Moving the multiservice center 
Jack Manahan 

Editor's introduction 
The first case in this section posed a question in which the findings of analysis were subordinated to political and behavioral considerations; the second case dealt with a problem in which analytical findings were the primary basis for decision making. This third case is a synthesis; the question of where the county should relocate one of its multiservice centers pits political considerations against analytical (empirical) ones and, in the process, poses the ultimate ethical dilemma for an analyst. 
Simply put, this case explores the appropriate role of the analyst in the decision-making process. The focal point is a conflict between the solution desired by local politicians and the solution found to be most cost -effective by competent analysis. Caught in the middle are the county administrator and an analyst from the county's management and budget office. Furthermore, the analyst does not agree with the strategy favored by her boss. 
The result is a decision problem of substantial complexity. In addition to the relationship between the administrator and the county board, and between the administrator and the analyst, the case also focuses on the intergovernmental relationship between the county, which must relocate its multiservice center, and the city in which the center is currently located. Also involved is a concern that the center be located conveniently for the county residents who will be served by it, particularly the poor, who need easy access to the human service offices located there. 
Most important, however, the case probes a contemporary question of democratic theory: How should the results of empirical policy analysis, fashioned to maximize public values regarding cost and service effectiveness in the long term, be reconciled with the policy preferences of elected officials who, although their vision may be focused on short-run political considerations, still have ultimate responsibility for policy decisions? Similarly, the case questions the role of the analyst as a participant in the politics of policy making. 
Case 11 
Moving the multiservice center 
Background 
Madison County is an urban/rural county of over 300,000 in a major metropolitan area of the country. About 80 percent of the population lives in two dozen incorporated cities, mostly in the southwest part of the county. The remaining citizens reside in rural areas to the east and the north. At the time of this case, the county had enjoyed excellent growth for several years, and the local economy had been a bright spot in an otherwise depressed state economy. Population 

140 Cases in Decision Making 
growth had been explosive, and the county was rapidly becoming more urbanized. In addition to the courthouse in the county seat and a smaller satellite office building in the urbanized southwest part of the county, the government operated several "multiservice centers" designed to bring county services to citizens in various parts of the county. 
At these multiservice centers, citizens could pay taxes, register vehicles, borrow a book from the county's excellent library system, and access various human services programs provided by county offices. Two multiservice centers in the more populated areas of the county provided office space for some staff of the county department of human services and aging, other state and local agencies, and nonprofit organizations involved in the delivery of human service~. 
The first multiservice center was opened ten years earlier in the city of Oakridge, one of the oldest cities in the southwest part of the county. The center, which was known as the Southwest center, contained offices for the county's housing authority and housing counseling programs as well as a remote office for the state's welfare department and offices of three local social service agencies. The state welfare department and the social service agencies sublet from the county. The Southwest center was located in a light-industry and warehouse area near the junction of an interstate highway and a major state highway. The rent the county paid was very low, about $2.50 per square foot annually, owing in part to the fact that the county had paid the cost of initial interior construction and finishing. Newer space in a better location would cost four to five times the current rental expense. 
Although the space was more than adequate when the center opened, it had now been badly overcrowded for several years. Moreover, the location was difficult for visitors and clients to find, and flooding and water damage often occurred when the nearby creek overflowed during periods of heavy rain. County staff had hoped for some time not to renew the lease, scheduled to expire at the end of the current year. After a tour by the county commission in the spring, the staff was directed to begin looking for a new location for the Southwest center. 
A second multiservice center had been opened in the city of Clearview, about four miles west of Oakridge. Many citizens who previously might have visited the Southwest center had begun to use the Clearview center instead. The Clearview center is in an elementary school building that had been purchased and renovated by the city of Clearview. Despite the nearness of the two centers, the city had persuaded the county commission to cooperate in the Clearview center's management and operation in a spirit of "intergovernmental cooperation." 
The case 
Sally Adams was the analyst in the county's management and budget office who was assigned to work with the Department of Human Services and Aging on finding a new location for the Southwest multiservice center. Before a request for proposal (RFP) for rental space could be issued, a key decision had to be made regarding the general location of the new center. 
The staff did not want to move the Southwest center any closer to the Clearview center, because this could result in underutilization of both centers. Because the county's population growth seemed to be occurring to the east and the north, it made some sense to move the Southwest center farther east. However, upon learning that the county might move its center from Oakridge, the city's Republican mayor accused the Oakridge district's Democratic county commissioner of wanting to move the center because the mayor happened to be supporting the commissioner's Republican opponent in the upcoming election. Regardless of whether or not this was true, the incumbent county commissioner could not afford the perception that he was failing to represent his district and the cities 

