1=1 .., .., .., l...r1 un 2.'17 I.OIS ..... 4,2$7 .,;;:1-1 .,:;:Id .':1 10 - Oct - 07 Page 155 ToUIu..l*~F_ COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a , . ,. ," J f ~d I II HI L II! ~ I r . G) I I I 1 (0 Lt') ..- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q) C> co ll.. ~ i II ! .... ..... !""'Hlf ...;r'" m 1m JIff'-'. II' I II I I I II '::::'.,,'~' .... ..... ~'H '1.!:]'111'" WI' P i .. ............ ....... .. . ......, ~~~'l":"lj iti'" w 'I~: ~Ia .. ..... ... I' I..... ." --",r'". n II I II ! .A, II II' II I II I"::::',,' ... .... ..... ..... ~~rrlr:.. '" 1m \:"~r i ~I. II : '. .' tluU"" '. L - - mfimi .. r ~t .!!..!'.'.'...!~!............ U!!.!.... U1 I [Ii Iii jj--': -::- ii" - '- n .. I I nl ca C"'l ,...: > I- u.. <( 0:: C iij ! .= ~ I I u.. H.il~ll I IPi~I.~ UI : ! q .a .ill!)-(/) I ! I I i )1 I ~ I (.J o (.J I i I H pI i ti o! ! 1 1.1 i i ! - i. I , It I . I . =- I I l : in it! I II l ~ ~ I f HH "J'. ~ 1~111'U I! lit f I II j qn , i' ;J 0 'lI JI! II" I) r-IJ.I I J Ii i ) j f pdd!1 )ii IHI ~1 jiH ff t j I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l'- l!) ..- Q) Ol Cll 0.. .... ..... !'!"'rr":r'l PH' Ii I I II I ~ II II II II I ""'."'. .........~l.... ..... PH ...ll........'l P'!; Ii: "" . "IT 11 --, - - ~ ,,"'.,. .. ... .......... ....~~~l'.ll."! 'l ,'! '; ~. .!Ii -- nO -.. - (0 - 00. - -- --- ..., II I II I' I ,,,,,,.,.... .... ..... !~;:.;' ~.'.a.........'...l"j r't !" '! ~i .. ... m . ~.~ In. .. lU ~. l~ U..I "..~ "U , , :Ii : IT .!!.",.!............... "'".... I [Ij H .J. ... . HH .mi_ l I. ;;_i;i rut _ . _.. HH .....~ 1 I I Ii I L ~i f r ~1I LI lU I t t i .jJ~i Hn hh lHi ! i I. I . Ij"'1 J. . p', 'U n ~t hi f Hili II Ii is'. t f lah I I I . Ij~ll!II pl · j ;; >- id}i1i:l :'J!I!,- Ihij~d au.. .! I I J ! J t. r J~ IIi If! Il~ I~!J ~II .~it II) III ~l! ~l jJIJ l .J! .!!!!!I.S... . ,-li; OJ LO ..- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .!!,~!~!!...... ... j [ I ! J!i il!'~ II I L h him! b f r-- 811 I. Q) Cl ell a.. "" ."" ~I~!~ ~ ! ~;s i g @ .~.. II .!!.!!!!!I.I..,........':'&>w-:. .... .... 51~.~.. ..... l .!!. !!!!!!I, I. . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . , II I t- o , t5 o I o .... r-r n 'Bun · on. Bun IT ....... .................. ....,. J D~ H iihRi -- jmJiW ; ~ I I I t , !U I' !I i to. to I . j nn i n I . Ji I H!i ~ ! j!III 'J! !l II f I' J i! h i :j !t.J Ii!.I1 ~H 01"1-11 ~ J H i il J J Inh Iii IH iH pH . b~.1 III ('I) r-.: > I- U. <( 0:: C iO c u:: ! j I !ilfll Jill.}- ~ Jlli! 11 .a H~ljil ~ 1- () o () I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I . ~ o II :""" GEl. I . . . .. .....~ ............ . . .. ..... ~ ---- ~. I .. II I "" ................, ~~Il.. .... .r . tl" . .... ..... ..;:.'~....._..._. .1'''''''' "" .. "". ...... r<=__. 1_; I ! '- .:,!L!.:"". I' I s'" sun ~ fi" 2 2 8 II....,., . . . . . . , . . . . . .. ~~....'.. I 'a'a'a' IT - - - ---jiH iiiij- ~ ~ ! [t~ i iiL _ _ _ a J I l I 111 I J I I If! i ~. I dl ~L rr C- UI ! I HI";: """",,,a,,,, . ,- . . , . , . I.. . . t i ! _ I' ! I' . , I I l'~~': n · 8 ~ f I . , 1- 1, f ~ , j i i! i 11 i hilll ,~ III fl. i it' It II. II' ~Ih.h J!