Loading...
Joint City-County Occupancy of Public Buildins A REPORT on JOINT cm-comrrr OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS to the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ~nm COUNTY ~ KANSAS BOARD OF em ern-oo:SSIONERS OF SALINA~ KANSAS " George W. Johnson~ Chairman Carl Ram$ey ~ Mayor 10 Keith Hughes JoIelvin Thelander Harold Jaeger R. Y. Bull Ralph Exline Gaylord Sp.angler March 1961 -. ~. ~ March 10, 1961 Gentlemen: This report concerns itself with the construction and operation of combined city and county court houses in various cities and counties i1\ the United States. It has been prepared in three parts, which are: 1. General Summary .. 2. Synopsis of Articles, which gives pertinent information extracted from letters,magazine articles and reports. , 3. Appendix which includes three complete reports, a state ,statute, a working agreement, and a 11st of source material. Respectfully submitted, .--, .1 ,r. . I I / 1._-, .' . / . -,.... . .,/ J-" ". / ()t; ..(~ fA. /, ./).( --.1.. I':~.;; \.. Dick Preston Assistant to the City Manager Salina, Kansas. GENERAL SUMMARY There are three types of joint occupancy: 1. Joint ownership. 2. A "Landlord-tenant" relationship. 3. A Building Authority. Older buildings were generally financed by general obligation bonds, however, recently the use of a building authority has per- mitted the use of revenue bonds in some states. Material available on cost and cost savings does not precise- ly fit the Salina-Saline County situation, however, an attempt will be made to associate available cost figures to Salina-Saline County . , The building constructed for Quincy and Adams County, Illinois comes closer to the Salina'and Saline County situation than ~1 other combined facility. Their city population is 41,450 and the county population is 64,690; the building was built in 1950; the building houses city and county offices. court facilities and a jail. The cost of the building was $1,800,000. ;. Adjusting the revenue bond figures whioh were presented to Lincoln, Nebraska, to the QUincy, Il1in01s oonstruction cost, the yearly cost to both the city and county would approximate $60,000 per year for forty years f~r maintenance, operation, debt, retire- ment and interest on the debt. Kansas statutes do not permit the use of building authorities. The City of Tacoma estimates a yearly savings of $40,194.00 in the combined units of the city-county jail. Adjusting this figure on a populati on basis, the Salina-Saline County yearly savi!\gs in jail operation would appronmate $7,000. These figures must be considered very broad estimates. The $1,800,000 figure does not include land costs since in Quincy, Illinois, the building was built on county land. The $80.000 Yiarly cost and could very easily be on the low side since the report from which these figures were taken was prepared by a citizens committee who were trying to convince the city and county that "this really won't cost very much". ... No dollar and cent breakdowns were given relative to cost saving in governmental operations. Typical replies to this question were: ~ . "The cost savings are in the overhead, land and supplies. I can't givG you a dollar and cent breakdown because of the ex- panded governmental operations and population in this area". (Augusta, Georgia). "Cost savings are noticeable. We cannot compare .lith old obsolete structure but by comparing a neighbor city with the same needs, we have by far a better facility for less money. Certainly the combined jail is an extreme savings". (Port Huron, Michigan) '~ile certain cost savings are certainly realized by joint governmental tenancy, we h~ve no cost studies ....... We feel that the real advantage is the convenience to the public and to the governmental agencies who are located "under one roof". (Wilmington, Delaware) Another savings which is difficult to figure is the time (money) saved by the individual citizen. '~ , Generally speaking the combination of facilities has been excellent to satisfactory_ Comments from cities include "most economical, convenient, and efficient", "save costs and is a convenience to the citizens". The most cornmon dissatisfactions revolved around inadequate space and lack of a completely definitive agreement upon the distribution of expenses and/or authority, These objections ca:mmonly came from "tenant" agencies. w' r SYNOPS IS Bulletin of tho American Municipal Association Urban Renewal Report. Norfolk, Virginia Letter: Port Huron, Michigan Letter: Madison, Wisconsin Letter: Augusta. Georgia Bulletin of Governmental Research " Magazine Article - Detroit, Michigan ~ Let'ter: Letter: Michigan Municipal League Camden, New Jersey Report: City...County Jail Facilities Tacoma, Washington Report: Site Selection, Tacoma, Washington Aln~rlcan City Magazine Synopsis of Joint-City County Occupancy of Public Buildings American Municipal Association 1952 "Joint occupandY of a jointly-owned building can succeed, in the experience of those who have tried it, if the division of authority, responsibility and expense is clear. detailed and dis'~inctly under- stood by the parties to the agreement. Lack of clarity on these points has given rise to mast of the relatively minor dissatisfactions which have arisen in some cases. Establishment of a joint commission- or an Authority, where state law permits . to manage and operate the building is frequently resorted to for solution of the financial and housekeeping problems of two governments dwelling together. A second lesson from experience is to provide sufficient space for comfortable housing and expansion - of the activities and agenci as to be quartered in the bul1ding. Other instances of joint occupancy of a single building by city and county are found where pne of the governments occupies space in a building owned and managed by the other. Such arrangements, which de- pend on the host government having space that can be made available to the other, are also generally found by the parties thereto to be satis- factory and economical. Space inadequacies underlie nearly all of the mino~ dissatisfactions voioed to such arrangements." Joi~t Oooupancy talla into thes. oat.sori.., ,1. Joint Ownership. 2. ''Landlord-tenant'' arrangement.. a. City ownership b. County ownership 3. An Authority owns the building and both the c1 ty and county are tenants. (Not covered in the American Municipal Association report)4 Financial Data "Joi.ntly owned facilities were customarily erected under joint sup8rvi~ion, occasionally under jurisdiction of a special commission or agency established to erect and/or operate the building. The cost of construction is customarily shared between the governments in the proportion of their ownership and/or occupancy. Where one gover1Ulent 1s housed in the building of another the owning government almost uni- versally constructed the building at its own expense." '. Operational Practice In ofte-third of joint cnmership cases those involved maintains "1 ts own ponion". In other cases jointly established agencies are responsible for Ilaintemmce and management. In one case the county has the sole responsi bil1 ty of all maintenance. The most common procedure is for each agency to provide and pay for its own maintenance and operational expeas8 and make their own alterations in offices. Where there is a "landlord-tenant" relationship the host govern- ment or authority is responsible for janitorial and operational costs. Municipal Viewpoint Of the 30 cases: 20 report the combine "satisfactory", some stating "most economical, convenient, and efficient", "saves costs and is a convenience to citizens." 9 reported satisfaction with some qualifications. Dissatis- faction usually revolved around lack of expansion space or lack of complete agreement on distribution of expenses and authority. Dissatisfaction reported by three partners, two landlords and five tenants. " "Of the twenty municipalities which availed themselves of the opportunity to advise other cities contemplating similar arrange- ments, thre~ 'gave unmodified approbation of joint occupancy and three (all "tenants") urged separate quarters. Two suggested a joint management agency~ four offered a reminder to provide for future expansion, and eight made various suggestions for definitive agree- ment on cost and management details." City-County Buildings Jointly Owned Financial Data. The most common method of financing was by general obligation bonds. ",rpA assistance was given on two occasions. In several ift- S1:anees the buildings were erected on state oll'ned land. City and county costs generally were not equal but varied according to the 8JnOU!