Moving the Multiservice Center 141 
in it by endorsing the removal of county services. The commissioner called Gerald Davis, the county administrator, who then called Adams. Against her better judgment, Adams decided that it would be best to try to relocate the center within the city limits of Oakridge. 
While Adams was drafting the RFP for rental space, Davis stopped by her office and related a telephone conversation he had just had with Harry Sheppler, the Oakridge city administrator. Sheppler had called concerning a potential location only two blocks from the Southwest multiservice center's current location. The building he proposed was a three-story native-stone elementary school building. It had been built in the 1920s, and an addition was constructed shortly after World War II. The school district had abandoned the building twenty years earlier. Since then, it had been the home of a trade school, a community college, a preschool, and, most recently, a Christian private school. 
Sheppler told Davis that the city council wanted to purchase the building and propose that the county lease the building from the city for use as the new location for the Southwest multiservice center. The council was most anxious to ensure the continued presence of a multiservice center in the city. Davis told Adams that he was aware that the mayor of Oakridge had contacted the chairman of the county commission about the idea. 
Davis asked Adams to analyze the proposal to see if the idea was feasible. 
Her analysis (Table 1) showed that renovation would be costly and that in order for Oakridge to purchase and renovate the school building, the city would have to charge the county about $3.00 per square foot more than the going rate for first-class commercial space in the area. In addition, the building was not energy efficient, and operating costs would be high. After reviewing Adams' analysis, Davis asked her to run another set of numbers, this time assuming that the county would pay 50 percent of the cost of renovation and all of the costs of making the building accessible to the handicapped, including installation of an elevator. If the county contributed funds for some of the renovation costs, Oakridge could charge the county less. Davis said that it might be possible to use the county's Community Development Block Grant funds for some of the renovation costs, but he was not certain. Adams challenged the county administrator's assumptions: In her opinion, the county had no business subsidizing a project such as this. Either the project was feasible or it was not-strictly on the basis of the numbers. She told Davis that she believed he was trying to aid the county commission in justifying a course of action that was not in the best interests of the county. 
Davis was taken aback by Adams' reaction to his suggestion. He attempted to explain to her that both of them worked for the county commission, that the commissioners were anxious to work with the city in this matter, and that every opportunity to advance the goals of their elected superiors should be explored. He noted that objective analysis of data was certainly an important part of policy making, but he reminded her that all analysis is designed to serve the needs of elected policymakers and that those policymakers were certainly entitled to set the values or assumptions on which the analysis was based. 
Davis concluded the discussion by suggesting that Adams rethink her reaction and get back to him. 
The decision problem 
Adams felt strongly about her position. Like all local governments, the county worked on a tight budget, and spending more money than necessary on an office lease simply to satisfy the city's political leaders seemed to her both unnecessary and unwise. Besides, she reasoned, the county had already made a gesture of goodwill to the city by examining the school site and doing a cost analysis. 

Table 1 Original cost analysis of alternative sites 

142 Cases in Decision Making 
Option 1. City purchases and renovates school building for lease to county. Building is 65 years old, 15,000 sq. fl, three stories. Exterior is native stone; interior is lath/plaster with oak flooring. Heating is provided by a natural-gas, gravity-flow furnace. No central air conditioning; some rooms have window units. 

Cost of building 		$350,000 		
Estimated renovation costs 				
Architecture & engineering 	$35,000 			
Interior walls & ceilings 	70,000 			
Floor coverings 	30,000 			
Electrical 	10,000 			
Plumbing 	10,000 			
Heating & ventilation 	30,000 			
Parking, exterior 	40,000 			
Handicap accessibility 	125,000 			
Total 		350,000 		
Total to be financed by city 		700,000 		
First-year debt payment to be 				
amortized In lease (level 				
principal payments, 10-year 				
bonds at 8.5% interest) 		129,500 	($8.63/sqft) 	
Operating costs 				
Utilities @ $4.00/sq.fl 	60,000 			
Janitorial service @ $720/mo. 	8,640 			
Maintenance @ $150/sq.fl 	22,500 			
Total 		91,140 		
Total annual costs to county 		$220,640 	($14.71/sq. ft.) 	
Option 2. County leases other commercial space. Under a typical commercial lease, the landlord provides building maintenance, but the tenant provides Janitorial service. Any renovation required is negotiable, but the landlord will usually provide moderate finish-out to mes' tenant needs. 

Estimated cost of leasing 1 5,000 sq.fl of retaJ1 space in the area 
@ $9.75 per sq.fl 
Operating costs 
Janitorial service @ $720/mo. Utilities @ $1.50/sq.f1 
Total 
Total annual costs to county 

$8,640 22,500 

$146,250 
	31,140 	($11.83sq~ 
$177,390 

Adams also felt that, with population growth in the county occurring in the north and the east, any decision to keep the multiservice center in Oakridge was already a questionable accommodation to local politics. She believed that an optimum site for the center's relocation would be farther north and east of the city, farther from the Clearview center and closer to the new residential areas. 

