Clarence E. Lightner Public Safety Center Vote Delayed

Today’s council meeting again saw Bonner Gaylord and John Odom finding an unlikely ally in Thomas Crowder. The three have pushed back on the new Clarence E. Lightner Public Safety Center. Crowder and the other two councilmen have pushed for more scrutiny on the project. Lightner will be a downtown showpiece and a fitting home for our growing public services. Services that, in the next decade, will have to expand to serve double the existing population.

The construction of Lightner along with several other municipal projects, including a solid waste treatment facility, will require an increase in property taxes 3 cents on every $100 of valuation. That has caused an increased scrutiny on the details and cost of the project.

Some of the criticism of the building has been unfounded. For instance Bonner Gaylord in his initial public statements on the building exclaimed about a “Penthouse” since then the architects have come forward to show that penthouse was actually for housing climate control equipment. The building is also about reaching for higher goals and moving downtown forward. Michael Stevenson, AIA of Kling Stubbins, the lead architecture firm for the project, presented to the council last February and outlined the goals as:

enhancing the readiness and effectiveness of public safety agencies, creating a high quality work environment for City employees, creating a positive image and experience of City government for the public, creating a symbol of sustainability for our City and region, promoting the livable streets initiative and enhancing the Nash Square Neighborhood, create long term value for the City and to serve the public.

A lofty set of goals for the building, but all things that the final design has tried to address.

Today Michael Stevenson and other representatives of Kling Stubbins presented to the council an cost-benefit analysis of individual features of the building. Following this Police Chief Harry Dolan presented a summary of the Police Department’s needs met by the new building. At this stage most of the costly planning and design work has been done and the pending vote is to go forward with construction of the skyscraper.

In the end the council voted today to delay the vote on the building’s construction for two weeks. Citizens in support and opposition of this project wait pensively.

Renderings of the Building

ROB01/05 03:47 PM

get rid of those two dickheads please!

CF01/05 03:57 PM

Damn. I’ve been checking this site all day in hope of some good news about this bulding’s approval. Guess It will be another 2 weeks at best.

gd01/05 10:51 PM

it will be boring as hell to look at when it finally gets approved.

joe01/05 10:56 PM

unfortunately, those two ‘dickheads’ were just elected and we’ll get to hear them say “NO” to every project proposed for the next 2 years.

on a related note, does John Odom’s combover rival “The Donald”?

Nick01/06 12:37 PM

While the city will benefit from something like this I think its fine to do due diligence when we are talking about spending this amount of money. I would love to see this cost-benefit analysis that was done the the firm that was hired to design the building. Sounds a little fishy to me. Does anyone know where to get this from?

ct01/06 01:17 PM

It was stupid for Gaylord and Odom to jump to conclusions about “penthouse”. However, it’s politically smart for Council to question why this building costs $200 million. The RBC Plaza not far away is twice the height but was built for only $136 million. Even McFarlane expressed concern. I tbelieve it’s the first time she has ever deviated from a Meeker position.

joe01/06 02:50 PM

ct,

drawing a cost comparasion between a Class A office/residential building versus a public safety center is not a good comparison. On simple reason is that the walls must be reinforced signficantly more than for office (ie: concrete and steel).

This building is also being built to ‘green standards’ which are more expensive, granted however the long term support costs for such a building offset upfront costs. This building is being built with a 30-50 year horizon, a very long time by building standards.

Finally, this building will also serve as a model for sustainable design for the City going forward (plus there are federal and state tax credits available for certain aspects of ‘green building).

ct01/06 02:56 PM

Sorry, but I happen to be an engineer and I do not believe that the reinforced construction goes all the way up to the 16th floor. Most of the top floors, as I have read about the project, are just routine Class A construction. As for green and sustainable expenditures, it’s a great idea—but there is a point beyond which it’s not economically justifiable. I would also point out that RBC Plaza spent considerable money on attractiveness; a utilitarian version of the RBC Plaza could probably have been brought in at $115 million.

kh01/06 07:49 PM

One correction is that the Public Safety Center only will cost $141 million of the financial package put together. It also must contain all redundant systems so that if any or all utilities in Raleigh are out, this building and all the important functions that we so easily expect to always be available (such as police & 911) can continue to function in an emergency.

ct01/06 08:54 PM

This sounds better. What’s other $60 million for?

kh01/06 09:36 PM

In brief, my understanding is the building is $141M, with the cost to relocate & pay rent/buy property for the short term relocation of the police, etc & demo of current building bringing it to $205M. The additional $45M covers public works projects that the city also wants to finance at this time.

(See below for the info I found on ENR.com)

“Combined in the financing would be an additional $250 million worth of remote operations projects that would build more locations for city services such as street, parks and vehicle maintenance. A new solid waste plant in east Raleigh would be included.”

“That would mean the property tax rate would likely climb as much as 3 cents over the next five years—from the current tax rate of $0.375 for every $100 of a home’s assessed value to $0.405, according to financing models Allen showed the city council. Each penny increase would mean an extra $20 a year for a home with an assessed worth of $200,000.”

