Question Everything

Public Involvement--More or Less?

2011-08-23T07:52:00.000-07:00

While some see an engaged public as an important component of local governance; others believe that it can go too far becoming an impediment to progress. Fredericksburg has experienced significant public involvement in local government. From the rezoning of Celebrate Virginia to incentives for Kalahari city residents have actively engaged in the decision- making process. While the city still faces many challenges, some believe that public involvement has declined. How should this decline be viewed? How involved should the public be in their local government? And how should, local government respond to the public?

Over the past few weeks I have been in contact with a number of residents who have been involved in city issues to get their take on public involvement in the city. The vast majority agree that public participation in local government has declined. The main reason given was, "what's the use... it's a done deal." Another point made more than once was," Some cannot afford the luxury to spend time to be knowledgeable and outspoken on issues and have to work extra/spend more time making ends meet." Other contributing factors put forward were a lack of information made available by the city; and a failure of the local press to be," willing to do the work to present both sides."

Based on discussions with city staff, and statements made by members of the City Council, they would take issue with the position that they are responsible for a decline in public participation. They note that the city adheres to opening meeting laws and residents have access to minutes and documents on line. Those with questions can contact the appropriate staff. However, is meeting the requirements of open meeting laws enough?

Meeting the letter of the open meeting laws is a rather passive approach leaving it up to residents to attend meetings and do their own research. It also requires a working understanding of such things as zoning law and city/state ordinances. But its greatest short- coming is that it's not a very effective way of informing the public at large. These shortcomings of meeting the letter of the law on open meeting laws was highlighted by an individual who responded to my e-mail inquiry on public participation in regard to the courts.

The Council has held a public hearing on the courts (albeit limited to which court complex to build), has posted the proposals on line and set up an e-mail address for public comments. As far as the city is concerned it has met its duty to the public. Some would disagree:

" When the court bids came in, I was very much looking forward to participating, including plans to read through each of the bids (no trivial task), evaluate them as best I could, and provide meaningful feedback to the decision makers in the process.

Then the city hired an outside firm to study the bids, and kept their report out of the public domain. They used the information in that report to help them narrow the field.

I felt like a stooge. My attitude immediately changed, and here's why: Why should I spend ANY time evaluating bids that were going to be tossed out based on criteria that were kept secret? I don't have a problem with using professionals to evaluate bids. It's probably even wise. But when you keep those results secret from me, I can't evaluate the validity of the report."

Add to this the fact that comments to the e-mail address are not acknowledged. That City Council is not informing the public of their positions on the issues, voting without comment, and referring questions to staff seems to justify the perception of many who say, "what's the use," in getting involved, "it's a done deal."

It has been intimated by some that too much public involvement is counterproductive. Such participation delays the decision making process and creates a chaotic atmosphere that puts the city in a bad light. Their view is we elect a City Council to make decisions.

One example brought forward to support this view was the construction of the downtown hotel. Sometimes referred to as the, "Third Battle of Fredericksburg." this issue was hotly debated. At times it looked like there would be no hotel and some felt that the debate would negatively impact future economic development opportunities. In the end, instead of a cookie -cutter hotel the city now has a successful one that fits the downtown character and is an industry model.

What those who see such a process as time-consuming and chaotic fail to recognize that by encouraging public involvement different perspectives are presented, suppositions are tested, and other alternatives are bought forward. Just as important, addressing public comments, questions, and concerns builds community support. An assumption is also made that if he public does not come forward on an issue it means they support it. This assumption is both baseless, and more importantly, irrelevant.

Local government is here to serve the needs of the community which also provides the money to meet those needs. In that regard they have a vested interest in local government and should expect their views to be considered and be well informed of the actions being taken on their behalf. Meeting this obligation calls for more than only doing what is required by law. So what should be expected?

Right now city staff is not only called upon to field comments and questions from the public but is also called upon by the City Council to explain the city's actions to the public. While staff has always been accommodating to resident inquires their primary function is running the city. The job of informing the public, and encouraging their participation, should rest with the City Council.

Issues need to be discussed outside of council chambers. Council members should engage the public through neighborhood meetings, writing OpEds, giving interviews, and using the internet. Such efforts need to occur well before public hearings and/or votes to insured that the public is familiar with all aspects and options related to the issue at hand. While the public should not expect council members to share their view on an issue but they should expect their questions answered, suggestions considered, and concerns addressed.

The local press needs to be an active participant in this effort by providing background, cover differing views, and report council members positions. Also to provide Council the opportunity to write OpEds on the issues of the day. The shared goal of the council and the press should be to ensure the public has the information necessary to engage in the discussion.

The public should also be viewed as a resource to assist in the decision-making process. By taking pro-active steps to ensure a well-informed public the city will benefit from an informed debate on the issues facing the city. The city has had some success with establishing committees of residents with expertise on an issue, an interest in the issue, and/or who have divergent views on an issue, to build consensus and ensure that all options were considered.

The view From City Hall is that they are doing what is required to inform the public. This is tantamount to saying public involvement is something to be dealt with not embraced. This attitude, in part, has contributed to the decline of public participation. The result is a wealth of knowledge, new ideas, and different perspectives not being considered or utilized. At a time when the city is facing many challenges we can use all the help we can get. And there needs to be a realization of who the boss is--The public.

Shoul public involvement be viewed as a help or a hinderance to local governance?

Oversized Housing--Where Are We?

2011-07-31T10:11:00.000-07:00

Addition 8/1/2011: Thanks to a more observant individual I have included a link to the attachment, including the Clarion report on the changes, which was presented at the Council's 1/25/2011 work session. Provides a bit more detail. Don't believe it alters the point of the blog post but I shall leave that final determination up to the reader.

In 2007 responding to resident concerns about the building of oversized houses, "McMansions;" which were seen to detract from the character of established neighborhoods, City Council began to look at tightening zoning regulations to deal with this issue. Almost four years later Council, at its last meeting, voted, without comment, on first read to make those changes. What has occurred, or not occurred, in getting to this point is of interest on a number of levels. Beyond the obvious (property rights) other aspects to consider are the interaction between City Council and the public, the continuity of the process, the use of consultants, and making other changes not related to the original intent of the effort. We will touch on these points as we follow the process from the beginning.

The issue of out-of-scale housing came out of the City's Comprehensive Plan review process. The plan, which was approved in late 2007, was the culmination of an effort by the city to actively engage the public in the review process -- a novel approach in comparison with prior reviews which had only involved city staff. Public input brought the issue of oversized housing to the fore. In response City Council asked the Planning Commission, without specific recommendations, to come up with zoning changes to deal with it.

Working with staff the Planning Commission submitted a proposal to City Council in February 2008. The highlights were outlined in a February 23, 2008 story in the Free-Lance Star (FLS):

In residential districts, the maximum allowed height of a house would go from 35 feet (or 40 in the R-8 district) to 27 feet. In commercial-transitional districts, the height limit would be set at 27 feet for single-family homes, and 40 feet for all other structures.

A building footprint would not be allowed to cover more than 30 percent of its lot. Front porches and uncovered decks don't count as part of that footprint. For lots less than 40 feet wide, the maximum lot coverage would be 40 percent.

New homes would have to be oriented on their properties similarly to those around them.

Property owners would have to seek a special-use permit to build something that doesn't fit within these guidelines.

The FLS story covered the issues which lead up to the effort to deal with oversized homes and included comments from both sides of the issue. The story also came out well in advance of the Public Hearing before City Council giving the public an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed changes and to be prepared for the upcoming hearing.

This is how the local government process should work. The city actively engaging the public to define an issue -- information presented to the public to both familiarize them with both the details and differing views on the issue well in advance of any action being taken. Unfortunately, this was the last time the public was going to be engaged in this process.

What was lacking at this point was any clear policy direction from City Council. While some members of Council, myself included, felt the recommended changes were a good balance between property rights and dealing with oversized homes, a minority of members expressed reservations that the recommendations didn't go far enough.

As pointed out in an FLS story some members of Council felt, " the proposed height limit would still allow new homes or additions in some neighborhoods to be significantly taller than their neighbors," and why couldn't we, "craft an ordinance that put new construction in perspective with what's around it, instead of setting one rule for every neighborhood in a particular zoning category." But no specifics were provided. And no specific direction was given to the Planning Commission by the Council.

When the Council has policy differences on an issue that directly affects a large segment of the public there should be a discussion before the public to both inform, solicit feedback, and make a case for a particular policy. This did not happen in the case of the Planning Commissions' 2008 recommendations and, as we shall see, it has not happened in regard to the latest changes being considered by Council.

Those who spoke at the public hearing either took the position that the proposed changes were an infringement on the rights of property owners to develop their property or supported the ordinance changes. No significant changes or alternate proposals were proposed by the public or City Council. Council took no action sending the proposed changes back to the Planning Commission without any instructions to either modify or change what they had proposed.

The issue would not come up again until August when a joint meeting between the Council and Planning Commission took place to discuss the next step. Again general reservations were expressed by some Council members that the proposed changes didn't go far enough but, " council members seemed OK with bringing the Planning Commission's original proposal back up for a vote." The proposed changes were to be brought back up the following month. They did not come back to Council until February 2010 and that was only due to an e-mail inquiry received from the press.

On February 2, 2010 I received the following e-mail from Emily Battle of the Free Lance Star:

"The last time I see this ordinance on the public schedule is August 2008, when the council had a work session with the planning commission about it. It was said at that point that it would come up on the agenda the next month, but from what I can tell it just dropped off the face of the earth after that. If you can think of a more recent time it came up, let me know, I've been looking through the agendas."

I didn't have an explanation as to why the proposed changes to deal with oversized housing, "just dropped off the face of the earth;" but I did have staff added it to the agenda for a public hearing in February. While most of the public comment was supportive of the changes on this ocassion, some Council members still wanted, " to explore different kinds of zoning tools that could take existing home sizes into consideration in specific areas of town."

At this point It should be pointed out that the concern expressed regarding, "taking existing home size into consideration," was addressed in the Planning Commission recommendations. Below is the wording taken from the proposed ordinance:

"A Special Use Permit may be approved by City Council, in accordance with Division 31, that permits the principle structure to exceed the 27 foot height limit and/or the maximum allowed lot coverage, so long as the City Council determines that the proposed structure will be compatible to the existing structures located in the established block in which it is to be located, in terms of mass, scale and height, and will not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood in which it is to be located."

This change would allow houses to be built, irrespective of zoning regulations, if the home conformed to the houses in the existing neighborhood. This change acknowledged the differences between city neighborhoods.

A motion was made to pass the ordinances as drafted but failed for a lack of a second. Instead, per the Council Minutes, " Councilor Solley made a motion to revisit the setbacks by themselves at the March 9 meeting and a review of the overall ordinance by a committee to include Planning department, Planning Commission, City Attorney and a council member; motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Devine." A request to at least put a time line for the committee to report back to Council was ignored.

This vote marked the end of the Planning Commissions' 2008 recommended changes. What comes next is the hiring of a consulting firm, a different approach to the oversized housing issue and the inclusion of commercial development in neighborhoods. It also marks the end of any public involvement or information on the process beyond the required public hearing notices.

Emily Battle's blog post of February 23, 2010 would be the last story on this issue until the FLS story on July 18, 2011 announcing the first read on the new zoning changes. Even a review of both City Council and Planning Commission minutes provide little insight into the process Council followed or the basis for the current ordinance changes. For those who don't visit the City website on a regular basis here are the latest recommended changes:

For properties that are located within the 100-year regulatory floodplain, structure height shall be measured from existing grade.

Maximum building height for single-family residential is 35ft.

No off-street parking is required for residential infill lots.

For sites of record on or before April 25, 1984, or sites in developed areas where a pattern of building height has already been established by existing residential dwellings, the maximum building height of 35 feet for single family dwellings shall be reduced by a percentage that corresponds to the ratio of the actual lot area to the minimum lot area for the district. The formula for calculating the maximum building heights for structures on such lots shall be as follows: Size of lot (in square feet) divided by standard minimum lot size (8,400 square feet) multiplied by the standard height of 35 feet equals the new maximum height. In no case shall the new maximum height be set lower than 25 feet.

Whenever the residential building on a lot equal to or larger than the minimum lot size covers more than 20% of the total lot area, the side setbacks shall be no less than 10 feet.

Specific commercial uses to be allowed in neighborhoods by Special Use Permit that meet specific guidelines.

These latest changes were drafted by Clarion Associates of Colorado, LLC. This firm has provided consulting services on planning issues in the past. The contract, signed on July 20, 2010, at a cost of $18,000.00, was to provide the following services:

This scope of services proposes a review of all residential zoning district regulations in the Zoning Ordinance, followed by recommended revisions to address the permitted mix of limited non-residential uses in single family residential districts; the allowed height and scale of houses; setback requirements; limitations on heights located within the 100 year floodplain; and off-street parking requirements for infill parcels particularly where established neighborhoods do not have or have very little existing off-street parking.

The contract provides for a presentation to Council during a work session but no public presentations.

It has been confirmed with City Planning staff that the request for outside services was not the result of Council action. In reviewing the Planning Commission minutes from March through July of 2010 there is no mention of hiring outside services, nor for that matter, any discussion at all on the oversized housing issue. As to who made the decision to hire Clarion, why was it necessary to do so, and why was commercial development in neighborhoods added, these are questions that will have to be answered by others. In any event, this step effectively by-passed the Planning Commission.

Based on a review of the Planning Commission Minutes from April 2010 through April, 2011 their involvement in these changes was rather limited. Their first discussion was held on March 30, 2011 as a work session on the revisions drafted by Clarion. These changes do not show up again on the Planning Commission agenda until the public hearings held on May 11th and on June 8th. The Planning Commission seems to have gone from active participants to passive observers.

Based on a review of the minutes of the Planning Commission, the City's planning staff's involvement in drafting the latest ordinance changes was also diminished. While one may have issue with the changes recommended by the staff and Planning Commission back in 2008, a review of the supporting documentation that accompanied those recommendations showed a good grasp of the issue and provided a thorough explanation of the basis for the changes. From what can be found in the public domain the same cannot be said of the Clarion changes.

Trying to determine why commercial development in neighborhoods became interjected into the oversized housing issues is also hard to determine. Planning staff and a member of the Planning Commission I talked with both said that mixed-use development, to include neighborhoods, is part of the Comprehensive Plan. But at the March 30th Planning Commission work session staff, "stressed that this amendment was something new, a plan to promote walk ability and sustainability. For the first time the city was opening up neighborhoods for some commercial uses."

There are no specific recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan regarding commercial development in neighborhoods. One reference under Corridor Issues which calls for," Achieve mixed-use development patterns as redevelopment occurs within Fredericksburg’s designated corridors, blending retail, office, and residential uses." Under Neighborhood Issues the plan calls for preserving the character of existing neighborhoods. Both the Planning Commission and City Council expressed concerns about this change in their respective work sessions but neither body pushed the issue or express their concerns outside the confines of the meetings..

There are pros and cons on allowing the possibility of limited commercial development in neighborhoods. However, the City's past experiences with this issue has not gone smoothly As a Council member I dealt on a number of occasions with neighborhood concerns about commercial encroachment. This issue has been the basis for litigation.

In 2007-08 there was public input to deal with oversized houses. Now an issue, commercial development in neighborhoods, is being considered without a public input. It is also unfortunate that the City was not more forthcoming in the Public Hearing notices which only mentioned, "expanding uses permitted by Special Use Permit." There is no mention of commercial development. This change has nothing to do with the issue of oversized houses and there is no deadline looming that requires immediate action. The issue of commercial development in neighborhoods should be pulled and dealt with as a separate issue.

As for changes related to oversized housing a Council member that was not involved in this issue in 2008 stated that at the one work session held on this issue on January 25th that they were not made aware of the original Planning Commission proposals. One would expect that Council members would have at least compared the two proposals, and why one addressed the issue better than the other. When a decision is being made like this that affects residents' property rights one would expect a similar presentation to the public. But this has not been the case. Even when Council voted to approve the latest changes they did so without comment. An additional and troubling question is raised: where has the public been?

