CITY GOVERNMENT vs CITY RESIDENTS—The New Dynamic?

 

 Over the past months, the City Council and staff have belittled, ignored, lectured, and refused to represent city residents. Now, they are charging exorbitant fees to avoid addressing resident concerns. Is this what we can expect from our city government going forward?

 Earlier in the year in response to resident concerns a city council member texted, “Oh yeah, this is fun. Or at least it will be when we pass this with no fanfare.” Another text from a council member stated, “Smile through the BS.”  There were no apologies or any abominations from the mayor or other council members to these texts.

 Then, after spending tens of thousands of dollars, asking for community input in planning the city’s future, staff and the City Council have failed to stand by the commitments made to the community. When questions were asked about increased residential density in the city the mayor did not address the questions but expressed surprise that they were even asked.

 Another example of City Hall’s new attitude towards its residents is the Mary’s Landing project which doesn’t meet city goals, and which staff unilaterally determined should not go through a public review process.

 When asked to intercede in favor of a public process the mayor, responding for the entire council, told residents, “If you want to change the private property owner’s approach to the project, I’d suggest that you engage with him directly.”

 Facing an adversarial relationship with city staff and being ignored by the City Council, residents had to incur the expense of an attorney to try to get answers. Now, they are being charged an exorbitant fee by staff in an effort to avoid having to address legitimate questions.

 The Attorney representing the Fredericksburg Neighborhood Coalition has asked city staff for a zoning determination recognizing that the Mary’s Landing, “is a “Major Subdivision,” namely, “a subdivision of land involving more than 50 lots”, requiring a public review process including the consideration of proffers. It is also being pointed out the project is, “in violation of its UDO/Zoning Ordinance by approving lots and density that do not comply with the UDO/Zoning Ordinance.”

 Again, instead of addressing resident concerns staff submitted a bill for $4,944.00 to be paid before considering the arguments made for having Mary’s Landing project go through a public process.

The charge is based on a $75.00 charge per lot plus credit card fees of over $100.00. It is understood that the city can charge reasonable fees to cover staff time and related costs. However, the requested determination is based on the overall project, not individual lots, and staff cannot justify this as reasonable costs.

 The question that needs to be asked is who are City Hall and the City Council representing?

Zoning Determination Letter

 

City Taxpayers Will Pay for Going it Alone on Wastewater Plant

 

 Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania officials began discussing consolidating their three wastewater treatment plants into one and increasing capacity in January 2018 to meet a 2025 compliance deadline. By mid-2021, city officials abandoned the effort and decided to go it alone.

 Why?

 When the City Council first considered consolidation in 2018, staff said, “once the plants were consolidated there would not be a need for the same number of personnel so the city would save on annual operating costs. Sharing the facility with Spotsylvania would generate about 50 percent more than it does now and staff did not see any downside to consolidating.”

 The plan was to close both the city’s 1950s wastewater treatment plant and the county’s facility at the former FMC plant. Future treatment would be shifted to the county’s newer Massaponnax facility, which would increase its capacity by roughly 8.5 million gallons a day (MGD) for a total of 17.9 MGD.

 The plans were 60% complete by September 2020 and the price tag was $148 million. The city’s share was $99.9 million (it used more capacity). It was hoped state funds would reduce the city’s share to $80 million.

 The state would continue to push consolidation through 2021 but to no avail. In a March 2021 letter from the city manager to county officials, he said the city was considering going it alone as it would only cost the city $63 million after expected state funding. 

 In addition, the letter referenced a report the city had previously submitted showing the city’s peak flows during a major storm would require an increase in capacity to 24.7 million gallons a day. This would add from $20 to $35 million to the cost, which the county expected the city to cover.

 No one disputed the peak flow numbers, only the timing in which they were brought forward. It was alluded to by the city manager that some of the issues of peak flow could be dealt with, but no specifics were provided on the scope or cost. To date, there has been no public discussion on this. The request from the city was that if consolidation plans were to continue, they would be based on eight and a half million gallons of daily capacity increase that was originally discussed. Plans for consolidating the two systems soon ended.

 So where are we today? 

 Spotsylvania has begun $98.3 million in upgrades. The state is funding around $34 million of that cost, which will increase county capacity by 4 million gallons a day.

 This city is still in the design phase with an estimated current cost of $180.3 million which is significantly higher than planned, and that number could increase. City officials hope outside funding will cover $81.5 million of the cost, but it has yet to apply for state funds. So, how much the state will cover is a big unknown ($44.6 million was originally requested).

The city is expecting a contribution toward the cost of its facility as the county is currently connected to the city’s wastewater treatment plant. However, once its Massaponax plant is completed, it may no longer be obligated to contribute to the cost of the city treatment plant.

