.

City Police Station Taking Shape in Town Center

Chief Treschuk: Construction is on schedule.

Construction of new headquarters for the Rockville City Police Department is “right on schedule,” Chief Terrance N. Treschuk said this week.

A video slideshow of the day-to-day progress of construction is on display in the lobby of .

Neil Tyra snapped the photos in the slideshow from his law office overlooking the site. Four of the photos appear here.

Police and city officials were scheduled to meet with architects this week for one of a series of meetings to tour the office space, Treschuk said. The periodic inspections are to see if furniture fits and if electrical outlets are in the correct places, he said.

It includes the renovation of the 11,415-square-foot old U.S. Post Office in Town Center and the addition of a 14,538-square-foot freestanding annex in the adjacent lot on the site’s southwest corner.

The $8.6 million project includes the cost of the design and equipment and of moving police operations from their current home on the bottom floor of City Hall to the historic building at the corner of South Washington Street and West Montgomery Avenue.

Costello Construction of Maryland is performing the renovation. Construction is expected to take 12 to 18 months and be completed in late next summer or early fall 2012.

“I couldn’t be more thrilled," Treschuk said. "It just seems to be going well.”

Rockville 11 also is tracking the progress of construction on the new police station. Click each title in bold to view the following videos:

Old Post Office story with Councilman John Britton (February 2011). Rockville 11 goes inside the future home of the Rockville City Police Department with Councilman John Britton, Recreation and Parks Director Burt Hall and police Chief Terrance N. Treschuk.

Police Headquarters Groundbreaking segment (April 2011).
Rockville 11 covers the official groundbreaking of the new Rockville City Police Department at the old Post Office in Rockville Town Center.

On Patrol with Chief Treschuk—Police Department Update (May 2011). Rockville 11 checks in with Chief Terrance N. Treschuk to get an update on construction of the new police department headquarters. The segment includes animation showing what the new construction will look like.

New Police Headquarters Construction Update (August 2011). Rockville 11 gets an update on consturction of the new police department headquarters from Chief Terrance N. Treschuk. "I think that by this time next year we're going to be in the building," Treschuk said in the report.

 Video links courtesy Rockville 11.