“Any tax increase would have to be approved in June when the council decides its budget. The earliest it could go into effect would be January 2011. Allen points out that the tax rate in the city is only a penny higher now than it was 20 years ago and that the current facilities are outdated given the speed of Raleigh’s growth over the past few decades.”

As a personal side note, I am from Wilmington & was absolutely floored when I read that Raleigh’s City Tax Rate is only 1 cent higher than it was 20 years ago!! That would be a fantasy in Wilmington.

ct01/06 09:49 PM

There are two reasons why the Raleigh tax rate isn’t higher. One: when the Republicans took over the city and county in the mid-1990s, they lowered taxes (note that the sky did not fall as some said it would). Two: the city’s property tax base has rapidly expanded, providing Raleigh with much higher revenue even at a flat millage rate. Whether the Raleigh property tax base will continue to expand rapidly over the next 20 years is a matter of debate.

np01/06 11:14 PM

CT- people you are exactly why Raleigh will continue to have ugly, crap buildings. go to europe and take a look around at what amazing buildings they have over there, in all shapes and sizes, and in all size cities/towns. the culture there actually values design and holds architecture with regard… here it’s all about the bottom line. our buildings don’t last and they certainly don’t make anyone (the user or the public) feel good about them or feel good in them. this building isn’t the best thing i’ve ever seen, but it’s far nicer than just about any other new building downtown.

“green and sustainable expenditures aren’t economically justifiably”... WOW.

ct01/06 11:38 PM

NP, I have probably spent more time in Europe than you and almost certainly have spent more time in Asia (where some of the really great modern architecture is these days) than you. Architects of public buildings can do fine work and it doesn’t necessarily cost a fortune—they just have to be managed that way. On the other hand, taxing everyone in the city so the design expectations of a few can be achieved is just another form of elitism. And if you’re going to quote me, quote me in full. I wrote, “As for green and sustainable expenditures, it’s a great idea—but there is a point beyond which it’s not economically justifiable.” Well of course that’s true. I don’t have solar panels on the roof of my house—and I suspect you don’t either—because it’s simply not cost-effective to do so. My point is that the green/sustainable portion of a project is a fair question and that anything can be taken to unjustified extremes.

ROB01/07 09:58 AM

just build the damn thing point is raleigh needs this right now. some things are priority and this is one. who cares about the cost the city act like they aint got money and folk act like they cant pay a lil more in tax for something necessary. besides if the POLICE CHIEF HIMSELF says he needs a better facility then damit give it to him im sure he knows better what facilities they need than a couple of retard city councilmen. say what you want but meeker has vision the others that are apposing DONT! besides raleigh needs serious density in downtown, even des moines iowa downtown looks better than raleigh downtown which was completely shocking… damn!!! if you dont like it go live in rocky mount or something GTFOH!!!!!

ambrose01/07 11:16 AM

Next Friday… 8pm. The exciting conclusion. Who has spent more time in Europe… CT or NP?

np01/07 11:41 AM

ha! that’s hilarious, ambrose. CT wins, i am sure. he can have his utilitarian version of the RBC all to himself.

Captain01/12 10:04 AM

In it’s effect, this could be the most important building that Raleigh would ever receive. We shouldn’t sit around and arrogantly stare at the articles that describe Raleigh ‘as one of the best cities in America’. There are sound reasons for that being the case, and we should continue to provide reasoning for citizens to take pride in their city.

People are coming here in herds, which is fantastic for culture, concepts, and tax-base. We should ensure that the canvas we paint on everyday is a clean and safe one. We can spend our money making this the case, or spend triple this amount combating the problems that arise in the future.

A commitment to Public Safety such as this will bring businesses into the downtown districts.

Safety is a top priority for citizens considering any area. Citizens are a top priority for any business deciding where set up shop. Citizens are the individuals that start new businesses in the area.

We are looking for wholesome, healthy growth in Downtown Raleigh, and I believe that it starts with infrastructure that supports the people. If you object to a possible tax increase that would support the Health and Safety of Raleigh, then you should look back at what some tax increases have supported in the past, or the lack thereof.

We have a choice to follow the paths of other cities before us, or learn from their decisions and apply the most successful choices to our growth.

Take a poll.. Which large city model would work best for Raleigh now, in 2010?

I understand needing more time to make decisions, but show up to the ‘decision date’ with your homework done. That is why you were elected.

Let’s not make this a political argument, for everyone has their reasoning. You have to grow the tomato before you can eat it, so don’t sit down and wait for lunch if you haven’t contributed.

Captain

ROB01/13 07:27 AM

good point captain

ZAREMA03/19 08:41 AM

Thanks the author for article. The main thing do not forget about users, and continue in the same spirit.

Welcome to New Raleigh. We welcome your participation in the ongoing discussion. Before posting we ask that you read our Comment Policy and we invite you to register with our site. If you want to keep up with the news on our blog, subscribe to the RSS feed or get emailed every time we post.

David Tuesday, January 05, 2010