Some would say that because no one has spoken at the scheduled public hearings that there is obvious support for these changes and no explanation is necessary. I would again point out that since February 2008 there have been no stories, OpEds, or interviews on this topic. No effort has been made to educate the public on the latest changes beyond posting changes on the city website and the obligatory public hearing notices which are not always easy to understand or read in small print:

Ordinance 11-__, First Read, Addressing the Issue of Out-Of-Scale Houses in the R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts; Removing the Requirement for Off-Street Parking for New Residences on Infill Lots; Expanding the Uses Permitted by Special Use Permit in the R-4 and R-8 Zoning Districts; and Amending the Definition of Building Height for Buildings in the 100-Year Floodplain; by Amending City Code Chapter 78, “Zoning, Planning and Development,” Article III, “Zoning,” Sections 78-1, 78-112, 78-242, 78-245, 78-273 and 78-276

Even if you go to the city website, check City Council and Planning Commission agendas and minutes you will find very little information, or explanation, of the ordinance changes passed by Council.

I asked some of the people who spoke on the 2008 Planning Commission proposals why they did not attend the Public Hearings on the latest zoning changes. Most said that they were unaware of the hearings. One person said that while he also missed the notices he stated, "why bother?"

Not all expenditures, or decisions to hire outside consultants, require Council approval. The city has met all legal requirements regarding advertising and holding public hearings. The process followed by the city in dealing with oversized houses, for the most part is probably typical of how such issues are dealt with by local governments. The question is whether, only doing what is required is enough?

Because an issue such as ordinance changes to deal with oversized housing impacts most every property owner in the city, should we expect more from City Council than only doing what is required? Or should they be doing what is necessary to inform the public solicit their input, answer their questions and address their concerns? In regard to the latest ordinance changes Council decided to only do what was required . Council needs to explain the process they followed, why hiring a consultant was necessary, and the rationale for choosing one set of changes over the other before they take the final vote.

How far should local government go to infom the public?

Numbers Not Content Is What Counts

2011-05-20T09:09:00.000-07:00

As a member of City Council I made some decisions that did not receive universal acclaim. But in leading up to those decisions I laid out my position in OpEds, news interviews, and on-line. I answered questions and addressed comments no matter if the person involved lived in the city or not. If the question or comment had merit it is immaterial where it came from. As far as I was concerned it was part of my job description. In reading the FLS editorial Courts Forward (Link upper left), I learned I was wrong.

I cannot expect Council to see things as I do and recognize the current shape of the economy and the impacts of a new courts facility on city taxpayers, services, other city priorities, and slow down. What I believe should be expected is that Council would explain their positions, acknowledge what the impacts there will be on the city moving forward with this project, and address comments and questions. And, also to ensure that if they move forward that we get the best return on investment. But again, because only a few people have voiced this view it is irrelevant in the eyes of the media and Council. So what should we expect? Here is the answer provided in the FLS editorial--

"So at least let the sleeper behold a truly handsome and fully functional new courthouse facility. The worst outcome would be a civic sacrifice of finances and opportunities that brought forth a mediocre product."

And what about obligations to the public?

"The council should have invited public input earlier in the selection process, before the embryos were fully formed, and it has played some of its deliberations too close to the vest. Yet attempts by foes of a full-scale courts project--e.g., former Councilman Matt Kelly--to galvanize the citizenry have made little headway."

So, relevancy is based on numbers, informing the public is not a requirement, silence is assent, and if anything goes wrong it will be the fault of city residents. Again speaking for the minority I take issue with this line of thinking. Always thought that through public debate and discussion the best solutions come forward.

So what next? There are still many unanswered questions. Let's take a look at some recent questions submitted to the FLS and get your thoughts on whether they are irrelevant. First to the newsroom--

"There is are some underling questions behind the request for the referendum which I would suggest be asked of Council members. Do they believe that a single public hearing, in what they describe as at least a five year process (beginning with the Mosley study), which was advertised as a discussion on which court facility to build, is sufficient to gage public support for building new court facilities? Do they believe, and I've enclosed the quotes for the FLS I referred to in my presentation, that they took adequate steps to inform the public throughout this process? Can the public expect any further hearing to address the comments and concerns expressed Tuesday night or is one public hearing all that will be provided? Just a suggestion."

To the Editorial Board--

Rob copied me on what he sent on to you. A few points should be made for context:

1. Rob is not the only one with a background in this area which has questioned the scope of the proposals submitted. During the public hearing the project manager for the Spotsy courthouse spoke. He is quoted in the alternative news source as follows: "David Breedon, both a city resident and the project manager for the new $20 million Spotsylvania Courthouse said that the scale of the proposed new city court facilities were too large."

2. Another interesting statement made by Commonwealth Attorney LaBravia Jenkins was that she had never been consulted on the court plans. In talking to some of the proposers they explained that as part of the RFP they were not allowed to talk with anyone involved with the courts.

3. In relation to #2, it was pointed out (I picked this up in a discussion with Hap Connors who was involved in Fed court construction when he was with GSA) that a needs/space assessment was never done. Not even by Mosley when putting their report together in 2006. This process involves on-site inspections and interviews with the people who work in the courts, or use them, to see how things are done and how space is actually used. From this changes can be made in procedures as well as changes noted by Rob in better utilizing space.

4. None of the proposers covered technology in their proposals, as noted by Rob, which present both advantages and challenges. This is a key factor in designing a 21st century courthouse.
5. One would hope that the issues highlighted by Rob were brought up in the Council's closed session. If they were then the question is again why was the info held from the public. If not there is still a lot of work to be done.

6. I agree with Rob that the proposals submitted were done in good faith but when they only have the Mosley report to go by they did the best they could. But under the time line, the open-ended site selection, and rules of the RFP we got what we asked for--"cookie-cutter" proposals which do not deal with the real issues at hand.

7. None of the proposals deal with the parking issue. If, as we are being told, that caseloads are skyrocketing then additional parking is going to be necessary unless we plan on shutting out shoppers and visitors during the week. When discussing the post office site it was made clear that at some point another parking deck would be required just to service the courts.

I still believe that this is not the time to take on a project of this magnitude. I also do not believe this project and its impacts have been adequately explained nor the public given the opportunity to comment. Thought due to the lack of information coming from the city it is difficult to be in a position to comment. Most people I've talked to about this project begin their comments with, "I don't understand....." However, if the Council majority is set to move forward then we should make sure we are getting what we need and not just rushing forward to build something. Right now we seem poised to build a larger than necessary facility based on 20th century technology and thinking. At a minimum Council should not take any further action go back and take the proper steps to make sure we are in fact building a 21st Century courthouse.

So will these questions and comments, and all the others put forward over the past five years remain unaddressed? Should they be addressed or are we just expecting too much from our local elected officials and media?

I would like to get your thoughts.

Incentives for UMW Foundation--A Discussion

2011-05-09T13:32:00.000-07:00

"On the incentives for the Eagle Village hotel there are some question to ask--A hotel has always been part of this project to support the university and hospital. if it was planned to be here anyway why are we providing incentives? If the incentives were not provided would the hotel go away? Doubt it. What is the hospital contributing... to this project? How many hotel rooms are currently in the area and what is the vacancy rate? How are they doing financially? Again, the intent of incentives was to actively recruit businesses that diversify the city's tax base. Are we still just taking what is offered and throwing incentives at it? What is the city's overall plan towards the future economic development of the city? Do we have one?"

"If the case is made that this incentives package meets city goals Council should also take this opportunity to get some commitment out of the university regarding their plans, and city involvement in, future land acquisitions. Land that will potentially be going off the tax rolls. Up to this point the city has not been consulted by... the university regarding land acquisitions. And the Foundation seems to have adopted a "target of opportunity" approach acquiring land without any specific plans for its use. Actual adherence to, and input from the city in, the university's long range plan should also be up for discussion. A city representative on the Board of Visitors could also be a consideration."

These two posts I made on the recent Free-Lance Star story on the Mary Washington Foundation application for incentives to build a new hotel at Eagle Village resulting in an interesting e-mail exchange in which local businessman Rodger Provo took issue with my position. The e-mails were copied to Council members, city staff, UMW President Rick Hurley, Foundation CEO Jeff Rountree, EDA members, and the press. My thanks to Councilman Howe and Foundation CEO Jeff Rountree for their input in this discussion.

Below is the e-mails thread which covers issues such as the city's use of incentives. The merits of the Hotel project. And whether the city should use this opportunity to secure commitments from the university on other issues such as future land acquisitions. It is a good discussion and while some questions put forward have been answered others have not. The question is whether these issues will be discussed, and answers to the questions forthcoming, at Tuesday night's Council meeting?

Get yourself your drink of choice, get comfortable, and let's discuss incentives for a hotel at Eagle Village...............................

Matt -

I read your posting on the Free Lance-Star about this matter. I would suggest to you this opportunity means more to the community and the university than what you appear to want to acknowledge. I seem to recall when you were in office you never took issue with such packages. Now that you are exercising your free speech rights as an activist your position appears to be different. Cheers!

Rodger

******

Well I guess there are at least two of us concerned on the direction in which we are headed, if that’s the case, because I personally agree with Matt’s analysis – for the record!

There really doesn’t seem to be any comprehensive plan embraced by both the City and UMW – just the continued real estate acquisitions of what minimal City land base we have, with the promise of spill-over taxable income in return to off-set our City services expenses.

The master plan expansion for the University places continued stress on the surrounding communities who are struggling to deal with the student population / rental issues, parking issues to provide just a couple examples, of resident complaints I have personally received.

I am equally concerned that we are enabling without a plan the demise of our historic City character into just another College town – as the University continues to expand and gain a larger foot print and a more prominent position, ultimately over shadowing who we are, as a national historical City.

I will offer an observation – case in point, the Rt. 1 UMW Eagle Village walking bridge where travelers are not greeted to the City Fredericksburg – they are greeted to the University – the walking bridge UMW Bill Board is a very clear representative of where we are headed and yet two more walking bridges are planned across City property to accompany the further expansion of the Foundation and University City land grabs.

I am deeply concerned for the City’s ability to retain its historical prominence in the ever growing expansion efforts of the University and concur that we need to address this at a higher planning and economic development level than we have done to date. There definitely needs to be a plan we can all support and embrace offering a balance between further development based on internal pressure for University expansion within the City’s limited foot print, which serves the City, UMW and our citizens - well into the future.

Respectfully,
Fred Howe

*****
I would suggest to all of you that the university is a great asset for the community. We should be grateful it has taken on the task of revitalizing a dead shopping center on Rt. 1. Yes, we do have problems resulting from the presence of UMW in the city, such as the adverse impact of student renting of single family homes in College Heights. Our energies would be better spent working with the university administration relative to that problem that hurts the quality of life of our residents and the value of their homes than getting over exercised about issues I consider to be in the margins.

Rodger Provo

*****
With the recent university land acquisitions, all the construction going on, and announced business openings at Eagle Village some explanation is necessary as to why this one project will not move forward without an incentives package from the city. Has the university/foundation financially over-extended themselves? If that is the case, is Phase II also in jeopardy? Does this also mean that the city should not see any further acquisition of property in the foreseeable future? Don't oppose the hotel concept, said so when it was first discussed, but why incentives now? What other requests can the city expect in the future? Just asking for a public explanation.

As for the issue of future land acquisitions this has been an issue for years. And frankly just, "working with the administration," has not been very productive as is the case on other issues to which Roger alluded. Based on past experience even the University's long-range plan is already suspect. If the University/Foundation are truly looking for a partnership with the city then coming to an agreement with the city in regards to a process for future land acquisitions, and establishing boundaries for future expansion, should not be an issue. The request for incentives by the University is a good time to have that conversation, before taking action, so as to establish a good and open working relationship for the future.

-Matt-

*****
Matt -

It appears to me that you and one member of City Council have a fix on certain issues concerning the university without regards to other matters more important to the community.

The reality is current hotel financial markets are difficult and, though I have no seen a budget for this proposed hotel, I think it probably needs certain considerations from the city, not unlike the massive
tax concession package you so willingly supported for the proposed Celebrate Virginia water park resort that has yet to be funded.

The university acquisitions are a driving force in revitalizing the Rt. 1 corridor that adjoins our neighborhood, College Heights. We should be thrilled with their activity at Eagle Village which has had a positive impact on the city. I think the current UMW administration will work with the city and residents about problems we need resolved and we should not slam the door on them relative to that prospect by being unreasonable relative to their request about the hotel.

It strikes me as odd that you and Mr. Howe are so exercised about this matter, given he has supported two zoning requests that adds more rental units to the city's housing inventory which we do not need. In one case, we got additional townhouses for a portion of a project primarily located in Spotsylvania County that adjoins commercial properties along Rt. 1. That land should have been packaged with the Rt. 1 property for commercial development.

I guess you and Mr. Howe's concerns about our tax base are tainted by who is involved with the property. All of this reminds me of a less productive time in the city's history when one City Council member-activist often used the the college and hospital for political purposes with unproductive attacks and criticisms.

Rodger Provo

*****
Rodger,

There are hotels that will attract new visitors to the area and spur additional development to meet city tourism goals. The primary goal of the hotel proposed by the University/Foundation is to meet a need for both the university and hospital by providing hotel rooms close to their respective facilities. For people who would be coming anyway and would normally stay at another hotel facility like the downtown Marriot. I know that Marriott had conversations with the University as a potential user for their hotel in making their decision to move forward with the project. This is not a criticism it is a reality.

It is also a reality that Eagle Village and even the proposed hotel will have a positive financial impact on the city. Don't know where you get the idea that I am opposed to the University or this specific project. As noted above it has potential impacts on similar facilities in the area. As discussed before the city needs to stop looking at projects in a fishbowl ignoring other outside factors. I also have a concern that no case has been made that this project would not move forward without the incentives package. Is this another example of just taking advantage of the incentives program. Again not a criticism of the university. If I were in Rick's and Jeff's shoes I'd be doing the same thing.

We have had conversations regarding the city's recent use of incentives before and I thought we were in agreement on the lines noted above. It is also a discussion, as you know, that has gone on in the community. Regardless if the project is a downtown bar or a hotel for the university. The city needs to do a better job explaining the use of incentives in meeting the city's overall goals.

As for the issues with the university in other areas such as future land acquisitions I do believe this is a good opportunity for the city and university to come to some kind of understanding and a little leverage doesn't hurt. Especially based on past experiences. It's called negotiating. And I think the city should be looking at more than just space for artwork.

Most of questions, not criticisms, I have put forward should be asked of any applicant for incentives. For example--Meeting city goals, issues of competition, other parties to the deal and what they bring to the table, and finally is there a real need for the incentives.

Finally, I would like to thank-you Rodger for starting this discussion. While we may not agree on all the points it is a discussion that should be taking place. It probably would not have if you didn't start the ball rolling.

-Matt-

*****
Matt -

Given my experiences in the hotel industry, I would suggest to you and others a hotel at Eagle Village will generate new business for the city. It will offer the opportunity for the medical center and university to provide rooms for patient families, student families and attendees for special events, etc. Many communities would love to have a quality medical center and university as a cornerstone of their economy. We should be more grateful for the opportunities we have.

Rodger

*****
Rodger,

As always I do respect your insights and experience but, as is sometimes the case, we may not agree. In this case, our disagreement is not as much about the project itself but rather on the process that has brought it before Council. I have asked a number of questions--not criticisms--which I believe are legitimate in judging the overall merits of this or any project. Some questions are project specific but most should be asked regarding any project that involve incentives. Should they be ignored?
The city does have some legitimate issues, many you have voiced yourself, with UMW. And on occasion you have expressed frustration with the university's response. Again our disagreement is not with the project but whether the city should take the opportunity presented by the university's request for incentives to come up with more concrete solutions that will strengthen the university/city relationship.

Thank-you again for your comments and criticisms. Unfortunately most of those who should be participating in this discussion remain quietly on the sidelines. Yet they will ultimately make the decision on providing incentives for this project. Based on past actions I would surmise that there will be little public discussion on these issues and the incentives package passed. If that is the case it is a great disservice to city residents.

-Matt-

*****
Matt -

I am a real estate guy. The merits of this opportunity are simple .... the city will trade a poorly built 1960s vintage portion of a shopping cheaply updated now with low end businesses and stores and vacancies for a new hotel that will bring new customers to the neighborhood. I think it is a great opportunity.

