FMFADA |
|
October 22, 2007 Meeting MinutesThe Fort Monroe Federal Area Development Authority (FMFADA) meeting, held at the Bay Breeze Community Center on Fort Monroe was called to order at 1:10 p.m. I. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS A. Roll Call Present: Secretary Viola Baskerville, Dr. Alvin Bryant, Secretary Preston Bryant, Robert Crouch, Delegate Tom Gear, Catharine Gilliam, Lynette Hammond representing Secretary Patrick Gottschalk, Robert Harper, Dr. Kanata Jackson, Dr. Wayne Lett, Senator Mamie Locke, Robert Scott, Secretary Jody Wagner. Interim Executive Director, Conover Hunt, Hampton City Council Liaison Joe Spencer and Army Liaison Colonel Jason Evans were also present. Absent: Dr. Rex Ellis, Delegate Phil Hamilton, Tommy Thompson, Senator Marty Williams, and Dr. Charlie Sapp. B. Approval of Minutes Chairman Preston Bryant called for a motion for the approval of the minutes and asked if there was any discussion. Conover Hunt advised that there was one late correction under the Executive Director’s report that the phrase “We had plenty of money” be amended to say “We had adequate funds.” APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Bryant asked if there were any additional corrections or additions to the minutes. Hearing none, he called for approval. Preston Bryant moved to approve the minutes as corrected with the one amendment. The motion was seconded and approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Bryant stated the Authority would hear comments from the public (See Appendix I). III. REPORTS & BRIEFINGS A. Remarks by Interim Executive Director Conover Hunt 1. Financial Report – Ms. Hunt gave a financial report to the Board (see Appendix II). Ms. Hunt stated that with the first of the year between the approvals of additional consultant contracts and increasing the staff we should see a great increase in expenses. Expenses to date: roughly $60,000, leaving a balance in excess of $300,000 in the account. 2. Scope of Work - Ms. Hunt reviewed the tasks that face the FMFADA during FY2007. (See Appendix III). She added that the board will be asked to make critical benchmark decisions during the next seven months. She also was happy to announce that the Office of Economic Adjustment has given the $25,000.00 to complete the Park Service Recon Study, thanks to the efforts of Thelma Drake’s office. OEA also awarded another $120,000.00 to help offset personnel and consulting costs relating to cultural resource planning. Ms. Hunt concluded by asking if there were any questions on the Scope of Work. She added that the Symposium of Scholars will take place on January 2, 3 & 4 primarily in Hampton and that we are waiting on a final decision on a Board meeting on the January 4th. All the scholars are very excited about this opportunity. Advisors recommended that the meeting take place in January rather than May. There being no additional questions, she concluded by thanking the Board. C. The Presidio Trust Chairman Bryant introduced Craig Middleton, Director of the Presidio Trust in San Francisco. (see Appendix IV) Mr. Middleton said he had worked for Congress in Washington and afterwards settled back in San Francisco at about the time the BRAC decision was made. After Congress created the legislation creating the Presidio Trust, he was the first employee, and the Trust has since grown to an organization of about $70 million dollars a year with a staff of 350. Mr. Middleton stated that he had toured Fort Monroe and noted some obvious parallels with the Presidio. They are a highly strategic locations, of tremendous beauty, have nationally significant history, historic buildings and landscapes that must be preserved and protected, and both face the challenge of determining how best to find upgrades and annual operating and maintenance costs in an era of very constrained fiscal resources. Turning to their differences, he commented on the Presidio experience in the hopes that it would inform the work taking place in Virginia at this time. At the Presidio Trust, there were 2 mindsets that were critical to its success. The first: the will to proceed in face of seemingly very difficult obstacles, not the least of which was community discord, and especially funding issues. He said his group decided failure was not an option, and to persevere. The second: protecting and preserving the Presidio as an enduring resource for the American Public. They decided on a very flexible approach not drawn from a specific existing model, but based on the needs of the Presidio itself. A part of the Presidio’s success is that it has been so unique. The Presidio was established in 1776 by the Spanish and was taken over by the US in 1846. It was the birthplace of San Francisco. It had an important command role in every major conflict on the west coast during its period as a military base. The Presidio was earmarked to come into the National Park system under a 1972 law creating the Golden Gate National Recreation area. The provision went into effect when the army left the post in 