~ JHJI!I :h. J~ I ~.. -, ~ lfil! III .; !d IU! . j I = I sl 1 ' u. 4 4 ~ . I I en LO ..- Q) OJ ro ll.. "" m .. la . II: ! .... : r i:l ,..... o , 1:5 o I o ..- I l P. i 5 i~ · " " m III l'1 ""'" > l- LL <t r:r: c iii c:: I u:: ! ! I I I jtiill~l] I . t ! !~ en i I i I Ii I en .1.1.!LL u o u AfC'a or Function ~ 87;:)__ : Combmed Facihty Total Combined Facility Adjusted Requirements . . Qty Combined SF fU1Jo :'~fFTE ; " ~ingl 3 ~ ~ 9& 'lfI.3,481 1 2:00~ .~. 3,8 . \...~) 10 7,OO~\ ~:i.f ~ 2,346 t. \ ~:~~ '" ~~:~ . :5~~~ 24 10545 19.8 )-ol if ~ ~~ ~ 3,500 Conference/Interactive Areas Averag. slz. Chambers Conference Extra large Large Medium Small Sub Total Conf. Training Seats 26 - 50 16-18 12 -14 4-6 Rm Qty Combined SF R.-tJo SFIFlE Average RmQty CombIned SF Ratio SF/HE Averagll Subtotlll Qty Subtotlll AreB .. size .31 .... 3,692 3,538 7,231 1 1,923 1 1,923 2,077 21.6 692 9 7,269 16.6 808 12 9,346 2,169 22,6 434 4 1,569 3.6 392 9 3,738 185 1.9 185 3 554 1.3 185 4 738 4,431 46.2 16 9392 21.5 25 13823 4,808 50,1 2,385 5,5 7,192 1,785 18,6 2,588 462 0.0 3,662 1,431 14.9 2,477 2,625 5.0 1,747 462 1,050 2.0 2,612 1,838 3.5 2,070 5,250 10.0 (1,519) 2,625 5.0 (225) 1,050 2.0 704 2,288 750 700 375 185 CopyfFaxlPrlnt Mailroom ReceptlonlWaltlng Area General Support Areas 6.6 3,692 Food Service CoffeefBreakroom Storage Flies SupptyfMlsc. Library TV Studio/Control Room "MliCillaneous L-.~dl~'l8d Unaccounted Dock. Recvg Security IT Server Dlst. Closet I Total Usable Squsre Feet Utilization (USFlPer) Rentable Factor - MulUpller o 0,0 o 0,0 308 3,2 _ ~.-2.!!...._ ;B2.3 :~~~ , 1,448 . . ,r;. . _\- , i __6,615___ ~_~l-__ A. p ., Area needs Included l~ ~~ ... Area needs Included In Rentable and Gross~ \; Rentable and Gross BUilding Factors \ "" BUilding Factors . ..... -- ,. 3,731 2,400 1,754 -~- __F,~i__ 4'lI ......i~ a U"'I 26,108 '\~2.0 .. 3,916 45,040 71,148 36,983 16,513 103.1 133.5 69.4 31 6,756 10,672 5,547 2,477 51,796 81,820 42,530 18,990 118.5 153.5 79.8 36 7,769 12,273 6,379 2,849 59,565 94,093 48,909 21,839 t.,.l:J. 1~,~ 30,024 312.7 Total Rentable Square Faat "UI.(\r.r~ . Groll Bundlng Factor.. Multiplier 15% ~'--II~ Is'> I Total Building Gross Square Feet ,- - 4,504 34,527 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 160 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ..- CD ..- Q) OJ ro a.. ,.... o , 1:5 o I o ~ ra ~ '> l- ll. <( D:: C iii r:: u: I >. " :J - U) U) 11. (.J o (.J . Parcel assemblage based on parcel numbers submitted by Count~f tJ City. A ~ew City ~ ~ounty building p~oject w~ul? not be subject to ~~\\.~f~t,.,.tions, height restrictions or other zoning restrictions. " ~, A Dedicated PSTA terminal would be at grade and f\1.~~ndi;9' not integrated into a parking structure. . .. \\ A parking structure can be located sepa(ate~tlitlJ'l.the building it services. Blocking assumptions based on preGe~~\Space Programs developed for City and County Base Cases, ps~'~~~t Use facility. All potential sites are splitt,pX\a,major roadway. Therefore, the Blocking Permutation Analy'sis~?oj~~ ~ontiguous site parcels into two zones separated by the roadwq~t"lJ.