Rodger

*****
Fred, Matt and Roger,

My apologies for being late to the discussion, but with Graduation and family commitments this weekend, I have been uncharacteristically off email for a few days. Although I’m not exactly sure where to jump in here, let me focus purely on the hotel project and answer one key question that was asked several times…”why the need for a City incentive.”

The answer is very simple, we probably can’t make the numbers work without it. As I will report to Council tomorrow night, the UMW Foundation has discussed this project with 22 banks, with only four positive responses…that is how tight the lenders are right now, especially with hotels. The equity requirements for a hotel developer borders on the ridiculous right now and the preliminary deal we have with our “bank of focus” is contingent on successfully receiving the proposed City and State incentive. Simply put, if we do not get the incentives, that deal will be withdrawn and will need to be restructured in a way that will not work for us.

Please also note that the University (and hospital for that matter) have nothing to do with the hotel ownership or operation…this is purely a UMW Foundation issue.

Hope this answers the question,

Jeff
Jeff W. Rountree

So you now have a handle on the issue does the city move forward with providing incentives? Should the city provide incentives with additional stipulations regarding outstanding issues with the university? Should incentives be denied? Are there other issues you feel were not covered?

I'm a Hypocrite--Reason for Closed Session

2011-04-13T10:44:00.000-07:00

In a recent story in Patch http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/closed-session-cleaves-council-considering-courts my name came up regarding a closed session for the parking deck. Some clarification is in order as well as a comment or two on what happened last night.

In regards to the parking deck the city received a proposal from Donely's Inc. for a five story pre-fab deck. No Request for Proposals (RFP) had been sent out by the city. After a lively public discussion, including public meetings, the scope of the project was changed to a smaller structure and design more in keeping with the character of downtown. At that point the city entered into contract negotiations with Donely's for a different project than what was proposed.

In regards to last night's closed session Council was being presented comparisons of the court facility proposals based on a public RFP which included required specs, and which had been presented in public sessions by the applicants which also included costs. It was made clear that there were no negotiations going on.

The only legitimate reason provided by the City Attorney to go into closed session was that there would be information presented regarding financial statements of the companies involved and information on claims and outstanding litigation involving the applicants. That was the only information that should have been considered for a closed session. There was no legitimate reason given for not holding the majority of this presentation in open session.

And let's look at the reasons given by Council members for keeping the rest of the meeting closed to the public:

--Council needs to talk behind closed doors before they openly debate big decisions like this. No contracts are to be awarded we are just going to ask questions.

--It is the responsibility of Council to use its authority to make decisions like this. We owe it to the taxpayers and the people who elected us to make significant decisions and get the best deal possible.

--Matt Kelly voted to go into closed session for the parking garage project.

Does anyone agree that these are legitimate reasons for a closed session?

There was no legitimate reason given for not holding the majority of this presentation in open session. A different situation that what occurred with the parking deck.

As the process for the parking deck has now been brought up I would invite anyone to search the FLS archives not only on the parking deck, but also the downtown hotel, and schools and compare the amount of public participation involved in those projects as opposed to what is now happening with the court process.

The city had a rancorous, and sometime contentions dialogue with the public which resulted in an award-winning garage /hotel and state of the art schools. Those who have to foot the bill have a right to participate in the process. Council is going out of its way to avoid public dialogue in regard to the courts. Why?

How much public involvement is enough?

Incentives--Are They Successful?

2011-03-20T19:30:00.000-07:00

At a recent City Council meeting, staff stated that the five downtown restaurants awarded incentives, would generate 4.2 million dollars in revenue over the life of the agreements. Council members touted this as evidence of the success of the incentives program.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/022011/02092011/606176

Mayor Tom Tomzak pointed to this number as an example of efforts to, "maintaining an income stream from non-property tax sources."

http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/mayor-says-taxes-must-rise-to-pay-for-services
However, before declaring the incentives program a success, let's take a closer look at the revenue projections; look at factors impacting these numbers; and put them in context with the city's overall revenue picture as well as in context with the long-term economic development goals. Upon closer study, we will see a different story.

First it should be understood that the revenue projections upon which this new revenue is based come from the restaurants involved. But for the sake of our discussion let's accept them as given. The income to be generated from these sales projections will come from three sources--sales tax, meals tax, and Business and Professional Occupational Licenses Tax (BPOL). In the case of Capital Ale, Kybecca, and Bavarian Chef the incentive agreements are for a period of ten-years. For Longstreet's and Castiglia's the agreement s are for five years. Based on projections provided by the City's Economic Development Dept. the yearly average revenue stream for these restaurants will be $465,620.00. Here is the breakdown:

Capital Ale.........$187,600.00
Kybecca.............$ 64,320.00
Bavarian Chef....$125,300.00
Longstreets.........$ 77,600.00
Castiglia's...........$ 10,800.00
TOTAL...............$465,620.00

As noted, each incentive agreement is subject to different lengths and terms but all include a maximum payout. Dividing these pay-outs by the length of each agreement the cost to the city per year are:

Capital Ale...........$ 5,500.00
Kybecca...............$ 8,000.00
Bavarian Chef......$ 9,000.00
Longstreets...........$ 9,250.00
Castiglia's............$ 5,300.00
TOTAL...............$37,050.00

So we are looking at a projected revenue stream to the city of $428,570.00 per year. The inference being made is that this is a net revenue increase to the city. Based on the proposed 2012 budget , staff projects the increases in revenue for meal, sales and BPOL taxes at $830,000.00. This would mean that these five restaurants will account for almost 52% of the proposed increase. However, this is not the case. Let's take at look beyond just the numbers at some of the factors not being considered.

While downtown has gained five new or improved restaurants these new establishments are replacing a number of restaurants that have closed. Therefore, the incentivized restaurants need to cover the lost revenue from its predecessors before the city actually sees new revenue. A related issue is the competition with the already established downtown restaurants.

Downtown is not on what would be considered a major thoroughfare, and does not have the infrastructure, i.e., roads and parking, to support a significant influx of new visitors which the restaurants applying for the incentives factored into the revenue projections provided to the city. We have a lot of available retail/office space downtown that remains vacant because of a lack of adequate parking. Plans to build a courthouse downtown with no parking provided will exacerbate this problem as caseloads continue to grow. More restaurants, and restricted access, means some restaurants may do better but at the expense of others. And will these restaurants by themselves attract new customers downtown? That is one of the primary goal of the incentives program.

A case can be made for providing incentives to Capital Ale, Bavarian Chef and Kybecca for attracting people downtown. Capital Ale had an established record of attracting clientele from outside the area based on their Richmond operations. They also invest in events that would attract visitors downtown. Bavarian Chef also had a record of attracting clientele from well beyond its Madison County location and also provides a new dining experience. Kybecca's wine bar is a unique addition not only in the city but in the region as well. The same cannot be said of the most recent restaurants who received incentives.

The incentive for Castiglia's was centered on a brick oven for pizza. There are already two other brick oven pizzeria's in the area including one in the city. There are five other pizzerias in the area and a number of other restaurants that serve similar fare. Those include another Castiglia's in Spotsylvania and Longstreet's, located on the same street, which also received an incentives package. Longstreet's has no track record nor does it provide a unique experience or menu. Hard Times Cafe, which has locations in the city and Spotsylvania County, has a bar and also pool tables. However, there are a number of other "sports bars" with TVs and similar themes in the area.

What is also a bit perplexing in the case of incentives for Castiglia's and Longstreet's is that both were moving ahead with their projects before applying for incentives. Under these circumstances the city basically gave back revenue that was already coming.

Another factor to consider is the city doesn't seem to be having a problem attracting restaurants. Looking at the Rt. 1 corridor we now have Umi, Miso, Pueblo's, and all the new restaurants at Eagle Village. A number of new restaurants have also opened in Central Park the most talked about being Quaker Steak & Lube. None of these restaurants received incentives. And all, with adequate parking and on major thoroughfares, I would guess they will ultimately have a greater impact on the city's bottom line than the five incentivized restaurants downtown. So one has to ask--What is the point? and what has been the financial impact on the city of all these restaurants?

To gauge the success of the incentives program we need to see an increase in revenues from, "non-property tax sources." That being said, let's take a look at the sales, meals and BPOL tax revenues over the past few years to put the impact of these five restaurants into perspective.

The high point in sales tax revenue was in 2006 when the city collected $12,856,952.00. The projected revenue from these sources in the current draft 2012 budget is $9,750,000.00. Down $3,106,952.00 from the high in 2006. The BPOL high was also in 2006 with total revenue collected at $5,893,564.00. BPOL revenues also dipped and in the 2012 draft budget they are projected at $5,395,000. A loss of $498,364.00 from the 2006 high. Because we have increased the meals tax rate, and modified the discounts paid for on-time filing of meals taxes, exact revenue numbers cannot be provided. But if one backs the recent increase to 2006 , meals tax revenues have been static at best, even with the number of new restaurants opening in the city.

The 2011 budget projected significant decreased revenues in all three areas. As I understand it revenues did turn out better than expected but we have yet to reach 2006 levels. As noted, the projected increase in all three areas in the 2012 budget draft is only $830,000.00 above the projected 2011 budget figures. The projected increase in meals tax is only $180,000.00. The city is still digging itself out of a big hole. So how did we get here and what do we do to turn the economic picture around?

The best explanation on our current state of affairs is provided by City Manager Bev Cameron in his cover letter to the 2010 City Financial Report in which he states, "The dramatic national economic downturn of 2008, coupled with regional competition in the form of increased retail shopping and dining opportunities in neighboring counties, continued to adversely impact most local tax sources during fiscal year 2010. With mortgage foreclosures and unemployment rates at levels not seen in decades, and with real estate and stock market values still sharply down, a prolonged economic recovery seems likely."

Even prior to the economic downturn the city knew that it had become overly reliant on retail development and needed to diversify its tax base. The city had already begun reducing revenue projections prior to 2007, recognizing the negative revenue impact of competition from Stafford and Spotsylvania. It was this recognition that played a role in developing the incentives program in the first place.

The goals discussed for the incentives program were 1) To diversify the tax base focusing on higher end employment opportunities which would also help support retail; 2) Reduce the city's reliance on property tax; 3) Actively recruit business opportunities that not only achieved goals (1) and (2) but also fit or enhanced Fredericksburg's unique historic character.; and 4) That we look for unique opportunities especially those that brought visitors to the city. The measure of success would be a more stable and sustainable tax base as well as increased revenues while minimizing the tax impact on residents.

To ensure its future Fredericksburg needs to keep the focus on the original goals discussed in setting up the incentives program. To fully understanding the current economic dynamics, and being pro-active in its economic development efforts. Unfortunately, the city seems prepared to offer incentives to those who ask, without considering other factors like competition or unique qualities, and ignore the importance of economic diversity. The city seems content to point to a handful of downtown restaurants as evidence of the success of the incentives program. However, the question arises, is that claim of success justified?

As noted, the current revenue picture does not bear out the claim. Additionally, the staff's revenue projections for the coming year do not bear out the claim. What about the statements made that these incentives are examples of, "maintaining an income stream from non-property tax sources." As shown in the chart below the percentage of revenue from property taxes has increased. Revenue from non-property taxes has dropped or remained stagnant. The jump in meals tax percentage is due to the rise in the tax from 5% to 6%.

Revenue Breakdown by Percentage
.............................2009.......2010....2011.....2012
Real Estate.............30%........33%.......33%........34%
Sales Tax................14%........13%.......13%.........13%
Meals Tax................9%.........11%.......11%..........11%
BOL Tax..................7%..........7%.........7%...........7%
Lodging Tax............1%...........1%.........1%.........1%
Admissions Tax.......--.............--.............--..........--

It is clear that the claims of success are a bit premature.

I would acknowledge that the jury is still out on the incentives awarded to date. As noted I have my doubts as to whether, in the case of the downtown restaurants, the revenue impact will be as significant as presented. It should be pointed out that both Capital Ale and Kybecca are meeting their revenue goals. However, the impact on other restaurants cannot be determined beyond looking at the overall revenue figures. A bigger concern is that the City seems content with the direction the incentives program is going and is declaring success. Some have voiced concerns about the approval process but not the projects themselves.

There are significant issues that need to be addressed. The city should hold off on further incentives to re-evaluate the incentives program from top to bottom. The city should not only deal with the process issues but ensure that its focus is on the original goals discussed. It is also important to make clear to the public what the city is trying to achieve with the incentive program and set out benchmarks to measure and ascertain success. The question is, based on council members' comments to date, whether they see any need for such discussions?

What should the role of incentives in the city's future ?

Adendum--Owners of The Bavarian Chef have advised me that they are also meeting incemtive benchmarks as per their agreement with the city.

Last Night's Council Meeting--Incentives

2011-02-09T03:00:00.000-08:00

The success of the incentives is being gauged on revenue projections. Last night staff projected increased revenues of $4 million over the next five years from downtown restaurants who have received incentives. A few questions-- What are those projections based on? Good points were made last night by Council members recognizing potential costs to the city for certain types of business which would affect the city's bottom line. And in the end, when using taxpayers' dollars, the city's bottom line is what is important. What about other factors that impact revenue projections such as competition and limited parking? And what about those projections?

Two of the restaurants who are receiving incentives, Castiglias and Kybecca, are established businesses and are currently paying taxes to the city. In setting up projections are we counting their total revenues per year or just projected increases in revenue after improvements? In regards to the remaining restaurants, Capital Ale, Bavarian Chef and Longstreet's they took over from restaurants which failed. Are we factoring in the lost revenues to the city from the failed restaurants?

Then there is the issue as to whether some of these restauraunts would have either located to Fredericksburg or made improvements without the incetives they were later give. Contrary to some statemetns made the incentive program was not intended to reward business. It was to help ensure the financial stablity of the city and keep the tax burden on city resdients as low as possible.

The questions from Councilors Devine and Solley last night were good ones but they acknowledged that at this point the city has taken a passive approach to the incentives program. The concerns expressed were that any business could apply for incentives. This approach was confirmed by staff that at this point the city is waiting for businesses to apply. The primary intent of the program was not to be passive; or to just make it easier for existing businesses to apply, but rather to pro-active in attracting businesses which met long term goals of economic diversity, sustainability, and attracting businesses that fit the city's character. It's about having the resources to help provide a good quality of life without becoming a financial burden to residents.

The incentive program can help Fredericksburg meet its goal of financial stability while providing an affordable and good quality of life for residents. To date the program has had a positive impact. However, it's time to reevaluate and make changes to the program to ensure it is meeting the goals originally established and that the effort is being made to achieve them. However, one got the sense last night that while Council may be prepared to make some small changes, it is prepared to call the incentives program a success-- simply based on revenue projections. What about sustainability, higher paying jobs, diversifying the city tax base, and city character?

Incentives--From Where We Came to Where We Are

2011-02-05T10:11:00.000-08:00

Some thoughts after reading today's story on incentives in the Free-Lance Star:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/022011/02052011/604459

Incentives should be used to meet economic development goals. Goals which as originally discussed must look beyond just direct impacts of jobs and revenues to include diversification of our tax base, sustainability, more higher paying jobs, and compatibility with the city's character.

In setting up the incentives program it was important to place benchmarks like jobs , revenues, and capital investment to be achieved before tax dollars and fees would be reimbursed. We have dealt with the direct impacts and seem to have stopped and there have been consequences.
For downtown an existing business creating 5 jobs, and $125,000 capital investment and 10 jobs and $250,000 capital investment, are the benchmark for qualifying for incentives. As for job creation we are not differentiating between a $25,000 a year job and a $125,000 a year job. If we take into consideration the costs associated with those jobs the return to the city could also be negatively affected. In regards to capital investment we are looking at revenues to the city of only from $1,000 to $2,150 a year based on the current real estate tax rate. How much of a return are we actually getting? As for revenues projections we base them only on the business' projections but not on the potential impact on other businesses.

Case in point, a new restaurant downtown would probably have a negative impact other downtown restaurants' revenue. Just providing incentives for one sector, i.e., restaurants for example, can be counterproductive.

The benchmarks for Celebrate VA and Eagle Village are 25 jobs and $500,000 capital investment which seems low knowing what type of businesses are planned for those areas. It should also be noted that we have since tweaked our incentive programs to bring them in line with our neighbors. Based on the first come first serve approach one has to question the validity of the incentives program. It should also be remembered than one of our goals was to get away from our reliance on retail/service.