At the moment, city taxpayers will be on the hook for at least $70.5 million of the cost. That will come in part from continued increases in utility bills.

 The total cost of the two facilities is now $278 million with a combined capacity of 19.4 million gallons a day, which is below the original goal set for consolidation. And the scope and cost of dealing with the city’s peak flow issue is still unknown.

 Finally, the 2025 compliance deadline will not be met.  The City Council has asked it be extended to 2030. The question then is, what additional costs will be incurred in the coming years thanks to the city’s delay? 

Timeline on Wastewater Treatment Plant Discussions

City Manager Letter 3/21/21

Wastewater Treatment Plant Docs

WQIF Funding Needs

The Massaponnax Wastewater Treatment Plant........

Upgrades to the facility are ongoing. Increased capacity by 4 MGD at a total cost of $98.2 million.

The city's wastewater treatment facility.........

Planning for only a 1.5 MGD capacity increase is still ongoing. Current price tag $180.3 million.

Last price breakdown. The staff has done well in securing some funding. However, the VQIF grant has not yet been approved and Spotsylvania's contribution, if any, has not been determined.

 

        THE RAILROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT—What is in the Future? - Part 1

    What will be the future of development around the downtown historic train station?

 The City Council has begun the process to remove the Railroad Overlay District (ROD) because they believe it’s too restrictive for, “projects deemed consistent with the goals of the base Commercial Downtown Zoning District.”  What were the goals of the ROD that became too restrictive?  What are the new goals and how were they arrived at?

 The ROD was established in 1991 to be a transition between downtown and the adjoining residential areas and, as noted by staff, with an economic development focus recognizing the future improvements coming to the train station. So, what happened?

 One point made was the lack of success in meeting the economic development goal of the district. But how was lack of success measured?  From its inception, residents have not been made aware of any efforts to market the area. So, we blame zoning?

 Staff also referenced the rehabilitation of the Janney Marshall Building and Old Coffee Warehouse, and adjoining development, which required their removal from the ROD. Both these projects met the city’s goal of maintaining downtown’s historic fabric. So, what are the goals now if not economic or maintaining historic character?

 In July 2021, the council increased residential density in the commercial downtown area for both rehabilitation and infill. The council has taken steps to increase residential density throughout the city. And as recently reported in Hyperbole the city is now looking at providing “density bonuses” for affordability. This council’s focus is just residential development.

 So, what does this mean for future development around the train station? What happened with the 400 Princess Anne Street townhouse project, located within the ROD, provides some insight into what is to come.

 A five-unit, three-story townhouse project, its approval was predicated on a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) removal of the project from the ROD.

The townhomes would have been a story above the corner coffee shop. One of the townhomes would have been built between the coffee shop and the building to the right.

  Mostly 2-story structures along this portion of historic Princess Anne Street

 The ARB using commercial buildings, including the Purina Tower, and new construction, to establish that the project fit in with the surrounding historic residential neighborhood was a reason why the decision to grant a COA was appealed to the City Council by residents.  The council upheld the ARB decision on a 6-1 vote with the only comment from the majority being Councilor Gerlach who pointed out that he reviewed the ARB decisions and didn’t see any issues with it.

The buildings across the street on Fredericks Street. The new condo building behind the restored coffee warehouse was judged to be an example of comparable historic structure height in the area.

The townhomes would have been located in the parking lot behind the coffee house located at the far right. The Purina Tower was used to determine the average height of this historic residential neighborhood.

This is what the Architectural Review Board viewed as compatible with the surrounding historic neighborhood.

When voting on the project and whether to remove it from the ROD, Councilors Graham, Duffy, Gerlach, and Devine expressed support for higher residential density around the train station. At one point Councilor Graham wanted to know the feasibility of multifamily use and the impact of the height restriction.

 Councilor Devine joined the majority in voting against the project on the grounds it didn’t match the character of the neighborhood. Two of the other majority votes are no longer on the council.  Comments from the current council would indicate a different outcome.

While staff point out that the 400 Princess Anne Street project would still require a Special Use permit without the ROD the underlying Commercial Downtown zoning would allow for a building height of 50 feet as opposed to 40 feet.

 Based on the buildings used by the ARB to evaluate this project approving a 50-foot structure in the future is a distinct possibility.  And the council’s drive for more residential density throughout the city doesn’t mean increased density is off the table. 

 For these reasons, we have submitted questions to council members on their views about future development around the train station, the importance of historic character, and whether there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure its protection. We hope to post their answers in the next week or so.  

Staff Report on Eliminating Railroad Overlay District:

Railroad Overlay District Defined

Area 7 Plans

ARB Appeal on 400 Princess Anne St. Project

The 404/406 lots were the location of the townhouse project. The map also shows surrounding properties

Zoning around the train station shows the overlay district and other zoning classifications around the station.