Jeff Hawkins August 11, 2011 at 04:52 PM
Are they going to keep the old mural / painting that adorned one of the walls?
Peter Mork August 12, 2011 at 03:40 PM
It's worth keeping in mind that the current mayor voted against funding for the police station (15-Nov-2010) without explanation.
Jeff Hawkins August 12, 2011 at 03:47 PM
Peter, Really? I wonder why? It seems like such a good thing to do...
Peter Mork August 12, 2011 at 03:53 PM
Jeff, you can view the video on the city's website: http://rockvillemd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1387&meta_id=23681 (but you need Silverlight). I'm not willing to conjecture as to why the vote was 3-2 given the paucity of discussion.
Jim Coyle November 02, 2011 at 04:08 PM
Jeff, Unfortunately, the Mayor and several candidates for Council think that wailing against public investments in infrastructure is a waste of public funds. This is the same arguiment for her voting against the Choice Hotel's deal that will benefit the community tremendously. They are pandering to voters who are being told that the taxpayer's money is being wasted. In reality, across the country, redevelopment of town centers are being carried out through puiblic/private partnerships where developers are looking for a commitment from the government for certain investments mostly in infrastructure. This was the formula for our redeveloping town center of which Choice Hotels is now a new partner. The City will recover all of its investments from tax revenues (mostly business costs) over time for the benefit of the entire community.
Jeff Hawkins November 02, 2011 at 05:39 PM
Jim, Yes, the votes against such projects as Choice Hotel and the Post Office/Police Station is troubling. I'm not sure if it has something to do with the "original Urban Renewal" project from the 60's or what. Sometimes I think that fiasco left such a bad taste for everybody who was around here then, of which I was too. Possibly that could explain the Mayors thinking? This is why I can't support the current Mayor and I'm a little torn on one other person. I think Mr. Gajewski will be the next Mayor.
Joseph Jordan November 02, 2011 at 05:41 PM
Jim, could you dig up something even older than this almost 3 month old article? What you fail to say is the money for the parking spaces will now benefit FRIT, not the City, and the entire discussion on Choice would not be possible had not Mr. Gajewski "orchestrated" the release of the minutes of an executive session, under the pretense of "transparency." In fact, in order to have the vote made public, some minutes had to be amended to get the vote in them. There is no record of discussions carried out in those meetings, some that lasted over an hour. The vote would have more meaning had the minutes been more comprehensive. Discussions such as the one around Choice Hotels are held in closed sessions for a reason...the State realizes they would give future developers or other businesses an unfair advanatge and leverage in negotiations with various jurisdictions. A vote worth discussing and a question worth asking is why Gajewski, Pierzchala and Britton saw fit to release these, and one other set of minutes that dealt with a King Farm deal, with no further call for "transparency" forthcoming.
Jim Coyle November 02, 2011 at 08:49 PM
Joe, I don't know the particulars of these executive sessions nor should I according to the law. As you know, there are very specific requirements for the Mayor and Council to go into executive session. I have to assume that the City Attorney agreed to these meetings based on the confidentiality of the issues. The subsequent release of any documents I have to assume was also determined by the City Attorney. This stuff to me is all smoke screen. The real issue is why the Mayor did not support this important development. She had her reasons but most folks don't agree with her. End of story.
Jim Coyle November 02, 2011 at 08:57 PM
Jeff, You may be right about her reasoning. The larger issue is the City's credibility as a partner with the business community. If the City cannot be counted on to make logical financial decisions who will want to invest in our City. To get the Town Center started back in the mid-90's we had to agree to spend public dollars to knock down the old parking garage; it cost us 3 million to do so but look at the results since then. In addition, our AAA bond rating is partly based on the City's willingnees to float bonds to invest in public infrastructure. If we don't continue to do this, our ratings will decline and cost the taxpayers even more than the costs of borrowing which asre at historical lows. In addition, despite the rhetoric, they City has not violated its policy of exceeding the maximum level of per capita debt in the City. The bonding agencies look at this carefully and are confident that the City is running and performing well.
Joseph Jordan November 02, 2011 at 09:18 PM
Maybe you don't know the particulars, but I followed this issue very closely. The City Attorney had nothing to do with releasing the minutes. In addition, I don't think it's up to the city attorney to call executive sessions. The State has done a fine job of letting us know when executive sessions are permitted. I agree with you, these meetings were and are intended to be closed and the proceedings confidential. I am not arguing the vote, I am telling you and anyone else who cares to listen, that Mr. Gajewski made the City clerk jump through hoops to get the minutes of an executive session amended to include a vote that was not in the original minutes, then got his two council allies to vote with him, 3 to 2, to make the minutes of those executive sessions made public. As far as I know, this was unprecedented and wrong on every level. The only reason...only reason...to have done it was to make political hay of it later, as he and so many others have. The argument Gajewski made was that at times it is good to look back and see where we were. Shame on the other two council members that supported this abuse.
Jim Coyle November 03, 2011 at 01:42 AM
Joe, I respect Mark and John and can't fathom that they supported this motion for some campaign objective. In addition, the City Attorney would have objected if this was not a justified decision. I will have to review that discussion to form my own opinion.
Theresa Defino November 03, 2011 at 02:35 AM
This is comical. The mayor can't defend her vote so now her surrogates are trying to claim the vote should have remained secret.
Stephen Kelley November 03, 2011 at 04:38 AM
Well said, Theresa. It's simply a negative campaign against her opponent. I think the Gazette may have even mentioned the negative attacks by her surrogates when they endorsed her oppenent! I'd like say it's time for "new" leadership in Rockville. But really it's just time for leadership in Rockville.
Joseph Jordan November 03, 2011 at 05:24 AM
For the record, I am no one’s surrogate, nor is this an attack any more than what the Gazette and any number of Mr. Gajewski’s “surrogates” have written regarding the Mayor. I am not defending the Mayor’s vote. I am, however, calling into the question the manner in which the vote was made public, and the harm it could cause the City in future dealings with businesses interested in locating in Rockville. The minutes from the March 14, 2011 closed session were amended at the June 20, 2011 council meeting, to include votes that were taken at the original closed session on March 14. The minutes were approved for a second amendment at the August 15, 2011 meeting to include the sentence: "Topic of discussion was additional potential monetary and non-monetary incentives for the Choice Hotels project." Further, there was considerable discussions (over 90 minutes) during the meeting of March 14, all related to same topic, but just as in regular meetings, the City Clerk applied the principle of recording only the actions taken and not what was said. The Mayor and Council did not state an actual motion at the March meeting, but agreed to accept the recommendations of Mr. Silverman (County) and Mr. Bang (State).
Joseph Jordan November 03, 2011 at 05:24 AM
The offer to Choice was submitted by the State and County. The City did not submit its own offer. We know that the City’s incentives included a $156K loan, forgiven if terms are met, $323K in City tax credits, and $180K in waived permit fees, $1.2 M in parking spaces and a good faith effort to rename Middle Lane to Choice Lane. The City’s share represents 25% of the incentives offered Choice, and maybe that is disproportionate, maybe not. The point I am arguing, and the point I would like Ms. Defino, Mr. Kelley, Mr. Coyle and others to comment on is, should our elected officials be making closed session meeting proceedings available, and if they think it’s okay, why stop at things like the Choice Hotels deal? Why not personnel matters…legal matters…closed bids? As a citizen, a voter, I cannot honestly assess if the vote for or against the deal was in the best interest of the City because I have nothing to tell me what went on for 90 minutes. It very well could be the Mayor presented an alternate plan, but all we have is Mr. Gajewski’s word that she didn’t. I am sorry, but that isn’t enough for me.
Theresa Defino November 03, 2011 at 11:01 AM
Ok, if this is really your point: "It very well could be the Mayor presented an alternate plan, but all we have is Mr. Gajewski’s word that she didn’t. I am sorry, but that isn’t enough for me..." i fail to see why you don't simply ask her. You spend considerable time with her. Why are you looking to anyone but her for the answer? She has never corrected the record if she thinks it is being wrongly stated. And at every debate she's been asked about this, she has never ONCE said, "they rejected my alternate plan" or even given a hint that she had floated other ideas. That's coming from her and corroborated by witnesses, so that's good enough for me. There are many other "mystery" no votes, like against street paving, the bonds and the snow removal assistance plans that warrant scrutiny. It's all about her record. As far as the open meeting issue--it's a red herring not a pattern, and not worth debating. I have no feels either way.
Theresa Defino November 03, 2011 at 11:04 AM
lol too early -- feelings either way. See you at the polls, Joe!
Jim Coyle November 04, 2011 at 03:30 PM
I agree with Joe's one point about Executive Meeting mi nutes being kept confidential. I think this question needs to go to the City Attorney for a response. There are legitimate reasons for this and they must be upheld unless there is a legal decision to do otherwise.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something