We are failing on two counts. We have forgotten some significant reasons we had for implementing incentives in the first place--diversity, sustainability, more higher paying jobs, and compatibility with the city's character (I'll deal with the Kalahari comments as they come). Secondly, they were put in place so that the city could pro-actively work towards achieving diversity, sustainability, more higher paying jobs, and fitting the city character. It time to reevaluate where we are with incentives and also take a moment to provide the community with the vision of what is to be achieved with them.

Is there a role for incentives in Fredericksburg?

The Fourth Estate And The Courts Issue

2011-01-16T13:19:00.000-08:00

The local press has done a good job informing the public on the events and comments made by all sides relate to the courts issue. However, is reporting on events and quoting officials enough? The issues surrounding the courts have now been under discussion for a little over five years. Have city residents been provided sufficient information to come to an informed conclusion? Based on conversations with residents, following on-line discussions, and e-mails, a lot of questions remain. The question before us is what should we realistically expect from the press in covering an issue of this complexity?

It should be made clear that informing the public on issues like the courts rests with elected officials. While we cannot expect those officials to vote the way we want them to; we can, and should, expect them to make their positions clear, address the pros and cons of a particular action, answer questions, and address concerns. Most would expect the role of the press should be to provide background, clarify positions, at times question those positions, and insure all questions and concerns are addressed. Using this criteria let's review some examples of the press coverage on the Council's last work session with Judge Willis.

FredericksburgPatch, a new on-line news source, provided a good overview of the comments made at the meeting. Judge Urges Action on Court Facilities--
http://fredericksburg.patch.com/articles/judge-urges-action-on-court-facilities
However, the story did not go beyond just quoting the participants, leaving a lot of questions unanswered. The Vice-Mayor stated, "We have the potential to handle substantial debt," said Greenlaw, noting that the cost to borrow money is "about as cheap as it's ever going to be." This statement begs a number of questions. How does the Vice-Mayor support her position that the city can handle substantial debt? How is this debt going to be paid for? What impacts will taking on this debt have on other city projects and on the city bond rating?

Judge Willis was quoted as saying in regard to the city providing new court facilities, "It's also a legal obligation," said Willis. "If you neglect your lawful obligations, there can be repercussions." Again, no follow-up. What repercussions? Was Judge Willis referring to state code 15.2-1643? What are his views on the General Assembly's vote to place a moratorium on judicial action as outlined in 15.2-1643 through 2012? And most importantly--What exactly are a locality's obligation to the courts?

In the Free-Lance Star story, Long-Term Court Fix Urged,
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/012011/01122011/600259
the reader is given a good overview of the meeting to include pointing out some inaccuracies in statements made. It was pointed out in the story that Judge Willis' statement related to a possible regional option was inaccurate. "Willis discouraged council members from spending time looking at developing a regional courts system with a neighboring locality to share some of that burden. "I think you're going to find it's not possible." The reporter did note that in fact there exist regional court facilities in the state. However, there is no further clarification-- Is it a realistic option for the city? What is the status of court needs in Spotsylvania and Stafford our potential partners? How do the other regional court systems work? Are they really cost effective?

Judge Willis was also quoted regarding rising case loads, "Willis said the system is already exceeding those projections by five years, as the Interstate 95 corridor and the density of housing--particularly rental properties--in the city drive crime rates up." Some follow-up questions to ask--Are there procedural changes that could impact case loads? What impacts will technology have on courts in the future? What impact has unfilled judgeships had on caseloads?

Both stories provided a good overview of what was discussed at the meeting. What I believe is missing is accountability on the part of the participants to justify their positions and have them tested. What is not being discussed is also an issue. A number of legitimate questions have been asked regarding the courts that remain unanswered. Because the stories focus on the particulars of the meeting, and are limited to the comments made, other questions are not being addressed. The participants seem to control the story. If they don't talk about it it's not going to be covered.

It should be pretty clear from the number of questions that could be asked from the few examples provided that this is a complex issue and we cannot expect to see everything covered in a single story. However, that does not preclude follow-up stories focusing on one aspect of the courts debate. To date most stories seem to have been driven by meetings and not by an effort to explain a complex issue to the public.

These observation are not a reflection on the reporters themselves. One has to be impressed with how a reporter can write a news story understanding that they are subject to deadlines, cooperation of the individuals involved in the story, space limitations, competing stories, and the whims of editors. A number of these limitations are outside the reporters direct control--You can't make someone answer a question for example. Also it should be understood that the length, subject and angle of a story is ultimately in the hands of an editor. Some important decisions concerning coverage of the courts issue will have to come from a higher level.

This brings us back to the question of what we can realistically expect from the press on covering a story like this? It should be understood that I have no background in journalism and have no specific answers regarding what we should expect--only more questions. I'm hoping others with more experience and talent will put their two cents into this discussion.

For my part, acknowledging that I am getting a bit redundant, the courts issue is potentially the most expensive capital project in the city's history. Embarking on it at a time of great economic uncertainty has serious implications to the city's future well being. The issue deserves a thorough debate and the reality is the press has a part to play. Not only of informing the public on what is being said; but more importantly, making sure all the questions are being asked, and answered.

What is your opinion of the press coverage of the courts issue?

Tonight's Work Session With Judge Willis

2011-01-11T19:24:00.000-08:00

A quick synopsis of tonight's Council work session with Judge Willis--

1. From Judge Willis--Those opposed to court construction at this time have a political agenda.

2. From Judge Willis--By state law Virginia jurisdictions must have their own court facilities so stop talking about regional solutions. Somebody needs to tell Prince William County/ Manassas/ Manassas Park and Frederick Co./Winchester and I think four other jurisdiction that they are breaking the law by having joint court facilities.

3. Mayor Tomzak thanked Judge Willis for clearing that up the fallacy of a regional approach. City staff did not saying anything. Not quite true. City Attorney Dooley acknowledged after the meeting was over that there are multi-jurisdictional court facilities in the state.

4. Councilwoman Greenlaw--The city has low taxes, is in good financial shape compared to most, interest rates are low, the city should get a cheaper bids now that the economy is in the tanks, so this would be a good time to move forward.

5. Councilwoman Devine--Building the court should be a city priority however she did acknowledge we are faced with the worst economy in a generation which may slow things down but she feels the Council is committed to building a new court facility.

6. Judge Willis--When questioned about the dire financial picture, other city priorities, and trying to maintain services, and whether he would consider some short term security fixes the answer was no. We must have new facilities. He is looking for Council to keep moving on the two year time line stating that the financial situation will improve.

7. Judge Willis--The Council has done its due diligence and needs to move forward with picking a new construction plan now and get the job done.

What was not asked or discussed:

1. Council has referred to the need for new court facilities as a, "moral obligation." How should the city's obligations to other city services such as public safety and education be described?

2. In the Moseley Report, put out before the economic downturn, staff stated that, "a cost of more than about $30 million for new court facilities is not affordable for the City at this time." What has changed in the city's financial picture which justifies spending more now?

3. Staff recommended back in 2006 building on the JDR site--Princess Anne Option C. Why did the Council majority support other options such as the post office, or even the current plan, which exceeded the staff budget recommendations?

4. How will moving forward with the court facilities as planned will affect the City's bond rating?

5. Will moving forward with the court project as currently planned have a negative impact on City priorities and city services?

6. How will the added debt service for the courts affect city capital projects in the future?

7. Staff has said that a tax increase will be required to move forward with the courts. Staff is also recommending tax increases for employee salaries and we can expect the same from the schools. How much of an increase are we looking at for the courts as well as to cover other city priorities?
8. Residential property values have continued to drop and we are facing a significant drop in commercial real estate values when we do the next assessment. The real estate tax rate will have to be increased to just to have revenues break even. How has this been factored in to the decision to move forward with increasing city debt for the courts?

9. Have any other groups outside staff, judges and consultants been contacted about the scope and needs of the courts?

10. How will technology play into the future court needs?

11. When will there be a public presentation to city residents giving them an opportunity to comment as well as receiving an explanation regarding the costs and impact of this project on city priorities and services? They are going to have to pay for it.

I know you have heard this all before but these questions still remain unanswered.

What questions would you like to see answered regarding new Court Facilities?

Arts District--Are We Helping the Arts?

2010-12-22T18:34:00.000-08:00

The new Arts and Cultural District http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1214/8d.pdf
provides a BPOL (Business, Professional, Occupational, Licenses)tax reimbursement to qualifying existing arts establishments of up to a maximum of $250.00 a year for five years. Businesses within the zone that are not arts related but put aside at least 120 square feet for the display of local art also qualifies for the BPOL reduction. There is also provisions for the waiver of city fees of up to $2,000.00 for a new arts business or an expansion of at least 30%. New or expanded arts businesses also qualify for 100% BPOL reimbursement for five years. The total cost of the Arts District in revenue to the city for a year is projected at $11,500.00. There are no revenue or job creation requirements as with the city's other economic development zones. So, how much of a benefit is this ordinance to both the city's art community and the city itself?

The yearly BPOL reimbursement figure is set at $6,500.00 and is based on (40) businesses currently meeting the criteria. That translates to an average reimbursement of only $162.50 a year. For most of the businesses directly related to the arts that average BPOL benefit is probably less if one considers that the number of businesses qualifying include restaurants providing 120 square feet of display space, which will have gross receipts to qualify them for the entire $250.00 reimbursement. If we set the number of restaurants qualifying at say (6) their total reimbursement would be $1,500.00 a year. The average for the remaining (34) businesses would decline to $147.06. Even a $250.00 reimbursement a year will have a negligible impact on the businesses involved.

The same will be the case with new and expanded arts related businesses that qualify for the 100% BPOL tax reimbursement . There is no question that the arts community (including local musicians and bands) are both a cultural and economic asset to the city. They attract visitors from the region and beyond. And after enjoying the arts these visitors eat, shop, and sleep in our city. But if one looks at the typical business model for an arts establishment the profit margin is not great. A few hundred dollars a year probably won't even cover the light bill let alone impact capital or operational costs.

The reimbursement of city fees up to $2,000.00 per project also raises some questions. The cost of renovations, especially within the city's Historic District, and new construction, will be in the 100s of thousands of dollars. Don't believe a one-time waiver of fees is going to tip the scales much in deciding whether or not to locate in the Arts District. Also considering that a large part of the Arts District is in the Historic District the question becomes how much expansion is realistically possible and how much would we really want?

Under the ordinance if a business takes advantage of the tax and fee breaks accorded by the Arts District they are barred from apply for any other incentive program. The city already has both a Tourism Zone(TZ), in which "theaters, cultural arts centers" qualify; and a Historic District Tax Credit (HDTC) program, both that overlap with the Arts District. They do have requirements of their own--performance measures in the case of the TZ and investment criteria with the HDTC. But the benefits to these two are greater than what is applicable to the Arts District. This leads to two questions, 1) Why not consolidate as opposed to just creating new districts and zones in the same areas. 2) If we agree that the arts community is important to the city both culturally and economically should it receive less support than any other type of business?

I do believe the city's arts community is important and should be supported--through marketing, joint ventures with the city, and yes some tax breaks. The job of both the arts community and the city to make the case to the city residents that with some creative thinking, and investment of time and money, by all parties, we can create a win win situation for the arts community and the city. The establishment of the Arts District looks to be more symbolic than substantive. The city can now say they recognize our arts community and that about all the arts community is getting.

How much support should we be providing the arts community? Should we be providing incentives for business at all?

The National Citizens Survey

2010-11-27T11:56:00.000-08:00

City Council just approved the expenditure of $11,400.00 to proceed with sending the National Citizens Survey to 1200 city residents. http://icma.org/en/results/surveying/national_citizen_survey (PDF file for 2101 City Survey Instrument at the bottom of the page) The basis for this action is, "to improve communication between the city and the community." http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1123/11i.pdf Does this effort achieve its goal?

In filling out the National Citizens Survey the respondent will be asked to rate the quality of service from (1) excellent to (4) poor, with (5) being check for-- don't know. One of the many areas to be rated is street repair. Let's take a look at two residents on Stafford Ave. responding to this question based on recent events. In this case both residents mark street repair as (4) poor.

Resident #1's reason for the poor rating is because the bump outs recently installed have not yet been removed which are considered by some as traffic hazards. Resident #2's poor rating for street repair is based on the fact that the bump outs are being taken out which are viewed by others as helping to slow down traffic on Stafford Ave.

Another question hitting close to home relates to rating economic development. Again both respondents rate the city's efforts as poor. Respondent #1 because projects like Kalahari detracts from the city's historic character. Respondent #2 because the city needs to do more to attract development like Kalahari thereby creating more jobs and increased business revenue so their real estate taxes don't go up. The survey cannot reconcile opposing views that are derived from the same answer.

Another potential poor response on street repair would be related to the common complaint regarding the repaving of streets or the perceived need for more traffic signs. Paving, for the most part, is prioritized based on safety, road conditions and use. Most traffic engineers would tell you that more traffic signs by themselves do not necessarily change driver's habits and can actually present a hazard themselves. The survey cannot address the conflict of wants versus logical priorities, best practices, and even costs.

A number of the questions are not related directly to local government. Covering issues related more to the state and federal government. Other cover issues not related to government at all, religious worship and volunteering opportunities, quality of social events etc. There are some questions that will probably not directly related to the respondent--rating zoning, bus service, code issues. In short the National Citizens Survey is a basic one size fits all approach. Though I should point out that one local policy question of the city's choice will be added. I have included a link to the survey above and encourage you to take a look.

The answers regarding city services will, for the most part, be based on the conditions in the neighborhood where the respondent resides. Residents of College Heights which has sidewalks will have a different take on them than will residents in Braehead Woods which does not have sidewalks. The diversity of the city's neighborhoods cannot be addressed in this survey.

It should be pointed out that city staff does not need a survey to tell them about resident issues. They have a pretty good handle on them. The question is having the resources to deal with them. Another piece of the equation that a survey is not going to help with.

So what do we get for this $11,400.00 survey process? A general sense of the level of satisfaction not based on the current realities the city faces; without any indication of the issues on which the answers are based. Under these conditions how useful can this information be? How is this effort improving communication when the respondent doesn't get to expand on their answers or have the opportunity to ask questions?

Fredericksburg is small enough where direct interaction between city representatives and residents through neighborhood meetings, public hearings, and even chats at the grocery store, should still be the primary approach the city takes in communicating with the community. We have a community infrastructure--Lets use it.

Over the years the city has gone through community reviews like, Visions 2000, Concordia, and most recently, extensive community involvement in the Comprehensive Plan. This process not only brought out debate on the issues but also required well reasoned responses to the questions and concerns expressed by the community.

Fredericksburg has a unique character. There are issues the city faces regarding not only maintaining its character but also the quality of life it offers. They are, in a number of cases, complex. A one dimensional one size fits all approach of the National Citizens Survey will not move the discussion on those issues forward. What it will provide are results that could be subject to a number of interpretations and not in context.

Council members will be quick to point out that communications with the community as outlined above will continue. If that is the case, then they need to answer the question of why do we need to spend $11,400.00 on a generic survey? If City Council is truly interested in improving communications between the city and the community then they need to increase efforts to engage the community directly. The give and take of a community dialogue is the definition of communication.

Do you consider sending out a survey an improvement in city and community communication?

Business as Usual or Do What Needs to Be Done?

2010-11-15T18:23:00.000-08:00

" The most damaging phrase in the language is: “It’s always been done that way.”
Rear Admiral Grace Hooper

No matter the adversity there are always opportunities. While presenting significant challenges to local governments in providing levels of service expected by residents; the current precipitous downturn in the economy has given us a good kick in our complacency. Cutting spending by itself is not the answer. Neither is raising taxes when both residents and business are also under significant financial stress. With no end to this situation in the foreseeable future local government must abandon, " the business as usual approach." Instead it must not only restructure itself to do more with less; but also take a long term pro-active approach in planning for development which is sustainable, less susceptible to fluctuations in the economy, and provide the needed revenues to support the services residents expect.

For Fredericksburg future development is the key to whether it can remain an independent city. A recent decision by the City Council, and one about to come before them, will provide some insight as to what road we are about to take--The one we know or the one we need to take.