\t of floor space each agency intended to occupy. Quincy and. Adams County~ Illinois constructed a building in 1950 for a cost ot $1,800,000 which included city-county offices, courts and jails. The city population at that time was 41,450 persons. 3. and Advice from different cities. "Ownership by city or county". "Satisfactory to both city and county" but "have joint agreement regarding maintenance and utili ties". "Satisfactory except that a savings could be made by joint maintenance and operation", suggests there be a contract providing for "unified operation and maintenance of build- ing and grounds". "Satisfactory" "monies for nperation be in only one juris- dictionts budget, with reimbursement by the other juris- diction. ''Most economical~ convenient and efficient" can be well recommended to any who are considering a joint building". Comment 1. 2. 4. .. s. ~ 6. "Makes a one-stop building and is a convenience for the public II . 7. "It saves costs and is a convenience to citizens." 8. "- not too well". The building should be owned by an Authority or corporation. in vhich the county and the city should have an equal voice". 9. "- has vorked very well - cooperation between the city and county has been excellent". ''Enter into a workable written agreement between the parties concerned satis- factory to both governments". 10. "Satisfactory" "where the building can be so designed that each agency can operate in definitely separated areasll. 11. "Very well". "Adequate space for future enlargement". City in County Building Financial Data. The county in all cases owns the building and received no state or federal assistance. Generally the county is responsible for all maintenance and operation of the building. The city generally pays rent. 4. S. 6. and Advice from cities. IIE:x:cellent" . ''Excellenttr, outgrowing our space". "Exc:elhnt". except for lack of space due to constantly expant1ii\g' facilities of both gOV;i"Mlntlt, "O.K.., except lack of space". "Build your own building". "Well satisfied".. "Satisfactory" . Comment l. 2. 3. County in City Building Financial Data. Ci ty generally bore entire expense of construction. "Rent" from the county varies~ Alameda County. California. pays $5.232 per year for 5,456 square feet in 30 year old building. Labette County. Kansas. pays $3000 per year for 13.500 square feet in a 40 year old building. Crawford County, Kansas receives 2,500 square feet rent free. St. Clair County~ Mic~igan. pays $1.000 per year for 18.500 square feet in a 90 year old building. Erie County, Nev York. pays $82.000 annual rent for 40,000 square feet in a 30 year old building. Comment 1. 2. 3. 4. and. Advice. "Satisfactory" . "Satisfactory" '~s the city.s requirement for space increased, great difficulty in evicting other additional county offices was experienced". Satisfactory - however I rent is too low" - ''painting and redecorating should be left to the agency renting or the rent made high enough to cover". "Satisfactory" . "Provide adequate floor space for expansion of facilities". 5. (Full report included in Appendi%) SYNOPSIS Urban Renewal Report Norfo1kJ Virginia 1960 A 182 million dollar redevelopment project is underway in Norfolk which involves Urban Renewal J.\1nds. The total cost to the city is estimated to be 12 million dollars. ". The redevelopment plans include a 15 million dollar Civic Center which features in separate buildings a Municipal Building, A municipal Courts Building, Police Headquarters and a Jail. Re- development plans also call for a 1.5 million dollar library and a 6 million dollar Motor Hotel. " '- CITY-COUNTY BUILDING Port Huron, Michigan 1961 Letter The total cost of the facility was 3i million dollars and will serve a population of 175,000 people. It was constructed in 1954 by a building authority. The Authority is a group of three private citizens incorporated by joint action of the county and city to borrow necessary money, construct the building and rent said building back to the two bodies on a pre-arranged contract. The authority continues to operate the building and maintain it as a leasehold with the city and county as tenants. General public reaction was mixed. Most liked the building and the joint effort, but having turned down a G.O. issue for the same purpose, some were chagrined. Space is allotted on the basis of a pre-arranged plan. "Cost savings are noticeable. We can not compare with old structure but by comparing a neighbor city with the same needs, we have by far a better facility for less money. Certainly the combined jail is an extreme savings" (City Manager, Port Huron, Michigan) : CITY-COUNTY BUIIDING Madison, Dane County, Wisconsin 1961 Letter In 1957 the $7,944,744.00 city-county building was completed. It accommodates 700 employees, 165 county prisoners, 56 city prisoners and an 84 car garage. The building was financed by general obligation bonds which were well received by the public. The building 1s jointly owned and the building is managed by a Building Commission, composed of two County Board Supervisors, one City Alderman and the City Building Commissioner. The cost is based on the square footage of space used by each party with hallways and other general areas counting 50"/0 to each govern- ment. The county is the fiscal agent and pays all bills as the Building Commission approves them. The county then charges the City their percentage of these bills. Maintenance employees are hired by the Building Commission, but become employees of the county . '~e feel they are many (cost savings), such as one maintenance superintendent, one chief telephone operator, repairs on one set of equipment inltead of two I.t., on. snow plow, garden equipment. On. jail k1 tchen, ete." (Building COmln1ss1oner, Madison, Wisconsin). The operation has been most satisfactory, however, advice 1s given which states that a good working contract and a small managing ecmmitt.. are desirable. CITY-COUNTY BUILDING Augusta, Georgia 1961 Letter The total cost of the building plus furnishings was $3,050.000 for 108.000 square feet. The building was built in 1957 to serve a population of 135,601. The building is jointly owned by the city and county and was financed by general obligation bonds. The city occupies 74.4% and the county occupies 25.6% of the nine story building. Maintenance cost are shared on this same per- centage basis. "The cost savings are in th9 overhead. land and supplies. I 'Can't give you a dollar and cents breakdown because of the expanded governmental operations and p~pulation in this area." (City Manager Augusta. Georgia) -. , . SYNOPSIS Bulletin of the Governmental Research "City-County Building?" March 1956 Lincoln, Lancaster County Nebraska . This is a report by a citizens committee to the city and county commissioners urging the oonstruction of a joint city- county building inclusir.g jall and court facil1 ties. The report encourages the use of n b~ilding authority which 1s permissible under Nebraska statutes. Revenue bonds which are not subject to debt limitations of the city and county but whioh require a vote by the electorate under Nebraska statute are. also, el\couraged. The "authority" would actually issue the bonds. The authority is a special public corporation appointed by the city and county commissioners. Revenue would be collected as rent paid by the 01 ty and county. The total east of the building would be $3.500.000 for 130,000 squ~e feet of space. The county would occupy see" of the building and would pay $157,993 per 'year for forty years for maintenance, operation, debt retirement.