1989. The law had no provisions for how it would be managed, how it would be funded, and how it would interact with the adjacent community. The Presidio budget in military terms was manageable at $70, 000,000 per year. Once it transferred to the National Park Service budget it (just the operating and maintenance budget) became as much as Yosemite, Yellowstone and Grand Canyon operating budgets combined. Since the budget was so massive Congress had concerns about how to fund it without depleting the remainder of the NPS budget. These concerns led to the creation of the Presidio Trust, which was created as an innovative federal agency reporting directly to the President. It has streamlined authorities, the ability to lease buildings, not to sell land but to lease land (up to 99 yrs). The trust can retain revenues as long as they are used to support the Presidio. Statutory rules that laid the framework for administration of the trust, which is not allowed to sell property or increase the overall square footage of buildings at the site. The trust has the authority to demolish certain buildings and replace them, but they must retain the same square footage. The trust is charged with preserving the Presidio as a National Historic Landmark property and public park. Mr. Middleton stated that the Presidio is free of some of the restraints that other government agencies face, (i.e., they can hire and fire, compensate at will, procure without much red tape) and the Government gave them subsidies (seed money) that would decline over a fifteen year period. At the end of the 15 years the Presidio must be economically self sufficient. If it is not self sufficient the Government will sell it. They are about 10 years into the program and are operating in the black, earning about $10,000,000.00 more a year than they spend. This covers their operations and maintenance. By the letter of the law they have achieved the self sufficient requirement 5 years early. The Presidio convinced Congress that early money was important so they funded at a high level early on, and it declines steeply at the end. Mr. Middleton explained that what they are really trying to do is to not operate in the black, but what they really want to do is become financially sustainable to have enough money to not only operate and maintain the Presidio but to create a fund to replace the infrastructure as it wears out. They want to be able to fund capital upgrades that are intermittent. Since they have no taxing or bonding authority they have to do it out of revenue. They took every piece of the Presidio, figured out it’s useful life, figured out the cost of replacement or simple maintenance, then figured out an annual cost for a sinking fund. Based on this formula, the trust is not fully self sustaining and won’t be until FY 2020. He then showed pictures of some of the renovations they have accomplished. Mr. Middleton estimates a third of their real-estate to be housing, some of which is exactly the same as the housing on Fort Monroe. They have renovated all but 2% of this housing, which is leased and generating about 60% of their revenue. The Command building was made into a high school on a 40 year lease, with historic tax credits, and a private developer then sublet it to a nonprofit school. Mr. Middleton claimed that remediation has been an issue. The Presidio decided early on that they needed to do remediation themselves, and not rely on the Army although it was the Army’s responsibility. They negotiated a $100,000,000 buyout; the Army paid it off in three years in cash. They bought $100,000,000 in potential cost overrun Insurance and struck an agreement with the Army where the Army comes in and takes care of anything that was unknown at the time of the agreement. That has gone well and they are glad they have the insurance policy because it will probably cost $130,000,000 for the overall environmental cleanup. The Presidio forest is a cultural resource that was planted by the Army. Unfortunately it was all planted at the same time and the trees are all beginning to die. They have an ongoing capital need for forestry. They use many volunteers; many of them being children. Last year they had about 20,000 volunteers working as docents, planting trees, etc. They have been putting in trails, recreational facilities, and overlooks. They try to celebrate their history with a big Presidio pageant that goes back into Spanish history. Mr. Middleton closed by saying Congress really took a chance on the Presidio. They developed a unique approach that is working. He added that he could confidently say based on the financials he showed us that the Presidio will be protected for the American public as an enduring resource in perpetuity. He also offered future assistance and advice to the FMFADA. Chairman Bryant thanked Mr. Middleton and asked if 60% of their revenue was coming from residential leases or all real-estate? Middleton answered residential. He then asked him for a breakdown of the Presidio’s income. Mr. Middleton replied: 60% is residential on one