FMFADA |
|
July 25, 2007 - Meeting MinutesThe Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority (FMFADA) meeting, held at the Bay Breeze Community Center, located on Fort Monroe, was called to order at 1:05 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS Roll Call The following FMFADA members were present: Viola Baskerville, Alvin Bryant, Preston Bryant, Robert Crouch, Rex Ellis, Catharine Gilliam, Lyn Hammond (for Patrick Gottschalk), Robert Harper, Kanata Jackson, John Quarstein, Robert Scott, Tommy Thompson, Jody Wagner. Interim Executive Director, Conover Hunt, and Hampton City Council Liaisons, Charlie Sapp and Joe Spencer, were also present. Absent from the meeting: Tom Gear, Marty Williams, Mamie Locke and Phillip Hamilton. Approval of Minutes In the absence of Senator Locke, who is Secretary/Treasurer, Chairman Bryant called for a motion for approval of the minutes. Wayne Lett made the motion to approve the minutes and Robert Harper seconded. Chairman Bryant asked if there was any discussion. Conover Hunt stated there were corrections made to the minutes after they were sent to the Board and the changes appear in red. Catharine Gilliam stated she had the following changes:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Bryant thanked Ms. Hunt and Ms. Gilliam for the clarifications and asked if there were any additional changes or corrections. Hearing none, he called for approval. Tommy Thompson made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Robert Scott seconded. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Bryant stated the Authority would hear comments from the public, and if, at the end of the agenda, there are additional public comments regarding action items, the Authority would hear comments then as well. (See Appendix I) REPORTS & BRIEFINGS A. Remarks by Interim Executive Director Conover Hunt
Ms. Hunt stated because of the significant cultural and natural resources at Fort Monroe, all planners have known that the draft plan would change. The law requires creation of the draft reuse plan before certain studies are initiated. She stated that the FMFADA is getting to where it needs to decide how much we need to change the plan in order to approve it. The plan will continue to change, but there are deadlines that require the Authority to send in an approved draft plan. The State Historic Preservation office has suggested less in-fill, particularly in Area 2, outside of the moat. They should also look at the industrial area outside the North Gate for potential development, possibly commercial. Also, the group should study some potential uses for the one million square feet of non-residential space at Fort Monroe. Ms. Hunt stated that there are no consultants on contract, but there will be a committee recommendation today of two consultants, since they have been actively working on our behalf. The consultants will have to be involved to follow the wishes of the Board in making changes. She stated, for example, the plan sets aside the area inside the moat for very high level historic preservation and targets structures for potential museum use. However, at this point there is no cultural plan defining what museums will exist at Fort Monroe, the cost, etc. All of this needs to be done. None of the existing economic infrastructure or traffic studies account for the impact of tourism at this site. Tourism is a huge potential impact on the economic sustainability of this site. The FMFADA needs to create an exciting destination site with a tourism plan that combines heritage tourism and beach tourism. Referring to the economic study under Appendix 5 of the Dover Kohl study, she stated that filling half the space would equal the number of direct jobs lost at Fort Monroe. Fully occupying the 516,000 square feet of space would generate 1,700 to 2,600 total jobs. Ms. Hunt stated that we can create a wonderful place for Hampton Roads and beyond. In regards to reversionary property at the fort, she encouraged the members to learn more about Virginia’s outstanding Historic Preservation Investment Tax Program. She stated Kathleen Kilpatrick had a great deal to do with it, and Virginia is a leader nationally in making use of these benefits. She stated we have the historic properties, and can put restrictive convenants in place that can preserve them in perpetuity and still allow them to be on the tax rolls. She stated a concern to her, as a native Hamptonian, is the absence of buildings flushed out in the plan that carry on Fort Monroe’s wonderful legacy as a premiere Southern resort. Ms. Hunt urged the Board needs to take another look at lodging and amenities that would appeal to the full range of the population that does not have the benefit Hamptonians do of living close to the water and beaches. The Chamberlin is being saved, but no longer serves the larger community as it once did. She stated there are approximately 61,000 feet of waterfront at Fort Monroe, and feels we should not overlook this. She stated she is talking about low-scale and