~and interest on the debt. Lancaster County is presently paying '1>49.645 annually tor the upkeep and operational costs of their old building. (Full report in Appendix) SYNOPSIS Government News "City and County Share Buildings" No date Detroit - Wayne County, Michigan Scattered buildings caused loss of time and created confusion for the public. Not on'~y ",,:E"re city Elr.d ccunty buildings separated but the city and county ~ented offices ~n ~ther buildings which was expensive and further scattered offices t't\'~reby reducing inter- governmental activities. A building authority has been appointed to construct, maintain and operate the building. The authority i~su8s self-liquidating revenue bonds securad by leases from thf~ 01 ty and county. Bond issuance does not ra~uire a vote by the electorate in Michigan. Rents paid are fixed at a rate sufficient to maintain the building, 1ts upkeep and to amortize the bonds. The fixed fee is less than either the county or city has paid for upkeep, rent, maintenance and operation since 1949. Maintenance and operational char g.. art figured at $2.00 per squar'e foot per year. The cost of the new building is $28,087,565. SYNOPSIS Letter to the League of Oregon cities from the city of Camden, New Jersey, December 6, 1954. In Camden there is a joint facility where the county owns the building and the city pays rent. The building was erected with a party wall so it could be operated as two separate buildings. Each agency pays for its own insurance, water, telephone and electricity. There are separate heating facilities, however, the city furnaces have never been used. The county furnishes heat, janitorial servic., space, and repair work. The city feels it is paying too much for these servicel in that more than one-half the tax.. collected in Camden County are collected in the City of Camden. In 1954 the city paid the county $102,000 for operational expense. SYNOPSIS Letter from Director of the Michigan Municipal League to ~he Director of the Municipal Association of South Carolina dated February 1, 1960. Most of the city-county buildings in Michigan are being financed under a special statute that enables an authority to issue revenue bonds and take care of the debt obligations through rent paid by both the c1 ty and county. There is occasional dissatisfaction over who is to have what space. The biggest problem encountered is employee relations. City and county pay scales, vacations, holidays, hours and so forth differ and when employees are together these differences are magnified. There has never been any serious consideration given to abandoning . the idea onc. the arrangement has been entered into. ~ SYNOPSIS Guiding Principles in Selecting a County-City Building Loeatlon. (Tacoma, WRshington 1961 Letter A planning report on factors to be considered in site selection. It covers: 1. Floor area 2. Land area 3. Access1.bility 4. CO\mty ~\~at S. P'i'Pulation distribution 6. Highways 1. Rural areas 8. Principal users g. Attorney lB. Other professional groups 11. Press 12. Public officials 13. Relationship with central Business District 14. Transit Lines IS. Taxicabs 16. Automobiles 17. Walking 18. Parking 19. Civic center 20. Retail trade (Publ io buildings can act as a dampening influence on retail trade) 21. Office and Financial 22. Traffic 23. Site expansion 24. Preparation of the site 25. Utility services 26. Heating (Full report included in the appendix) .. THE AMERICAN C TIT The following articles can be found in the American Ci~ Magazine. These articles are not reproduced in this report e- cause of copyright considerations, however, they are available at "the Salina Public Library and can be made available at public m.etings. 1. "If You're Planning a City Hall" - page 149. March 1957. The first consideration 1s to ascertain if "the town, the city commission or a building authority can legally build. The second step is to consider what agencies need to be iocated in the building, such as jail, municipal water, etc., and perhaps the desire to construct rental space for lawyers, doctors. etc. Site location should consider topography, parking, expansion area, land cast, The city fiscal agent should outline methods of raising money. The cost of a city hall may range from $12.00 to $22.00 per square foot. Consideration in the article is given to the clerk's office, mayor's office, court room, library and auditorium. The polic. department is frequently in the basement or on the ground floor. Where the jail 1s part of'the police layout, the plan of the police department .should be arranged so that people may came in and visit without interfering with police activities. The prisoners should be enclosed by steel on four sides at all times and the cells should keep the prisoners away from outside walls. . The article gives dimensions and facilities of individual cells. 2. "Augusta-Richmond Builds on 619 Shells"- page 129, November 1957. The article is about the Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia city-county building. The cost of the building was $2,585,000 in 1955 and is completely air conditioned. The article covers the 'type of construction of the building and the detention facilities which are wi thin the building. 3. "New Rochester Civic Center Looks Ahead to City-County Consolidation" - page 114-115. February, 1957. .' The county population is 500,000 and plans proposed a $43,000,000 civic center. The center is dominated by a 22 story city-county office building wi'th a separate building housing 'the city 81\'l o:ounty courts. The building has been planned for maximum efficiency and flexibility. For example, city and county planning departments are located on the same floor separated only by a common reception room. Interior walls can be moved to provide flexibility. Traffic considerations were considered in site selection. 4. "City-County Combine to Finance and Maintain City Hall" Page 7. Ivlarch 1954. A joint ownership building in Petaluma, California. The building contains 12,970 square feet. S. "Circular Police Building for Philadelphia" - page 112, April 1960. The article stat~s that there is a space savings due to the circular design. 6. "San Pablo 's Modern City Hall" - page 99, July 1958. The building contains city offices, municipal court, county. library, oounty public health and the police depart- .,t. mente The floor plan is shown and building costs arl given. ." APPENDIX Bulletin of the American Municipal Association Bulletin of Governmental News State of Indiana Building Authority Statute Construction and Maintenance Agreement Cheyenne-Laramie County List of Source Material JOINT OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS American Municipal Association 19S:Z JOINT CITY-COUNTY OCCUPANCY OF PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS The housing of municipal and county offices in a single jointly- owne'd "c i ty-County Build ing" structure has been pioneered by a number of county-seat cities and their county governments with results generally des- cribed as satisfactory and economical. It constitutes a small but growing pattern of intergovernmental cooperation at the local level. One such building was completed in 1950, one is now under construction, and several others are being planned. Joint occupancy of a jointly-owned building can succeed, in the experience of those who have tried it, if the division of authority, responsibility and expense is clear, detailed and distinctly understood by the parties to the agreement. Lack of clarity on these points has given rise to most of the rela- tively minor dissatisfactions which have arisen in some cases. Establishment of a joint commission - or an Authority, where state law permits - to manage and operate the building is frequently resorted to for solution of the finan- cial and housekeeping problems of two governments dwelling together. A second lesson from experience is to provide sufficient space for comfortable housing and expansion - of the activities and agencies to be quartered in the building. Other instances of Joint occupancy of a single building by city and county are found where one of the governments occupies space in a building owned and managed by the other. Such arrangements, which 1epend on the host government having space that can be made available to the other, are also generally found by the parties thcn:to to be satisfactory and economical. Space inadequacies underlie nearly all of the