by Richard Prior
Staff Writer
Debate over the ultimate cost of the new Duval County Courthouse has become muddled by the tendency of protesters to “mix apples with oranges,” according to the mayor’s office.
That doesn’t mean putting fruits in their proper place will make cost-cutting a simple task. But the result may be less expensive than many have feared and a final bill that’s closer to original estimates than expected.
“There’s nobody who wants that building built for $211 million more than the mayor,” said Steve Diebenow, Peyton’s chief of policy and governmental affairs. “The mayor’s producing a product that’s pretty good. It’s pretty close to what people expected.”
The 896,000-square-foot courthouse was billed as a $190 million project when voters approved the Better Jacksonville Plan in 2000. Then-mayor John Delaney shifted $21 million from a $35 million contingency fund in March 2002, making the new price $211 million.
At one point, estimates ballooned to $282 million before settling back to $232 million. It has expanded to 1,134,000 square feet.
City Council on Sept. 23 said Peyton had until Oct. 28 to lower costs to $211 million or submit a plan for paying the difference.
Diebenow said the administration will meet that demand by eliminating “extras,” cutting essentials to the bone and covering any leftovers by shifting existing funds.
“The $232 million is the absolute most that this mayor would ever spend on this project,” he said. “However, he’s going to be working — and has asked all of us to work every day — to look for ways to cut the price and move toward $211 million.”
If those efforts should fall short, Diebenow said, Peyton would bond the $1 million annual payment the City now makes for the Public Defender and State Attorney offices.
“Instead of paying rent, we’re going to buy [the space],” he said. “We’re going to bond the $1 million. Depending on the interest rate climate at the time that happens, that will yield somewhere between $16 and $18 million. That money will only be bonded and spent if it’s needed.”
If additional funds are needed, Peyton plans to use money that has been placed in a trust fund to cover renovation and maintenance at the old courthouse. That fund now has between $2.5 and $3 million, Diebenow said.
“That equals between $19 and $21 million,” he said. “That would be the source of the revenue for the overage. But it only would be spent if it was absolutely necessary and there was no way to get under that $211 million number.”
That, Diebenow stressed, is the total project amount. Within that total is the construction budget, which was originally set at $162.5 million for the design competition. Cannon Design was given the contract, even though its $169.5 million was the highest of the four competitors.
“People started to compare $162.5 million and said now it’s ballooned to $282 million,” said Diebenow. “That’s not comparing apples to apples. That’s comparing construction costs to the budget for the entire deal.”
One objection heard loud and often is that Cannon Design,
with its high price, was declared the winner. Diebenow pointed out that each competitor “busted the numbers” for cost and size. And, according to City officials, cost is not one of the criteria used when awarding professional services contracts.
The types of businesses that come under professional services include architects, engineers, surveyors and accountants, said attorney Scott Makar of the General Counsel’s Office and a member of the Professional Services Evaluation Committee.
“Under our code, and most of the codes around the country, the value of professional services cannot be measured by cost alone,” he said.
The factors to be considered are competence, current workload, financial responsibility, ability to oversee a project, past record of accomplishments, proximity to the project, past performance on a City project, ability to live up to claims, rates and fees, and the volume of current and previous work done for the city.
Protesters have said the City should have used land it already owns along the riverfront instead of paying so much for new property.
There were several reasons why the City decided to move off the “free” land, said General Counsel Rick Mullaney.
“One of them was the opportunity for private development of that property between the Adam’s Mark and Berkman Plaza,” he said. “In the long run, it will be a benefit to privately develop the county courthouse site and [the City Hall Annex]. The City would benefit from the potential sale and the property taxes.”
Other reasons include better public access, the potential for expansion, the creation of a government complex in one area and the likelihood of improved parking.
He conceded there were two disadvantages to buying new land.
One is that prisoners will have to be transported farther and that attorneys and bail bondsmen around the present site will have to travel farther or relocate.
The other, more expensive, objection is the cost of property.
“Do land costs go up?” he asked rhetorically. “Yes. With all the development that’s been going on, land values are up. Could you say we’re victims of our own success? Yes.”
The land for the courthouse complex was owned by 25 to 30 businesses and individuals, and was appraised at $8.9 million, Diebenow said. When the word got out the government was buying, he added, the asking prices soared.
“To date, it’s cost $18.1 million,” he said. “And we have estimated another $7.5 million in exposure on the last piece of land that has to be acquired.
“When Better Jacksonville was voted on, they had not anticipated there being such high land costs.”
Even more costs, this time for protection, were incurred in the wake of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“That led to some enhanced security features at the courthouse which were not anticipated,” said Diebenow. “Approximately $22.6 million in features have been estimated on the courthouse. Of that, $18 million doesn’t exist in the current courthouse.
“In my simplistic way of thinking, I see $25 million in land. I see $7 million in additional security. That’s $32 million. Take that off the mayor’s $232 million price tag, and you’ve got a courthouse that’s being built for $200 million.”
A prime example of the apples-and-oranges comparisons, Diebenow said, is in the contrast drawn between the new U.S. Courthouse and the proposed county courthouse:
“Judge [A.C.] Soud, in his presentation to the Audit Committee, said there are 24 clerks in the new federal courthouse. In the state courthouse, there are 350 clerks.
“There are about seven to eight prisoners that visit the federal courthouse every day. There are 150 prisoners, including juveniles, that visit the state courthouse every day.
“The average number of walk-ins, excluding employees, is about 30 to 40 per day in the federal courthouse. In the state courthouse, there is somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000.
“Basically, you’re getting a building that’s about 10 times as busy and is almost twice as big for twice the price.”
Diebenow has also heard the suggestion that one way to cut the budget would be to eliminate some of the “extras” in the courthouse design that protesters say make it resemble the Palace at Versailles.
“There was a lot of tension in the ‘wish list’ that was reflected in the $282 million number,” he said. “Frankly, nobody made the hard decisions before the election on what should come out of that number.
“When the mayor came into office, he said immediately, ‘Let’s take out this, this and this.’ The [expansion] wings went, the automatic flushing toilets went, the monumental stairs went away.
“I think the mayor has been presented with a really, really difficult set of facts. He is attempting to make the best decision possible, given the hand he was dealt.”