intimate buildings, not high-rises. She stated the economic analysis suggests that we should encourage the development of Bed and Breakfasts at Fort Monroe. Ms. Hunt suggested that the Authority take a look at Jefferson, Texas, which is an historic town with low-rise buildings in the City’s center, including Bed and Breakfasts. She stated people are pouring out of the big cities to recapture the sense of small-town America and the values the traditional environment represents. Ms. Hunt stated Hampton Roads has thrived as a port since the early 1600s, and we would be remiss not to study the potential for additional marina-type amenities at the fort and support facilities that would encourage boaters to come here and remain for several days. She stated whatever we do, we know the new life that is developed at Fort Monroe would require specialty marketing to attract the right kind of residents, tenants, retail shoppers, or corporate headquarters. We need to think creatively and outside the box. She stated we need to develop a national class tourism destination site that puts all kinds of tourism at work, and makes people want to return over and over again. We need to take the existing campus and transform it into a new type of village. Chairman Bryant thanked Ms. Hunt, and stated that he would like to emphasize that the plan is still a draft, and even after the draft reuse plan is approved, we can continue to tinker with it. He stated Ms. Hunt stressed tourism and the cultural planning that we need to do; there is still work to do. He stated that in addition to the current draft plan that has the three alternatives, there is a need for other alternatives, one being less in-fill and emphasis on commercial. Chairman Bryant asked if there were any questions, and hearing none, he then introduced David Knisely. B. Update on BRAC Timeline by David Knisely, Garrity and Knisely David Knisely gave a brief update on the BRAC timeline, which is on file. (See Appendix II) EXTENSION REQUEST: Chairman Bryant called for a motion to authorize the Authority, with Conover Hunt working with David Knisely, to do one judiciously structured requested extension to the OEA with copies to other federal agencies. Viola Baskerville made the motion and Kanata Jackson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Chairman Bryant introduced Julie Carver, of Matrix Environmental Services, in Colorado. He stated Matrix has been the environmental consultant working to-date under the Dover Kohl contract. Environmental Cleanup Process Briefing by Julie Carver, Matrix Environmental Services Julie Carver gave a brief overview of the work Matrix has done to-date in positioning Fort Monroe for redevelopment, with the respect to environmental cleanup. Ms. Carver’s presentation is on file. (See Appendix II) Chairman Bryant thanked Ms. Carver and introduced Greg Rutledge, from the Norfolk firm of Hanbury Evans. Historical Analysis Presentation by Greg Rutledge, Hanbury Evans Greg Rutledge gave a brief overview of historic resources at Fort Monroe and some analysis. The presentation is on file. (See Appendix II) There being no further questions, Chairman Bryant thanked Mr. Rutledge and introduced Kathleen Kilpatrick, Virginia Department of Historic Resources. Next Steps: 106 Process Presentation by Kathleen Kilpatrick Ms. Kilpatrick gave a brief update on the 106 Screening Process. (See Appendix II) UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Report from the Bylaws Subcommittee Ms. Hunt stated there were some final revisions by the Attorney General’s Office, referencing the blue areas of the draft. Mr. Thompson reminded the Authority that the Attorney General’s Office has spent time on the bylaws to be sure it conformed to the Memorandum of Agreement, as well as the law. He also stated how important the meeting attendance is because a super-majority is 75%, not two-thirds, and a quorum is twelve. Mr. Thompson stated the committee tried to make the super-majority requirement clear so the Chairman would not be encumbered by questions of which items require a super-majority. He again stressed the importance of meeting attendance. ADOPTION OF BYLAWS: Mr. Thompson made a motion to adopt the bylaws as recommended by the Bylaws Subcommittee. Robert Harper seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously Chairman Bryant thanked Mr. Thompson and the committee for working on the bylaws. Report on Executive Director Search Subcommittee Chairman Bryant stated Delegate Hamilton, Chair of the Subcommittee for the Executive Director Search, had asked Robert Harper to give the report on the subcommittee. Mr. Harper thanked Chairman Bryant and stated the search committee met last week, and it was a unanimous recommendation of the committee to pursue the firm Korn/Ferry International to help find an Executive Director. The recommendation was based on the following four factors:
HIRING SEARCH FIRM: Mr. Harper made a motion, the recommendation from the Executive Director Search Subcommittee, to contract with Korn Ferry International to find a permanent Executive Director. Alvin Bryant seconded the motion. Chairman Bryant asked for the cost. Mr. Harper stated $65,000, plus travel. Chairman Bryant asked for questions, hearing none, he called for the vote. Motion passed unanimously. Report from the Consultants Subcommittee CONSULTING SERVICES: Chairman Bryant read a letter from Delegate Gear, Chairman of the Subcommittee, regarding its recommendations, which is on file. The recommendation is for the renewal of the contract with David Knisely, of Garrity & Knisely, to provide legal services on BRAC and other appropriate matters, and that Ms. Hunt immediately pursue negotiations with Matrix Environmental Services to provide continued expertise on the environmental issues involved in Fort Monroe. Tommy Thompson moved the recommendation, which was seconded. Chairman Bryant called for the vote, which passed unanimously. Mr. Thompson inquired if the subcommittee addressed the other consultants. He also inquired if the subcommittee will continue evaluating. Chairman Bryant stated yes and asked Ms. Hunt to answer more precisely. Ms. Hunt stated she has had contact with various consultants that have worked under the Dover Kohl contract. She has been waiting for a clear indication from the Board as to what consultants we may need to bring in to do alternative studies for the draft reuse plan. She stated we have made progress at this meeting, and she will report to the subcommittee with more confidence. The committee will be meeting again and making more recommendations, probably at the August meeting. Mr. Thompson stated Dover Kohl did a good job and is capable of doing what the Authority wants them to do. Dr. Lett, referring to the minutes from the subcommittee meeting, wanted to make sure the motion took into account the 2008 timeline. Mr. Harper confirmed that the other consultants we have employed, previously to today, we have yet to vote on, but will be evaluating and soliciting proposals to decide. Ms. Hunt stated yes. Mr. Harper echoed what Mr. Thompson stated about the services that have been provided thus far. He also made a point that as the Authority gets into the reuse plan, to please remember that the public has invested a lot of effort into the draft reuse plan that we currently have. He stated that as we move forward we cannot overlook the public input that has been solicited and synthesized by Dover Kohl into the draft plan. Chairman Bryant asked for other questions, and hearing none, he introduced Dan Timberlake and Conover Hunt to brief the Authority on the proposed budget.
Dan Timberlake gave a brief update on the proposed FY08 operating budget. (See Appendix III) ADOPTION OF BUDGET: Mr. Thompson made a motion to adopt the budget with the Chairman having the authority, working with the Executive Director, to reallocate some items and keep the board informed. Ms. Gilliam seconded the motion. Chairman Bryant called for the vote and the motion passed unanimously. EXECUTIVE SESSION EXECUTIVE SESSION: Chairman Bryant stated the Authority needed to go into Executive Session for a personnel item. Therefore, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711, he called for a motion to go into Executive Session. Mr. Harper made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Quarstein. Motion passed unanimously. CERTIFY EXECUTIVE SESSION: Chairman Bryant entertained a motion that pursuant to Section 2.2-3711, the Authority only engaged in those discussions that are allowed in that code section. Mr. Thompson made the motion, which was seconded. Chairman Bryant called for the vote, which passed unanimously. HIRING EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT: Chairman Bryant stated during the Executive Session the Authority discussed a personnel matter related to hiring of an Executive Assistant, which needs to be voted on in public. Therefore, the Chairman entertained a motion to authorize Ms. Hunt to finalize the hire. Mr. Quarstein made the motion, which was seconded by Dr. Jackson. Chairman Bryant called for the vote, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) Chairman Bryant stated we are ahead of schedule and asked for additional public comments. (See Appendix I) ADJOURNMENT Chairman Bryant thanked the Authority members for their time and entertained a motion to adjourn. Motion was made by Mr. Quarstein and seconded by Mr. Scott. Chairman Bryant called for the vote, which passes unanimously. Chairman Bryant adjourned the meeting at 3:40 p.m. ______________________ Mamie E. Locke APPENDIXES APPENDIX I - PUBLIC COMMENT:
Mr. Corneliussen stated for two years he has criticized the process regarding the future of Fort Monroe, but seconds the comments made in today’s Daily Press editorial, which states the new FMFADA is doing a good job of being open to public comment and public participation. He stated the editorial should have mentioned Secretary Bryant has set the tone, as well as Ms. Hunt, who has done so, not politically, but because its the right thing to do.