minor dissa.tisfactions voiced to such arrangements. ~~~E~,m..F..;;~p.QBj' Most of the known instances of joint occupancy of public office buildings by municipal and county governments are. included in this report. They have been affirmatively sought by inquiry to the state leagues of municipalities or other sources of informa.tion in every state of the Union. Most of the cities involved in the arrangements thus ascertained have responded to r~quests for physical, financial nnd operational data, and for comment and advice, which is presented in this report. Not included in this survey are buildings jointly occupied for sp~cial purpose agencies, such as Joint police radio stations, health clinics and the like. Excluded also are the administration buildings of actually combin~d city-county governments such as those of Denver, St. Louis, Baltimore and San Francisco. ~~~AJOR PATTFRNS OF JOI~T OCCU~~~CY Joint occupancy a.rrangements may be roughly grouped into three patterns. The first and most authentic situation is where the building has been jointly erected and 1s jointly owned and operated by the two government. Fifteen instances of this type of cooperation are set forth in Table I. In the other two groups one of the governments is in the position of "landlord" and the otoer in that of "tenant". Eleven instances of municipal occupancy of space in county facilities 1s given in Table II and eight of county occupancy of municipal facilities in Table III'. -2- PHYSICAL DATA Many of the instances of county-municipal cooperation through joint occup~ncy date back many decades. Some of the buildings thus employed are of compara- tive antiquity, of which the most notable is the Court House of Greesville County (Emporia), Virginia, erected in 1781. Another historically notable building is the jointly owned and occupied structure housing the offices and courts of Wheeling and Ohio County, West Virginia, erected by the state in 1875 as its first Capitol building. Thirteen of the buildlngs were erected between 1873 and 1917; fifteen were erected during or since the late 1920s. The newest such completed and occupied structure is the county-city building of Adams County and Quincy, Illinois, a seven story structure erected in 1950. The distribution of space allocated to the two governments varies. Where one is housed in the building of the other its space is customarily a rather small proportion of the total. Jointly owned structures appear customarily to be divided either 50-50 or in a ratio tlpproximating one-third city and two-thirds county. In some cases, under'all of the types of joint occupancy, space is provided for certain state or federal governmental agencies or for community organizations such as the Red Cross, Girl Scouts and the like. FINANCIAL DATA Jointly owned facilities were customarily erected under joint supervision, oc- casionally under j~risdiction of a special commission or agency established to erect andlor operate the building. The cost of construction is customarily shared between the governments in the proportion of their ownership and/or oc. cupancy. Where one government is housed in the building of another the own- ing government alznost universally constructed the bu:l.lding at its own expense. OPERl.TIONAL PRI\.CTICE Jointly owned facilities arc customarily managed and maintained under a co. operative agreement entered into between the two governments. This is a particularly necessary arrangement with respect to maintenance, where common grounds and structural features require provisions for sharing responsibility and/or expense. In a third of the joint ownership cases - those involving Phoenix, Chicago, Camden, Wheeling and Milwaukee - it is reported that each maintains "its own portion". It is likely that in at least some of these cases certain maintenance problems do from time to time require cooperative action. Jointly established agencies for the particular purpose are respon- sible for management and maintenance of tho jointly owned facilities in which municipal agencies of San Diego, Wilmington, Minneapolis, St. Paul and Bismarck arc housed. In only one of the cases - Cheyenne and Laramie County, Wyoming - is management and maintenance assigned ns a sole responsibility of only one of the cooperating agencies - the county, in this case. More customary in joint ownership st~uctures is for each government separately to provide and pay for its own janitorial and other operational oxpenses. Improvements and alterations in offices are specifically included as borne by the agency occupying the space in the case of San Diego and Chicago. Where a separate agency of building management commission operates the jointly owned facilities it customarily pays for janitorial and operational expenses and assesses proportioned shares of the cost to the cooperating governments in accordance with agreements made. -3- ~lere either the city or the county occupies sp~ce in a building of the other it is the nOrInr..l situation to find the host government solely responsible for m~.nagement and maintenance a:1d for providing [lnd paying for Janitorial and operational services. Where rent is paid by the non-o'nling government the amount of rent is of course, predicated in part upon the costs to the host of rendering such services. THE MUNICIPAL VIEi.JPOINT Munic1p~l1t1es involved in joint occupancy - whether as partner, landlord or . tonant - generally report their experience to have been "satisfactory". Of the 30 cases in which an opinion is expressed, 20 may be thus summarized; plus another nine expressing satisfaction with some qualification. There is little significant difference in the evaluation given by municipalities as to between those that arc partner, landlord or tenant. A few reply in particularly enthusi- astic terms - such as Wilmington, which terms its arrangement "tlost economical, convi;nient and efficient", or St. Paul, reporting that its arrangement "saves costa and is a convenience to citizens". Some dissatisfaction with arrangements is expressed b~r ten municipalities, three of which are partners, two landlords, and five tenants. Thcse dissatisfactions usually revolvc'around either an inadequacy of space for expansJon of activities or lack of a completely definitive agreement upon the distribution of expenses and/or authority. Of the twenty municipalities which avail0d themselves of the opportunity to advise other cities contemplatins similar arrangements, three gave unmodified approbat ion of joint occupe.ncy and thre,~ (311 t1 ten:lnts") urged separate quarters. 'l'wo suggested a jo:\.nt management agency, four offered a reminder to provide for future expansion, and eight made vari~us suggestions for definitive agreement on cost end mcnagemcnt details. JOINT OCCUPANCY P~.:NS UNDERWAY It is interesting to observe that several of the cooperating governments arc now in or planning their secor..d or third jointly occupied structure, evidcncing that their county-municipal coopcrati'on has outlived on.;} or more buildings. Chicago and Cook County, Ill., ar0 now in th0 third such structure to be occupied on the same site under pl~ns similar to the present. St. P:lul and Ramsey County, Minn., are now in their second jointly owned building. Wheeling and Ohio County, W. Va., finding their 77-year old structurc inadequate, arc now underway with plans for a new $2 million joint building. St. Clair County, Mich., having learned to live with the city government as tcn~nt in the Port Huron City Hall, is now planning with the city to build jointly - through an Authority - a new building as city hall, court house and jail. Interest or active planning of new joint city-county office buildings is reported also by Pontiac and Oakland County, Mich., and three pairs of Wisconsin govern- ments - Fond du Lac and Fond du Lac County, Green Bay and Brown County, and Madison and Dane County. The newest instance of city-county joint occupancy is well underway in Detroit where a multi-story $20 million building is being erected for the use of the City of Detroit and Wayne County (in an npproxtmately 45% - 55i ratio) by the Detroit-Wayne Joint Building Authority, which will own the land and the building. Responsibility for management and mainten~nce of the building will be vested in the Authority, which will make a distribution of janitorial and operational expenses to the two governments which will occupy the structure. TABLE I CITY AND COUNTY IN JOINTLY OWNED BUILDING PHYSICAL DATA FINANCIAL DATA ALABAMA - Eufaula and Barbour County City and county offices and courts and city jail are located in the three story Court House. The city has three offices in the building, the county five. The building also provides office space for the VFW. City Population: 6,906 City and county jointly own the build- ing. Total cost of construction was $50,000. The method of financing and shares between city and county are not reported. ALABAMA - Selma and Dallas County City offices and courts and city and county jails are located in the three story City Building, erected in 1937 under supervision of the city. Other agencies having space in the building are T. B, Association, Vocational Rehabilitation, Red Cross and Crippled Children's Service. Cou.