Richmond delays decision on Red Oak Victory relocation study, asks for more fiscal and legal analysis
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A proposal to hire Liftech Consultants for $299,797 to study relocating the historic SS Red Oak Victory prompted sharp public debate about costs, ownership and public subsidies. Council voted to rehear the item and return in two months with additional information including National Park Service input and funding options.
The Richmond City Council on Feb. 4 stopped short of approving a planning contract for the SS Red Oak Victory and instead voted to rehear the matter and return with more data in two months.
Port Director Charles Gerard asked the council to approve a $299,797 contract with LiftTech Consultants to prepare planning and preliminary design for relocating the ship from Basin 5 to a site adjacent to the Richmond Ferry Terminal parking lot. Gerard described the move as a potential way to improve visibility, boost visitorship and free Basin 5 for commercial uses. He told the council the rough port estimate for relocation work is "between $15 and $20,000,000," and said the port enterprise fund would pay for the study.
The Red Oak is owned by the Richmond Museum Association (RMA) and has been leased at $1 per year under a 2013 agreement that provides the port an annual loan offset; Gerard said the offset amounted to about $143,000 in fiscal year 2025. He and other port staff said the LiftTech engagement would develop two or three schematic design options, estimate permitting needs and costs, and provide a 15% level preliminary design to support any future grant applications.
Public speakers were sharply divided. Karen Buchanan, president of the Richmond Museum Association board, told the council RMA "supports agenda item O.1" and that the study would be limited to assessing feasibility and cost, "and does not authorize or commit to the physical relocation of the ship at this time." By contrast, Don Gosney and others urged caution and asked for a cost-benefit analysis before spending city or port funds. Preservation-minded volunteers warned the proposed site could expose the ship to different tidal and wave forces and urged reinvestment where it currently sits.
Council members pressed port staff on the financial mechanics and legal risks. Council Member Jimenez asked whether the $143,000 offset was effectively a charitable subsidy and how the offset is treated in the port's enterprise accounting; staff said the credit reduces the port's debt to the city and said finance would prepare a fuller analysis. Staff also acknowledged that final funding for any move would likely require multiple sources — fundraising by RMA, congressional appropriations, grants or bond funding — and that the study would show whether the move is feasible.
After public comment and extended council questions, the council voted to rehear the matter and return in two months with additional information and a National Park Service briefing. The motion passed with Council Member Brown abstaining and Council Member Jimenez voting no.
What happens next: The port will not proceed with the LiftTech contract authorization at this meeting. The council asked staff to provide more-detailed financial and legal analyses and to reconvene with the matter after those materials, and after opportunities for further public input.