by Neil Richard
The story of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) decisions is beginning to lengthen into an epic saga. During the first CIP meeting, we heard from all the County departments and their upcoming capital needs over the next few years. Some needs were more urgent than others, some needs were more expensive than others. During the second CIP meeting, we heard primarily from the school system what their capital needs were. We also heard Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, present his idea for solving the needs of the Courthouse staff.
The third CIP meeting, held on October 9, 2018, covered the Courthouse project in more detail with representatives from Moseley Architects going over several draft concepts, potential budgets, and completed assessments. As the evening wore on, it became clear that there was no clear answer or best solution to the problems in the Courthouse.
Tony Bell of Moseley Architects began his presentation with a basic outline of what has already been done and what might need to be done. First, they had already provided the County with four options for the Courthouse with the Courthouse staff preferring the option that cost about $31.5 million and would give them a brand new, stand-alone structure that would meet all of their space and security needs for the next thirty years. These four options were all based on data collected from the staff that uses the facility as well as backstopping or vetting those needs with industry standards as well as Virginia state guidelines. Bell gave a great example at one point of how the process worked by telling a story about a judge in an unnamed locality that asked for twelve court rooms. Bell said the guidelines and case load data only called for six court rooms. He said when they asked the judge why he asked for twice as much, the judge said that he always got half of what he asked for so he figured if he needed six, he better ask for twelve.
Bell's story was a great way to emphasize his point that they do fact-checking on their own to verify the needs are within the range of what is actually needed and not anything abnormal. Bell said this Space Needs Analysis was completed in August of 2017 and showed that the Courthouse currently has 24,274 square feet and currently need 58,119 square feet. In other words, the century old Courthouse is less than half the size of what staff needs to operate efficiently and safely. Additionally, the Space Needs Analysis showed that with expected growth rates for King George, the needs in twenty years would be for 65,836 square feet, roughly 8,000 square feet more.
In looking at the plan previously presented by Dr. Young, Bell said the budget for renovating the impacted buildings would range from $16 million to $43 million. But it's more complicated than just projected budgets. First, as a review, Dr. Young's proposal was to renovate the old King George Middle School and then move the County Offices into the building. Then, with the Revercomb building empty, renovate it into the new Circuit Court building. Then, with the current Courthouse building partially in use, renovate it to host the General District Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Dr. Young's idea essentially allows the County to meet the needs of the County staff and partially meet the needs of the Courthouse staff. It allows the County to extend the useful life of three buildings instead of leaving two buildings empty.
The complications come full swing when the projected price tag for the proposed plan is only slightly more expensive than a new, single-use Courthouse building. Plus, by splitting the courts between the Revercomb Building and their current home in the Courthouse, the staff still won't have the square footage they currently need. With this plan, they would end up with 42,500 square feet between both buildings, which is still shy of their current need for 58,119 square feet.
As Walter O'Reilly once said, the feathers hit the fan when Cathy Binder asked the Courthouse staff for an honest answer about if the plan would meet their needs. They obliged her and each answered honestly and succinctly with a "no."
This is where I feel the Supervisors will have a hard decision to make. They'll need to balance the needs of the Courthouse staff, who all support a new building, and the needs of the taxpayers, who all appear to not support spending so much money. I will keep my predictions to myself, but I feel that they will have some restless nights until a final decision is made.
There are a few other tidbits that further complicate the decision. First, the County is currently in good financial standing. Borrowing money to build a new Courthouse could hurt that standing. Borrowing slightly more money but spread out over several years may be easier on our rating. Second, renovating the existing Courthouse building while it is still in use will complicate the schedule. Third, when I asked why nobody mentioned the future use of the old King George Elementary School, it appeared that the Supervisors were in discussions behind closed doors about something. Fourth, as T. C. Collins from the School Board said from the audience, the School Board still hasn't heard any official presentation from the Supervisors about the potential move of the School Board Office and Pre-School to the old Middle School. Fifth, the Revercomb Building was designed to be expanded. This means it could be expanded to meet the needs of the Courthouse staff during the renovation. Finally, although it was a good suggestion by Ruby Brabo to consider moving the Courts to the 65,000 square foot old Middle School as it would meet their space needs, the cost to renovate that into a usable space for the Courts would be more expensive than renovating it for office space. In other words, the square footage might be right, but it would cost too much to make it meet the security needs of a Courthouse.
All in all, it will be a tough decision for those that need to make it and for those impacted by it.
With the bulk of the meeting over, the discussion quickly moved through the other CIP projects on the list. The Board tentatively agreed to move forward with the request for a new school phone system and bus replacement, the CAT6 and fiber network upgrades for the County offices, and the ambulance and EKG/AED replacements. Dr. Young successfully lobbied for his low cost but high impact document scanning project and John Jenkins asked that the Sheriff's request for new laptops to be strongly considered. Richard Granger also asked that in the future, a discussion be held to include ambulance and bus replacements in their respective department budget. His thinking was that if they come up every year, they really should be part of their yearly budget instead of a CIP request. Ruby Brabo did caution him that doing so would likely mean an increase in taxes but the general feeling was that for something this important, it would be acceptable.
By holding the purse strings tight, the Supervisors were able to tentatively fund half of the ten projects marked as "urgent" leaving only the Courthouse solution as a major question remaining to be solved. The projects chosen also gave them a very small gap in funding that would be pulled from the gas pipeline fund.
