County Commission authorizes staff to negotiate with Swift Family Limited Partnership
It took less than 15 minutes on Nov. 18 for the Sarasota County commissioners to vote unanimously to direct staff to negotiate with the Swift Family Limited Partnership LLC on the construction of a new records facility for the Office of the Sarasota County Clerk of the Circuit Court and County Comptroller.
The parcels where the facility will stand are located at 2250 Aspinwall St. and 401 Mango Ave., in downtown Sarasota. They will be combined for the project, as Carolyn Eastwood, director of the county’s Capital Projects Department, described the plans to the commissioners.
On Nov. 6 —more than a week before the Nov. 18 discussion — Jon F. Swift Construction of Sarasota submitted a preliminary application to the City of Sarasota for construction of the facility. The city’s Development Review Committee (DRC) members talked with the Swift team during the DRC’s regular meeting on Dec. 3. (The DRC comprises members of city staff who deal with land-use and related issues. They go over all the facets of a project, working with each development team to ensure that the plans comply with city policies and regulations.)
As is typical when a project team appears before the DRC in regard to a preliminary application, the three people representing Swift on Dec. 3 heard directions regarding details of the site plans that the DRC members already had provided Swift in response to the application.
During her Nov. 18 presentation to the County Commission, Eastwood of Capital Projects reminded the board members that the Swift family had provided an unsolicited proposal to county staff in December 2024. That had followed a discussion that the commissioners had had with Clerk of Court Karen Rushing in late June 2024, regarding her need for a new facility to replace the one she has been using in the Northgate Center Business Park in the northern part of the county.
On June 21, 2024, as Rushing presented the commissioners her proposed budget for the 2025 fiscal year, she stressed the need for the new facility. Deputy County Administrator and Chief Financial Management Officer Steve Botelho pointed out that such a project had been included in the list of county initiatives to be funded by the penny sales tax — or Surtax 4 — program that voters approved for the period of Jan. 1, 2025 through Dec. 31, 2039.
A page in the Surtax 4 program documents explained the rationale for the “roughly 30,000 [square foot] records facility”: “The Sarasota County Clerk’s Office manages, processes and maintains records and court evidence for Sarasota County and the 12th Circuit Court. This includes several categories of records and evidence, including Official County Board records, land records, court records and departmental records of the Board of County Commissioners, etc. The current facility does not meet the physical space needs nor does it adequately protect records with permanent retention regulations. The maintenance, security, protection, access to and proper disposition of these records within all applicable statutes and regulations requires a suitable facility to secure and preserve them.”
Rushing told the commissioners that the building, which comprises 26,292 square feet, was at 95% of its capacity. “From ceiling to floor,” she said, “the facility is filled with records.”
A months-long process
In March, the commissioners ended up directing County Administrator Jonathan Lewis to proceed with negotiations with the Swift Family Limited Partnership for the new records center.
In early July, however, the board members ended up voting to direct staff to advertise for any other parties interested in pursuing the construction, about which Eastwood also reminded them during her Nov. 18 presentation.
Staff subsequently issued a Request for Information, she said, with the criteria that Rushing had provided for the new facility.
Eastwood noted that the location was to be within a 1-mile radius of the Historic Courthouse standing at 2000 Main St. in downtown Sarasota, where the clerk’s North County offices are headquartered. The site also had to comprise about 2.5 acres for a one-story facility, but it could be smaller, if a two-story building were proposed, Eastwood said.
Further, “We wanted the proper zoning already in place,” she pointed out, so no rezoning would be necessary.
Other specific requirements, Eastwood told the commissioners, were a secure loading garage, evidence storage vaults and open storage space.
The properties could have structures on them that could be renovated, she continued, or the parcels could be vacant.
Two responses came in in response to the Request for Information, she added.
The Swift Family proposal, Eastwood noted, “ did include all of the required proposal elements.”
The second response was from Formella Construction LLC of Bradenton, but it was just a cover letter, expressing interest in learning more about the project, Eastwood said.
Then Eastwood showed the commissioners a map depicting the two downtown Sarasota parcels that the Swift proposal featured. Combined, they contain 1.16 acres, she added, which is sufficient for Clerk Rushing’s needs.
Further, representatives of the Swift company have indicated that they may seek the vacation of the street between the parcels, Eastwood pointed out, so more space would be available. Yet, “They don’t need to do that in order to meet the requirements,” she told the board members.