year leases, to take advantage of the rising real estate market from year to year. Nonresidential real estate produces about 30% of their income and that includes everything from former warehouses to the Headquarters of the 6th Army. Only about half of that is complete. The remaining income comes from special events: weddings, races that go through that they charge a permit fee for, etc. Secretary Bryant’s second question was relative to the environmental cleanup: what was their predicted time schedule and how close were they to meeting that? In their planning process were they able to peg it accurately or not? Mr. Middleton replied that the trust did not peg it very accurately in terms of time or costs. It has taken longer than they thought. They thought it would take seven years, and after 10 years it is not done. In costs they thought they could do it for $90,000,000 but it is going to be $130 - $135 million. Delegate Gear asked “What kind of commercial leases does the Presidio have besides the Lucas building? Mr. Middleton said that it depended on the properties: the smaller places and former homes are small offices, small entrepreneurs, some of them related to software, usually sole proprietorships. The bigger offices are headquarters for philanthropic foundations, many film and film related industries, and a whole host of nonprofits that are clustered in one area. He added that it runs the gamut with the other being recreational retail. Their old commissary which is 87,000 square feet is leased to the Sports Basement, which is a sporting goods retailer. They pay a rent plus percentage of what they earn. Craig Middleton stated that they are entering into negotiations with a lodging purveyor for a 119 room lodge in the historic quarter of the Presidio. Bob Harper asked: since you are a Federal Trust, how do the local and state issues get inputted to your trust to be addressed? Mr. Middleton replied, “We are federal but it is a combination of the Board of Directors which consists of 7 people appointed by the president. Of that six are local people who know the community very well. They have many public meetings, which are required by the NEPA process but also have a lot of public workshops. Virtually every decision receives public input. The Trust does have jurisdiction over the property, so it is federal property but they try to work very closely with the Mayor and the local community. Mr. Harper asked if it was a relationship in persuasion since there is no jurisdiction with the local and state. Mr. Middleton agreed that was correct. Dr. Lett asked if Mr. Middleton could tell more about the goal of the NPS especially in regards to historic interpretation, if they have a role there and what the Park Service actually owns and operates. Mr. Middleton replied that the NPS has jurisdiction over about 20% of the Presidio, the coastal areas. They are mostly recreational areas & beaches with very few buildings. They do have authority to do education, interpretation and visitor’s services programs within the whole Presidio and work together with the trust to do that. Mr. Middleton explained that he usually meets with the NPS local superintendent once a week. They also cooperate on the remediation program because the clean up extends into the NPS’s area. Dr. Lett also asked about the extent of museums on the property, since there are opportunities for interpretive museums on Fort Monroe. Mr. Middleton replied that they don’t have museums on the Presidio, but they are planning to. Their concentration has focused on the infrastructure costs and getting revenue in. Now they are looking at interpretive programs and educational museums. They have many artifacts that are sitting in storage until they create a museum for them. Mr. Crouch asked: if you had to do over what would you do differently and more specifically was there one event that acted as a catalyst to attract a commercial presence like the film studio? As a follow up, Mr. Crouch asked if there a specific strategy the trust used to place that type of activity in motion? Middleton’s answer to the first question: “the one thing I would do differently is I would have made it possible for the Presidio Trust to borrow privately.” As a government agency they are not allowed to borrow privately, they have banks that want to loan them money because they have the revenue to support the repayment of the debt but they are statutorily limited and that has caused them to go outside for capital and use the long term lease strategy more than they would. Mr. Middleton explained the strategy as follows: they started to talk to George Lucas early on recognizing that he wanted a site in San Francisco but didn’t want to deal with San Francisco’s zoning and politics. Once they built George Lucas’ campus other associated film interests were attracted to the Presidio. He explained that was a very important move and has served them well. Lucas pays about 15% of their operating costs. Dr. Kanata Jackson asked how the Presidio addressed retail opportunities for the smaller