City Council just approved without comment a change in definitions for I-2 zoning to allow, "transportation recycling facility" (auto junk yards are still excluded) as a Special Use. They then proceeded to grant an Special Use Permit to M & M Auto in the Industrial Park to sell recycled auto parts. It was claimed that 67 jobs would be created over the next five years.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/112010/11112010/587471

One could make a rational argument for such a facility in an industrial park. Jobs are created and revenue will be generated. That is if we accept the, "business as usual" model. http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1109/6a.pdf Text Amendment
http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/1109/6b.pdf Approval of SUP
If we are to take a more long term approach to development to meet the goals of sustainability, stability, and enhanced revenues, this decision by Council raises a question. Is Industrial zoning in the city's best long term interest?

Even in the recently adopted City Comprehensive Plan it recommends that, " rezoning portions of the Blue and Gray Parkway corridor from industrial to commercial uses, which reflects long-term City planning." This entire area would be a good location for a mixed use development which would provide a more diversified workforce and tax base. I would also hazard a guess that the revenue potential would be higher than the existing use.

The city's industrial park borders the Fredericksburg National Battlefield Park along Lee Drive. It is also visible from other parts of the battlefield. I do not believe anyone would question the importance of the National Park to the future economic viability of the city. Yet, under I-2 zoning (Section 78-682 Division 22 of the City Code) building heights can be up to 50' by-right and 90 feet by Special Use Permit.

There was a significant outcry from the community the last time a large building was up for approval (I-Max) on the basis of its impact on the battlefield view shed. While this project involved a structure of a height requiring a Special Use Permit a building of 50 feet, depending on its location could have an equally negative impact of the battlefield view shed. Quite a few years have passed and yet that scenario is still facing us.

It is understood that there are businesses in the industrial park that do employ residents and generate revenue for the city. It is not my intent to belittle what they provide. If there is an argument to be made that maintaining the industrial park is in the city's best long term interest then it needs to be made. That is the question before us. With only 10.4 square miles to work with to generate the revenue to provide services and keep the tax burden down on residents; what is the best use of our available land? And at the same time how do we preserve what makes Fredericksburg unique?

The issue now coming before the city relates again to the possible impact on Fredericksburg unique character, future revenues, and quality of life. The development of the Roper Brother's property across from the Fredericksburg National Battlefield Park entrance at Lee Drive. In this case the city has taken steps to both protect the battlefield as well as plan for transportation needs along the entire Lafayette Blvd corridor. The question at hand is whether the city is prepared to ensure that those plans are followed.

Before the Planning Commission is a proposed by-right development for 88-single family homes on what the City's Comprehensive Plan refers to as Parcel 10-A.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/112010/11122010/587821

In the Comp Plan the preferred use for this parcel is mixed-use. Below are some highlights from the city's Comprehensive Plan as they relate to this parcel and preservation:

• Require comprehensive traffic impact studies for new development, including identifying
impacts and mitigation strategies for all modes of transportation.

• Consider Lafayette Boulevard as the next JumpStart! corridor for development of design guidelines.

• Any significant development on Lafayette Boulevard, opposite Lee Drive, will need to be carefully coordinated with the National Park Service.

• An exceptionally significant site is located in the southwest quadrant of Lafayette Boulevard and the Blue Gray Parkway. Its development, however, will need to respect the National Park property at Lee Drive.

• This parcel has extensive frontage along Lafayette Boulevard, but only a few areas are suitable for a new intersection. The Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Military Park has a major gateway on the east side of Lafayette Boulevard, opposite this parcel and a careful coordination with the National Park Service will be necessary when development plans are considered. The proposed use of the site is mixed use.

• Examine ways to encourage the preservation and/or enhancement of historic assets throughout the planning process.

• Redevelop the area at Lafayette Boulevard and the Blue and Gray Parkway in close coordination with the National Park Service.

In addition to the Comprehensive Plan, the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) developed a long-term transportation plan for the entire Lafayette Blvd corridor from downtown to Rt. 1 to include pedestrian access and protection of the battlefield park. The plan was developed in close consultation with the National Park Service (See Comp Plan highlights). This plan was endorsed by both the City Council and the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors.

http://www.fampo.gwregion.org/lafayetteblvdmultimodalcorridorstudy.html

While Eagle Village was the first project to come under the city's new mixed-use zoning it was developed in part with the Roper Brother's property in mind. All discussions with the developer of this property, until recently, was for a mixed-use project. One of the advantages to the city of developing this property as mixed-use would be that the city could ensure, through the proffer process, that the traffic impacts on Lafayette Blvd could be addressed and the battlefield protected. In short we would follow the plans the city had adopted.

What has happened is that the developer has proposed by-right residential development with a statement that the commercial component would come at some undefined time in the future. Under this scenario the city has no real leverage to ensure that the goals it has set forth will be considered and the traffic impact of this project, on an already sub-standard road, will not be addressed. There is also the possibility, depending on the final road plans for this project, that the long term plan for Lafayette Blvd. , and the visitor's experience to the battlefield park, will be compromised.

To be fair to the developer it is understood that the economic conditions are not good and that this is impacting their decisions regarding this project. It is also understood that the long-term Lafayette Blvd improvements are expensive and the developer cannot be expected to bear a significant portion of the cost. However, should the city for its part, have to settle for even more congestion on Lafayette Blvd? Should the city accept the degradation of the battlefield which has a major impact on our economy ? A lot more discussion and planning needs to be completed before any votes are taken on this project . The question is--Will it happen?

The "business as usual approach" would be to throw-up our hands and let the development move forward as is defending the action (inaction) by pointing to the by-right use and stating there is nothing we can do. If the city is serious about achieving the goals it has set forth it may have to oppose this project on the grounds it is in conflict with the city's Comprehensive Plan and transportation goals. It should be made clear that such an action could come with costs, such as litigation; but I do believe to take the "business as usual" approach will end up costing the city a lot more in the future.

It is easy to just take the line of least resistance and do things as they have always been done. To take a short term "gain" and not worry about the long term consequences. One decision has been made which I hope will spur further discussion on the best use of our limited resource--developable land. A decision is forthcoming which will define how serious the city is in ensuring its future. The city can no longer afford to continue with "business as usual" and must start taking a longer view if Fredericksburg is going to remain an economically viable city that provides a good quality, and affordable, life for its residents.

How do you view the city's future?

Let's Get Ready to Rumble...................

2010-09-19T09:19:00.000-07:00

I believe it was Thomas Paine who wrote-- It is through debate and argument that the best solutions come forward. If he didn't say it I'll take the credit. To properly debate an issue involves more than just putting forward a position. You must both understand, and be able to address, the points made by those presenting the opposing view. To really make this concept work you also have to be willing to accept the premise that the opposing view may have some merit.

Unfortunately today we approach debate as an "either/or" proposition. We have also punted the Tom Paine approach of finding the best solutions through debate and adopted the Elbert Hubbard approach, "If you can't answer a man's arguments, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.” But wait there's worse. Now elected officials are trying to avoid debate all together.

It seems some elected officials have taken a lesson from one of the master of backroom politics, Lyndon Johnson, who said, "You've got to work things out in the cloakroom, and when you've got them worked out, you can debate a little before you vote." The focus is getting a consensus, i.e., four votes on Council, on an issue. Once achieved anything that may threaten that consensus, i.e., public debate, is avoided. Instead of seeing public debate for what it is-- testing the validity of a position, provide different perspectives and approaches to consider; it is seen as only unwanted criticism or politically motivated attacks which could threaten the established consensus.

A number of excuses are put forward to avoid public debate. The two most often heard are that no one shows up for public hearings and/or the same old--insert preferred derogatory description here (See Elbert Hubbard comment above)--people show up. Neither case abrogates an elected officials responsibility to make their position clear to the public and address any and all questions, or concerns expressed, regardless of who puts them forward.

People may not show up in great numbers to attend a public hearing. But if the public is not given an opportunity to voice their opinions before a vote the question will be asked- Why wasn't the public given that opportunity? Or if given the opportunity to comment, and some of those questions come from the, "same old (see above) crowd", or viewed as politically motivate, does that in itself invalidate the question or concerns expressed?

Another factor that plays into the decision to avoid debate is viewing it as a win or lose proposition. That during the debate "flaws" in a position may come to light or a question is asked for which there is no ready answer and someone is perceived as, "ill informed." As painful as it sometimes is we all are prone to error and we can't be expected to have all the answers. It's called human nature and I've never understood why in the political arena we go out of our way to deny our inherent fallibility. One would think that dealing with the "flaws" or taking the time to answer the question before an action is taken will better ensure success.

Finally, for elected officials to be really prepared for debating an issue requires going beyond the information provided by staff. Too often staff presentation either reflect the "consensus" view or that of the staff. There are other solutions out there to be considered and should be brought forward for public discussion. It is up to the elected official to understand all the options and be prepared to debate the merits or faults in all of them.

Ultimately it is the elected official that cast the vote that impacts their community. They, not staff, are responsible for explaining that vote and giving the community every possible opportunity to voice their opinions, questions and concerns. There are no valid excuses to avoid this process.

There does come a point when the debate comes full circle and the same arguments or concerns begin to be repeated. There will never be complete agreement on any issue. All that anyone can expect is to have their questions answered and or their concerns addressed. Hopefully, after a thorough and inclusive debate everyone will have a better understanding of the issue and a solution that reflects that understanding will be the result. Elected officials should be expect to embrace debate--not avoid it.

Are our elected officials providing the proper forum for discussing the important issues of the day?

Courts--A Done Deal?

2010-09-09T18:08:00.000-07:00

At next Tuesday's Council meeting staff will be asking for Council blessing to solicit PPEA (Public-Private Educational Facilities Infrastructure Act) proposals on all concepts brought forward to date regarding court improvements--including all the proposals in the Mosley Report , the post office site, Glave's proposal, (the current Council majority favorite), and the Executive Plaza proposal put forward by Councilman Fred Howe. The resolution's, http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/0914/10b, goal is , " ..to obtain competitive negotiable proposals for various court proposal options to meet the long-term facility and space needs of the Fredericksburg court system." So if passed by Council what does this mean?

1. Any thought of coming up with solutions that address court needs while recognizing the financial constraints the city faces are gone. The Council majority is intent on meeting, "the long-term facility and space needs," of the courts. Translated Council is prepared to sacrifice the city's priorities to meet court needs. They are also prepared to significantly raises taxes, endanger the city's bond rating, for the largest capital project in the city's history which will have negligible benefit to city residents who will have to pay for it.

2. What private design/build team is going to make the investment in time and money on a proposal which does not have the support of a majority of the Council? It is clear that the Executive Plaza proposal does not have majority support. A majority of the Council has at least acknowledged that the post office option is cost prohibitive. The Moseley options were ignored by most of Council because they didn't meet, in their view, all of the courts' future needs. The only proposal that has been endorsed by Council is the Glave Holmes scheme #5, http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2009/1124/9c.pdf , which passed 6-1 at the Council meeting of November 24, 2009. Council is also prepared to endorse the move of the downtown fire station which is a major component of the Glave Holmes proposal. So how many different site proposals do you expect the city will received? If this resolution passes it is an endorsement of the Glave Holmes proposal.

3. Finally, and most importantly, the passage of this resolution, "Approving the Process for Courthouse Development and Planning Using the Public Private Education Facilities and Infrastructure Act of 2002," will mean Council is not prepared to explain to city residents the impact of this project on the city and deprive them of any opportunity to voice their concerns about a project which they will be expected to pay for.

There is no doubt that staff will defend this resolution Tuesday night and take issue that it is not an endorsement of any one proposal. They will also make their case that this vote is not a commitment on the expenditure of funds. I am prepared to debate these points and the issues of court vs. city needs. But what about the Council itself? When are those members who are intent on meeting, "the long-term facility and space needs of the Fredericksburg court system," planning to join this debate?

Do you have a different read on this resolution?

Is This Enough Or Should We Expect More?

2010-09-02T10:12:00.000-07:00

Took my lunch break today to go through the Free Lance-Star archives from January 1, 2006 through today looking at all the stories on the Courts project. Thought it would be interesting to see the comments made by the members on the Council majority who support moving forward with new court facilities to see if one could get an insight into their thinking on the courts. Also to address the comment that has been made by some that we have had a public discussion for the past 4 years and need to move on. The Free Lance-Star is the forum for public information for the city so let's see if the majority has answered the questions put forward in my last post.

The Free Lance-Star has done a great job in covering the courts issue. While the comments from these Council members maybe sparse it does not reflect the number of stories written on the subject. Anyone following the discussions on the court in the paper should be well versed on the issue. What is lacking is any explanation from the Council on the impact this project will have on the city and city taxpayers.

I would point out that Mary Katherine Greenlaw has only been serving the past two years. I have also listed the dates of the stories should one want to go and read the entire story.

Tomzak:
8/25/10--"We'll be talking more about this in public."

7/30/10--"The massing and scaling is unacceptable," Tomzak said of Howe's proposed addition. "The long-term goal is to eventually either trim down or remove the Executive Plaza. This would double it in size, and it would remain in perpetuity."

11/25/2009--"If something happens in that courthouse, with all the public discussion and the studies that have taken place, the city is going to have tremendous liability," he said.

1/27/20090--"The economy has really gone downhill, and we're going to have to pass some of these decisions on to other councils," Tomzak said.

12/10/2008--Fredericksburg Mayor Tom Tomzak said last night that Circuit Court judges have an indirect power to tax city residents.... "I don't like it any more than anybody else," Tomzak said.

12/3/2008--"I think if we don't do it now we will be ordered to do it," Tomzak said. "There is political cover in being ordered to do it. I just don't think it's the right thing to do."

8/3/2008--"The citizens of Fredericksburg are going to spend $60 million-plus on the courthouse, and they need 21st-century technology," Tomzak said.

12/12/2007--"We are between a rock and a hard place," Tomzak told Scott at a work session before last night's meeting. "We want to get as much cover as possible that this is not a discretionary move on the part of the council to spend all this taxpayer money."

Kerry Devine:
12/10/2008--"When we stop working toward the goal of a courthouse facility, that's when that order gets imposed," Devine said. "What's best for the city of Fredericksburg may be for Fredericksburg to stay in control of this project."

12/3/2008--"We're not rushing into this," she said. "By the time we get it built, one would hope we'd be in better financial shape."

12/12/2007-"As long as I keep hearing from the Keating group that we can move forward on that site, I think that gives me the assurances I need," said Vice Mayor Kerry Devine. "Had we been able to secure that earlier, I think we would have made this decision earlier."

12/9/2007--Still, Devine said, the focus of the Comprehensive Plan, JumpStart, the riverfront park and other initiatives has been "to really work with our downtown community and keep the focus downtown."

"I just think if we then say we're going to take this huge piece out of downtown, I just don't think they go hand in hand."

Solley:
8/25/10--Councilman George Solley said the city's capital improvement plan changes, and he doesn't think the $12 million renovation of Executive Plaza should be listed as a savings between the two, calling it misleading. "The CIP plan in the out years is a wish list. It's what we would do if we had the money."

1/28/2009--"The courts have legitimate needs. Whether the state requires us to or not, we need to address them," Councilman George Solley said. "The question is, where is the balance between the courts' needs and the city's ability to meet those needs. And I think we need to take a harder look at what that balance is."

1/14/2009--Councilman George Solley said that when council members made the decision last year to put the courts on the post office site, "We knew it was more expensive."..... He said to stop now, before anybody knows how the recession will work out, or even how much the courts will really cost, "would be based on an incomplete picture."

9/29/2008--"It's not just a nice-to-have thing. It's necessary to our economic health," Councilman George Solley said.

Greenlaw:
8/25/10--Councilwoman Mary Katherine Greenlaw said she doesn't think the Concept H figures can be presented as detailed or final numbers, since the Glave concept had not gone through a final design yet. Also, she pointed out the cost of renovating the square-footage in the General District Court building, a newer facility, would be different than the square-footage renovation costs to Circuit Court, making it difficult to make direct comparisons. "I don't find the estimates to be believable," Greenlaw said.

8/22/10--The reasons are compelling. The existing courts are no longer adequate in terms of space or security. Court case filings continue to grow and stress the staffing and space needs of the Circuit Court, General District Court, and Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. However, the cost for a new facility is huge and the economy is in a serious recession. City staff and Council have struggled to find a way to address court needs in a fiscally responsible plan. We must provide safe, secure, and adequately sized facilities that meet the needs of the future while maintaining the architectural integrity of our historic city.