~fie"A and Zone B. - The F>.erii1R~ation Analysis is limited to 1 Q-stories per structure. . . . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a Page 162 10 - Oct - 07 ------------------- - ------- --------- .. - location Addresses Parcels Owner length Width Area Ac. Property & land Use Description Site 1 Court Street 220 Court St Not found Unknown 300 S Fort Harrison 16-29-15-00000-130-0200 Pinellas County 114 183 20,862 0.48 County Gov't - Non-residential (commercial) only 311 S Osceola 16-29-15-00000-130-0300 Pinellas County 90 150 13,500 0.31 County Gov't - Non-residential (commercial) only 305 S Osceola 16-29-15-00000-130-0400 Pinellas County 70 150 10,500 0.24 County Gov't - Non-residential (commercial) only 310 Court St 16-29-15-92574-002-0020 Pine lias County Estimated 150,969j 3.47 County Gov't - Non-residential (commercial) only 440 Court St 16-29-15-92574-001-0010 Pinellas Countv 112 T 246 27,552 0.63 County Gov't - Non-residential (commercial) only 223,383 5.13 Site 2 Sl. Pete Times 710 Court St 15-29-15-54450-011-0030 Times Publishing Cc 137 300 41 ,100 0.94 General Office Bldg - Multi-Story office Building 200 S. Myrtle Ave 15-29-15-54450-008-0060 Times Publishing Cc 138 133 18,354 0.42 Vacant Commercial land (lot & Acreage) 206 S. Myrtle Ave 15-29-15-54450-008-0040 Times Publishina Cc 132 161 21,252 0.49 Vacant Commercial Land w/XFSB 80,706 1.85 Site 3 Pinellas Co. Utilities 515 Park St 16-29-15-32292-005-0060 Pinellas County 70 128 8,960 0.21 Vacant Commercial Land (Lot & Acreage) 525 Park St 16-29-15-32292-005-0040 Pinellas County Estimated ~,790: 0.32 Vacant Commercial Land (Lot & Acreage) 14 S. Fort Harrison A 16-29-15-32292-005-0070 PSTA 266 140 37,240 0.85 Vacant Commercial Land w/XFSB N/A 16-29-15-32292-005-0110 Pinellas County 70 133 9,310 0.21 Vacant Commercial Land (Lot & Acreage) N/A 16-29-15-32292-005-0010 Pinellas County 146 140 20,440 0.47 Vacant Commercial Land (Lot & Acreage) N/A 16-29-15-20358-002-0210 Pinellas Countv 145 150 21,750 0.50 Vacant Commercial Land (Lot & Acreaoe) 111,490 2.56 Other 509 Site 509 S East Ave 15-29-15-54450-018-0010 Pinellas County 110 217 23,870 0.55 County Gov't - Non-residential (commercial) only 509 Site 509 S East Ave 15-29-15-54450-018-0010 Pinellas County 220 220 48,400 1.11 County Gov't - Non-residential (commercial) only Paved lot (west of 509) N/A 15-29-15-54450-019-0060 Pinellas County 96 220 21,120 0.48 Vacant Industrial Land Dirt lot (west of 509) N/A 15-29-15-54450-019-0091 Pinellas County 96 137 13,152 0.30 Vacant Commercial Land (Lot & Acreage) Trail lot (south of Turner N/A 15-29-15-54450-020-0040 Pinellas Countv 48 175 8,400 0.19 Vacant Industrial Land 114,942 2.64 .... Notes: Parcel numbers do not necessarily correspond to address. Not all parcel records contained addresses. · Parcels records without dimensions are estimated based on the County GIS system. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 163 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Site 1f\\ ~. t}~o a acres ~':,..r ~.. 5 parcel assemblage B'. Split site Site 2 · 1.85 total acres · 3 parcel assemblage · Split site Site 3 · 2.56 total acres · 6 parcel assemblage · Split site Site 4 · 2.64 total acres · 4 parcel assemblage · Split site Page 164 ------------------- ----------------- 200 210 ~ ...':( @ .... ....~ (f) l 210 ~~,. ~ Zone A ~ (f) Zone B .. .... Ca..RT ST.. .. CCLRT ST.... ... . ....COURTST......... ~ ~ . n ~fJ.~ 1 '\ ~ Site is split byrS~ t>sceol~''Ave. ~ \\\\ w' West parcel r~.3.47 acres. East parcel is -1.66 acres. All parcels identified for assemblage are owned by Pinellas County. . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 ~ B I Ii: (f) ~ CD 207 ~ (f) 610 612 (XX) ~... ... ."...... . . ..... FRANKLIN sr........ ... .. FRANKlJN sr'-. .....FRANKlJN ST....... . C/l :!1 I ~ XJ2 531 :DJ C/l ~ t;2 319 ~ Page 165 150,969 3.47 tt~:\'b~ ~~B ~ ~,. Could accommodate all ba~\gre Buildings or garages between 1 ~tt'~irii~~ ~tories. Could a<;,.~~rr9d~~aJ! 15~~e case b~ildings and garages 'DetWeenC2~7 minimum stones. C Id \\1t "d "t J . t U P k' t ou accoJJ1I'11O a e orn se + ar rng a a minimum of 7 stories. 72,414 . . . Could accommodate Joint Use + Parking + PST A at a minimum of 8 stories. 1.66 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 City County PSTA Joint City County PSTA Joint City County PSTA Joint J + G G-Space J/G/PSTA G-Space ~one C:Uld accommodate a~ b.llll.li\.~~ buildings or garages between 1 rtmln\ll'unitones. Could accommodate all~c!e case buildings and b h~. \"3 -4 .. t' garag~s EhVv~n..; - minimum sones. co~~~c~modate Joint Use + Parking at a r.minimum'of 4 stories. l(";:;' '" Could accommodate Joint Use + Parking + PST A at a minimum of 4 stories. . . Page 166 ------------------- ------------------- Addresses Parcels Owner Note Length Width Area Ac. 1 315 Court St 16-29-15-92574-007 -0010 Pinellas County SE of Site 502 454 227,908 5.23 2 Uknown 16-29-15-92574-006-0010 Pinellas County SW of Site Unk Unk Unk Unk 3 Uknown 16-29-15-18648-000-0400 Pinellas County E of Site 200 97 19,400 0.45 4 210 S. Fort Harrison 16-29-15-00000-130-0100 Church of Scientology NE of Site Unk Unk Unk Unk 5 210 S. Osceola 16-29-15-62131-000-0010 Church of Scientology NW of Site Unk Unk Unk Unk 247,308 5.68 2tJO 2UT roo 3:J5 310 300 3J8 R ~ 311 :xJ2 440 312 415 420 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 167 612 ill rn Jl Zone A ~ 815 ~ ~~ 203 645 i I ~~ [:[J rn e;- rn 215 .. ........... FRANKlIN ST. .. ...FRANKl.JNST... .P.... ............ .... .. ..... FRANKLIN ST..... ........ .. ..................~ rne I I~ en 8 ~ .J XJ1 211 ~~ 701 ~ ~~ i ~ 704 . I [! 707 r 1l: (/) 7CXJ 008 ~ J ErrJ It rn ~ ifi 207 ~ rn 610 6CXJ Kl.JN ST .... ....... ..... ..... ... ... . . ... ....... FRANKl.JN ST .. .. 531 319 . Ir~\'" "'.' Site is split tJYrEra1:kl~St. North parce~~ acres. South parcel is -0.91 acres. All parcels identified for assemblage are owned by the Times Publishing Company. . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 168 ------------------- ------------------- Zone A · Could accommodate all base ~S~~ildingS or garages between 2 -~6~mifu".'.m~\m ~fories. t.[ ,'" 't ~ -, , Could accommoda!e a'lI~ b~e~case bUildings and garages. betw~* - 10 minimum stories. Could nc5f'1aQmmodate Joint Use + Parking at ~ess~m~ "1'\O'~tbries. . t~~~" .1r~~ulg not accommodate Joint Use + Parking + ~ 'OPSTA at less than 10 stories. . 0.94 Zone B ..\~ ~"'''!J. · Could accommodate ~ b~~e~bUil~ingS or garages between ~~ mlQJmum stones. Could acc9mmoq~II~Dase case buildings and garage~~~~e~j3l- 1 0 ~inimum storie,s. Could nottaccommodate Jomt Use + Parking at less than 10 stories. . City County PSTA Joint 39,606 City County PSTA Joint . City County PSTA Joint . Could not accommodate Joint Use + Parking + PST A at less than 10 stories. J+G G-Space J/G/PSTA G-Space 0.91 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 169 Addresses Parcels Owner Note Length Width Area Ac. 1 704 Court 15-29-15-54450-011-0020 COURT STREET ENTERPRI W of Site 62 300 18,600 0.43 2 701 Franklin 15-29-15-54450-011-0010 CEPCOT CORP W of Site 61 185 11,285 0.26 3 700 Court 15-29-15-54450-011-0100 OSBURG, SYBIL M W of Site 60 109 6,540 0.15 4 Unknown 15-29-15-54450-008-0010 CLEARWATER, CITY OF W of Site 114 265 30,210 0.69 66,635 1.53 ..... .. 'PlER:EST... PI ER:E ST ... .......... PlER:EST..... ... ...c~.... .C/) , ; I ; I : ; I l:g I !~ I I :;j I ! ~ i r i , I : ; I C/) en I ~ ~! 710 [:J] C/) 81S ~ ~ 203 ~ ~ [[J C/) C/) 218 FFW-lKLIN ST.. I :m I~! 211 I 307 I ~i IlJ8 800 ~ ; 2UT 810 en 812 800 FFW-lKLlN ST FFW-lKLlN ST FFW-lKLlN ST FFW-lKLlN ST ... 831 319 C/) " ,;lOr COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 170 ------------------- ------------------- -, ~ ~ :il J 8 ,..-- z en 514 ~ ~ Zone i 634- I 5X 15 I ~~ Ii: I/) 1/)'" PARKST .. ...................,.... ....... ......... ......... ....... ....... ......... PARKST..... .......-........................... .. ....'.T..+ PARK ST ~ -- ~ 0 ~ III 5 8 Zone A ~ 101 ~ 0 110 ~ 1(J7 I i 613 640 ~ Ii: I/) I/) I/) I/) .....". .... PlER::EST. ... .. PlER::EST. ................. .......PlERCE ST.. .........., ..... .....P(ER:;€ Sf ~ ............. .............. .............................. ........... PlER::EST..... ......................... ..........:-.] PlER::EST ,........................................ ........... ~ ~ ~ 200 8 ~ I aJ - I/) ~ ~ 210 Ii: 207 610 ~ .......... ............ .... ] 645 I/) I/) .... .... ............ ... '" 612 . ~.i~\ \\ - Site is split o1S~'. Fbrt~arfison Ave. '1\' West parcel is~O.50 acres. East parcel is -2.06 acres. All parcels identified for assemblage are owned by Pinellas County, with the exception of 0.85 acres in East parcel owned by PST A.. . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 171 Zone A · Could accommodate all base ~S~lildingS or garages between 1 -~rmin~u~ ~ttries. "",..., · Could accommodate all^base~Gase buildings and garagesJ>e1i~~- ~minimum stories. Could a~o~oaate Joint Use + Parking at a m~~ ~t6 stories. 6ou.l8' not accommodate Joint Use + Parking + PST A at a minimum of 7 stories. . 