buildings. Mr. Middleton replied they have done very little with retail opportunities so far, but that they will do more in the future. There is a center core of the Presidio called the Main Post that is similar to the area inside the moat at Fort Monroe. He said they are trying to bring new life to that area and part of that will be in retail. They are dealing with how stringent they want to be, what kind of zoning to put on it, and what kind of retail they want. He admitted that they have not accomplished that yet. Mr. Quarstein asked Mr. Middleton if they have studied the impact of tourism and hotels, and asked why are they just starting now? Mr. Middleton stated they have lodging investors who are very interested in the Presidio, and that they test the market and see if it works. If it doesn’t work they try something else. The reason they are doing this now is that they felt it was important to get their financial house in order and to be able to show potential investors that the Presidio Trust would be able maintain the property and the grounds. Mr. Quarstein asked what type of limits have been placed on new construction when it comes to viewhsheds. He replied height. Mr. Quarstein continued: the structures, do you have guidelines, and how do you sell them? Middleton replied that they do have design guidelines; that they have established whereas the whole Presidio is part of a National Historic Landmark District, so everything they do must work within their programmatic agreement with the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. They have height limits and demonstration guidelines. They have their own planning department, they give permits, so it is a one stop shop. John Quarstein asked what made them decide leasing as opposed to rent or sale? Which option would have brought in more revenue? Does he think that by using leases they have an effective revenue screen, and how are the buildings that they lease effectively protected; are there easements on them? Middleton replied, they mostly do leases because they don’t have the capital to put into the building. So they do a long term lease, hoping the lessee will take advantage of tax credits that are substantial, 20% of costs, and use that toward renovation of the building. They take a lesser annual rent until they have amortized the investment over a number of years. If they had the capital they would probably put the money in themselves, although they wouldn’t be able to use the historic tax credits. On housing they wanted to take advantage of the market going up, so they put the money in. They rent them on a year to year basis. With regard to easements, they are very particular, their leases have boiler plate language that defines what changes the lessee can and cannot make. They require interpretive display in every single nonresidential building in the Presidio, so that people coming into the building can understand the history. There are maintenance covenants also incorporated into leases. They found that people in the San Francisco area that leased from the Presidio were just as apt to enter a long term lease as a sale. Mr. Joseph Spencer expressed concern to Mr. Middleton that if they have a $70,000,000 operating budget of which 60% of the property is residential, there are obvious services that need to be provided--police, fire, schools waste management--and since this is entirely a federal facility does part of your $70,000,000 operating budget include those services? Mr. Middleton explained that they do have police department and a fire department, they do not have schools, but use the local schools. Since they do not have property taxes, they have a Service District Charge in lieu of a property tax. This goes to pay for the park, the common areas, police, fire and municipal services. Mr. Spencer asked if part of their budget was to reimburse the local governments for the schools through that service charge? Mr. Middleton replied that they have not had to do that as of yet. Chairman Bryant asked if the transistion from the Army to the Presidio Trust went smoothly. Mr. Middleton replied that it did not go smoothly, that there was a period of downtime where the facility just sat. The Army left in 1994, with the BRAC announcement made in 1989. The Park Service grappled with what to do with the buildings and infrastructure, and the legislation was going through Congress to create the Presidio Trust. There was a period where nothing happened. He strongly advises to not to let that happen. An example was by turning the heat off to the buildings they ended up with 10 to 20 million dollars more in capital costs as a result of mold, buckled floors, and other damage. Mr. Middleton stated that it is important to keep things moving, and that he is impressed with how well Fort Monroe has been maintained. Secretary Wagner asked if the cleanup cost was in addition to the $200,000,000 seed money received from the Federal Government. Mr. Middleton replied the cleanup cost was in addition to that. Secretary Wagner asked if altogether about $300,000,000 has been invested. Mr. Middleton agreed. Ms. Wagner asked who is in charge of the cleanup? Mr. Middleton said the Army was responsible but they worked out a settlement where now the Presidio Trust is handling it. He also added that the private sector has put in close to $500,000,000 over the past 10 years. Dr. Lett asked if they had plans for new housing construction? Mr. Middleton stated that they currently have no plans for building, but they are putting housing units in an old hospital with 250 appartments. There are places where there will be housing where it wasn’t before. They do have some Wherry housing like Fort Monroe’s which will probably be taken out since it will wear out. As it wears out they will consider replacing it. That will be the only instance in which they will build new housing. Mr. Harper asked if there been issues with local environmental clubs like the Sierra Club? Mr. Middleton replied yes, that he sometimes thinks there is a group for every tree they have on the Presidio. Mr. Scott asked about the size of the Presidio versus Fort Monroe. Mr. Middleton said that the Presidio is not quite three times as big, about 1,500 acres, has 6 million square feet of real estate, of which about 1/3 is housing about 2/3 is an assortment of other building types. Mr. Scott asked if the $500,000,000 from the private sector was investments, and was the Lucas building part of that? Middleton replied it includes the Lucas building. Most of that number is money put into buildings by people with long term leases. Mr. Quarstein asked who owns and manages the cannon in the picture of slide being shown? Mr. Middleton replied to date the Park Service claims they own it, the Army claims they own it, and the Presidio Trust would like to own it. Mr. Quarstein asked if Mr. Middleton was saying they had problems with ownership of historical properties. Mr. Middleton stated much of it was turned over to the Park Service. Chairman Bryant thanked Mr. Middleton for his very informative presentation and introduced the next presentation on the Section 106. D. Update on Army Section 106 Chairman Bryant first introduced Ms. Melissa Magowan, Deputy to the Garrison Commander of Fort Monroe to give the Army’s update on the Section 106. (see Appendix V) When Ms. Magowan was done, she asked for questions. As there were none, she finished by thanking the Authority. In the next presentation Chairman Bryant introduced Kathleen Kilpatrick the Director of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources who explained the Programmatic Agreement portion of the Section 106 briefing. (see Appendix VI). She stressed that a programmatic agreement does not freeze in time and would provide the changes that may need to be made over time. At that she turned it over to David Dutton. David Dutton presented an overview of the proposed management zones and treatments which will be approved by the consulting parties and which will be presented at a future FMFADA Board meeting for their review. He added the idea is to have all these parts come together with no one part overwhelming the other. Delegate Gear asked what kind of new construction were they referring to when they spoke of new construction. Mr. Dutton replied they have not gotten into any delineation of needs. Mr. Dutton explained that there are opportunities for development but that it would be done keeping in mind past use and architecture. Ms. Kilpatrick added that she wanted to make it clear they are not calling for new construction. They are setting the fences should the reuse plan and the circumstances call for new construction. Any replacement should not be overwhelming and should respect the size and design and scale and height in particular. John Quarstein asked would buildings like Wherry housing be considered to be part of the mix of new housing that Delegate Gear referred to? Ms. Kilpatrick said if any of the housing is replaced it would be keeping with the current size and scale. Ms. Kilpatrick added that they really do not answer those questions, they set the boundaries of what would be allowed if certain decisions are made. Mr. Quarstein asked if they address housing that was previously on Fort Monoe that no longer existed like the part of Wherry housing that was torn down after Hurricane Isabel, and housing that was on Fort Monroe in the 60’s that no longer exists. Ms. Kilpatrick said any retention or restoration would be designed in keeping with scale. She also added that since viewsheds are an important issue throughout the property that height and scale are important issues. Ms. Gilliam wanted to clarify that the FMFADA is a consulting party in the process and then asked if the FMFADA hired Mr. Dutton to be their representative. Chairman Bryant stated that as correct. There being no additional questions, Chairman Bryant thanked Ms. Magowan, Ms. Kilpatrick & Mr. Dutton for their presentations. E. Update on HUD Homeless Application David Knisely presented an updated timeline.