Dr. Malone stated the National Park Service (NPS) received a letter from Congresswoman Drake regarding the Reconnaissance Study. They have not decided where they will get the money, but have asked Congresswoman Drake to go to the Defense Department. If not able to do so, the NPS plans to reallocate end-of-year money in September, and get started with the Reconnaissance Study in October. He stated getting a late start, but it’s on the NPS radar screen.
Mr. Bobrick stated he is a local attorney with PWHD and that he had expressed some interest to Conover Hunt, and through Secretary Bryant’s office, of whether the committee might rethink its consulting contracts. He urged the FMFADA to consider reopening the consulting contracts and that he was specifically interested in legal support services. He stated he has shared a speaker’s platform with David Knisely at national speaking events. Mr. Bobrick stated his background with BRAC is at Fort Monroe. He retired from the Army after 20 years as Chief of Environmental Law within the TRADOC office and served with the Hampton office for the BRAC field office. He worked BRAC issues all over the country; unexploded ordnance, environmental, etc. He stated the Authority would not have to worry about conference calls with him, but rather have face-to-face meetings. He stated Alan Diamonstein is a senior partner and has worked many years in the community to make Tidewater and the State of Virginia a fine place to live. He again, asked the FMFADA to consider revisiting the consulting contracts.
Mr. Butler stressed the green space and water access at Old Point Comfort is sorely needed by the public. He read a quote by James Cook, ODU President Emeritus, regarding Fort Monroe. Mr. Butler inquired as to how much money the State is willing to commit to preservation and maintenance of historic buildings; even if it created a self-sustaining park, it would still have to cover transition cost and possible future storm damage. He stated according to Bob Edwards of Fort Monroe, the repairs after Hurricane Isabel were $8 million and to repair the seawall is in excess of $20 million. How can the public have both unique natural resources and outdoor recreation, and how can the State avoid potential expenses. He stated the answer is through a self-sustaining federal park, similar to The Presidio, which would benefit the entire region. Public Comment (continued)
Mr. Gergely referred to Mr. Harper’s statement, regarding Dover Kohl is what the people’s input indicated they wanted, but felt, the people’s consensus was if the only answer was a housing project. He stated he had data from the Charette if anyone has a conflict with it.
Ms. Bailey stated that she is the Executive Director of Juneteenth Festival. In February the General Assembly passed a resolution for the apology of slavery, as well as a bill that passed to celebrate the third Saturday of June as Juneteenth Freedom Day. She stated her hope for Fort Monroe is making sure we help people connect the past with the present. Juneteenth deals with the legacy of slavery and Fort Monroe obviously has the potential to be a national resource for the country in regards to how we deal with the legacy of slavery. She is grateful and excited about what is happening at Fort Monroe. She thanked the Board members for turning Fort Monroe into what it needs to be for a national treasure for the country. Dr. Bryant stated that it has not become apparent, in light of the fact that the Consultant Committee did not recommend anyone to provide expertise on the modifications to the plan that the Hampton FADA put forth. It stands as the model that was recommended by the community and the FADA. He stated if we are to move from this point, we will have to have a consulting group that will take under consideration the National Park idea, the plans to take less residential from Plan 1 and the modification to put in more commercial. In order to make certain that we have general consensus among all the interests groups, it will be key to get a consulting group that is able to provide non-biased recommendation that will get us to where we need to be. Dr. Bryant stated we are now basically in August and we have said we want to bring this to a conclusion, to ask for an extension to April. He stated the longer it takes to make decisions, we may miss the mark; need to move expeditiously. Ms. Hunt stated that the staff awaits the Authority to ask the Subcommittee to convene and complete its analysis, and to instruct her to get all the proposals in to make sure the committee makes an extremely informed decision. The subcommittee will then come back to the Board in August with the final recommendation on the consultants. She stated there is a historic preservation advisory group to be appointed, and she needs to know what role they may have in determining the nature of consultants who will be involved. She stated she would move forward and gather the information. Dr. Bryant stated it will take quite a bit of effort to bring to the table the same type of analysis that the Hampton FADA has with the three plans. He stated considering the fact that we don’t have a clear concept of what a national park idea would look like, or the other two plans that have been recommended to modify the Hampton FADA plans, it’s going to take a considerable amount of work. He does not want the Authority to underestimate the kind of analysis that will have to be collected in order to get us to where we need to be. Chairman Bryant stated we will not be starting from scratch, and that we have a great deal to build on already and will make great use of it. He also stated there is no pressure to have the final plan, the draft is subject to revision, but we want to have something relatively good to send in with the homeless applications. He understands the urgency, but stated we have some flexibility as well. Chairman Bryant asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak under public comment.