11/25/2009--"It's not a matter of whether or not the judge decides it's needed," Greenlaw said. "It's just simply needed."

1/27/2009--We have been proceeding thoughtfully all along," Greenlaw said. "Obviously, the economic situation is not improving."

9/29/2008--"This is an economic development project," Councilwoman Mary Katherine Greenlaw said. "People for years have lusted for that post office site. It needs to be redeveloped in a way that brings money into the city."

Are these public comments sufficient justification for the Council majority to move forward with the current court plan and have they adequately explained the project's impact on the city?

Its Time to Step Up to The Plate

2010-08-29T08:38:00.000-07:00

My frustration while on Council during court discussions, which continues today, is the failure of those Council members who support moving forward with the current plan to explain their position beyond rather vague statements like, court order, or moral obligation; while expecting detailed answers on options they do not support. The courts project as currently proposed will be the largest in the city's history and is being considered at a time when the economy is in the dumps. The answers provided by the Council majority thus far are totaling inadequate in light of the challenges the city now faces.

The recent OpEd by Vice-Mayor Greenlaw gave a very good outline of the current court plans but addressed only in passing the reasons for why she supported moving the project forward. I strongly support having a public presentation and public hearing on the impacts the court project will have on city services and priorities. However, why are we having to wait for another staff presentation when the answers should be coming from Council members who must have considered all the implications prior to giving their support for the current course of action?

Below are a list of the questions that have put forward which deserve answers from those Council members who have made up their minds and are prepared to move forward with a $40M court project. Its time they, not staff, explain their positions to the people who will ultimately have to pay for their decision--city residents.

1. Some Council members referred to moving the courts project forward as a "moral obligation." Can you explain what you mean by that? Can you also put your position in context in regard to your views on the city's obligations to public safety and education?

2. Do you believe that the local judiciary can order court facilities be built and that they can also assume control of the project? If so can you provide your reasoning for this position and site examples to back it up?

3. You refused to request a moratorium on implementation of state code section 15.2-1643 on addressing court security issues last year. The General Assembly will grant such a moratorium thru 2012 if requested. Will you support such a request now? If not can you explain your position?

4. Former Council member Joe Wilson has stated that both the Executive Plaza and Maury School were put forward for court use and rejected by the local judiciary as late as 2002. This, along with recent renovation work on the courts, would seem to refute the position put forward that court needs have been ignored and should be addressed now. Do you agree with this position?

5. In the Moseley Report it was made clear that, "a cost of more than about $30 million for new court facilities is not affordable for the City at this time." Do you agree with this statement? If not, why do you feel the city can afford more than 30M and where do you plan on getting the funds to pay for it?

6. Based on the statement above staff recommended building on the JDR site--Princess Anne Option C. Why did you support other options such as the post office, or even the current plan, which exceeded the staff budget recommendations?

7. From the 2010 budget letter--"During a review of the City's ongoing financial situation, Fitch's Rating Service maintained the City's credit rating, but downgraded the outlook to negative. The rating agency cited three factors: declining sales taxes, declining real estate values, and declining fund balance positions." How do you think moving forward with the court facilities as planned will affect the City's bond rating?

8. Do you dispute the contention that to move forward with the court project as planned that it will negatively affect other City priorities and city services? If so, can you elaborate on why you believe this will not be the case?

9. In discussions with some local attorney's there are questions regarding the case load projections as well as court space needs. The impact of technology on court needs has also been brought up. Have you talked with any other groups outside staff, judges and consultants about the scope and needs of the courts? If so, whom have you talked with?

10. Would you support looking at a regional option? Can you please elaborate on your position?

Are there other questions you would like to see Council address?

The Courts--Odds & Ends

2010-08-22T14:20:00.000-07:00

Thanks to the Free Lance Star for covering the debate on new court facilities in Fredericksburg in the Viewpoint section. Each side of the argument was included and I have provided the links for each below:

The case for continuing to move forward with the current roughly 40 million dollar proposal was put forward by Vice Mayor Mary Katherine Greenlaw:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569153

Next Ward #3 Councilman Fred Howe made the case for looking at other options:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569222

And finally yours truly made the case that the city can't afford new court facilities and needs to focus on city priorities in these tight financial times:

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/082010/08222010/569240

You cannot cover everything in an 800 word OpEd so I am going to take a moment to respond to the other two OpEds as well as provide some additional points to consider.

I have to give Councilman Howe credit for acknowledging the current financial situation the city faces and also bringing into the discussion whether the city should be taking more of the its limited real estate off the tax rolls with public buildings. He is looking at the big picture and not just focusing on court needs.

I have some concerns regarding the proposed reuse of Executive Plaza as a court site but will withhold comment on the proposal until after the presentation is made at the 8/25 work session. Again my issue is timing and cost. We need to look at all possible options to include a regional approach and incremental work as opposed to just the only option provided which is build new facilities.

Other than a casual mention of the current financial situation the city faces the Vice Mayor goes right into the current plans for new court facilities ignoring the impact they will have on city needs and priorities. She has validated my comments in my OpEd on how Council has failed to explain the impact of this project on the city and not brought the public into the discussion on a rather large project for which they will have to pay. To condense her OpEd to its most basic points its says--We got a letter from Judge Scott to address court needs, the Council deliberated and came up with the current $40 million plan, and oh by the way, please feel free to comment on it but we are moving forward regardless.

Some Additional Info:

AFFORDABILITY--
As noted there has been some discussion on affordability. There are members of Council and staff who have said the current $40 million option is affordable. Let me let staff comment on this point as it is found on page 66 of the Mosley report: "City staff has indicated that a cost of more than about $30 million for new court facilities is not affordable for the City at this time. As a result, any of these three options are cost prohibitive." Council's response was to start looking at a $60 million option at the Post office site. I would again point out this position was put forward prior to the economic meltdown.

IMPACT OF REGIONAL GROWTH--
On the issue of regional growth pushing the necessity for additional court space lets go back to the Mosley Report, "The city’s population is not expected to grow significantly during the coming years, but continued rapid growth is expected in the surrounding counties. As a result, the Fixed Ratio to City Population model would not seem to be a reliable indicator of future case filings. It predicts no meaningful change in case filings for any of the courts, even though it seems certain that increasing regional population has substantially affected court case loads in the past."

OPERATIONAL SAVINGS--
At some point it has been said that in consolidating the courts there will be operation savings. Well let's see what Glave & Holmes, drafters of the current proposal have to say, "Glave & Holmes Assoc. acknowledged that they did not see any significant savings, but rather some increases, in operational costs. In the Moseley report the number of employees need to operate the facility over the next 20 years will rise from 78 to 118."

THE PROCESS FOR COURT INTERVENTION--
Here is the link to Virginia Code section 15.2-1643,

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-1643

I'll let you come to your own conclusions on whether the local judiciary can mandate court construction.

MORATORIUM ON COURT ACTION--
As noted in my OpEd the General Assembly had placed a moratorium on implementing the process as outlined in 15.2-1643 in the previous budget. They have now extended that action in the new budget, "F. Mandated changes or improvements to court facilities pursuant to § 15.2-1643, Code of Virginia, or otherwise shall be delayed at the request of the local governing body in which the court is located until June 30, 2012. The provisions of this item shall not apply to facilities that were subject to litigation on or before November 30,2008." So even the General Assembly is acknowledging the rather bad financial situation we face. All Council has to do is ask for the moratorium.

WHAT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY--
Some have questioned whether the city has considered the impact of improvements in technology on the growth needs of the courts. To date this question has still not been addressed. Here is a link to a recent story on this topic which was forwarded to Council members,

http://www2.newsvirginian.com/news/2010/jun/06/technology_streamlines_courtrooms-ar-297665/

If you have specific questions or other suggestions or concerns about this issue I would be happy to take a stab at them.

A Little Help on Your Homework

2010-08-01T05:06:00.002-07:00

There seems to be a lot of confusion about exactly what role the local judges have in determining whether, when, and or how court needs are addressed. Below is a link to the State Code section which deals with this issue.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+15.2-1643

I'll let you come to your own conclusions but would appreciate it if you would consider sharing your thoughts on the subject.

2010-08-01T05:06:00.001-07:00

The Courts--The Public's Role

2010-07-30T19:17:00.000-07:00

Councilman Fred Howe, working with local architect Raymond Herlong, has put forward another option to consider to meet future court needs. The plan calls for renovating and adding onto the Executive Plaza and renovating the existing Circuit Court building. As reported in the Free-Lance Star http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2010/072010/07302010/564970 a work session on the proposal is being scheduled for the end of August. I have lost count of the number of work sessions and meetings Council has had on the courts issue.

What I do know is that to date the residents of Fredericksburg, who will ultimately have to foot the bill for whatever option is decided upon, has not been given a forum in which to express their thoughts on the project. Nor has the impact of this project on the City been adequately explained.

When the City embarked on another large capital project--the construction of two new schools--Council went to great lengths to explain to the public the need for the schools, the cost to city taxpayers, and the impact on future budgets and capital projects. They also sought public input.

This has not happened in the case of the courts project in part because a majority on the Council feel we are mandated to build new facilities by the local judiciary. I have posted links to previous blog posts on the subject of the courts project which shows that this is not the case. Also for the past year a moratorium has been in place against any court action. A moratorium Council refused to support.

But even if we were to accept the view that we are facing a court order does that justify not explaining to the public the impact this project will have on their tax rates, city services, schools, and other capital projects? Should city residents not have an opportunity to get answers to their questions and concerns? And should they not have the opportunity to voice their opinions on whether the city should move forward at the current pace?

At the Council meeting of November 24, 2009 Resolution 09-118, Approving a Concept for Courthouse Development and Authorizing the City Manager to Initiate Various Pre-Development Activities (D09-612), was discussed. It was to set the City timeline on moving the downtown fire station and using the existing site for a court complex.

I moved to defer taking action on the resolution until which time, "Council address the following with the public: financing, impact on operating budget and what the City can and cannot do with the courts project." The motion was seconded by Councilman Ellis but was defeated 4-2 with the Vice Mayor being absent. I voted against the resolution which passed on a 5-1 vote.

After the vote members of Council stated that the public would have opportunities to provide public comment as the process continued such as when funds were voted on and when plans were brought forward for approval. But what about a presentation to the public explaining the impact of the project on the city and residents?

Before another vote is taken by City Council on the courts project a public hearing and presentation should be made to explain the project's impact on the tax rate, its impact on future capital projects, additional operating costs, and its impact on other city services such as public safety and schools.

Also, those members of City Council who support moving the courts project forward need to explain why they support this project. If they believe the project is being forced on the city provide specifics as to why that is the case. What are the benefits to city residents in moving this project forward now?

Some members of Council have stated that moving forward on the courts is a, "moral obligation." They need to explain how this obligation compares to the city's obligations to schools, public safety, city services and other city needs.

City residents are facing significant tax increases during a major downturn in the economy. They should expect to have the opportunity to get answers to their questions and concerns in an open forum. Council members need to provide a detailed explanation on the long term costs of the project to the city, and their reasons for moving this project forward at this time.

How do you view the process Council has taken in moving the court project forward?

The Courts vs. Core Services--It's Not One Or The Other!--Isn't It?

2010-02-10T08:53:00.000-08:00

During a recent Council discussion on the court project it became apparent that there is a difference of opinion regarding how to deal with our current financial difficulties and on City priorities. I had just agreed with Councilman Ellis that under the current economic situation no new funding should be provided, nor debt increased, for the court project this year and instead focus on core services--public safety, services, and education. At this point I was told by one of my collogues that I should stop implying that we can only either move the court project forward or maintain services. This came as a bit of a surprise for me.

As it has been reported, almost on a daily basis and in multi-media, localities will see significant reductions in state funding in all areas. One has only to look what local school districts are going through and they are now only dealing with state cuts. Funding at the local level is still up for discussion. Last night we authorized the use of our gas tax funds for snow removal expenses and to make up a $65,000 cut in our road maintenance budget from the state. Even when fully funded the state contribution doesn't cover the city's actual costs.

Local revenue is still lagging and last year the city used almost two million in reserves and the budget still came in lower than the previous year. So we start the coming year already in a hole. We were able to provide some additional funds to the schools last year by bring in designated reserves--a one-time expenditure. We don't have any to use this year.

We have seen the city workforce not only reduced due to attrition, but also no raises, the suspension of a retirement program, and increased benefit costs-- meaning actual salary reductions. We have deferred need maintenance on equipment and capital projects and have reduced funding to core services. And this year's budget will be worse than last years. So you can understand my surprise with the implication that we can both move forward with court project and maintain core services to residents.

My response to my colleague's remark was to ask the City Manager if there was some new funding sources that I was not aware of that could be used for the court project. I was told that bonds would have to be sold and new debt incurred. As previously reported the total cost of the new court facility will translate to 6 to 9 cents on the tax rate. So, to move the court project forward and maintain services will require additional tax increase in addition to those for the courts, and or further reductions in the budget outside of core services.

On the tax front I have already mentioned that sales and related taxes are down or flat. On the real estate side we are soon to go into another assessment cycle and as seen in Spotsylvania the residential market has not bounced back as much as we have hoped. During our last assessment we got in before the drop in the commercial market, which usually lags 12 to 18 months behind residential, so we are now looking at lower commercial values. Taking bets on whether the assessment will be deferred. So how much more can we raise taxes in an already depressed economy with high unemployment?

Although I consider myself a good Republican I do not subscribe to the "No Tax" mantra as stated in a number of previous posts. For me the deciding fact is the benefit of an expenditure in either the area of expanding the tax base and or bettering the quality of life of our residents. Frankly, for the cost involved, and based on the current economic conditions, I don't see any significant benefit in moving forward with the court project. It is my contention, which a majority of my colleagues disagree, that moving forward with the court at this time could be detrimental to our commercial base, services, and quality of life of our residents.

The majority response is that the courts are inadequate and it is our "moral obligation" to replace them. That to move forward now will mean we can get a better price due to the depressed economic conditions. As for our "moral obligation" I thought we owed that to city residents by providing them a good quality of life. As for costs benefits I would point out that you first have to have the money. Right now we don't have it unless we significantly raise taxes. And the argument for the price savings could also be made for deferred projects and infrastructure improvements that will have a more beneficial impact on the city than will a new court facility.

As for additional cuts outside of core services that is an decision which this Council has avoided for three years. Each year we talk about it and each year we give everybody who asks some level of funding. This after two years of telling such groups, or sending letters, advising them not to expect funding next year. And each year the Council says we will talk about budget priorities next year. The question of what services should local government be supporting is one that I have asked repeatedly, and posted on, and am still awaiting an answer. We do need to prioritize our expenditures and the court project should not be high in the list.

I have asked for a public presentation on the court project including an overview of the current city finances, a time line for the project, costs for the design, cost of the project, funding sources for it, and its implication on the budget. And now, based on the comments from some of my collogues, I would expect an explanation from them on how we move the court project forward without impacting core service. And also what do they see as the city's priorities. That presentation should come sooner rather than later.

Do you see the court project as a priority for the city? Are you willing to see services reduced further or pay higher taxes so this project can move forward?

Bad Policy or Do I Just Need to Cut Loose?

2010-01-13T20:16:00.000-08:00

Before addressing the issue at hand; the recently passed noise ordinance, I will disclose some of my life experiences to establish that I am not just a curmudgeon trying to ruin everyone's fun. While we have all "heard" the anecdotal stories related to having a bit too much to drink I will admit that I lived through a lot of them as an undergraduate at Mary Washington College. And while I did not worship at the altar to Led Zeppelin, much to my 17 year old son's disgust, I was known to crank up Bad Company, Pink Floyd, and of course the classic party song "Back in the Saddle" by Aerosmith.

I was for a time content to maintain my arrested state of development until meeting a lovely young lady, to whom I have now been married for the past 30 years, who gave me a swift kick in the (expletive deleted) back onto the road of life. Today I still enjoy cranking up the music of my youth (hearing loss) along with having a Guinness or two with friends. So I have been there and done that--though some of it is still a bit hazy. With my party credentials established we can now go back to the Noise Ordinance.

