Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Building topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Martinsville council votes to pursue City Hall renovation; mayor vetoes architect selection
Summary
The Martinsville Common Council voted 4–2 with one abstention to move forward with renovating and expanding City Hall and to contract ARC Design Inc. for design work. Mayor Kenneth W. Costin vetoed the motion, citing concerns about including a specific architect in the vote and noting the override would require a two-thirds majority.
The Martinsville Common Council voted Monday to pursue renovation and expansion of the existing City Hall and to negotiate a contract with ARC Design Incorporated for architectural and engineering services, but Mayor Kenneth W. Costin vetoed the measure before it could take effect.
The motion, as read into the record, directed staff to “negotiate with and secure from ARC Design Incorporated a contract for professional architectural and engineering services for the renovation expansion of the existing Martinsville City Hall facility.” The roll call showed four ayes, two nays and one abstention; councilors who voted in favor were Phil Deckard (the second), Josh Barron, Ben Mahan and Anne Miller. John Badger and Susie Lipps voted no; Phil Deckard Sr. abstained.
Council members debated whether the city should build a new municipal facility or renovate and add on to the existing City Hall. Speakers cited differing cost estimates and funding limits during the discussion: councilors referenced ARC’s higher-end estimate presented during workshops (about $9,500,000) and a financial-advisor figure for the city’s maximum bonding capacity of $6,700,000. Councilors also discussed a reported $3,000,000 in city cash reserves for building projects and whether those funds are restricted or must be preserved for other needs.
Susie Lipps, a council member, said she supported restoring and adding on to City Hall but objected to including the architect selection in the current vote: “I agree with the concept of going forward with restoration and the addition, and maintaining the architectural integrity of City Hall, but I disagree with tacking on the architect's selection at this meeting, at this time.”
Council discussion included concerns about preserving original features of the building, notably the former fire-bay areas, and requests for more detailed, apples-to-apples cost comparisons between a new building and renovation. Multiple speakers urged further due diligence including structural inspections and consultations with building users before committing to demolition or major alterations.
After the council vote, Mayor Kenneth W. Costin announced a veto of the motion, citing the motion’s inclusion of a named architectural firm: “I, due to the nature of the motion, naming the architect as part of it, I am vetoing this motion.” The mayor’s veto means the measure will return to the council; overriding the veto would require a two-thirds majority vote.
Council members and staff said ARC had been asked to provide schematic plans and a schedule, and staff indicated that construction drawings and public bidding would follow any final design decision. Multiple speakers reminded the council that final project costs would only be known after schematic design and the public bid process.
Public commenters and some council members also stressed historic-preservation concerns tied to City Hall, urging the council to consider preserving original sections of the building and to pursue careful documentation and inspection before any demolition. Preservation advocates noted related artifacts in the community that they would like to see conserved.
The council is expected to revisit the municipal buildings discussion at its next regular meeting on May 12. With the mayor’s veto in place, council members said they will have to decide whether to modify the motion, remove the architect selection, or seek a supermajority to override the veto.