~ty uses third floor and the city the rest. City Population: 22,840 The building is jointly owned by the ci ty and county; the land was owned by the city. The building cost $200,000, the city share being $114,000, assisted by a PWA grant of $86,000. The ci ty issued $100,000 in bonds to finance the construction. ARIZONA - Phoenix and Maricopa County City Population: 106,BIB City and county offices, courts and jails are housed in the COt~t House and City Hall, erected in 1928. The building has five stories and about 150,000 sq. ft. of floor space. City uses 49,640 sq. ft.; the county 100,118 sq. ft. City and county each owns its portion. The county o'N.Ded the land and sold the city its part for $150,000. The total cost of construction amounted to $1,205,460, the city's share being $399,028 and the county's $804,432. Bonds were issued - $450,000 by the city and $750,000 by the county. Ci tr Population: 331~, 387 CALIFORNIA - San Diego and San Diego County City and county offices are located in the six floor (four plus tower) City-County Administration Building erected in 1938. The building contains some 255,211 sq. ft. of floor space; the county uses 60.75% and the city 39.26%,. Construction of the build- ing was jointly supervised by city and county. The building is jointly owned by city and county. It is situated on 18 acres of tidelands donated by the State. The total cost of construction amounted to $1,800,000. The city and the county each paid $300,000 and there was a $1,200,000 PWA grant. DELAWARE - Wilmington and New Castle County City Population: 110,356 City and county offices, courts and jail are located in the City and County Build- ing, erected in 1914-1916. The five-story building has 156,316 sq. ft. of floor space. A commission of Erection supervised con- struction. Space is provided for the State Board of Parole. The city and county jointly own the building. The total cost was $1,421,526; the city's share: land $93,484, building $702,501, equipment $20,667; the county's share: land $71,109, building $526,613, equipment $1,1.52. Bonds issued: $800,000 by ci ty, $600,000 by county. \ ) TABLE I (Continued) OPERATIONAL DNrA COMMENT AND ADVICE Count~ Population: 28,892 City and county share responsibility for management and maintenance of the building and the costs of janitor service and operational expenses, - AlABAMA Eufanla and Barbour County Advice to others is "Ownership by city or county." County Population: ~6J270 Selma. and Dallas ~ounty - ALABAMA Responsibility for ~nagement and main- tenance, and for the payment of janitor service and other operational expenses, is proportionate to space allocation. The city pays the bill.s and bills the county for ite share (O~e third). Joint occupancy is reported to be "satisfactory to both city and county". Advice to other cities is to "have joint agreement regarding maintenance and utilities." County Population: 331,770 Phoenix and Maricopa County - ARIZONA Each maintains end operates its own portion, In the city's opinion the joint occu- pancy ha.s ....orked out "SatisfactorilYJ except that a saving could be made by joint maintenance and operation." The city suggests that there be "a contract providing for unified operation and maintenance of building and grounds." County Population: 556,808 San Diego and San Diego County - CALIFORNIA A joint Administration Building Control Committee is responsible for management and maintenance. Operational expenses are handled as follo....s: improvements or alter- ations in offices by the agency occupying the space; salary of superintendent of the building, costs of operating elevators and maintenance of grounda, and capital improve- ment projects all financed 50-50; other costs including janitorial service are paid on the basis of space allocated. County Population; 218,879 The arrangement has ....orked out "Satis- factorily" from the city's standpoint. Advice to other cities is that "monies for operation be in only one juris- diction's budget, ....ith reimbursement by the other jurisdiction. In San Diego financing is provided in t....o separate budgets and some confusion and difficulties result." Also sug- gested is "tight administrative control." Wilmington and New Castle County - DELAWARE A joint Public Building Commission is re- sponSible for management and maintenance of the buil~ing. City and county equally share the cost of administration and heat. Each is charged for janitor services and other expenses, includtng electric and ....ater, and for materials, as used. From the city's standpoint this arrange- ment is "Most economical, convenient and efficient.1I - The comment is made "It seems to us that our plan is most satisfactory, and can be well recom- mended to any ....ho are considering a joint building." TABLE I (Continued) PHYSICAL DATA FINANCIAL DATA City Population: 79,611 GEORGIA - Columbus and lv1uscogee County City and county office~ and county courts are housed in the two atory Muscogee County Court House erected undor county supervision in 1895. The building also provides space for the U.S.D.A. Home Demonstration Agent. ILLINOIS - Chicago and Cook County -.'. .. City and county office~ and courts are housed in what is in effect a single twelve- story building, although each half was separately erected. The county portion was built in 1906-07 and the city's in 1908-11. The only line of de~arkation is an imaginary line in the middle of the central corridor, continued upward through all of the floors. ~! The building is owned one-third by the city and two thirds by the county. .cIty Population: 3,620,962 Each of the governments (county and city) owns its own "building" - or, more accurately, its half of the single building. The county portion cost $4,870,854 and the cJty portion $5,013,239. The downtown block was state-owned land held as a public common. City Population: 41,450 ILLINOIS - Quincy a~Adams County , Offices1 courts and jail of both the city and county are housed in the new seven-story Co\mty-City bUilding evected in 1950. The space allocation is 37% city and 63% county. Ownermhip is proportionate to space allocation. The $1,800,000 cost waS $1,100,000 county, financed entirely by bonds, and $700,000 city, for which $575,000 of debt was incurred. The land was county owned and the city purchased its portion. City Population: 521,718 MINNESOTA - Minneapolis and Hennepin County City and county offices, courts and jails are housed in the seven-story Municipal Building erected 1900-09 under supervision of a special agency. Each occupies one- half of the building. Credit Union and cigar stands occupy apace on a rental basis. City and county jointly own the build- ing; the land was purchased in 1856 for a school. The total cost of con- struction, amounting to $3123215921 was equally shared by city and county and entirely financed by bonds. TABLE I (Continued) OPERATIONl.L DATA COMMRNT AND ADVICE Columbus and Muscogee CO\mty - GEORGIA County Population: 118,028 Responsibility for management and mainte- nance is proportionate to the shares of ownership. The city and the county are each responsible for their own janitor service and other operational expenses. No comment is given as to how joint occupancy