The city's Noise Ordinance had to be revised (http://fredericksburgva.gov/agenda/2010/0112/10a.pdf) based on recent court decisions. What should have been just another exercise in over complicating a relatively simple issue ( a discussion for another day) was turned up a notch when the Council wanted additional information on whether other localities made special allowances for their downtown commercial districts. Specifically, what were the hours of enforcement. Staff checked (5) localities, Fairfax, Virginia Beach, Alexandria, Williamsburg, and Charlottesville. All five mirrored our ordinance--"... specifying the time of 11:00p.m. as the hour at which common noise disturbances must end..."

In presenting the ordinance staff, based on previous comments from Council, provided an option to push forward the time to 1:00a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights in the downtown commercial district. No recommendations regarding the options were made by staff or requested by Council. The motion, with this change to 1 a.m., passed 6 to 1 with yours truly dissenting. No public statements were made by the majority providing a rationale for changing the time. My reason for not supporting the motion was nothing was presented to support the need for a change that could negatively impact downtown residents.

So why did we make the change? No one or group from the downtown business community requested it. As far as I'm aware no effort was made to discuss this with the downtown business community to determine their views or those of downtown residents. No other localities were identified that have adopted such a change. And no reasons were presented, in public, to support it? The reasons provided after the meeting centered on revenue.

It was suggested that to limit noise downtown before 1 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights (actually a misnomer with the times actually being 1 a.m. on Saturday and Sunday mornings) could negatively impact revenue and by extending the hours (noise) more revenue could be generated. So the assumption was that more or less noise downtown had a direct correlation with revenue raised by the purchase of alcohol. I say alcohol because not a lot of food in purchased between 11p.m. and 1a.m. Nothing was presented to support that assumption. My guess is no such effort to establish such a correlation has been attempted.

It was also suggested that there are those who will leave an establishment if the band has to stop playing at 11p.m. There is nothing to support that music will have to stop at 11p.m. just because of the noise ordinance. And again nothing was presented to support the supposition that a when a band stops playing sales drop. Finally, having observed the clientele leaving the bars downtown at closing time first hand with our police department I would have to say I heard and saw a lot that would earn at least an R-rating but I don't remember any comments about the bands.

Finally it was put forward that by not extending the time to 1 a.m. could possibly result in people going elsewhere like to the neighboring counties. Yet I didn't hear any questions during the discussions on the ordinance on how the counties handle noise. I couldn't tell you what hours, if any, the counties set in their noise ordinance and I will go out on a limb and say that none of my colleagues do either. So how do you take such a position when you have nothing to support it?

And what about the impact of this change on downtown residents? Well, I was told, you have to expect some inconveniences when you live in a downtown setting--I agree. I agree that living downtown presents parking problems and the level of activity is such that residents do have to deal with more commotion that do residents in neighborhoods. Does that mean we are justified in adding to those inconveniences? Not unless there is some positive results that are derived that could justify the added inconvenience. In the case of extending the hours of the noise ordinance nothing was presented, nor questions asked, or information requested, that could support such a result.

The issue here is not whether the noise ordinance sets quiet time at 11p.m. or 1a.m. Frankly, I see nothing that supports the position that it will have any effect on revenue generation; but it may keep downtown residents up a little later on Friday and Saturday nights, and Sunday morning. What is at issue here is that a decision was made without any supporting documentation, or questions asked, to determine the impact of the change. An unsupported assumption was made and a vote taken without any comment from those who supported the change on why it was being done. Is this the way to deal with any issue that come before Council?

So was this a bad policy decision or should I break out the Mad Dog and 151, crank-up the 8-track player, and cut loose!

Questions From Fred2Red

2009-12-03T08:52:00.000-08:00

Local blogger Colin Brehm submitted some questions to yours truly on topics from the, "New Media," regionalism, VRE, to economic development. Here is the link to the answers.

http://redfredblog.blogspot.com/

Feel free to comment or criticize as you see fit.

The Courts--What Next?

2009-11-14T19:21:00.000-08:00

Since I last posted my concerns on moving forward with the construction of a new court facility there have been some significant changes. The Post Office site has been abandoned and we are now looking at a new site--the current District Court/Fire Station site on Princess Anne St. The cost for the court project has also dropped to the $35 million range which includes the relocation of the fire station. Unfortunately, the current economic climate has also continued to changed for the worse, with no sign of improvement in the near future. For this reason I still do not believe we are in a position to move this project forward.

I have been privileged to have been involved in moving forward some significant capital projects in the City. Two new schools, a new police station, a parking garage, and the city's first community pool. In each case the support of the community was obtained, to include a tax increase in the case of the schools. In each case these projects contributed to the city's overall quality of life, safety, and contributed to the city's economic vitality. For its cost, the new court facility does not represent a significant contribution to Fredericksburg quality of life or economic vitality.

The reason provided for moving the court project forward is that the city is obligated, under the threat of a court order, to provide for better security and to meet the space needs driven by rising case loads. I do not dispute either of these points. However, the future increase in case loads is not being generated within the city. The 2007 Moseley report states:

"the city’s population is not expected to grow significantly during the coming years, but continued rapid growth is expected in the surrounding counties. As a result, the Fixed Ratio to City Population model would not seem to be a reliable indicator of future case filings. It predicts no meaningful change in case filings for any of the courts, even though it seems certain that increasing regional population has substantially affected court case loads in the past."

The city is expected to bear the sole burden of the cost and operation of a new court facility to meet a regional need.

One aspect of the court project that has not been discussed is the increase in operational costs. In the latest presentation to Council representatives from Glave' & Holmes Assoc. acknowledged that they did not see any significant savings, but rather some increases, in operational costs. In the Moseley report the number of employees need to operate the facility over the next 20 years will rise from 78 to 118.

While I have acknowledged the city's obligation to provide adequate court facilities I would be remiss if I did not point out that the state has some obligation to the localities. But in their case these obligations, related to transportation, education, and public safety, have not been met. In fact funding in these areas have been cut. All indications are that they will continue to be cut. This failure to meet their obligations has increased the financial burden on localities and made it more difficult for them to meet their obligations. Yet Fredericksburg is expected to meet their obligations no matter the cost.

City staff deserves credit for bringing forward the current option to use the District Court/Fire Station site which meets the courts needs, provides options for expansion, and brings the cost down to around $35 million dollars to include relocating the fire station. Staff has stated that the $35 million represents the high end cost of the project. Also, because the fire station relocation will need to be completed prior to the court construction the debt can be spread out. However, our financial situation has continued to deteriorate.

In the Moseley report released in 2007, before the financial collapse, staff made in clear how much the City could afford when they made the recommendation to only build space for (2) new courts on the current Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court site--

"City staff has indicated that a cost of more than about $30 million for new court facilities is not affordable for the City at this time. As a result, any of these three options are cost prohibitive."

Since the staff has made the above recommendation the economy has collapsed and we have had to reduce the budget over the past two year, leaving positions open, and putting off needed infrastructure improvements and repairs. In the Budget Transmittal Letter submitted by staff with the FY2010 budget they made it clear that there was no sign of an end to this trend--

"In spite of the progress made in closing the gap between revenues and expenditures in the FY 2010 budget, the outlook for FY 2011 is extremely difficult. The City continues to call upon its dwindling fund balance reserves, and the City has reduced total personnel and deferred maintenance and capital outlay replacements in order to reduce overall expenditures. The City will need to invest in the deferred maintenance and capital replacements eventually, and still needs to maintain service levels in accordance with community expectations. Without significant new revenue growth, the current austerity climate for the City will continue for at least the next two or three years."

During our Council retreat this past week the staff presentation on the budget pointed to even more significant challenges in the coming years--

• We are already using $1,296.290 of General Fund Balance to balance the current budget.

• Additional state cuts to localities are probably forthcoming during the current fiscal year and it is a certainty that local funding from the state will be reduced again for the FY2011 budget.

• Because the state has reneged on the agreement to help fund the Cowan Blvd extension we are looking to use local revenue in FY2011 in the amount of around $137,000.00 to cover the debt service. For the next few years that amount will rise to $437,000.00 a year.

• It is expected that the City will face an rate increase in Virginia Retirement System from 3 to 5 percent resulting in an increased cost of between $600,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 a year. The School system will also see an increase. A 1 percent increase to the schools totals $190,000.00.

• The City is expected to also see an increase in the cost of insurance. The amount will not be determined until after the bid process is completed.

As for new revenue sources we are looking at the new Free Lance Star printing plant, and the commercial component of Eagle Village Phase I. Also our Local Composite Index (LCI) has dropped a bit from .7943 to .7763 meaning a larger percentage of state school funding. However, the amount of funding provided by the state has decreased and will likely continue to do so. Similar cuts from the state, cost increases, noted above, will probably more than offset any gains from new commercial development.

It should also be pointed out that economists are telling us to expect a further declines in commercial property values which will place added stress on our commercial tax base. A reminder that we reassess property every two years. The Kalahari project is on hold due to the a tightening credit market which is also affecting area businesses.

I will acknowledge that there will be savings in construction costs if we proceed now. However, continuing to put off needed capital infrastructure improvements also comes with increased costs. Adding 6 to 10 cents on the real estate tax rate just to cover court debt service does not give us a lot of room to find resources to meet our infrastructure or service needs. Under the current fiscal constraints building the courthouse will affect funding to other city services, including schools, and other capital projects.

We are facing the worst economic climate in generations and no one is predicting when it will turn around. Some have said the economy is beginning to turn but unemployment and housing foreclosures continues to rise and business continue to close. It is this uncertainty in the economy that also justifies the need to wait on the court project until we get a better handle on where the economy is going. The return to the city with this project does not warrant the gamble.

We do need to build new court facilities. However, under the current economic condition the city faces, and the fact that this project does not contribute to the city's overall quality of life or economic vitality, it needs to wait. Our focus right now needs to be on maintaining city services.

Should we move forward with the court project and, if so, why?

Let's End the Sound Bites

2009-09-06T18:57:00.000-07:00

This region is facing some difficult challenge. We are the fourth largest, fastest growing region in the Commonwealth. How are we going to deal with growing demands on our transportation system? How are we going to ensure that future development can be sustained and support a quality of life we expect? How do we deal with funding cuts from state and federal sources? Should local government expect more authority from the state in dealing with these issues? These are some of key question that need to be answered.

It is unfortunate that we have become a "sound bite" society. Complex questions like those above are now condensed into a single phrase of twenty-five word or less with the focus on politics rather than policy. Phrases chosen more to rally the faithful , or scare a constituency, rather than working towards solutions. If we are to successfully deal with the challenges we face we need elected officials who are prepared to present their vision for their locality, and the region, and how to achieve it in more than a sound bite.

"No new taxes," or, "We just need to cut wasteful spending," are neither visions nor plans. Nor are the now common refrains, "We need to stop evil developers," or, "development must pay for itself." If we are serious about jobs, our children's education, our family's safety , and our future quality of life we cannot allow these statement to go unchallenged.

If there are to be no new taxes then we must question how services and education are to be maintained? If the answer is we can cut wasteful spending then where will the cuts come from and how much? If you are prepared to stand by such a pledge you should be expected to know exactly how to achieve it. Finally, how do you see the locality developing over the next 20 years under such a policy?

If we are to stop the evil developers then how are we going to provide higher paying jobs? How are we going to deal with the growth pressures in the region? If the response is we will make development pay for itself than the question is how will that impact the cost of a house or the square foot cost for commercial development? What will be the impact on the localities future tax base? And again, how do you see the locality developing under such a policy over the next 20 years?

For every campaign promise, made by a candidate, regardless of party affiliation, they must be prepared to answer how a particular proposal will be achieved and how it fits in their long term vision for the locality. No matter the issue, or the promise made, if a candidate cannot get beyond the sound bite they bring nothing to the table that will help either their locality or this region in dealing with the challenges we face.

In my seven years on the City Council I cannot claim credit for any of the achievements that have been made. The river easement, the construction of new schools and recreational facilities, business recruitment , all required at least (3) other votes to bring them to reality. Being able to work with other elected officials is an important aspect of the job.

At this juncture we cannot afford more political posturing to embarrass the other side, be obstructionist hoping it will affect the outcome of the next elections, or stick a finger in the air and try to guess which way the political wind is blowing. As localities, and as a region, we do not have the luxury of time in dealing with the transportation, development, and quality of life issues we now face.

How a candidate will secure those three votes to move his plans forward is just as important as the plans themselves. Is it an all or nothing approach or is there a willingness to accept less if that is all that can be achieved under the current circumstances. One thing I have learned in governance is that getting from point "A" to point "B" is seldom achieved by the most direct route.

Residents of Spotsylvania and Stafford will be voting this November for members of their respective Boards of Supervisors. These two localities represent the vast majority of the population of this region and are on the front lines of the growth issues we face. The affect of these elections will impact the region.

For the sake of not only the future quality of life for the residents of those localities; but for the region as well, I hope to see a rebellion against sound bite politics and the beginning of a reasoned and spirited dialogue on a shared vision for the future. All it takes to begin the revolution is to ask a question.

What is your opinion of the press coverage on local issues?

Tuesday Night—The Fat Lady Sings

2009-06-21T08:44:00.000-07:00

As you read in the Free Lance Star, http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/062009/06102009/472358, at the last Council meeting it was agreed to consider increasing the meals tax 1% instead of placing the entire tax burden on the real estate tax rate. The reasons for this recommendation have been covered in the previous posts. The vote on the rate was put off to give staff the opportunity to review the meals tax revenue projections and come back with recommendation to reduce the budget a further $100,000.00 to balance the budget.

In a staff memo later in the week a recommendation was submitted to, “Close the $100,000 gap with several relatively minor revenue and expenditure adjustments.” They included:

1. $30,000.00 savings from the Economic Director’s salary as it was not realistic to expect to fill that position until October.

2. $10,000.00 reduction in the Unemployment Reserve to $30,000.00 that the staff felt still left us with an adequate reserve.

3. $60,000.00 increase in revenue from the Business License Tax based on a “significant increase” in revenue from the spring projections.

None of these recommendations are contrary to the Council majority view that no further adjustments are made to the operating budget. Yet, Councilman Solley requested, and Councilwoman Greenlaw concurred, that a budget proposal also be considered setting the tax rate at 68.5 cents with no adjustments made to the budget. This scenario resulted in a surplus of $70,000.00. Added to the additional revenue projected from the Business License tax would bring the surplus to $130,000 which staff recommend be use to reduce the amount of reserve used to balance the budget.

I support staff’s effort to reduce the use of reserve, as all indications are that the economy is going to continue its downward trend. In addition to what has previously been posted on this point a recent story in the Free Lance Star, http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/062009/06162009/473673 (Virginia Reports Drop in Revenue) shows state revenues still not meeting projections and more cuts in the state budget may be coming in August. Based on the state’s past track record localities can expect further reductions in state support.

However, I still have an issue with the majority view on Council that the current budget, which the 68.5cent rate supports, can be justified under the current economic downturn. My response to the last staff memo follows:

Good Morning All,

I have no problem with what staff has proposed to get to the 68 cent tax rate. Enclosed is a breakdown of additional savings totaling $68,860. I would suggest that these funds be either:

1. Redirected to human services.
2. Saved.
3. Used to start-up a fund to assist groups and organizations that have a specific proposal, some funding raised on their own, and consider some form of dollar match.