The story of Capital Improvement Program (CIP) decisions is beginning to lengthen into an epic saga. During the first CIP meeting, we heard from all the County departments and their upcoming capital needs over the next few years. Some needs were more urgent than others, some needs were more expensive than others. During the second CIP meeting, we heard primarily from the school system what their capital needs were. We also heard Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, present his idea for solving the needs of the Courthouse staff.
The third CIP meeting, held on October 9, 2018, covered the Courthouse project in more detail with representatives from Moseley Architects going over several draft concepts, potential budgets, and completed assessments. As the evening wore on, it became clear that there was no clear answer or best solution to the problems in the Courthouse.
Tony Bell of Moseley Architects began his presentation with a basic outline of what has already been done and what might need to be done. First, they had already provided the County with four options for the Courthouse with the Courthouse staff preferring the option that cost about $31.5 million and would give them a brand new, stand-alone structure that would meet all of their space and security needs for the next thirty years. These four options were all based on data collected from the staff that uses the facility as well as backstopping or vetting those needs with industry standards as well as Virginia state guidelines. Bell gave a great example at one point of how the process worked by telling a story about a judge in an unnamed locality that asked for twelve court rooms. Bell said the guidelines and case load data only called for six court rooms. He said when they asked the judge why he asked for twice as much, the judge said that he always got half of what he asked for so he figured if he needed six, he better ask for twelve.
Bell's story was a great way to emphasize his point that they do fact-checking on their own to verify the needs are within the range of what is actually needed and not anything abnormal. Bell said this Space Needs Analysis was completed in August of 2017 and showed that the Courthouse currently has 24,274 square feet and currently need 58,119 square feet. In other words, the century old Courthouse is less than half the size of what staff needs to operate efficiently and safely. Additionally, the Space Needs Analysis showed that with expected growth rates for King George, the needs in twenty years would be for 65,836 square feet, roughly 8,000 square feet more.
In looking at the plan previously presented by Dr. Young, Bell said the budget for renovating the impacted buildings would range from $16 million to $43 million. But it's more complicated than just projected budgets. First, as a review, Dr. Young's proposal was to renovate the old King George Middle School and then move the County Offices into the building. Then, with the Revercomb building empty, renovate it into the new Circuit Court building. Then, with the current Courthouse building partially in use, renovate it to host the General District Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Dr. Young's idea essentially allows the County to meet the needs of the County staff and partially meet the needs of the Courthouse staff. It allows the County to extend the useful life of three buildings instead of leaving two buildings empty.
The complications come full swing when the projected price tag for the proposed plan is only slightly more expensive than a new, single-use Courthouse building. Plus, by splitting the courts between the Revercomb Building and their current home in the Courthouse, the staff still won't have the square footage they currently need. With this plan, they would end up with 42,500 square feet between both buildings, which is still shy of their current need for 58,119 square feet.
As Walter O'Reilly once said, the feathers hit the fan when Cathy Binder asked the Courthouse staff for an honest answer about if the plan would meet their needs. They obliged her and each answered honestly and succinctly with a "no."
This is where I feel the Supervisors will have a hard decision to make. They'll need to balance the needs of the Courthouse staff, who all support a new building, and the needs of the taxpayers, who all appear to not support spending so much money. I will keep my predictions to myself, but I feel that they will have some restless nights until a final decision is made.
There are a few other tidbits that further complicate the decision. First, the County is currently in good financial standing. Borrowing money to build a new Courthouse could hurt that standing. Borrowing slightly more money but spread out over several years may be easier on our rating. Second, renovating the existing Courthouse building while it is still in use will complicate the schedule. Third, when I asked why nobody mentioned the future use of the old King George Elementary School, it appeared that the Supervisors were in discussions behind closed doors about something. Fourth, as T. C. Collins from the School Board said from the audience, the School Board still hasn't heard any official presentation from the Supervisors about the potential move of the School Board Office and Pre-School to the old Middle School. Fifth, the Revercomb Building was designed to be expanded. This means it could be expanded to meet the needs of the Courthouse staff during the renovation. Finally, although it was a good suggestion by Ruby Brabo to consider moving the Courts to the 65,000 square foot old Middle School as it would meet their space needs, the cost to renovate that into a usable space for the Courts would be more expensive than renovating it for office space. In other words, the square footage might be right, but it would cost too much to make it meet the security needs of a Courthouse.
All in all, it will be a tough decision for those that need to make it and for those impacted by it.
With the bulk of the meeting over, the discussion quickly moved through the other CIP projects on the list. The Board tentatively agreed to move forward with the request for a new school phone system and bus replacement, the CAT6 and fiber network upgrades for the County offices, and the ambulance and EKG/AED replacements. Dr. Young successfully lobbied for his low cost but high impact document scanning project and John Jenkins asked that the Sheriff's request for new laptops to be strongly considered. Richard Granger also asked that in the future, a discussion be held to include ambulance and bus replacements in their respective department budget. His thinking was that if they come up every year, they really should be part of their yearly budget instead of a CIP request. Ruby Brabo did caution him that doing so would likely mean an increase in taxes but the general feeling was that for something this important, it would be acceptable.
By holding the purse strings tight, the Supervisors were able to tentatively fund half of the ten projects marked as "urgent" leaving only the Courthouse solution as a major question remaining to be solved. The projects chosen also gave them a very small gap in funding that would be pulled from the gas pipeline fund.
No comments:
Post a Comment