As most folks know, at its last meeting, City Council brought to a vote the allocation of $160,000 to a consulting firm from Washington, D.C. to provide us with three conceptual plans for the renovation of the City Market Building. Due to technicalities, we have to re-vote on the matter at our next council meeting, even though the vote yesterday was 4 to 3 in favor of hiring the consulting firm.
Let me say right off that I respect the opinions and decisions of each Member of Council, whether I agree with them on this particular matter or not. Any thoughts I share are mine and mine alone and guide my reasons for voting against hiring this firm. Below are my reasons.
The City Market Building is an historic landmark in the center of our downtown, next to many restaurants, retail stores and offices. In fact, it houses small businesses. Because of this, I do believe that we need to move forward and renovate it with an eye towards the next five, ten and twenty years. The Market Building has been neglected for far too long, which is one of the reasons it is now in such disrepair and requires such a major renovation. So let's renovate, right?
Not quite yet.
Over the past several years, there have been public sessions with input from interested residents and parties as to what the Market Building and market area should look like. We paid for a received a report in 2006, and a coalition of downtown businesses commissioned a study with suggestions that was authored by the Partnership for Public Spaces, the leading national experts on market areas.
So now the idea is to hire this consulting firm out of D.C. to provide us information on the utilities of the building, hold three public hearings, and then provide three concepts. It is important to note that the concepts are not architectural renderings sufficient for construction, but rather general conceptual ideas. We will then have to come up with the money to pay for the actual construction design documents.
I voted against hiring this consulting firm for a few major reasons. First, given the past few years and the studies we have regarding the market building, I am not convinced that we need to hire another firm to tell us what they think the building should look like. Second, City Councils past and present have yet to provide a clear vision as to what we want the Market Building to function as for the next several decades. Without a vision for the future use of the building, why bother paying a huge amount of money to consultants to conceptualize for us.
Yet another reason (the most important) I voted against hiring this firm is that we learned less than three weeks ago that our schools could be losing more than $5 million in state funding this year. And yes, you read the number correctly. I believe that it is the responsibility of the City and its governing body to do everything within our power to help the schools offset this enormous gap in funding. $160,000 clearly won't solve the entire budgetary problem, but it sure is a good start.
And last but not least, I simply do not believe that we need to hire a consulting firm from Washington to tell us what the electrical, plumbing, structural and HVAC systems look like and need - we can certainly hire local businesses to tell us that once we begin actual architectural design. We can also handle holding our own public hearings. So what are we really getting for the huge sum of money we will pay? In my opinion, it is not the best value for taxpayer money.
I intend to vote again in two weeks against this hiring. We can move forward renovating the Market Building right now if only we would provide a vision to a local architectural firm, express to them the budgetary constraints in which we find ourselves, and are willing to be decisive in our action.
Hello world!
6 years ago
4 comments:
Roanoke has a long history of delaying votes on important issues which often times gives the project a negative outlook before it starts. In this case Roanoke has studied this multiple times and in this economy I do not see how this kind of expense can be justified. With the recent infestation news of the Market Building there is no time like the present to make a change. Often times the content of the plan does not matter but the fact that you have a plan and it is executed by smart people does matter. I beg council to make a decision on the project and get started ASAP do not turn this into another Victory Stadium. If you look at successful local governments they make decisions and do not look back. Court you are voting correct on this issue and I hope you can influence the other 4 not voting that way to see the light. Do not let history repeat itself.
I agree with your vote 100%. Now is not the time to be spending the money. Let the tennants keep their areas clean and people will come back. I believe the media is to blame for the business woes, not the council. Council is not responsible for cleaning up the food prep areas, under the freezers, etc.
City Council is the approval body for City Government and more specifically the City Manager. Where is the City Manager on this issue? In my mind the smart decision is to be against the additional study and I hope the person that is running the city is using proper judgement.
With the school system on “short rations”, I consider it unethical for the city to spend taxpayer money on anything that is not essential to the well being, public safety, and infrastructure maintenance of the city.
The State is slashing Roanoke’s allocation for education by $5 million – the school system will be on short rations.
Lagging sales tax revenue will result in another $1 million hit.
The City is contemplating a $1 million reduction in the funding it provides the school system. That is a $7 million dollar hit to the school system. Annual cost increases for health care and utilities will run between $2-$3 million.
The school system is going to be funded $9 to $10 million short of what is needed just to stay even. The school system is an entity that has almost 90 percent of its expenditures tied up in personnel. In short, very short rations.
Another study of the market building, is not, repeat not, necessary. Even if it were and funded, and somehow, the world’s greatest plan for our market resulted, nothing would happen. There is no/will be no money for execution.
My friends we are in a period of severe austerity, the Funding Fairy has been laid off, the situation will become worse before it gets better and oh yeah, by the way the City pension fund is about $150 million underwater.
I would like to know, why is the Council members are even considering a motion for another study?
As I recall the sequence of events after “The Proposal”, backed by forty, count them forty prominent but unnamed businessmen - but not with their own money, was considered and rejected, the City Manager was given very specific guidance on “tweaking the RFP resulting in “The Proposal” and directed to come back to the Council for approval.
To the best of my knowledge, she didn’t.
Instead an RFP went out and now consideration is being given to –I’m not sure what at this point. Apparently, a Chinese menu, with three columns, from which those who cannot make up their minds can choose options?
Since the City Manager doesn’t, can’t, or won’t take guidance and direction from the Council, but instead seemingly does what she wants to do/thinks should be done – the impasse is, get rid of the City Council or get a new City Manager. I vote for the latter.
The $160,000 is only a symptom of a deeper, underlying, fundamental problem and that is: who is running the City?
I voted for the City Council members with the expectation they would “run” things. We pay the City Council in excess of $100,000 a year to do so. The City Council (not this one however) hired the City manager to carry out their policy and directions. When that doesn’t happen, it is time for a new City Manager. One who doesn’t need four executive assistants, two assistant city managers, an invisible police chief with a spokes person and who knows what else, to help in the performance of her duties.
Yeah – and the school system is on short rations and may have to let teachers go…
I think the priorities are backwards.
Post a Comment