The changes in zoning regs between the Railroad Overlay District and the underlying Commercial-Downtown zoning. Note height difference.

 

VISITOR CENTER RENOVATIONS—Transparency & Media Coverage

The cost of the new visitor center at Executive Plaza is a good case study of government transparency and the current state of press coverage in the city. Reality does not align with the press releases and reporting.  The approved budget was $1.48 million, covering renovations and lease payments. The actual cost is just over $2.8 million.

In a recent news story, it was reported that most of the $2.43 million cost for the new visitor center renovation came from the sale of the old visitor center.  What was not reported was that the original budget for the project was $1.35 million including lease payments to the EDA. And what was the original financing plan and timeline for the project?

When the City Council voted to sell the visitor center, the staff report noted that proceeds from the sale and a $210,000 state grant would cover the renovation costs.  The report noted, “Hence the total budget available for the construction of the new space is $1.35 million. “Staff is comfortable that this is sufficient to build a best-in-class Visitor Center.”  No general fund revenues were going to be spent.  The actual cost has exceeded this budget by over a million dollars and general funds were spent. But did the city really have $1.35 million to spend?

It was reported that the city was leasing the old visitor center while renovations were ongoing, but no specifics or project timeline were provided. When the council voted to sell the visitor center in August of 2022 staff noted that, “The City would strive to occupy the new space by Dec. 1, 2023.” The project is a year behind schedule. And at what cost?

The city’s lease payment to the Economic Development Authority (EDA) for the use of the old visitors center was $9,984.22 a month. Based on the December 2023 completion date $116,321 was deducted from the sale proceeds to cover the lease payments. However, due to the delay in completing the renovations, the payments to the EDA totaled roughly $176,000 and a further $60,000 will be paid through November to the new owner. That is roughly $120,000 over the proposed lease budget.

In addition to the lease payments, there is the renovations for the Economic Development Department, which also had to be moved with the sale of the old visitors center, which added $150,022 to the cost. So, the total cost to the city for the project was $2.8 million not $1.48 million per proposed budget including the expected lease payment deficit of $1.32 million to be covered by city taxpayers. This for a project that wasn’t supposed to cost city taxpayers anything.

At a time when taxes and fees are going up, council members lament delays because of a lack of staff, and with vacancies in police and fire, residents deserve to be better informed about how their tax dollars are being spent. In these situations, the city should explain delays and cost overruns and their impacts and local media should be reporting on them.

 Staff Report on the Sale of the Old Visitors Center:

 https://www.fredericksburgva.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/15716?fileID=12875

The old Vistors Center was home to the tourism and economic development office. Both the building and parking lot have been sold to a private developer. Future use unknown.

The new Visitors Center. This we believe is now the rear entrance.

Work is still ongoing on the new Visitors Center. When voted on by the council the work was planned to be completed in Dec. 2023.

A view of the new technology and hallway looking towards the front entrance.

 

NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT—What to Know and Council Reaction

 Over the past few months city staff have been gathering feedback from neighborhood associations on establishing Neighborhood Conservation Districts. However, based on recent comments, members of the City Council look to be out of tune with neighborhood planning discussions on the subject.

 Meetings between city staff and neighborhood associations is an effort to meet the goals currently outlined in the city’s Comprehensive Plan. As stated in the Preservation chapter— “Work with neighborhoods that may not be appropriate for historic designation, but whose character is worth preserving through overlay zoning or other conservation measures.” 

 This effort is to achieve the Comp Plan goals for residential neighborhoods, which include “Preserve the character of the City’s neighborhoods, by respecting and maintaining their functional design,” and “Respect the integrity and character of the city’s neighborhoods.”  It should also be pointed out that Neighborhood Conservation Districts have been discussed as part of the city’s Small Area Planning process. So, what is a Neighborhood Conservation District?

The focus of discussion has been on the Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance adopted by Charlottesville. The goal of the ordinance is to “focus on preventing demolitions of historic buildings and preventing construction of inappropriate new buildings and additions. Modern and sustainable, energy-efficient construction is encouraged when done thoughtfully in concert with older structures.”

The ordinance calls for identifying the unique character-defining aspects of individual neighborhoods and puts in place a review process to ensure new construction and additions are compatible with those characteristics. It also discourages the demolition of character-defining features. 

                              Historic Home along the river demolished.

If adopted, neighborhoods would ask for a district to be established, and the Architectural Review Board would review and approve new construction, additions, and alterations based on agreed guidelines for that neighborhood.

  The Charlottesville model notes, “guidelines are intended to provide a general design framework for new construction. Designers can take cues from the traditional architecture of the area and have the freedom to design appropriate new architecture…” We have included a link to the Charlottesville guidelines for more detailed information on the goals and process.