Colonel McGinnis stated he is very biased towards preservation. He stated he would like to applaud the Authority, and stated he has stepped on some toes, but never did it for any other reason than historic preservation. Colonel McGinnis stated the easiest thing to do is sit on the sidelines and watch hard working people. He stated he hears what will the National Park Service do and that $20,000 shouldn’t hold us up when we are spending $65,000 for an executive search committee. He stated the Authority already has an Executive Director that no one could out-think her on preservation, history, or getting things done. He stated she has the confidence. Colonel McGinnis stated he made a contribution to the draft reuse plan, and to let the federal government pay the maintenance; they do in Philadelphia and other places. He thanked the Authority for being here and including the public APPENDIX II – BRIEFINGS & PRESENTATIONS 1. Briefing by David Knisely Chairman Bryant asked Mr. Knisely to please go over the timeline in more detail. Mr. Knisely stated the timeline is a template, and he would like to get input from the Authority on three major components (reuse plan, HUD schedule, and property disposition) that have federal implications for us as we move forward. He stated he will also be requesting authorization to extend the deadline for the HUD submission. He stressed the importance of making progress on the reuse plan, which drives the cleanup issues, and he would like to keep the April deadline date. Mr. Knisely stated approval from the Board for an extension is necessary. Chairman Bryant asked if January 2008 is realistic for the completion of the Reconnaissance Study. Mr. Knisely stated he worries about it; we may be pushing the timeframe, but it is important to get it done as quickly as possible. Mr. Knisely stated we should ask for one extension, and that we cannot afford to get behind; the plan is not final. Chairman Bryant inquired if the Homeless Provider application is on track. Mr. Knisely stated yes; it’s not completely predictable, but there has been good dialogue with the providers and meetings are now being scheduled. Chairman Bryant inquired if property disposition is going according to law. Mr. Knisely stated yes, he is working closely with Steve Owens and that input from the Commonwealth of Virginia staff is critical. He stated the process is moving well. Chairman Bryant asked for questions regarding the extension. Kanata Jackson inquired about the extension dates. Mr. Knisely stated from September 11, 2007 to May 15, 2008. Catharine Gilliam inquired if it would be possible to request one longer extension. She also inquired, given that the Authority has not yet decided on several consultants relationships, whether the Authority has the option to receive more time than the April deadline, and that she has concerns that this shorter extension will limit the ability to get other needed expertise. She stated she expressed at the last meeting that the Authority is inadequate in terms of historic research assessment planning, and that she is concerned that it may not be possible to address this if we stick with the consultants that did the plan thus far. Mr. Knisely stated there is more input that needs to come to the table to get the plan further along, but submission to HUD will not be a final plan. He stated it is a work in progress and the only thing we are locked into is a deadline to submit to HUD. Moving along expeditiously with the plan is important so we can proceed with the dialogue with the Army on clean up issues and the Army’s NEPA analysis. Regarding the extension, Mr. Knisely stated we have some leeway as far as extensions, and that we could probably ask DOD to extend up to a year without much difficulty. Mr. Knisely stated he would like