City Council

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 Council Work Session June 19, 2012 Courthouse Project The Council of the City of Fredericksburg, Virginia held a work session on Tuesday, June 19, 2012, beginning at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room. Council Present. Mayor Thomas J. Tomzak, Presiding. Vice-Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw. Councilors Kerry P. Devine, Bradford C. Ellis, Beatrice R. Paolucci, George C. Solley and Councilor-Elect Matthew J. Kelly. Council Absent. Frederic N. Howe, III, previous commitment. Also Present. City Manager Beverly R. Cameron, City Attorney Kathleen Dooley, Robert Antozzi, Director of Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities, Sheriff Paul Higgs, Planning Director Ray Ocel, Building and Development Services Director Steve Smallwood and Clerk of Council Tonya B. Lacey. Others Present. Circuit Court Judge Gordon Willis, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge David Peterson, Construction Manager Bill Downey of Downey and Scott, Director of Urban Architecture Andrew Moore of Glavé and Holmes Architect and other representatives from the Design Build Team of English Construction, Mosley Architects, and Glavé and Holmes Architect. Courthouse Project. Mayor Tomzak opened the work session by stating the courts discussion started about six years ago and it was a big challenge and everyone was wondering where the City would get the money. Since then the staff has put in hundreds of hours of time, two studies have been completed. This is a very important time for Fredericksburg. City Manager Cameron explained that because there had been so much discussion lately on the scale and massing and the building materials he asked the team to present the 1 presentations that were presented to the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The topics discussed were on the scale and massing and the building construction material and the design build team also discussed a potential change in scope. Mr. Moore presented three presentations that were presented to the ARB on February 13, February 27 and May 14. The February 13 presentation discussed the POETIC Process, the Commercial District, Civic District, existing site conditions, site plan, courthouse floor plans, and the view of the proposed courthouse from all elevations. At the February 27 ARB meeting the team addressed the concerns of ARB regarding height of the building, degree of variation in wall planes, cupola height and size, mansard roof profile, and the dormer design. At the May 14 meeting the design build team presented the elevation views from all sides and they discussed and reviewed the proposed changes to the side façade by introducing a relief in the façade by pulling a pocket of the building back. Councilor Ellis asked what the percentage was of the cost difference in the architectural changes that were being proposed. Mr. Bill Downing said the alternate elevation had no cost associated with it. Council-elect Kelly asked what the negative impacts would be if the ceilings were lowered below fourteen feet. Mr. Jay Moore suggested that a large room with a low ceiling could be very uncomfortable. He said the larger the room the higher the ceiling should be. He used hotel ballrooms as an example. The Federal Magistrate court guidelines reference the ceilings should be sixteen feet, but that would put the building much higher above the zoning height limits at all points, therefore they proposed fourteen foot ceilings. This reduction caused a reduction of six feet to the building. The fourteen foot ceiling would allow the building to meet the height limit along Princess Anne Street, but it will exceed the height in the rear. He said they have done courtroom ceilings at twelve feet, but they do not convey a sense of dignity. The ceiling height is as important aesthetically as it is functionally. He felt the fourteen foot ceilings were a good compromise. Mr. Moore said the ceilings in Spotsylvania County’s new courthouse were 12-13 feet. Councilor Devine noted that during the City’s tour of the Spotsylvania courthouse they mentioned that the twelve foot ceilings caused a problem with projecting on the walls and they said higher ceilings would have helped. Mr. Bill Downey discussed the cost worksheets for each of the alternates. (See attachments). Councilor Ellis asked if the life-cycle cost were not applicable on the worksheets. Mr. Downey said they were very applicable, but he did not have the time to 2 evaluate the life-cycle. Mr. Downey explained that Alternative 4 (the elimination of a floor) would have a cost of $1,119,000. This would include additional design fees that would occur and the time impact for the design builder. This would eliminate 19,300 square feet of space. This elimination would require a significant redesign. The drawings are currently at 35% construction documents, the architecture is over 60% complete, the mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering are close behind, the civil engineering is 90-95% complete. Councilor- elect Kelly asked if he could receive a cost breakdown on the removal of a floor because he could not understand how the cost could be over have of the cost to design the entire project. Mr. Allen Hamlin explained that 60% of the design budget had been expended and to take off a floor would