2.06 ZoneB ~ ~~V. Could accommodate all b~s~se builCJings or City garage betwe,~~ -i~\ mlMi~um stories. County garage ca.nnot e accommodated. Could a'CCO~9t).City base case building and ~t' 11\. ~. f6 t . garage"a a f1}lnlmum 0 sones. Could not accommodate Joint Use + Parking at less than 10 stories. . City County PSTA Joint 21,750 . City County PSTA Joint . City County PSTA Joint . Could not accommodate Joint Use + Parking + PST A at less than 10 stories. J + G G-Space J/G/PSTA G-Space 0.50 COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 172 ------------------- ------------------- Addresses Parcels Owner Note Length Width Area Ac. 1 110 S. Fort Harrison 16-29-15-20358-002-0160 Peace Presbyterian Church W of Site 145 150 21,750 0.50 2 503 Cleveland 16-29-15-32292-004-0010 Church of Scientology N of Site 243 121 29,403 0.68 3 514 Park 16-29-15-32292-004-0060 TSAFATINOS, TERRY N of Site 163 125 20,375 0.47 514 Park 16-29-15-32292-004-0060 TSAFATINOS, TERRY N of Site 35 47 1,645 0.04 4 530 Park 16-29-15-32292-004-0080 BOMAN, MASHALL N of Site 49 90 4,410 0.10 5 101 S. Garden Ave 16-29-15-32292-008-0030 LARES, PETER E of Site 132 100 13,200 0.30 6 Unknown 16-29-15-32292-008-0010 Peace Presbyterian Church E of Site 132 85 11 ,220 0.26 7 Unknown 16-29-15-94896-000-0010 Church of Scientology S of Site 265 245 64,925 1.49 Unknown 16-29-15-94896-000-0010 Church of Scientology S of Site 265 105 27,825 0.64 194,753 4.47 ~ ~ []1GB ~ .,. 5ZT 53' ~ I B" ll23 629 ll35 ... b : ~t ~ !z, ~ I - -- --- di 1m -~, I' ~ D - , ..... ~; .. I t:1 i l/l l/l i F; : l/l ------- ~u_ ~! ~ PARKSf .- PARKSf.. .... ..... PARKSf... PARKSf...... 112 01 Iil: ~~I 1111 I~ ~ 51 ! B'3 '(17 01 li I I "'" ~ ~ i Ii - .00 II j I tilL: l/l i J1 l/l P1ER:ESf , P1~Sf '--PiERCE Sr '. '-;-- \~\ ~sr , P1~Sf ... P1~SfPl~Sfu-- ,------------ \" 200 ~, ~, 1\\\ r-- il:' ~ i ~ ~~ - B'O ;1 210 I 2U1 ... 210 .... .~ - l: B" ........ l/l f-1 rr~ '\ \\ l/l I 600 ..", .-. i!l "RANKUN Sf. u. ... .".... ..... ~~~ COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 173 J I I Ll I I I I I ?n I ; .,., ~ ............ .. CI-ESTNJT ST ..............i ...1.. (j) I I I I ESTNUT.ST ........ ...... ..... CI-ESTNJTST..... ... .............. CI-ESTNJT ST ... ...... .. . CI-ESTNJT ST..... . (j) --- ~ .. .................. i u en ~ ~ ...................... .... ..RCX3ERS ST I '--- ~ (j) ~-~ !~ ~ I ' Zone I~ I ......... I ~ Zone A (j) - - n..RI\ER ST.:.. ... ...Tl.Rf\ERST , rr .n..RI\ER ST ......TlRI\ER ST ..................................~ <l: -I ;;; .......n..RI\ER ST..... ~ f ~ (j) ~ ~ . If A '\\ 9' Site is split o~Tu1~e~t}.and S. East Ave. Near West ~J ~ -0.48 acres. East parcel is -1.66 acres. Far West Parcel and South parcel not contiguous therefore are not included irrttlis analysis. All parcels identified for assemblage are owned by Pinellas County. . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 174 ------------------- ------------------- 1.66 tI\'~" Zone B . ~ ~\ ~ · Could accommodate all b~@Se.,buildingS or City garage betwe~~~- ~8~IT{j~imum stories. County g~~ag~ r~\~ tt~,accommodated. Could ld!b'fTI'("moa.ate City case building and v ~"u.. f6' garage at,..a~mlnlmum 0 stones. \,?' Could not accommodate Joint Use + Parking at less than 10 stories. . . . Could not accommodate Joint Use + Parking + PST A at less than 10 stories. COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Zone A · Could accommodate all base G~et~ldingS or garages between 1 - ,1.. :-m..iriim\YD~sfories. ~ \'" \\v"" Could accom.moda. ;~all~oase case buildings and garages between"2"f 6"rrirnimum stories. Could ac~Ad!\e Joint Use + Parking at a ~ 1011.'~ ..~" ~minimur~.ff.;7 stories. t ~4't.'1.ccommodate Joint Use + Parking + PSTA ~\ \ai'il minImum of 8 stones. . 21,120 City County PSTA Joint City County PSTA Joint City Cou nty PSTA Joint J+G G-Space J/G/PSTA G-Space 0.48 Page 175 im--- Addresses Parcels Owner Note Length Width Area Ac. 1 708 Turner 15-29-15-54450-018-0060 PINELLAS COUNTY E of Site 220 55 2 504 S. Myrtle 15-29-15-54450-018-0030 HOSE & HYDRAULICS INC E of Site 165 117 3 Unknown 15-29-15-54450-018-0031 HOSE & HYDRAULICS INC E of Site 42 100 4 Unknown 15-29-15-54450-018-0041 PINELLAS COUNTY E of Site 123 100 5 645 Chestnut 15-29-15-54450-019-0030 CHESTNUT DEVELOPMENl W of Site Unk Unk 6 Unknown 15-29-15-54450-019-0080 PINELLAS COUNTY W of Site 48 220 7 Unknown 15-29-15-54450-019-0090 PINELLAS COUNTY W of Site 96 83 8 631 Chestnut 15-29-15-54450-019-0010 PINELLAS COUNTY W of Site 94 217 w.m~ - 12,100 0.28 19,305 0.44 4,200 0.10 12,300 0.28 Unk Unk 10,560 0.24 7,968 0.18 20,398 0.47 86,831 1.99 , U L-JU I I I I I : ~ I I 1 ~l I I I I ESlNuT ST ... ... .. CI-ESTNJT ST 1.~.". ....... .............. CI-ESTNJT ST. CI-ESTNJT ST ..... CI-ESTNJT ST.......... 6J "-"---r' --....-...., VJ VJ 521 52 53J i ~ I fnJ 617 I: I ~ 001 ROGERS ST. I, i ....... 001 815 I~ VJ ~ ~ ,-'" VJ ~ ~ 523 535 ..mJ L...._....~_ tXJ6 S:E VJ '--- --'-~ ~ VJ S:E I - W2 8J6 8J6 - 002 904 i ~ 535 6XJ I j 810 i 900 ~ ........ ........ TI..Ri'ER ST,........ TI..RI'ER ST ...... Jl.... ,.......... .. ..........TI..Ri'ER ST... .. .......... ......... TI..Ri'ER ST..... ]11 &n ~ VJ -- .~. ........TI..RI'ER ST.. .... ~ I fnJ 615 619 ~ I ~I ~ 815 627 631 , 001 8J3 811 813 - 001 003 6XJ """I on? Wln -- COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 10 - Oct - 07 Page 176 ------------------- ------------------- Minimum # of Stories Required (no FAR requirements) .. .. Site 2 == A B A B . _ Max FAR Available I I Mid FAR Available _ Min FAR Available I I No FAR Available Site 1 has the best flexibility rel~~D~~: :ptions for all scenario permutations. Site 3 has the second !t1e~ibilitY - can accommodate most permutations. PSTA can only tili(~c~~n Sites 1A and 3A (at current assumptions). Site 1iS$l'lr~~)~~hat can accommodate both a Joint Use facility I garage and PST A. · PST\on Zone A. v · A minimum 7 -story Joint Use facility + garage on Zone B. I Key: . . . COCFS Study - Final DRAFT v7.3a 1 0 - Oct - 07 Page 177 Ronnie E. Duncan - Chairman Robert B. Stewart - Vice Chairman Calvin D. Harris Susan Latvala John Morroni Karen Williams Seel Kenneth T. Welch RECEIVED C ~Jlo inellas (ounty FACILITY MANAGEMENT ... "p .. II BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ut; I ~. 