AGENDA DATE: 10/11/2017
TITLE: Government Operations/Courts Relocation Opportunities Analysis - Advisory Services Update
BODY
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Progress update by the consultant and staff on the status of work related to their evaluation to analyze the feasibility, cost, benefits, partnership opportunities and other impacts to relocate Courts and/or County Administrative functions to a County location.
ITEM TYPE: Presentation
STAFF CONTACT(S): Walker, Letteri, Catlin, Kamptner, Henry
PRESENTER (S): Trevor Henry
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY: Douglas C. Walker
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County has been engaged for some time in a thorough analysis and assessment of the County’s future court needs and the best way to meet those needs. The Board of Supervisors discussed five potential options with an opportunity for public comment last October 24, 2016. The court expansion project reflects a major investment of County funds and is the most expensive project in the County’s Capital Improvement Program budget; therefore, the Board is particularly interested in giving County taxpayers an opportunity to review the identified options and provide comment.
Following that meeting, the Board adopted a resolution on November 2, 2016 directing staff to fully explore and pursue partnership possibilities that deliver the most cost efficient economic benefit to County residents while preserving accessible Court facilities by relocating either Court facilities and/or County administration offices to an urban area in the County. The resolution also directed that these possibilities should be explored and vetted by the County prior to engaging in additional negotiations with the City about the Court facilities remaining in their downtown Charlottesville location, so that the Board has fully developed options to make an informed decision about the future direction of the Court facilities expansion project. At the December 14, 2016 Board meeting, staff presented a proposed process for moving forward with the exploration of a public/private partnership (P3) to relocate the courts and/or County administration to a site in Albemarle County. At the conclusion of the presentation, the Board directed staff to proceed as proposed. Staff then developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) and proceeded with the solicitation process to contract with a Development Services Advisor during the spring; staff selected and contracted with Stantec Consulting Services in June 2017. Stantec presented at the June 14, 2017 Board meeting, introducing the project team, and providing a general schedule update and an overview on P3’s.
This work supports two strategic plan initiatives: Redevelop Rio/Route 29 Intersection Area; and By June 2019, establish direction, complete design, and be under construction for the project to expand the General District.
STRATEGIC PLAN: Infrastructure Investment: Prioritize, plan, and invest in critical infrastructure that responds to past and future changes and improves the capacity to serve community needs; Thriving Development Areas: Attract quality employment, commercial, and high density residential uses into development areas by providing services and infrastructure that encourage redevelopment and private investment while protecting the quality of neighborhoods.
DISCUSSION: The County previously defined five potential options for the Courts project with two primarily remaining in consideration.
• Option 1: Renovation of the existing downtown courts complex for the Circuit Court and expansion of the General District Court on the Levy Opera House parcel, which is co-owned between the County and City of Charlottesville.
• Option 5: Build a new General District Court, Circuit Court and associated functions on a parcel in Albemarle County’s designated development area, presumptive location identified as the Rio Road/Route 29 area.
The Board established in the November 2, 2016 resolution that the Courts project, in any scenario, must ensure the fair and equitable administration of justice. The Board also directed staff to investigate the potential to which this project could promote its highest strategic priorities of urban development, redevelopment and revitalization. The Board also directed staff to further analyze the extent to which Option 5 would be sufficient to encourage a developer to enter a P3 integrating the Courthouse and/or County Administration Building as part of or adjacent to a larger mixed-use development. The consultant is also analyzing the potential economic impact that might result from a relocation of the courts and/or Administrative building, as well as from new development that could jump-start the revitalization of a district and increase the taxable value of the properties over time.
The deliverables of the Developer Advisory work are:
Review data related to Option 1 with a specific focus on understanding the adjacencies of the Courts to the City Courts and impacts of separating them through an adjacency study.
Analyze the feasibility, cost, benefits and other impacts of Option 5, with the following sub-options:
a. Court House Complex Only
b. County Office Administrative Building Only
c. Combined facility
Some of the key questions to be answered are:
1. Will the addition of the Courthouse function generate sufficient additional buying power to serve as an anchor to allow a developer to create a commercial or mixed use center; likewise, for a County Administrative Building or a combined facility?
2. What is the development cost of these options initially and over time; annual carrying cost (dependent on financing mechanism); and annual operating cost?
3. To what extent could relocation of the courts and/or Administrative Building serve as a catalyst to achieve strategic goals of redevelopment?
4. Are there hurdles for developing one scenario vs. another?
5. What are the other benefits, financial or otherwise of one scenario over another?
6. What are the potential downsides and negative implications of each option?
The purpose of today’s Board presentation is to provide a brief status/update of work in progress by staff and Stantec, focusing primarily to delineate decision “factors” and priorities the BOS has related to the Courts/County office building (COB) relocation considerations to assist the analysis process and ultimate decision-making. Stantec will also share best practices from other examples of P3 negotiations, including purpose/process of RFP for a potential P3 and typical private negotiations.
In advance of this meeting, Board members are encouraged to reflect on what criteria/factors will be most important to bring this process to a final conclusion, and what relative priority those factors should assume. The intended outcome for the meeting on the 11th will be to develop Board consensus on a decision framework, which will also be critical in developing and organizing the final material for the Board’s consideration in November and December.
BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impacts at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:ReNone at this time.
ATTACHMENTS: Click here to enter text.