Moving the Multiservice Center 143 
In short, Adams felt that, for reasons of both cost and service accessibility, the proposed school location was not in the best interest of the county or its residents. 
On the other hand, Adams also recognized the validity of the point that Davis was trying to make. She understood the political nature of the county government; she recognized that the members of the county commission were elected by the voters and thus felt a responsibility for determining what would be in the best interest of the county. She also recognized that it was reasonable for county officials to desire to cooperate with Oakridge in this project. The proposed building was old, but an adaptive reuse of an old building with unique architecture could benefit the city in many ways. 
Adams reminded herself that analysts and administrators function in a representative political environment and that, as a result, they frequently must deal with what is rather than what, in their opinion, should be. She knew that it is neither unusual nor always bad for governing bodies to pursue goals that the staff does not find important. 
Adams also believed that governing bodies tend to emphasize short-range considerations in their decision making and that it is the responsibility of staff to inject a long-term perspective into policy deliberations. In this case, she felt sure, the long-term needs of the county dictated that the multiservice center be located farther north and east than the city of Oakridge. 
It was the cost of the project that Adams found most difficult to justify. ,"Why should the county pay a rental cost for the renovated school building that would be as much as 16 percent higher than the cost of regular commercial space particularly if such space could be found in a location that would better serve the long-term needs of the county? If the city felt that the building. with its architecture, was valuable, the city should subsidize the project and not expect a subsidy from the county. The idea of a county subsidy for the renovation made absolutely no sense to her at all. 
Adams thought of Davis' problem. She knew that the county administrator was charged with carrying out the will of the county commission. Should he then feel obligated to justify what the commission wanted to do, even with an analysis that might be based on limited information? Did he have a responsibility to justify the commissioners' preferred course of action, or should his goal be to assist them in determining the best course of action in this situation? Was an ethical question involved if the county administrator was supporting a decision that would benefit the city at the expense of the county? 
Adams also had to think about her own situation. What was the proper relationship between an analyst and the county administrator? Was the question of ethics a problem only for the administrator, or was it a problem for her. too? Did her responsibility end when she expressed her views to him, or did she have a responsibility to pursue the issue further? These questions had personal repercussions as well. Her refusal to do what Davis had requested could result in disciplinary action. 
For Adams, the situation appeared to be lose-lose. If she did not produce the new analysis, she would be insubordinate. If she produced a new analysis that showed the new option to be still too expensive, Davis might view her as uncooperative at best, or, worse, as a part of the problem itself. 
At a minimum, Adams decided, she should do the analysis that Davis requested. 
It would be easy to do, and it just might produce results that would surprise her and support what the commissioners wanted. Still, there was a risk. If her new cost figures were an improvement over the old ones, Davis and the county commissioners would undoubtedly be even less inclined to listen to her objections to the proposal. 
When she finished the analysis of Davis' proposal (Table 2), she knew her 

Table 2 Revised cost analysis of school building site 

144 Cases in Decision Making 
Option 3: Option 1 with county participation in financing renovation Assumptions: 
1.	The county would sign a five-year lease for the building with a five-year option. 
2.	The county would pay 50 percent of the cost of renovation and all of the costs of making the building accessible to the handicapped, including installation of an elevator. 

Cost of building 		$350,000 		
Estimated renovation costs 				
Architecture & engineering 	$ 35,000 			
Interior walls & ceilings 	70,000 			
Floor coverings 	30,000 			
Electrical 	10,000 			
Plumbing 	10,000 			
Heating & ventilation 	30,000 			
Parking, exterior 	40,000 			
Handicap accessibility 	125,000 			
Total 		350,000 		
Total project costs 		700,000 		
Less costs paid directly 				
by county 				
Handicap accessibility 	125,000 			
50% of all other renovation 	112,500 			
Total 		237,500 		
Total to be financed by city 		462,500 		
First-year debt payment to be 				
amortized in lease (level 				
principal payments, 10-year 				
bonds at 8.5% interest) 		84,312 	($5.62/sq.ft. ) 	
Operating costs 				
Utilities @ $4.00/sq.ft. 	60,000 			
Janitorial @ $720/mo. 	8,640 			
Maintenance @ $1.50/sq.ft. 	22,500 			
Total 		91,140 		
Total annual cost to county 		$175,452 	($11.70/sq.ft.) 	
Note: In addition. the county would incur  $220,000 of one· time costs for renovation of the building. These costs would have to be laken from the county's contingency funds. 

worst fears had been realized. The annual cost to the county would be just under the cost of commercial space, but the county would still have to provide $220,000 up front in renovation costs-it would still have to pay a premium to rent space in a sixty-year-old building. The county would still be subsidizing the city under this option but at figures that might be attractive to the commissioners. Adams felt that the $220,000 this option required could be better spent in other ways that would enhance human services or community development in the community. 

As a professional dedicated to the public interest, she felt she had a moral obligation to try to sell her position, and her first set of numbers (Table 1), to Davis. She asked herself whether her obligation extended beyond that. Sally Adams had to chart a course of action for herself. 

James M. Banovetz, ed. Managing Local Government: Cases in Decision Making (Washington, DC: ICMA 1990)