Fort Monroe funding undecided

247-4633

March 26, 2007

HAMPTON -- When the new Federal Area Development Authority meets to ponder the future of Fort Monroe for the first time, who will pay for it?

The bill that creates the new authority -- which replaces a seven-person Hampton body that has been on the job for two years -- does not answer that question.

"The governor had indicated that he would take care of the money," state Del. Tom Gear, R-Hampton, said Friday.

Gear sponsored the legislation, which is expected to be signed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine by today. [[It was signed on Friday, March 23.]]

But Rick Siger, deputy secretary of commerce and trade and the designated contact for the new body, would only say "we're looking to identify appropriate sources (of funding)."

Siger, who added that he was reluctant to speak on behalf of a board that does not yet exist, said the governor's office considers Hampton a partner.

Partners tend to share expenses. "Nothing precludes (financial) involvement by the city of Hampton," Siger said.

A $319,500 item for authority expenses was in the city's tentative budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1.

"The bulk of the cost should be on the state," City Manager Jesse Wallace told the City Council last week. "My intent is that costs be transferred to the state, but there will be some costs that will have to be funded by Hampton. We just don't know what that is yet."

Mayor Ross Kearney II knew.

"All of it should be on the state," he insisted. "We've got $1 million in this that we're never going to see again."

By sundown Wednesday, the $319,500 budget item had disappeared.

Hampton's ceasing financial support for the authority is one of the few things on which political adversaries Gear and Kearney agree.

"I hadn't heard that," Gear said of a notion that the city might still be on the financial hook. "That's a surprise to me. I think the state should (pay). It's the state's land."

When the Army leaves Fort Monroe in September 2011, most of the land reverts to the state, which provided it when the fort was built almost two centuries ago.

To some extent, the people who will take over the authority understand the city's stance.

"We recognize that the city of Hampton has made a sizeable commitment" in the Fort Monroe re-use process, Siger said.

Since the local authority came into being when Fort Monroe went on the Defense Department's Base Realignment and Closure hit list, Hampton has borne its expense. Wallace has served as executive director. The city staff has committed countless hours to the body's work. And council members Joe Spencer and Charlie Sapp are on the authority.[[Actually, they are not.]]

"I felt like it was the right thing because the City Council appointed the (authority)," said Wallace. "But I've got a city to run."

The new authority is expected to hire a full-time executive director, and a staff will have to be retained. The body also will have to consider the future of six contracts involving planning, government liaison and other support that have been entered into by the old authority. Each of the contracts has a 30-day cancellation provision.

And when and where will the new authority meet? An April 9 gathering at Fort Monroe has been set, Wallace said, but Siger would only say, "It's one of the dates on the list that we are talking about."

What is known is that, even though Fort Monroe's closure is more than four years off, time is getting short.

"BRAC is complicated," Wallace said of the Base Realignment and Closure process. "Everything has to be done in their timeline."

Though Hampton is trying to get out of the financing end of the Federal Area Development Authority, the city will have seven representatives on it when the 18 members sit down for their first meeting.

The Hampton members' charge will be to reduce an estimated 7-percent loss to the city's economy that closing the fort will bring.

"It's all we've ever wanted: a seat at the table," Wallace said.[[For the record, Hampton got at least seven seats at the table.]]

No matter who pays for it. [[At Citizens for a Fort Monroe National Park, we would agree that Fort Monroe should never have been defined as the responsibility of Hampton's taxpayers and should not be their responsibility in the future, since Fort Monroe belongs to the public generally.]]

Fort Monroe funding undecided

The bill creating a new authority on the post's future doesn't specify who pays.