 One housing goal for Fredericksburg is affordability. Maintaining the city’s diverse housing stock, including preserving smaller homes, is part of the solution in achieving that goal.

                            Smaller affordable housing stock demolished to 

                               make way for large more exceptive homes.

 Per a recent presentation to the Planning Commission, staff has acknowledged that infill and demolition in neighborhoods have resulted in bigger and more expensive housing at the expense of smaller more affordable homes. Neighborhood Conservation Districts can help in slowing the gentrification of the city. So how is this effort being viewed by City Council?

 During a recent City Council’s work session, the issue of neighborhood Conservation Districts was broad up by Councilor Jason Graham during a discussion on the Council Priorities. Regarding Priority 22, goal #3—“amending the UDO to create conservation overlay districts and work with individual neighborhoods to apply these districts through rezonings.” 

Councilor Graham stated that the council had not had a conversation about Neighborhood Conservation Districts and, as there was no draft ordinance to consider, he asked that this goal be removed. He was not opposed to having a discussion about them but took issue with the statement that they should be adopted.

Councilor Holmes stated that she didn’t remember discussing this issue during the council retreat and echoed Councilor Graham’s concerns.  Councilor Duffy stated he would support a council discussion  but more information was needed before considering adopting conservation districts. Councilor Mackintosh and Mayor Devine also favored discussion but made it clear that this did not mean an ordinance would be adopted. Councilor Mackintosh stated that if after a discussion the council decided against adopting such an ordinance that goal #3 would be considered met.

Councilor Gerlach was the only one to speak in favor of Neighborhood Conservation Districts citing the Comp Plan and the efforts to date by staff to engage the neighborhoods. He referenced the support of residents of the College Terrace neighborhood to begin the process. He accepted the need for further discussion but asked that they be expedited.

Councilor Mackintosh took issue with this position stating that as a resident of College Terrace he didn’t believe there was majority support in the neighborhood and questioned the impact of adopting Neighborhood Conservation Districts on housing affordability stating that historic/preservation districts cause housing values to go up.  He also had issues with the focus on single family homes defining neighborhood character.

So at this point the council is stepping back from a goal that is already part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan to protect city character and ensure diverse housing options to help deal with affordability. Based on prior comments, and actions from council, supporting increased density and building heights throughout the city the odds are not good for adopting an effective Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance.

                               Council priority is now density and height.

It will take a community effort to ensure that this issue gets a full hearing and if not Neighborhood Conservation Districts, then the community should expect alternatives to meet the housing goals that have been adopted. The first step is getting information out the public for review and comment. We have included links to information on Neighborhood Conservation issues below.

We would also encourage residents to attend a community discussion on Neighborhood Conservation Districts hosted by Historic Fredericksburg Foundation at the theater of the Wallace Library on Monday, October 14^th from 5:30 to 6:30PM. If you cannot make it please drop us a line with any questions you have and we will get you the answers.

Links:

HFFI Preserving Neighborhood Character

Charlottesville Ordinance

City Council Priorities

 

INFORM FREDERICKSBURG—New Opportunities, Future Posts, And How You Can Help

 First, let us thank our 500+ followers on Facebook. We hope you will continue your support of Inform Fredericksburg by following us on X/Twitter and Instagram under the username—informfred. And while we will continue using Facebook, we understand our posts can get lost within the myriad of others so we have set-up a blog—informfred.blogspot.com. 

We hope you will subscribe using popular feed readers, or send us your e-mail, to be notified of posts, have quick access to prior posts, contact information on city government, and of course, the opportunity to pass on your comments, suggestions, and questions to us and others interested in the future of Fredericksburg.

 We hope you will also pass on this information to friends and family in The Burg and those interested in transparency in city government and the city’s future. A lot is happening that is not getting much coverage in the local press. We will continue to try to fill that void. 

 To that end, we will continue to cover Mary’s Landing and Jeremiah projects, the city’s Comprehensive Plan review, and data centers. In the coming weeks, we will also be posting on:

 **Council plans to eliminate the Railroad Overlay District. What will this mean for future development around the train station? What will be the impact of the city’s Historic District? In 2023 the City Council voted down a development project after significant neighborhood opposition in the 400 block of Princess Anne Street.  Council discussions to date point to higher density and building heights which would make that project by-right.

 **In March 2021 the city moved away from a joint wastewater treatment plant with Spotsylvania County. Where is the project now? Are the now two projects meeting the goals of the original combined facility? How have the costs changed?

 **The new visitor center is nearing completion. When the sale of the old site was approved it was on the understanding the funds from the sale would cover the cost of the new visitor center. Did that happen? What were the details of the city’s sale of the old visitor center to the EDA and then to the new owner?

 If there are any topics you would like to see covered, please drop us an e-mail. And again, please get the word out about Inform Fredericksburg.