City Council

Public Hearing 5/17/11 CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, VIRGINIA HON. THOMAS J. TOMZAK, MAYOR HON. MARY KATHERINE GREENLAW, VICE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL HON. KERRY P. DEVINE, AT-LARGE HON. BRADFORD C. ELLIS, WARD ONE HON. GEORGE C. SOLLEY, WARD TWO HON. FREDERIC N. HOWE , III, WARD THREE Council Chambers, 715 Princess Anne Street HON. BEATRICE R. PAOLUCCI, WARD FOUR Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401 May 17, 2011 The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 17, 2011 beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. Present. Mayor Thomas J. Tomzak, presiding. Vice-Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw. Councilors Kerry P. Devine, Bradford C. Ellis, Frederic N. Howe, III, Beatrice R. Paolucci and George C. Solley. Also Present. City Manager Beverly R. Cameron, Assistant City Manager Mark Whitley, City Attorney Kathleen A. Dooley, and Deputy Clerk of Council Brenda T. Martin. Opening Prayer and Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Tomzak asked that everyone remember the soldiers serving in harm’s way and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Auxiliary Officer Recognized. Mayor Tomzak recognized the presence of Officer John Fesq at this evening’s meeting. Notice of Public Hearing (D11-237). The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing as it appeared in the local newspaper, the purpose being to solicit citizen public comment concerning various proposals to construct a new court facility. 17633 Public Hearing 5/17/11 City Manager Cameron (D11-238) gave a presentation highlighting the history of the courts project and why it is needed. Judge John Scott requested Council in 2005 to build a new courthouse. City Manager Cameron summarized the eight separate proposals received from the five design-build teams which the City received through the Public Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act. The following citizens came forward to speak. Mark Gardner (D11-240), Vice-President of the Fredericksburg Bar Association, spoke on behalf of the Association and read a resolution adopted April 25, 2011 supporting the construction of a new courthouse in the downtown area. Linda Retterer, 1513 Caroline Street, suggested that considering the state of the economy, Council should spend money as if it were their own. She said there probably was a “wish list”, but the economy does not support a wish list at this time. She wanted to see buildings the City already owns but are under utilized be taken into consideration for this project. New construction would be a boon to out of town contractors, but she felt local contractors should be considered. Hamilton Palmer (D11-241), 1500 Caroline Street, submitted three documents for the record. One was a court security presentation to Council on October 12, 2010, another follow up letter that was sent to City Council addressing the security issues and the pitfalls of the current system. Resolution 09-16 which requests City staff to prepare a preliminary physical impact estimate addressing the renovation costs and reuse of the Renwick building. Mr. Palmer presented information concerning Staunton, Virginia court facilities. They are now digital, which saves time and money. In 1983, Augusta County still used typewriters, today the office uses the same size staff to perform 17634 Public Hearing 5/17/11 quadruple the amount of work and the county has increased by almost 30,000 people. Money saved by technology advances has allowed the Court to stay in its original building. He also referenced Norfolk Circuit Court and how their change to digital document scanning saved thousands of dollars and increased productivity. At the PPEA proposal meeting, Mr. Palmer requested a security only option and asked if it was to be performed if submitted. He was told it would be. Council later proposed a list of questions and the answer had changed and that security only option would not be accepted. Staff told Council they needed to adhere to Virginia court facility guidelines and required to adhere to guidelines for mid-construction, but not required to adhere to facilities on the National Register. He would like to have an option to adaptive reuse of the Renwick building and address the security issues and propose a referendum where taxpayer citizens can vote on this issue. Rob Tanner, 1105 Douglas Street, said all the PPEA design-build teams were very professional and diligent and had given the City incredible information. He suggested an assessment of how modern people work with iPads, iPhones, to work smarter and to use space more efficiently. Spatial analysis appears to use a traditional method of simply moving existing functions to a new space. With technology, the City can do better. There should be a plan for how information technology systems would be accommodated and the growing costs of facilities. If a project costs $34 million, technology cost would be approximately $16 million due to WiFi and HVAC. He talked about dynamic relationships with sustainability LEED programs. The City is requiring sustainability at the LEED Silver level, probably not quite the state-of-the-art in today’s standards when GSA requires Gold level. 17635 Public Hearing 5/17/11 Joe Wilson, 913 Caroline Street, (former Council member) gave a history lesson on the Court facility. In 2003, he proposed moving the Court to Maury School which was empty. None of the judges in the circuit approved. Then in 2005, Judge Scott requested new Court facilities. He pointed out that the Commonwealth’s concept of cities and counties are falling apart; Waynesboro, Harrisonburg have difficulties, and several have reverted back to town status- Clifton Forge and Bedford has requested town status. The cities are experiencing declining revenues and are not able to annex land for increased revenue in the future. In the early 90s, the City had difficulty paying bills, then Carl Silver came along with the Central Park concept. The City needs new sources of revenue and Kalahari may or may not happen. What can we do to preserve our City status – we don’t want to go back to town status. He had suggested a regional approach Court project and thinks the City is premature in building new Court facilities. Van Perroy, 525 Caroline Street, said his property is one of four that would be affected if the court facilities were built on Sophia Street and would not be adversely affected. He said the PPEA was a good choice for the City in these economic times. The Sophia Street site would stimulate economic development; be an additional return on the City’s investment; compliment the mass and scale of the parking deck, provide parking convenience for all users; be able to provide expansion and remove parking issues on Princess Anne Street, where Court facilities are now located; support the City’s comprehensive plan by developing riverfront properties. Erin Bradford, 1310 Caroline Street, said it was important to take advantage of affordable financing in this economic time, for the Court