2 2007 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE September 27,2007 Mr. Rod Irwin Assistant City Manager City of Clearwater 112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Mr. Bill Steele Interim Executive Director PSTA 3201 Scherer Drive St. Petersburg, FL 33716 SUBJECT: Joint-Use Facility Feasibility Study Dear Mr. Irwin and Mr. Steele: A meeting was held on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, to discuss the Joint-Use Facility Feasibility Study (Study) Phase 1 data. The Equis Corporation presented an executive summary, which included a list of assumptions for consideration in advance of a decision to commence Phase 2. The identified assumptions have relevance for each of three entities represented in the Study. Assumptions . Agreement structuring between entities . Transit-oriented development issues . Ownership (land and building) . Legal liability issues . Governance and policy issues (e.g. security and access) . Operating cost sharing and internal charges for dedicated uses . Standardized technology and communication protocols . Future space expansion and contraction . Capital structure and financing . Insurance and risk management . Design and construction standards and direction PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO: 201 Rogers Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Phone: (727) 464-3494 FAX: (727) 464-3374 Website: www.pinellascounty.org o . .. Mr. Rod Irwin, City of Clearwater Mr. Bill Steele, PST A September 27,2007 Page -2- RE: Joint-Use Facility Feasibility Study The consensus of the meeting attendees was to form a team, with staff representation from each entity, to review and comment on the list of assumptions. The team will have 30 days to complete this task. The expectation for the group is to evaluate each assumption, in the context of a joint-use facility, based on the following criteria: . Entity's position . Justification for position . Obstacles to position Utilizing necessary staff input, each entity will work independently on the assumptions evaluation for the first two weeks. On or about the two week point, a meeting will be scheduled with all three entities. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the evaluation, answer questions, and plan for the completion of the evaluation. At the conclusion of the thirty days, a second meeting will be scheduled for a group review of the completed evaluations. At your earliest convenience, please identify to me a representative from your organization to participate on the team. I will contact you in order to schedule the two meetings referenced above. If you have any questions or need further explanation of the assumptions, please contact me at (727) 464-3237. Thank you. Sincerely, FAQIM~~O;DEPARTMENT Andrew W. Pupke Manager, Planning Division cc: Mark S. Woodard, Assistant County Administrator A WP:lcm