The building will contain about 26,295 square feet, she said. The Swift Family Limited Partnership LLC has agreed to lease the county the property — including the land beneath the structure — for 30 years, with options for purchase to begin after the first year and continue each subsequent year, she noted. The purchase price after the initial year would be $15.4 million, Eastwood said. That will rise each succeeding year by 3% or the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is greater.
The lease also calls for the initial year’s rent to be $1,057,200, Eastwood continued. Again, the rent would rise by 3% per year or the CPI, whichever was greater.
The county would be responsible for maintaining the exterior and interior of the building and paying for insurance and the property taxes. She added that the county also would have to buy office furniture.
Even with what is called the “FFEs” — the furnishings, fixtures and equipment — the total expense for the purchase of the building would be within the $18 million budgeted as part of the Surtax 4 program, she noted.
Nonetheless, Eastwood added, the Swift family had indicated a willingness to negotiate with the county about the company’s covering some of the expenses of the furnishings as part of the lease payments.
She did point out that the funds for the lease and the furnishings would have to come out of the county’s General Fund, which contains all of the revenue from property taxes and other sources, such as state revenue-sharing money. The General Fund pays for department operations that do not generate enough revenue to be self-sufficient. The Surtax 4 Program funds, she explained, are dedicated to construction initiatives.
Eastwood did point out that if the commissioners opted for the Smith Family proposal, the Northgate Center Business Park property could be declared surplus after the new records facility was completed, and then it could be sold. The proceeds, she said, could be used to replenish the General Fund.
Making certain the proposal meets the clerk’s needs
Following the presentation, with no other commissioners seeking to offer comments, Chair Joe Neunder told Eastwood, “I want to be sure that [Rushing] has been intimately involved, so to speak, with this project.”
“Absolutely,” Eastwood assured him.
“It’s very important, Neunder said, “at least to this guy, that our clerk gets exactly what she needs …” The building, he added, “will be serving the county for the foreseeable 50 or 75 years, we hope.”
Eastwood concurred.
Rushing also has asked to be involved in the design of the facility, Eastwood added. “She mentioned that to us.”
Commissioner Mark Smith told his colleagues, “I’m all in favor of [this].” Having heard Rushing discuss her needs in regard to the structure, plus the fact that the county will have the option to purchase the building, “and the fact that it works within the budget that we’re dealing with,” Smith added, “it seems to me that this is the solution that we need, because we’ve got to get this evidence secured before long …”
He noted that it likely will take three years for the building to be completed and ready for use.
“This is a whole lot better than what we were thinking about a while back,” Commissioner Ron Cutsinger added: “a lot less money and a much better location.”
Moreover, Cutsinger said, “I like the private-public partnership aspect of this. Makes a lot of sense.”
Commissioner Teresa Mast stressed the need for the board members and staff to be “as efficient as we possibly can be in trying to make those [Surtax 4] dollars go as far as we can.”
After Smith made the motion to formally direct staff to continue the negotiations with the Swift Family Limited Partnership LLC, Cutsinger seconded the motion, and it passed 5-0.
Not much parking required
During the Dec. 3 City of Sarasota DRC meeting, Jon F. Swift, CEO of his eponymous construction company, talked with city staff about the plans to demolish the existing buildings on the two Aspinwall and Mango parcels, so the new records facility can be built.
He did note that city regulations require considerably more parking spaces than the number needed for the use of the building. “There’s only about 25 parking spaces,” he acknowledged.
However, Swift said, only five or six full-time employees will work there.
Then, “about once a month,” two to three extra workers will be present to conduct inventory, he continued.
The maximum number of people in the records facility would be nine “at any one time,” Swift added.
“That explains the parking situation,” Camden Jenkins, the city planner assigned to the application, responded.
In the written comments he had provided on the team’s preliminary application, Jenkins had written, “On the site data table, provide the required parking calculations to determine compliance with Section VII-206 [of the City Code]. Based on Section VII-206(8), this proposed use would be considered ‘nonresidential’ and would require parking at 1 space per 500 square feet [of the completed building].”
“No worries,” Jenkins told Swift on Dec. 3. “You have options.”
He referred the team to Section VII-206(8)f of the City Code, which deals with alternative parking plans.