facilities; it would be cost effective and the City should not wait. 17636 Public Hearing 5/17/11 David Breeden, 513 Willis Street, thanked the Council and the Mayor for their time and appreciates their hard work on this project. He is the Project Manager for Spotsylvania County currently building their Circuit Court. That project is coming in at $20 million. Spotsylvania County has 120,000 people and that works out to about $170 per person when you work out the costs. The City is looking at about $30- 40 million – 7 to 10 times as much money. He thinks that scale is too large. He is familiar with Mosley’s space-needs analysis and thinks at the time they did the space-needs analysis, the City was going through a lot of growth. He thinks that should be re-examined. It is possible that space-needs analysis now aren’t what they were when Mosley did their study. He added that information technology is an expensive part of a courts project and that he hopes that it is included in Council’s evaluations. Finally, maintenance and staffing for the new facilities will need to be taken into consideration and energy consumption. He thanked Council for their time and stated he would support whatever option they decide upon. Steve D’Lugos, 1309 Caroline Street, thought it was significant that the Fredericksburg Area Bar Association was present and the resolution presented was for the Circuit Court project but it did not mention Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court or General District Court. He stated the need to provide modern and updated technology for all three courts. He asked what would happen to the current Circuit Court building; could space and technology be added to that building to continue its use. He asked what is the logic and common sense in demolishing the fire station and building another one? We have more needs than a Court complex. Is a $40 million Court complex our first priority in these economic times? What is negative about rescoping this project and focusing on 17637 Public Hearing 5/17/11 the needs of technology for all three courts. He supports whatever is decided, but feels more options are needed. Sean Maroney, Executive Director of Historic Fredericksburg Foundation, spoke on behalf of the HFFI Board. He stated any approved plan should address certain criteria and HFFI commends Council for keeping the Court project downtown. One of its priorities concerns minimizing negative impact of downtown street scape and historic resources. The third priority is addressing a plan for the rehabilitation and reuse of the Circuit Court (Renwick building). Any plan that does not include that is not a complete plan or needs major modifications. HFFI urges Council to consider all viable options; to not only consider the new, but also consider the existing. Harold Bannister, 1901 Fall Hill Avenue, (former member of Council) did not advocate one project over the other, but urged Council to not demolish any downtown building that we are still paying for. A $30 million project is approximately $12,000 per resident. Economic times are tough and perhaps it is not the right time for Council to make a decision to secure new Court facilities. When they do make a decision, they should consider utilizing City businesses as well as City residents. He urged Council to consider the option of freeing up storage space for staff space. When a Courthouse is built, consider not only current needs, but future ones. LaBravia Jenkins, Fredericksburg Commonwealth Attorney, thanked Councilman Solley for his editorial in today’s paper. She asked that Council consider the Commonwealth Attorney’s office by including it in the Court’s proposed building; that modern facilities should include prosecutors. Her office has always been in a leased building and they have to carry files and cases to each court; parking is also an issue. 17638 Public Hearing 5/17/11 Security is an issue for the Commonwealth Attorney’s office and it has always been housed with the Sheriff’s Dept. and they have helped with security. Ms. Jenkins asks that Council please consider the Commonwealth Attorney’s office for space needs and functions. James Lawrence, 802 Caroline Street, asked why the City needed a new Courthouse when they couldn’t supply a bench by the Visitor’s Center. Mo Deadman, 214 Princess Anne Street, stated she opposed moving the Fire Station. She opposed turning the Executive Plaza to private entity. She would support moving the Courts to the Executive Plaza. David McCloughlin, 1420 Kenmore Avenue, suggested further examination of the impact of utilities and other infrastructure –IT, AV, official staffing, furnishings, square footage, and parking. He felt further attention to the ramifications in moving from the Renwick Building and to consider alternatives for existing buildings. The City should meet the requirements and not exceed the requirements. He felt the cost estimates of moving the fire station are underestimated. Not a good time and the project should be delayed until the economy has recovered and the City can pay the bills; should not increase taxes. Paul Scott, 700 Princess Anne Street, stated there is definitely need for a new court complex; J&D Court is fine and the Executive Plaza meets the criteria and favors demolition of the building. He felt the City should keep the design compatible to the downtown historic area, schemes 5 and 7 meet that goal. Matt Kelly, 1309 Caroline Street, recalled that in 2009, a motion was made for Council to delay discussion of a court project until public presentations could be made to 17639 Public Hearing 5/17/11 allow citizens to speak on incorporating all capital projects – schools, libraries, tax rates, future funding, future projects – which has voted down. From 2006 to now, there have been few comments from Council in The Free Lance-Star regarding impact on schools and other city services. He felt the public has not heard enough from Council. Today’s editorial from George Solley was good and he felt this was a good opportunity for residents to hear from Council – not staff – on how this project is going to move forward – how it is going to impact our schools, water/sewer services and future capital projects. Council needs to have this discussion before moving forward with a final decision. GSA is looking at technology and shared courtroom. The proposals are based on 20th century technology and should be from the 21st century. Janine Steer, 4 Browns Lane, understood the need for new courts, but the City should prioritize its requirements. What does this mean in tax dollars and how are we going to pay for it? We cannot afford this project right now. Rupert Farley, 1305 Caroline Street, expressed if the City is going to build, now is the time. He did not approve of Donley’s design and preferred plans from First Choice. Adjournment. There being no further speakers to come before the Council at this time, Mayor Tomzak declared the hearing officially adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Thomas J. Tomzak Thomas J. Tomzak, Mayor Tonya B. Lacey Tonya B. Lacey, Clerk of Council 17640