(See Appendix VI) He said that he and Ms. Hunt will boil down the components of the timeline to make it easier to use. He stated that the reuse plan is a very critical component of what his firm needs now. He stated the big picture is that we have a submission we need to make to HUD with 2 components of that being the Reuse Plan and the Housing Assistance Application. He stated that they requested and received an extension of the HUD date and are on line to get the Homeless Assistance Applicaton to HUD in September 2008. He said with the formation of the FMFADA more work on the reuse plan is necessary. He stated that a huge issue in base closure; if facilities are shut down and the Army leaves, it causes difficulties. Since Monroe is well maintained that will help ease the transistion. He said we are looking at a real serious transistion as we move in and the Army moves out, and that this is very achievable by mid 2009. He complimented the City of Hampton on the work they did prior to the FMFADA being formed and said they are responsible for putting the FMFADA in a good position to accomplish this transistion. Mr. Knisely said based on all this we are well on course. Mr. Knisely once again emphasized that the Reuse Plan is the key document and that the Board needs to focus strongly on taking the plan they have along with the input they are receiving because all other tracks on the timeline depend on that plan. Mr. Robert Harper asked how the Presidio addressed this HUD issue when they transistioned. Mr. Knisely said he did not know if the Presidio had the same BRAC requirements since they were a National Park. Chairman Bryant then invited Rick Russ of the City of Hampton to speak on the HUD. Mr. Russ assured the Board that Mr. Knisely’s comments adequately covered his work. Delegate Gear asked what is involved with the Homeless situation. Mr. Knisely answered that we need to look at what the needs of the Homeless are in the region and secondly you need to have a balance based on that. Fort Monroe is unique in that only one portion of it is Federal surplus. Mr. Gear asked if they were talking about moving homeless people on Fort Monroe. Mr. Knisely stated that they are talking about Federal surplus property, not the portion that goes back to Virginia. One way to meet this quota for accommodations is by setting up a fund that would help the approved homeless agency fund its operations on the peninsula. Many bases are looking to do this type of option now. Chairman Bryant highlighted one thing in Mr. Knisely’s presentation: The transition will actually start in 2009, well ahead of the Army’s exit date. Mr. Bryant asked Knisely based on his experience how would he describe where the FMFADA is now relative to the closure. Mr. Knisely said we are well ahead of the curve, although there are daunting challenges. Mr. Knisely concluded by saying we are in good shape but need to focus, focus, focus on the reuse plan. F. Update on Environmental Issues Rick Weeks Chief Deputy of the Virginia Department of Environnmental Quality gave a presentation updating how the investigation is proceeding on munitions at Fort Monroe. He also outlined how they anticipate proceeding with the investigation. Prior to his slide presentation (See Appendix VII) he said they are progressing very well with good cooperation from the Army and they are pleased. He also added they are at the point where they are starting to get more information from the standard investigation and get some of the testing results. At that point Mr. Weeks called for any questions. Since there were no questions, Chairman Bryant proceeded on to the next topic. IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Executive Search Update Chairman Bryant announced that Delegate Hamilton was not in attendance to report a update on the Executive Director Search. He asked Mr. Harper is there were any significant updates at this time. Mr. Harper replied there were none. VI. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Bryant presented a resolution for the FMFADA to enter into the Commonweatlh of Virginia’s Risk Management Plan. The bid was for $833.00 for Directors & Officer’s liability coverage from October 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Chairman Bryant called for a motion as follows: “the FMFADA will enter into the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Risk Management system for its insurance needs.” Mr. Harper seconded the motion, and it was passed unanimously. VII. ADDITIONAL PUB LIC COMMENTS The Chairman called for any additional public comments. (See Appendix I) VIII. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Bryant announced the next meeting on November 27th. He said he would like to propose to the Authoirty that the next meeting consist of a round table discussion following a brief business session. He stated that the Board has gotten many reports in the past meetings but would like for the Board to have a chance for open dialogue among its members, who can voice their concerns, and express what they would like to see in the reuse plan. The Board will be sent a list of questions/issues to prompt the discussion. He added that meanwhile he wanted the Board members to think about what they would like to talk about. He told the Board to email either Ms. Hunt or himself their ideas and questions. Mr. Harper agreed that the open discussion would be a good idea for the next meeting but added that it needed to be structured with topics taking a specified amount of time. Chairman Bryant they could propose specific categories, with issues and questions designed to promote discussion. At that point Secretary Bryant asked if there were any other comments. Dr. Lett asked since the Presidio is not making a payment to the school district for the education services, if they receive Federal Impact Aid for the students on the Presidio that go to the outlying school district. John Quarstein stated that since the Presidio is Federal property and Fort Monroe is Virginia property what difference does that make in taxes and the schools? Chariman Bryant announced if any Board members have follow-up questions for Mr. Middleton, to email them to Ms. Hunt who will follow up and get the answers to those questions. Ms. Hunt advised the Chairman to invite the public to do the same, which he did. Chairman Bryant again asked for any remaining comments. Hearing none he thanked the Authority members for their time and adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted: ________________________________ The Honorable Mamie E. Locke APPENDIXES APPENDIX I – PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Cornelliussen – Representing: Self Mr. Cornelliussen expressed concerns that the Army might need help in announcing the crucial public 106 meetings that will take place in Hampton, Norfolk, Richmond and Washington DC. Mr. Cornelliussen requested anyone who can help with advertising to the public for the sake of public awareness about Fort Monroe take advantage of that. Dr. H.O. Malone – Representing Citizens for Fort Monroe National Park Dr. Malone stated that his gratification to hear a presentation from Craig Middleton, Director of the Presidio Trust. Given the amount of talk and comparisons between Fort Monroe and the Presidio, he thought today’s presentation would offer valuable perspective. In the Section 106 process, in which the Citizens for Fort Monroe National Park is a consulting party, there are major consulting parties--the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Federal Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources--who have made comments asking the Army to examine the model that is presented by the Presidio Trust. He stated that he was glad that FMFADA had asked Mr. Middleton to come so that the FMFADA could look seriously at the Presidio model. Public Comment (continued) Louis Guy – Representing Norfolk Historical Society Mr. Guy congratulated the FMFADA Board on their progress noting that this meeting contained a wealth of information. Ms. Kilpatrick’s presentation helped to pin down the foundation for the steps in the 106 that need to be taken. He believes we are taking steps forward to build the framework for what we are all trying to accomplish. One principal that we have learned from Mr. Middleton’s presentation is to lease and not sell which will provide protection for the future of the resources. Along with this is the premise of not increasing square footage. He stated that another important topic is seed money from the federal government. Mr. Guy has the confidence that we can lay out a reasonable transition program and get the kind of seed money that the Presidio received to help them make the transition. John Quarstein commented that Mr. Middleton did not say not to sell, but that they chose to lease because that was the framework they were given, and the lease was more effective than rent. Square footage could be used for other modern purchases, i.e. , the Lucas Film project. He stated that we need to listen carefully to what we hear. Sam Martin – Representing: Buckroe Citizens Association Mr. Martin tasked the Board to address alternatives. He stated the Board has developed one alternative with three variations. He stated the Board must have a series of legitimate alternatives that expand a range of potential uses of Fort Monroe, perhaps including a National Park. He said the Board must include a number of alternatives in the submission of the reuse plan. John Gergely – Representing: Self Mr. Gergely stated that we should not make Fort Monroe a National Park because it would eliminate the number of potential tourists because they will not be able to carry guns. Christine Gergely – Representing: United Daughters of the Confederacy Ms. Gergely stated that she is concerned with Mr.Middleton’s statement that 60% of the Presidio’s income comes residential. She said Fort Monroe is smaller than the Presidio, and that if 60% of the Fort’s income was from residential that the Fort would be filled with houses. Ms. Gergely said they really do not want additional neighborhoods added to Fort Monroe. APPENDIX II – BRIEFINGS & PRESENTATIONS
|