has worked out nor advice to others. County Population: 4,508,792 Each b~vernment is responsible for the management and maintenance of its portion of the building. Each pays for its own janitor service and other operational expense, with one exception. The city furnishes heat to the county portion as well as its own, the county paying for this service under a formula based upon the costs of coal and labor, with a minimum annual charge of $50,000 being stipulated. Chic~.and Cook County - ILLINOIS The present building (or bUildings) is the third such structure to b~ occupied by the city and cOtmty under plans similar to the present arrange~ent. t--r---.. Quincy and AdamS-County ILLINOIS County Population: 64,690 Both city and county share responsibility for management and maintenance. The county furnishes heat on a cubic foot basis. Experi~nce from the city's standpoint has been "Good" and the comment is made that such an arrangement "Makes a one-stop building and is a conven- ience for the public." County Population: 676,579 Minneapolis and Hennepin County - MINNESOTA A state-created Municipal Building Com- mission is responsible for management and maintenancej costs are figured separately for each agency. Joint occupancy has proved "Satis- factory" from the city's standpoint. TABLE I (Continued) PHYSICAL DATA FINANCIAL DATA City Population: 311,349 MI~1'lESOT1\ - St. Paul and Ramsey County City and county office~ and courts are housed in the eighteen~story City Hall and Court House erected in 1934. The city and county use approximately equal spares of the 264,000 sq. ft. of space. Erection of the building was supervised by a Joint City Hall and Court House Com- mission. The Water Department has space in the building for which it pays $6,000 per year; s~ace is granted to the Employees Credit Union and to Federal, state and other governmental units on occasion. NEW JERSEY - Crunden and Camden County City and cOtmty offices and courts and the city jail are located in the five- story (plus eighteen-story tower) Court House Annex-City Hall erected in 1928. The building has approximately 294,232 sq. ft. of area. The city uses approx- imately one-half of the main building plus the tower. Construction was jointly super- vised. Rent Stabilization, Tuberculosis Association and Girl Scouts have rent-free quarters; the Housing Authority rents spacG at $1,800 per year. City and county jointly own the build- ing. The land WaS acquired by con- demnation and purchase. The total . cost of construction amounted to $3,400,000, equally shared by city and county, each issuing bonds in the amount of $1,700,000. City Population: 124,555 The city and county jointly own the building; the land was acquired by purchase and/or condemnation. The city's share of cost of construction WaS $6,233,000, for the financing of which the city issued bonds. NORTH DAKOTA - Bismarck and Burleigh County City Population: 18,640 A three story World War Memorial Building erected in 1929 serves as a general com- mlmity building providing Natio~~l Gunrd Headquarters, gymnasium, athletic tourna- ment floor, convention room, etc. rrhe building has 48,020 sq. f.t. of area of which the city uses 720 for its Nursing Service and the county 672 for its County Agent. Construction was jointly super- vised by city and county. The State Merit System and Girl Scouts have rent-free quarters in the building and the Chamber of Commerce rents at $100 per month. The building is jointly owned by city and county. The land was acquired by condemnation. The total cost of con- struction was $210,000, of which the city's share was $125,000, the county's $85,000. TABLE [ (Continued) OPERATIONAL DATA -'County Population: 355,332 A commission of four city and three county officials is responsible for management and ma:intenance of the building. The cost of janitor service and other operational ex- pense is borne half by the city and half by the county. COMMENT AND ADVICE St: Paul and Ramsey County - MINNESOTA It is pointed out that the arrange- ment has worked very well and that the present building is the second the two governments have occupied jointly. "It saves costs and is a convenience to citizens." County Population: 300, 71~ 3 Camden and Camden County - NEW JERSEY The city's Bureau of City Property and the cbuntyts Department of Buildings a.:ce respon- sible fo~ ll~nagcment and maintenance of the building. Distribution of costs of janitor service and other operational expenses is made under an agreement between city and county. Joint occupancy has worlwd "not too well" from the cityrs standpoint. The opinion is expressed that "The build- ing should be owned by an Authority or Corporation, in which the County and the City should have an equal voice. Such Authority or Corporation should then have complete control of the building." County Population: 25,673 B~:i smo.rcl<: and Burleigh C~unty - NORTH DAKOTA A commission of one city and one county official is responsible for managem2nt and maintenance. Janitor and other occupa- tional expense i.s paid three-fifths by the city, two-fi.fths by the county. Joint occupancy, from the cityrs sta.ndpoint, "has worked very well - cooperation between the city and county has been excellent." Advice to ot.her citias is to "Enter into a workable written agreement between the parties concerned satisfactory to both govern- ments) at least at the date the agr~e- ment is t;xecutcd." ~LE I (Continued). PHYSICAL DATA FINANCIAL DATA City Population: 58,S91--- WEST VIRGINIA - w~eeling and Ohio County City and county offices and courts and city jail are located in the three-story City- County building erected in 1875. The build- ing WllS erected by the state as its first capitol. It provides 34,885 sq. ft. of floor space, of which the city uses 13,763 sq. ft. the county 21,122 sq. ft. . The city owns approximately one-third and the county two-thirds of the building. WISCONSIN - Mihraukee and MilWlukee County City Population: 637,912 City and county offices, courts and jails are housed in the six-story Safety Building erected in 1930-31. Construction was super- vised jointly. It comprises 63,000 sq. ft. of space of which the city uses 51% and the county 49%. The city and county jointly own the buildinp:, the snares being equal except as affected by the police g~~aBium. Cost of construction amounted to $3,262,000, equally shared. The city iSSUtd bonds to finance its part. The land was acquired by purchase. WYOMING - Cheyenne and Laramie County City Population: 31,935 Offices, courts aDd jail of both the city and county are located in the thrce.story City and County Building, erected in 1917 under joint supervision. The city occupies on~-third and the county two-thirds of the space. The building is jointly owned. The land was county owned and the city purchased its share. The total cost of construction amounted to $216,611. The county's share was $150,979 and the city's share $65,633, plus $3,800 for cells. ~LE I (Continued) OPERATIONAL DATA COMMENT AND ADVICE Wheeling and Ohio County - WEST VIRGINIA County Population: 71,672 City and county are each responsible for their own space. First and second floor are evenly divided; the county occupies the entire third floor. Joint occupancy has worked out satis- factorily and construction of a new $2,000,000 joint building is underway. "Based on local experience," the City Manager finds "no serious objection and would recommend where economy a.nd public convenience are factors and possible political difference do not intrude." County Population: 871,047 Milwaukee and Milwaukee Co~ty - WISCONSIN The city and the county each manages and maintains its section and pays its own operational expense. Joint occupance has been "Satisfac- tory" from the city's standpoint, and is recommended "where the building can be so designed that each agency can operate in definitely separated areas." County Population: 47,662 Cheyenne and Laramie County - WYOMING The county, in agreement with the city, is responsible for management and maintenance. The city takes care of 30.3% of the cost of janitor service and other operational ~x- pensej the county carries 69.7% of such expenses. The arrangement has worked out "Very well", although ''Recently additional space is needed by each due to in- creased business". Advice to other cities is to provide "adequate space for future enlargement." ~LE II (Continued) OPF.RATIONAL DATA County Population: 331,770 The Town Clerk's office is responsible for management and maintenance of the building. Town and county each pay 50% of janitor ser- vice and other operational expense. COMMENT AND ADVICE Chandler and Maricopa County - ARIZONA Recommendation is made that, "if pos- sible to do so financially, a munici- pality its own City Hall, separate from other government uses.u County Population: 196,685 Li ttle Rock and Pulaski. County - ARKANSAS The county is solely responsible for man- agement and maintenance of the building. The arrangement is said to be "Satis- factory" from the city's viewpoint; no advice is tendered other cities. ____County Population: 98,853 Decatur and Macon County - ILLINOIS The county is responsible for all manage- ment and maintenance and pays all janitor service and other operational e~pense. ,/ The city's experience has been "Excel- lent" except that its 15-year lease is considered to be too short; the city ''Would advise a longer lease." Newport and Campbell County - KENTUCKY County Population: 76,196 The Campbell County Court House Commission is responsible for management and maintenance of the building, Costs of janitor service and other operational expense are paid by the county. The county, in addition to the rent paid by the city, gets free water. The arrangement is viewed as "a good deal for the City of Newport from the cost standpoint." County Population: 28,185 Cassopolis and Cass County - MICHIGAN The county is solely responsible for manage- ment and maintenance and provides janitor service and carries other operational expenses. The city's experience is reported as "O.K., except that it has become over- crowded and they want us to move and we have no place to go," Advice to other cities: "Don't do it." TABLE II PHYSICAL DATA CITY IN COUNTY BUILDING . ARIZONA - Chandler and Maricopa County Town offices and town and county courts and jails are located in the one-story City Hall, erected in 1923. The building provides 3,696 sq. ft. of space, used 50-50. FINANCIAL DATA City Population: 3,799 Maricopa County owns thebuildingj no data available on cost of construction. A.l1KANSAS - Li ttle Roclt and Pulask:!. County . _~!l. Population: 102,213 City and county courts and county offices are located in the four-story Pulaski County Court House, erected in 1920. The city has four rent-free offices, the county the rest of the building. Pulaski County is the owner of the building, constructed under its super- vision at a cost of $700,000. ILLINOIS - Decatur a.nd Hacon County City and county offices, courts and jails are located in the six-story County Build- ing, erected in 1938. The city uses the equivalent of one floor - at a $7,200 an- nual rent. Other governmental agencies in the building are the Township, Draft Board and Rent Control offices. / KENTUCKY - Newport and Campbell County City offices and county offices and courts . are located in the three-story Newport Court House, erected in 1884. The city uses about 25% (6,600 sq. ft.) of the space - for which it pays $900 annually - and the county the remaining 75%. ___City Population: 66,269 The building was constructed by the county, at its expense. The land was acquired by purchase. -city Population: 31,044 The building is owned by the countYj the land was acquired by deed from the city. MICHIGAN - Cassopolis and Cass County City Population: 1.527 City and county offices and courts are 10- The building is owned by the county. cated in the three-story Cass County Court House, erected in 1885. The city uses ap- proximately 500 sq. ,ft. of space for which no rent is paid (the building 1s exempt from water and sewer charges). The build- ing also houses offices of the U. S. Farm Home Administration, Social Aid and Social Welfare, as well as the Cass County Abstract Office/(non-governmental). TABLE II (Continued r PHYSICAL DATA '. FINANCIAL DATA City Population: 17,027 ,MICHIGAJ~ - Mt. Clemens and Macomb County City offices and county offices and courts are housed in 'the thirteen-story Macomb County Building, erected in 1930. The city uses one floor ata $5,000 annual rental. . " The county built and owns the building; the land was purchased from the city. The total cost of construction amounted to $750,000, borne by the county and financed by bonds. MISSOURI - Cartha.ge and Jasper County City and county offices and courts are housed in the three-story Jasper County Court House, erec~ed in 1894, providing approximately 40,oQo sq. ft. of floor space. The city uscs five rooms, rent-free. The building also houses the Agricultural Agent, Proba- tion and Parole Office, Assistant State Service Office, Draft Board and two abstract companies, all. rent~free. City Population: 11,188 Building and land are owned by the county. The total cost of construc- tion of the building amounted to' $100,000, equally shared by city and county. TEI\TNESSEE - Memphis and Shelby County j 1- City and county offices and county courts are housed in the three-story and double b~sement Shelby County Courthouse, erected in 1909. The building contains approx- imately 85,300 sq. ft~ of which the city uses 24,000 sq. ft. at no formal rental. The local Bar Association haa a law library on the third floor. City Population: 396,000 The county owns the building. The total cost of construction amounted to $1,588,872; the 'land was purchased for $319,362. ' VIRGINIA - Emporia and Greensvi11e County Town and county offices and courts are lo- cated in the two-story Court House, erected in 1781. The building contains 21,000 s~. ft. of space, of which the city uses about 1,000. City Population: 5,664 The building was built and is owned by the county, TABLE II (Continued) OPERATIONAL DATA COMMENT AND ADVICE Mt. Clemens and Macomb County - MICHIGAN County Population: 184,961 The county is responsible for management and maintenance of the building and pays all expense for janitor service and other operational costs. The ci ty' s tenancy, from its stand- point, has been ''Excellent''. County Pop1uation: 79,106 Carthage and Jasper County - MISSOURI The county is responsible for management and maintenance of the building except as to the interior of city offices. The city pays for its own janitor service, using a janitor hired by the county. The city's experience is described as "Excellent" though the city is "out- growing our space and eventually will probably have to have more room, which could not be provided in this build- ing." County Population: 482,393 Memphis and Shelby County - TENNESSEE The county has full management} but the city pays full cost on any maintenance to city offices. The county pays janitor ser- vice and all operational expenses except the electric bill; the city pays the lat- ter for both city and county offices} ap- proximately $5,000 a year. . From the city's viewpoint the arrange- ment is "Excellent} except for lack of space due to constantly expanding facH1 ties of both governments". Ad- vice to other cities is to provide "a wcrka~le scheme on arrangement of enough working space, taking into consideration expansion." County Population: 16,319 Emporia and Greensville County - VIRGINIA The county is responsible for management ~nd maintenance. Except for the town supplying free water, the county pays for all maintenance and operational expense. From the town's viewpoint the arrange- ment is "e.K., except lack of space". Advice to others is to '~uild your own building." TABLE II ('Continued) PHYSICAL DATA FINANCIAL DATA VIRGINIA - Harrisonburg and ROcldngham County City and county offices and joint city-county courts and jail are located in the two-story County Court House (the city also has a sep- arate Municipal Building). The city pays on a proportionate per capita basis for the use of county facilities which amounts to approx- imately 23.526% of the expense based on the 1950 census, or over $6,000. City Population: 10,810 Rockingham County built and owns the building. WASHINGTON - Seattle and King Countl City offices and county offices, courts and jail are