require them to take a new direction and reevaluate the space. This would require a 3-4 month delay. He stated that construction costs are going up and to change the design at this point would increase the cost of the project. Councilor-elect Kelly felt there was no flexibility to make changes at this point and Mr. Moore explained that there were options, but there would be costs. Mr. Downey explained that the design-build team was seeking clarification from the Council and he stated that he worked for the City and his job was to protect the City. He said he attends all the meetings on the City’s behalf. Judge Peterson noted that the A-4 plan eliminates the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court (JDR). He stated that the current solution was interim and it is not adequate, but it would work for an interim period. Councilor Ellis asked what alternative that had been presented would allow some savings to be used towards the Renwick building. He also wanted to know when the discussions would take place in regards to Renwick. City Manager Cameron stated that the decision for the General District Court did not have to be made immediately, but it needed to be made in a timely manner. He said the decision at hand, that needed to be made in the next 30 days, was what to do with the new courthouse in regards to the court space. Mr. Hamlin stated that because of concerns with the Renwick building being on the National Historic Register it would be difficult to determine how much it would cost, but he felt the $5 – 6 million dollar range was a good estimate. Councilor-elect Kelly asked if Council would have the ability to look at bringing the JDR court back into the project. He suggested discussing with the stakeholders their needs and reviewing the schedules in order to reevaluating the space. Mr. Moore answered by stating that 3 the JDR court would need one courtroom, space for the clerk’s office and space for juvenile probation, approximately 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. He said there are 4 courtrooms in the current design, two for Circuit Court and one for GDC. There would be room for a JDR courtroom, but there would not be additional space for the JDR court clerk or the probation offices. He also noted that the judges that use the courtrooms are not only local judges and it would be difficult to move the schedules around to share the courtrooms. Councilor Solley asked if there were any alternatives that the team considered, but did not present. Mr. Hamlin said there were, one was to take the 4th courtroom and see if the JDR program would fit but it would not. They also looked at reducing floor plate to floor plate by two inches per level, but the designers would not agree with that and as a standard rule if the designers don’t agree than it would not be presented. Councilor Ellis said he had been approached by a couple of attorney’s who asked if Council would consider involving the stakeholders by forming a design committee to include the judges, Commonwealth Attorney, Sheriff, and several attorney’s to make sure the end product is optimal. He said he heard that the Spotsylvania Courthouse was far from optimal. Mr. Downey noted that he had been involved in the process since January and he had attended well over 20 design related progress meetings and the users, the Judges and the Sheriff, the clerks and the employees have met with the design team and had given significant feedback. Judge Willis also said there had been several meetings with the stakeholders and they have been moving forward. He said that council hired professionals as far back as six years ago and they had interviewed the stakeholders. Mayor asked Council for their thoughts on the façade changes and Council agreed that the façade changes add to the design and to the look of downtown. Councilor-elect Kelly disagreed with making a decision on the façade changes because Council had just received them and he wanted to take time to review them before making any decisions. Councilor Devine said she was comfortable with the façade changes and she did not want to remove a floor. Councilor Solley and Councilor Paolucci said they were comfortable with making a decision on the floors, but not on the façade changes because they would like to discuss with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) because the façade changes had not been discussed by the ARB. Council agreed that they would like to keep the courthouse at three floors. The ARB has approved the scale and massing and delayed approval on the exterior elements such as 4 components, materials and methods pending council’s decision at this work session. Mayor asked Mr. Downey if ARB could hear it at the July 9 meeting. Councilor-elect Kelly asked City Manager Cameron when Council could expect operational cost for the facility. Mr. Cameron said he could start working on it, but he had not spent a lot of time on it. Councilor-elect Kelly stated that he would like to start discussions about having a regional court facility. Mr. Cameron clarified that Council was in agreement with building the courthouse on this site with the current design. Adjournment. There being no further business to come before the Council at this time, Mayor Tomzak declared the work session officially adjourned at 6:54 p.m. Tonya B. Lacey Tonya B. Lacey Clerk of Council City of Fredericksburg 5