Court Facility Hearing Draws Big Crowd

More than 60 people crammed the Fredericksburg last night to offer their take on proposals for a new $30 million city court facility. This was not a question and answer session. Instead, 17 residents took to the podium one by one to explain their support for or opposition to plans for a new court facility as members of the City Council looked on and listened. 

The meeting opened with City Manager Bev Cameron giving a rundown on the history of Fredericksburg's considerations for a new Fredericksburg court facility. After more than five years of debate, the City Council is now considering constructing submitted by five design/build teams. Once that preamble was out of the way, the public began to speak.

Opponents of a new court facility urged the City Council to consider the financial burden which an estimated $30 million debt service would place on the city. 

"In these times of financial straights for all of us, I'd like to ask the council to spend our tax money as if it was their own," said Caroline Street resident Linda Rednerer. "Plans for a new courthouse probably include a wish list. The current economy does not support wish lists."

Joe Wilsion, chair of the Fredericksburg Economic Development Authority and former city councilor, also spoke out against the proposed new court facilities, saying that city leaders have not given enough consideration to other solutions, such as a regional court system whose burden would be shared by the city and either Spotsylvania or Stafford counties. 

"I don't think you have looked at alternatives," said Wilson. "You've charged down the road of building a new courthouse and I think it's premature."

David Breedon, both a city resident and the project manager for the new $20 million Spotsylvania Courthouse said that the scale of the proposed new city court facilities were too large. 

Former city councilor Matt Kelly, one of the last to take the podium last night, opposed the project. He said that city leaders have not yet engaged the public in a discussion over the impacts of building a new court facility. 

"Give the residents the opportunity to hear from you, not staff, the council members, on how they see this project moving forward, what the impacts are going to be, how it's going to impact public services, how it's going to impact schools, and how it's going to impact capital projects," said Kelly. "After you've had that conversation and you want to move forward, be my guest."

Supporters of plans to build a new court facility countered that security needs and simple obsolescence of current facilities outweigh other concerns. 

Mark Gardner, of the Fredericksburg Area Bar Association, was on hand to read his organization's resolution supporting the construction of a new city court facility, but did not specify which of the eight options the city should build. 

Van Peroy, owner of Fredericksburg Square on Caroline Street, did come out in support of the Donley's team Sophia Street option. 

"Situating the courthouse on the Sophia Street site will serve to free up for commercial development several city owned parcels currently occupied by the courts and city offices," said Peroy. 

Princess Anne Street resident Paul Scott said that the need for a new courts facility is obvious. 

"We need a courthouse, no question about that." said Scott, who said that he was in favor of locating the courthouse on the current site of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court or Executive Plaza. 

Also on hand was Fredericksburg's Commonwealth's Attorney Labravia Jenkins. She urged city leaders to take into consideration the needs of the Commonwealth's Attorney's office when choosing a new court facility. 

"We use the court, we are the greatest consumers of the court in the city," said Jenkins. "Many of the projects that are proposed do not include the Commonwealth's Attorney's office in the courts building, which is totally unusual to me…any modern facility should really include prosecutors." 

"Putting us in the Renwick building shows, to me, that those who made the plans don't really understand the court system," continued Jenkins.

After the meeting, Ward 3 Councilor Fred Howe, opposed to the project, said he was pleased with the hearing, but was surprised that more residents did not raise concerns about how the project would affect local tax rates. 

"They don't know the numbers yet," said Howe. "Once we know the final numbers on the project...I think reality will set in because we are still in the preliminary stages of cost assessments. As with any project, the capital creep will definitely go up...right now we're looking at a 10 to 15 percent tax hike based on the numbers I'm running."

Ward 4 Councilor Bea Paolucci said she was pleased with the turnout at the hearing, but was hesitant to give her approval to any project that doesn't thoroughly address how to reuse court facilities which would be replaced by a new court facility. 

"Unless we have something in writing about what we're going to do with the Renwick Building, I'm not moving forward," said Paolucci. 

At-large Councilor Kerry Devine also said she was pleased with the turnout at the hearing and said that it was time to move forward with the project. 

"It's been a long process, where we are today is, I think, where we should be," said Devine. "It's still in the planning stages, we've come to the decision that we do need to move forward with this and we're doing it in a very deliberate manner...it is time to make a decision."

This was the only public hearing slated prior to the city council coming up with a short list of 2-3 proposals to enter into final contract negotiations. The Council is slated to make up its short list by the end of the month. A second public hearing is required by law to be held 30 days before a final contract is signed.