to push it sooner and perhaps give ourselves additional leeway, but also work hard to keep to the April deadline. Ms. Hunt stated there are some things coming up later in the meeting that will address this issue. She stated HUD is not overly concerned with our Historic Cultural Resource Management Plan; it is a marker, an approved plan. She stated in terms of developing the plan, it is a huge project and will go beyond HUD deadline. One problem is the thinking that HUD wants a final plan, but they do not, they are more interested in the homeless. The plan according to their checklist has to be sent with it; the BRAC law is very specific. Ms. Gilliam asked Mr. Knisely what the longest extension we would be able to receive is; he responded that we could ask for a full year. She asked if in Mr.’s best professional judgment he recommends, and is comfortable with, the Authority asking for the shorter deadline and submitting the plan to HUD, knowing it is likely to be changed significantly after the input from 106 and other research. Mr. Knisely stated yes, but it needs to be an approved plan. Chairman Bryant stated that the other piece to this is the NEPA process, and he asked about the status. Mr. Knisely stated the Army did some initial NEPA analysis, but has stopped because the plan is in flux, and they do not want to reengage and begin the process again until we have an approved draft reuse plan. He stated if we have enough together with the plan to submit it to HUD, it should be the document they can use to begin moving their NEPA analysis, understanding that we have lots of work to do on the cultural resource plan, among others things. Chairman Bryant stated that the key is to move the Reconnaissance Study along quickly. Mr. Knisely agreed and stated it is statutorilary required and critical input to the plan from every point of view. He stated the quicker that moves; the quicker we can have a draft plan that can be approved. He would like to see the Reconnaissance Study done as soon as possible. Chairman Bryant emphasized the involvement of Congresswoman Thelma Drake in this endeavor. Rex Ellis asked Mr. Knisely to elaborate on the Reconnaissance Study process and what we can predict as to when it might be finished and its importance. Mr. Knisely stated the major reason it is so important is because statutorily the General Assembly legislation creating the FMFADA has specific language requiring that the Board consider the study as it puts together the reuse plan. He stated from strictly a legal point of view, it has to be factored into the Authority’s consideration. Mr. Knisely stated, in regards to the process, it typically takes six to nine months to get done and we are hoping to expedite it here, while working in cooperation with our federal partners. Ms. Hunt added that the Reconnaissance Study is not an in depth study, and there is an issue that things need to be rather open-ended. We have other deadlines from which we need schedules. There are discussions with Congresswoman Drake’s office. It is a gray area that we are trying to pin down. Mr. Knisely stated we have until September 9th to request an extension, and we have the opportunity within the next few weeks to get an idea of when the Reconnaissance Study can be done. He stated he is anxious to apply for the extension, but wants to be sure we get it right. He would like to get the plan moving, so we can deal with other critical issues with the Army. Chairman Bryant concluded the discussion, stating things hinge very much on the Reconnaissance Study and that we are on track with the Homeless Provider applications, and that the property disposition is on track. He stated there is more concern over the Cultural Resource Management Plan and the NEPA process, which is on hold. Mr. Knisely concurred.