located in the ten-story County- City Building, erected in 1916. The build- ing provides approximately 540,000 sq. ft. of floor space, of which the city uses 106,356 sq. ft. at $212,711.52 annual rent. , . City Population: 467,591 The county built and owns the build- ing; the land was purchased. The total cost of construction was $3,610,000 for which the county issued bonds. TABLE II (Continued) OPERATIONAL DATA COMMENT AND ADVICE - County Population: 35,079 Harrisonburg and Rockingham County - VIRGINIA Supplies, repairs, insurance, alterations, fuel, water, light, etc., are shAred in the proportion that the population of the city bears to the aggregate population of the county and city. The city is "well sa.tisfied with the joint a.ctivities." County Population: 732,992 ------~attle and King County - WASHINGTON The county is solely responsible for management and maintenance and bears the entire cost of janitor service and other operational expenses. Joint occupancy, from the city's standpoint, has been "Sa.tisfactoryll. TABLE III PHYSICAL DATA COUNTY IN CITY BUILDING FINANCIAL DATA City Population: 6.430 . ALA13AMA - Alexander City and Ta.llapoosa County The county uses, rent-free, two rooms in the three-story City Hall, erected in 1939. One private law firm bas space in the building. The city owns the building, which it constructed at a cost of $100,000 of which $52,000 was finaneed by bonds. CALIFORNIA - Clovis and Fresno County City offices and courts and county courts are located in the one-story City Hall. Space is about equally divided between city and county, the county using its space for township courts, at $720 annual rent. City Population: 2,766 The city owns the building, wh~h was originally a bank building. CALIFORNIA - Haywa.rd and Alameda County City and county offices and courts and city jail are located in the three-story City Hall, erected in 1930. The city uses 6,571 sq. ft. of the building space, the county 5,456 sq. ft. at $5,232 annual rent. Other agencies which use office space in the City Hall are the State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, Chamber of Commerce and Girl Scouts. I V City Population: 14,272 The city built and owns the building; the land was purchased from a private owner. The total cost of construc- tion of the building amounted to $125,900, borne solely by the city; bonds in the amount of approximately $68,900 were issued to finance the construction. KANSAS - Coffeyville and Montgomery County City and county offices and the city jail are located in the three-story Municipal Building erected in 1928. The city uses basement and first floor, the county the second floor, paying $1,080 rent annually. City Population: 17,113 The city owns the building, erection of which was reportedly jointly super- vised. The land was acquired by pur- chase. The total cost of construction amounted to $225/000, financed by city bonds. ~BLE ~II (Continued) OPERATIONAL DATA COMMENT AND ADVICE County Population: 94,092 Alexander City and Tallapoosa County - ~ The city is responsible for management und maintenance and the cost of janitor service and other operational expenses. County Population: 276,515 The city is responsible for management and maintenance of the building, and bears janitorial and operational costs. The joint occupancy, from the city's standpoint, has been "Satisfactory". Clovis and Fresno County - CALIFORNIA From the city's standpoint the arrange- ment has been "Satisfactor.y". It is observed that "From our viewpoint there is no objection" to such a.n arrangement. County Population: ~,315 The city is responsible for management and maintenance of the building and all janitoria.l and operational costs are paid for by the city. Haywa!d and Alameda County - CALIFOFNIA The city reports that '~s the city's requirements for space increased, great difficulty in evicting other ad- ditional county offices was experi- enced." Relationships otherwise have been amicable. The city's advice is to "(l) Avoid use of City Hall space by non-governmental agencies; (2) Ac- commodate othor governmental offices only if genuine benefit to the city results; such as drawing fringe-area residents into the city or facilitat- ing liaison of city departments with other jurisdictions, such as police department and county sheriff." County Population: 46,487 Coffeyville and Montgomery County - KANSAS The city is responsible for management and maintenance of the building and pays the costs of janitor service and all other operational expenses; the county's share is included in the rental. The experience from the city's stand- point is "Satisfactory - However rent . is too low." It is suggested that "painting and redecorating should be left to the agency renting or the rent made high enough to cover." ~LE III (Continued) PHYSICAL DATA FINANCIAL DATA KANSAS - Parsons and Labette County City offices and county offices, courts and jail are located in the three-story Munici- pal Building, erected in 1923, which has 27,000 sq. ft. of space. The city uses the first floor of the building, the county the second at $3,000 annual rent. The offices of the School Superintendent and the Depart- ment of Water are in the same building. KANSAS - Pi ttsburgh and Crawford County City offices and county courts are located in the two-story City Hall, erected in 1900. The city uses 5,000 sq. ft. of floor space and the county 2,500, rent-free. The State Highway Patrol has one rent-free office. City Population: 14,750 The city built and ovns the building, the site for which was purchased from the Board of Education. Cost of con- struction was $150,000, for which city bond.s were issued. City Population: 19,341 The city built and owns the building, for which it purchased the site. The cost of construction was $35,000, wholly borne by the city and financed by bonds. MICHIGAN - Port Huron and St. Clair County City Population: 35,725 City and county offices and courts are housed in the three-story Port Huron City Hall, erected about 1873. It provides 28,360 sq, ft, of floor space, of which the city uses 34.64%, and the county 65 . 3&;', at $1,000 annual rent. The City of Port Huron owns the build- ing, which it built on park space dedicated to the public in 1872. . NEW YORK - Buffalo and Erie County City Population: 580,132 The county health department, sales tax and planning offices are housed in the 25-story City Hall, which was erected in 1929 and houses city offices. The city uses 2,771,000 sq ft. in the buildins, the county 40,000, at $82,000 annual rent. The State also occupies office space in the City Hall. Building and land are owned by the City. The total cost of construction amounted to $6,900,000, solely borne by the ci ty . TABLE III (Conti?ued) OPERATIONAL DATA County Population: 29,285 COMMENT AND ADVICE The city is responsible for management and maintenance of the building, and pays all janitorial and operational expenses. Parsons and Labette County - KANSAS Experience has been "Satisfactory" from the city's standpoint. The advice is given to "Provide adequate floor space for expansion of facilities." County Population: 40,231 Pittsburg and Crawford County - KANSAS The city is solely responsible for man- agement and maintenance of the building and pays all expenses. Joint occupancy has proved to be satisfactory to the city. County Population: 9l,5~9 Port Ht~on and St. Clair County - MICHIGAN .. The city is responsible for management and maintenance. The city and county each maintains its own janitor service and bears other operational expenses for its respective floor area. Joint occupancy has worked out "Very well" from the standpoint of both the city and county, and they now plan to build jointly - through an Authority - a new buildinS as city hall, court house and jail. County Population: 899,238 Buffalo and Erie County - NEW YORK Joint occupancy is "Satisfactory" from the city's standpoint. It is urged that in construction of a new build- ing proper allocation of space and facilities be made to prevent con- fusion and centralize the services of both agencies, and that consideration be given to expansion of both. The city is responsible for management and maintenance of the building and pays all expenses. .