Chairman Bryant inquired as to what environmental assessment cleanup took place by the Army before the base changed from coastal defense to administrative use. Ms. Carver stated that in 1973, when the mission of the base changed, it was the beginning of environmental laws as we know them today in the United States. She stated that at that time, many environmental regulations that we operate under today were not in existence. Mr. Ellis inquired about the priority of unexploded ordnance, and its ability to hamper any further archaeological investigation. Ms. Carver stated they have just begun the MEC investigation scoping. She stated they could investigate, but have to be careful of the cultural impact. Ms. Carver stated they are working with Kathleen Kilpatrick and her office to mitigate those impacts. Jody Wagner asked Ms. Carver to give the Authority an understanding of Matrix’s timeline and how it compares to Mr. Knisely’s timeline. Ms. Carver stated her timeline is integrated with Mr. Knisely’s. She stated it is critically important to have an idea of the final base plan because it drives the cleanup levels. Having the approval of the base reuse plan, even if it changes, we have to start somewhere. Mr. Thompson inquired if the MEC has to be done anyway. Ms. Carver stated with both traditional environmental contamination and MEC contamination, the military is statutorily required to clean up any contamination that they have caused on a property. Chairman Bryant stated the State law also stipulates that the Commonwealth cannot accept land that has not been cleaned up to Commonwealth standards. Dr. Lett inquired if there have been problems with privatization when the military leaves and contracts have been issued for privatization cleanup and they find more than what the military contracted for. Ms. Carver stated they are working on several cleanups across the nation, and there is a layered risk management approach to address those, that not only includes call back provisions, but environmental insurance issued by major insurance companies. Mr. Knisely added that the Army has statutory obligations, so you want to layer the privatization whereby the LRA is able to direct the cleanup and the priorities. The Army will fund insurance which is another layer of protection, but need to be careful about the language so you don’t breach any of the statutory requirements. He stated that it’s all in how you structure it, and it’s very much worth considering. 3. Presentation by Greg Rutledge Chairman Bryant inquired if Wherry Housing were contributing buildings. Mr. Rutledge stated they are not contributing structures. Ms. Kilpatrick commented that while Wherry Housing is considered to be contributing structures, per a nationwide protocol agreement, in certain cases it does not have to be preserved. Mr. Quarstein inquired as to why the presentation does not reference the Chamberlin, which is a significant and historical landmark, or other historic tourism resources – its all military. Mr. Rutledge stated The Chamberlin is owned by someone else and they decided to draw the line on buildings they knew would be transferred with BRAC. Ms. Gilliam stated Ms. Kilpatrick said in her May presentation, that often the 1960 National Historic Landmark (NHL) documentation is minimal and it is essential to update with current standards, knowledge and research. She inquired if Mr. Rutledge has done this; if so is there significance before 1818. Mr. Rutledge responded yes, the NHL lists about fifteen buildings, and he feels it needs to be revisited. He stated with the transfer, the entire inventory needs to be reevaluated. Ms. Gilliam stated she would like to see the entire NHL boundaries be thoroughly researched and analyzed as a landscape. Mr. Rutledge agreed. Briefing by Kathleen Kilpatrick Ms. Kilpatrick gave a brief update on the Homeless Screening 106 Process, and made the following points:
Chairman Bryant asked for questions, and hearing none, he thanked Ms. Kilpatrick for her presentation. The Chairman concluded the briefing, by stating that, to-date, we are moving forward with looking at the draft reuse plan, which incorporates with the timeline. We are still proceeding to develop two additional alternatives, one with less in-fill and another that looks at commercial development. He asked for comments before proceeding to the next item. Dr. Bryant inquired what mechanism we plan to use to develop the two alternative plans, one with less housing development and the other with more commercial. Chairman Bryant stated the Authority would be discussing this issues momentarily. APPENDIX III – BUDGET Mr. Timberlake stated that the budget presented at the May and June meetings has some amendments. He stated he would only be speaking to the changes to the budget during his briefing. Changes include the following:
Mr. Timberlake stated the sum total is $227,124.00, with a total budget of $1,228,871.00. He stated the Authority may want to give consideration to adding additional months for the Interim Director. Chairman Bryant stated that there are two items, one is the Deputy Director and Assistant, and inquired about a third, which is a Coordinator of Historic Advisory. Ms. Hunt stated it will be a multi-tasking job, but there is a huge hole in this area. Chairman Bryant stated he would like to have the discussion and include both items in the motion at the end of the discussions. Chairman Bryant asked for any further discussion on this item. Ms. Gilliam inquired about potentially hiring an Executive Director by January 1st, and would we aim for a contract basis Executive Assistant until the Executive Director is permanently hired. Ms. Hunt stated she needed help now and would be able to explain more in the Executive Session. Mr. Thompson inquired if the Chairman was satisfied. Chairman Bryant stated yes and that the Authority may need to discuss in detail. |