-Matt-

Bluemont—This is one of those groups that should be supported by the community; or we should consider setting up some sort of matching program putting them in the position of
raising some funding locally on there own.. Under the current financial constraints this is hard to justify as a core expense. ................................$5,000.00

DRMI—Based on numerous discussions there seems agreement that DRMI needs to put some resources on the table which the city should consider matching. This is not a core service.
........................................................................................$2,000.00

Heritage Festival—See Bluemont. .......................$ 4,000.00

Sister City—See Bluemont. .....................................$ 2,500.00

SPCA--$10,000.00 is for the Capital Campaign for the new facility. The SPCA does provide a service to the city in dealing with stray dogs and cats. However, deferring the payment this year
should not present a significant burden. The balance of $5,000 remains......$10,000.00

F’burg Arts Commission—As I understand it $5,000.00 of this budget is a state grant. This is another organization which needs to do some fund raising and the city consider matching that effort instead of just putting money on the table.................$ 4,500.00

FRA—If the EDA wishes to keep funding this organization, as was the
case last year, that is were there funding should come.......$11,110.00

Fburg Vol. Fire—The city currently pays the insurance for this organization to the amount of $7,500.00. At this point it the service to the Fire Department is not extensive. We all hope with the new program at JM this may change. Recommend 50% reduction..$ 5,000.00

Fburg Areas Museum—I have talk with reps of this organization and offered to consider matching their efforts to acquire operational funding. Recommend an additional $10,000.00 cut. ............................................................$10,000.00

Germanna CC—With the magnitude of state cuts why are we supporting a state institution?
............................................................$ 5,750.00

TOTAL SAVINGS...................$59,860.00

I agree with Councilman Ellis that there are probably other areas where savings can be found but the debate on the budget ended over a month ago when the Council majority advised staff that they would not consider further reductions. Since that decision was made the economic picture has continued to change, mostly for the worse, but there has still been no interest to consider further adjustments beyond shifting some of the tax burden to the meals tax. What has been proposed is another Council retreat later in the year to begin discussions on next years budget. With only a few days before the budget has to be passed the debate is over beyond the possibility of some peripheral changes as outlined above.

Under the current economic conditions leaving some flexibility in the budget is probably prudent. To cut it back further with the possibility of further state cuts, and the continued downturn in the economy, could lead to some painful mid budget/service cuts. Then there is the fact that we are already faced with some tough choices next year starting with the budget just over a million in the hole. If we take every opportunity to save over the coming year, and there is any improvement in the revenue picture, hopefully we will be able to reduce that deficit.

However, under the current economic conditions we can only justified asking residents and business to support core services.

How did you view this years budget process?

The Budget--The last 48 hours

2009-05-28T12:19:00.000-07:00

I would refer you to my past posts for my views of the budget discussions up to this point. This post will focus on where we are now on the budget. Below is an e-mail sent to Council and staff as well as a breakdown on the alternate budget proposed:

Good Evening All,

Enclosed is a rough draft of a alternative budget for consideration. I have put this together in response to the following:

1. As noted a week ago, state revenues have again come in lower than projections. If additional cuts are contemplated localities can expect to be included.

2. In discussion with members of the banking community at the last REDCO meeting the next bump in the road will be a steep dive in the commercial real estate market within the next year.

3. Another area of the economy teetering on the edge is the credit market.

4. As noted in a previous e-mail the drop in the residential real estate market means that the commercial market is left to make up the difference as well as providing the additional revenue to meet budget needs. This at a time when businesses are already pinching pennies.

5. If the economy continues to worsen we need to maintain our reserves as much as possible for next year to avoid deeper cuts and possible layoffs. If, as some feel is the case, we have turned the corner, we need to maintain our reserves to protect our bond rating, and if things do improve, build up some funds for projects like the court facility.

The enclosed budget proposal does the following:

--Increases the meals tax by 1/2 percent. As noted this translates to only 50 cents on a $100.00 tab. This tax is on disposable income, takes a small part of the tax burden off residents and businesses.

--It does find savings in the original Outside Agency (OAs) budget and redirects these resources towards human services. It prioritizes the OAs. Additional funding is placed in these areas to bring services back to 09 levels as opposed to 15% cuts. It also means a lot of OAs are zeroed out.

--The funding for the dump truck is included but not funding for the Economic Development position. In discussions with most of you it was agreed that we need to take a serious look at this department before making any decisions. Under the current economic climate hiring someone now would probably not have much of an impact.

--The tax rate is set at 69 cents as opposed to the 70.5 cents currently projected. Even so, there is still a balance showing that should be used to lessen our draw down of reserves for the reasons noted above. At the least we should defer specific expenditures until we have a better handle on where this economy is going.

--This proposal also shows savings for the City Manager's position and for maintaining some for of hiring freeze. This is based on some very preliminary discussions with Mark and I am waiting for his and Bev's views on whether we go down this road and/or if the figures shown are realistic. Bev & Mark replace last proposal with the one enclosed. There is a math error in the first draft sent.

I had hoped to vet this with staff a bit more and do hope to have some more conversations tomorrow with them on the viability of this proposal. However, I did not want to blind side the Council tomorrow evening so I'm forwarding it on the understanding that changes are possible.

We need to take some time to define the city's responsibilities and long term priorities to shape a strategic budget plan. We cannot keep going year to year especially under the current economic conditions. We need to explain expenditures to the public in terms of outcomes which may take a few years to achieve.

-Matt-

2010 Budget Revisions
Funding Committed As Per Last Work Session:
Outside Agencies $150,000.00
Econ Dev. Director $90,000.00
Dump Truck $65,000.00

Sub-Total $305,000.00

New Revenue:
1/2 Percent on Meals Tax $440,000.00

Limited Hiring Freeze $50,000.00
(Based on $150,000 past year)
Manager's Expenses $30,000.00
(Roughly (4) months thru Dec.)
Reductions Outside Agencies:
(Based on Manager's Original Budget)
Volunteer Fire $5,000.00
Regional Alliance $11,110.00
SPCA (Deferred) $10,000.00
Area Museum $10,000.00
Germanna CC $5,750.00
Total Available Revenue $866,860.00

Additional Expenditures:
(To 09 Levels)
GWRC $2,612.00
Boys & Girls Club $30,000.00
Senior Visitor Program $14,400.00
Domestic Violence $11,060.00
Legal Services $34,298.00
(Request less than 09)
Disability Resource Center $26,100.00
Extension Service $1,500.00
Dump Truck $65,000.00
Total Costs ($184,970.00)

Balance Remaining $ 681,890.00
Tax Reduction:
1.5 cents on tax rate (down to 69 cents) ($510,000.00)
Balance Back to Reserve $171,890.00

************

It was pointed out at the last Council meeting that this effort does not involve any significant savings. The point made was that it wasn’t worth the effort to save “$100,000.00.” Actually the potential savings are a little more than that; but I would ask—why is it a waste of time to save taxpayer’s dollars whatever the amount?

For me the most important issue is not what our tax rate is in relation to our neighbors; or how little the savings or the cost is to residents and businesses when setting the tax rate. The focus should be on what is the level of service residents expect and how do we provided it at a reasonable cost so that we do not become a burden on those we serve. Yes I’m beginning to sound like a broken record.

The attitude that it’s only a little cost this year usually means that in five years we are wondering how taxes got so high. When we justify tax increases because our tax rate is lower than our neighbors then we find ourselves looking for ways to spend money. Both attitudes ignore local demographics and the current state of the economy.

As per my e-mail to Council, over the next three or four years we starting off with a budget deficit, the need to increase the personal property tax, and significant increases in debt service if we maintain the current timeline on the new court facility and other projects that has majority support. Under these circumstances, and at a time when residents and businesses are cutting back and still facing economic uncertainty, saving even $100,000 is worth the effort.

************

What are your thoughts on where we are on the budget?

What is Local Government's Role?

2009-05-06T12:26:00.000-07:00

Below is the OpEd that I wrote on the current financial situation the city faces. The underling question I am trying to answer is—What is local government’s role?

I cannot understand those who justify raising taxes because our tax rate is lower than other localities or those who opposes tax increases on the basis that taxes are too high. The issue for me is not the level of taxes but rather the level of service residents expects, and as a community, we can afford. When that question is answered then we take on the issue of how we raise the revenue to provide that level of service.

Obviously there are those services—public safety, public works, and education that are a governmental responsibility. I also believe, and I know some would question, that as a community we do have an obligation to help those who are not in a position to help themselves. I have also justified support for the use of tax dollars when there is going to be a financial return on the investment or will save tax dollars in the future. And again there are those who would question government’s role in these types of endeavors.

So what is the legitimate role of local government? Are we to focus strictly on core services? What about human services or the investment of tax dollars for positive outcomes? Then there is the question of whether there is a governmental role in providing quality of life investments-- in the arts, museums and recreational opportunities?

I have to admit that I am a bit perplexed by today’s societies reliance, or maybe a better term being expectation, that government should take care of all these things. The question I would ask is where has the role of community support gone? Wouldn’t it be easier to write a check to those groups and organizations that you strongly support instead of giving the money to local government who is dealing with competing needs and wants? I don’t have answers to these questions but look forward to hearing from those who think they do.

How will Fredericksburg pay its bills?
May 6, 2009 12:35 am

CITY COUNCIL'S responsibility is to ensure a safe environment and provide public services while not becoming a financial burden on those we serve. Living this responsibility in the current economic climate is a challenge. To meet it we must understand the financial realities we face and be prepared to make some tough choices.

For the second year in a row the city budget has gone down. Even with additional cuts and reductions in work force, a 3-cent increase in the real estate tax rate and the use of $1 million in fund balance is recommended to balance the budget. The use of fund balance for operating expenses means we must increase revenue or reduce spending next year. And there are other challenges on the horizon.

The outlook on Fredericksburg's 'AA' bond rating was changed from stable to negative in part because of the "city's reduced financial flexibility due to substantial declines in general fund reserve levels." This could impact the cost of future capital projects like the new court facility. If we maintain the current timeline for the court project, it too becomes an issue because we will have to begin paying debt service on it within three years.

Like our neighbors, we are faced with declining personal-property revenue and must set a rate to maintain the revenue stream as well as recover lost revenue from the end of this year--the new rate would not go into effect until January. We cannot disregard the impact on this and future city budgets.

Nor can we forget that residents and businesses are also under financial strain during this economic downturn. Property values have dropped, with one result being foreclosures. Our retail base continues to shrink, affecting both employment and revenue. Residents have seen their financial investments drop, and many businesses are just trying to keep the doors open. For these reasons, Council must focus on core services, prioritize needs, and avoid expanding the budget and putting additional financial strain on those we serve.

Council members have expressed three concerns regarding core services in the current budget: 1) the cut to the school budget; 2) reduction in employee salaries; and 3) outside agency funding cuts. To address these concerns while minimizing the impact on the budget and the tax burden on residents, I proposed adding $300,000 to the school budget from two designated reserves, for schools and the regional jail, and a half-percent increase in the meals tax in an effort to restore employee salaries.

I proposed the meals tax increase because it hits disposable income and it doesn't put the entire burden on residents. I also suggested that we be conservative with the revenue projections. Should revenue come in higher than what is needed to restore salaries it could be used to cover potential shortfalls or reduce the need to use reserves.

NEEDS VS. WANTS
In regard to outside agencies I proposed that we focus on community needs rather than wants. The staff identified organizations that provide important human services, such as the Senior Visitor Program, Boys and Girls Club, the Disability Resource Center, Legal Services, and the Council on Domestic Violence. Such organizations should be considered for full funding.
Savings within the budget have been identified and more funds from within the outside agency budget could be moved to fully fund human services programs. Sister-city programs, festivals, and museums add to the community but don't rise to the level of need. For those who feel taxes should be raised, here is an opportunity to provide more community support for these worthy causes.

A majority on Council are considering a different approach. Instead of increasing the meals tax they would prefer to increase the real estate tax rate an additional 1 cent, for a total increase of 4 cents. The rationale for this position is the possible negative impact of an increase in the meals tax on restaurants and a guaranteed revenue stream with the real estate tax rate.
Residents should be aware that the real estate tax rate will change with the new assessments to ensure projected revenues. The approach Council is considering puts an additional tax burden on home and property owners.

In regard to outside agencies the consensus is not to prioritize based on community needs but rather to add funding to all organizations. Because the added funds do not restore level funding, all organizations--including human services--will still be cut.

In addition, instead of just restoring 1 percent of the employee salary cut and meeting the needs of human services, discussions have begun on how to spend the remaining surplus revenues gleaned from the budget and the additional increase in the real estate tax rate.

I do not question the justification of some of the expenditures proposed by my colleagues. But in looking at the budget constraints that we face now and in the near future, current economic uncertainties, and the financial challenges faces by residents, the reality is we can't afford them right now.

What should your tax dollars be funding?

The Budget & Taxes

2009-04-19T17:56:00.000-07:00

City Council’s primary responsibility is to fund a level of services that provide residents with a good quality of life. But in pursuing the goal we cannot become a financial burden on those we serve. “The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away.” This year Council faces the prospect of increasing taxes just to maintain services. The question is how far will City Council go to maintain services? Like those we serve, the city must make some sacrifices during this economic downturn.

Fredericksburg’s 2010 budget brings spending back to 2006 levels—a reduction of 6.63% from the current budget. To cover this year’s $7.3 million deficit staff has proposed $4.85 million in budget cuts, the use of $1 million in fund balance, an increase in the real estate tax rate of 3 cents to generate $1.2 million, with the balance covered by an increase in the Consumer Utility tax and other fees/taxes.

To get to this point we have reduced operating expenses, maintained a hiring freeze with a number of positions remaining unfilled resulting in fewer people having to do more for less money as the proposed budget comes with across-the-board salary cuts. Benefit costs for employees are also going up resulting in a further erosion of salaries. We continue to defer maintenance and replacement of infrastructure, equipment and vehicles and city support for outside service agencies have been drastically reduced. Unlike city residents and businesses city government can cover shortfalls by raising revenue through increases in taxes and fees.

In the past Council has raised taxes/fees, with community support, to build schools, recreational facilities, public safety improvements at a time when we had large reserves, increasing property values, and increased revenue from the business community. The community was willing to give more because they saw the benefits of the investments and felt they could afford to do so.

Today, city reserves are down, property values have dropped dramatically and foreclosures are still on the rise. Unemployment is up and our retail base continues to shrink affecting both employment and revenue. Residents have seen their financial investments drop and most businesses are dealing with revenue losses. The community is now faced with layoffs, pay-cuts, devalued investments and an uncertainty as to what the future may bring. Now the question is whether residents and businesses can afford additional taxes?

Another factor that must be considered regarding the budget is the looming debt service for a new court facility. Court construction will have a significant impact on the city’s debt service and resident’s taxes. Projects like Wegmans, and the downtown hotel will hopefully help offset some of this cost but it would not be prudent to start counting on funds that we don’t have. At a minimum, other projects that have greater community support and deferred infrastructure, equipment and vehicle purchases will be affected. Under the current economic realities this project needs to be pushed back as far as possible.

After two years of reduced budgets there is not much more to cut unless we start into services and/or positions. While the current budget is balanced with a 3-cent real estate tax rate a majority on Council has asked for some flexibility and the tax rate has been advertised at 5-cents. Cuts in the budget in three areas have members of Council concerned: 1) Schools 2) Employee salaries 3) Outside Agencies.

Before we consider additional funding for the schools and Outside Agencies we need to address the cuts in salaries for city employees. While many are now facing financial hardships city employees have been facing salary stagnation and benefit reductions for the past three years culminating in salary cuts in the proposed budgets. While salaries and benefits have been reduced their responsibilities have increased.

To fund employee salaries I have proposed a ½ cent increase in the meals tax. This tax impacts disposable income and is paid by visitors as well as residents. In discussions with staff it was agreed that we should be very conservative on projecting the amount of revenue raised; but it should cover salaries. If additional funds are raised we are in a better position next year.

A ½-cent increase would put us 1-cent higher than the neighboring jurisdictions and that should not result in a significant drop in business beyond what is being caused by the current economic downturn. The alternative at this point is to raise the real estate tax, which would have a bigger affect on residents and business.

In regard to the schools I have proposed an increase in their budget of $300,000 coming from two designated reserve balances—schools and regional jail. This proposal will only cover the current year but it does take pressure off the tax rate for now. It also gives both the city and the schools time to begin discussions on funding for the following year.

At the conclusion of last year’s budget deliberations Council made a “loan” to Outside Agencies of $450,000. It was explained that this year the Outside Agency Budget would be reduced by $450,000 and additional cuts would have to be made if the economy continued to decline. It was recommended that they begin looking for other sources of funding. The decline has continued and more cuts have been made with many agencies being zeroed out.

There is no question that some of these agencies provide a service not provided by the city and will have potentially greater financial impacts if they are cut too severely. Our Social Service Director has been tasked with submitting recommendations on funding such services and I will seriously consider these recommendations. Thus far we have identified $67,000 of savings in the budget that can be used for this purpose. I also believe that some funding within the Outside Agency budget can be reallocated to help fund the agencies identified by Social Services.

These proposals address the budget concerns expressed on the Council and can be achieved without any further increases in the real estate tax rate.

There is no question even with the increased taxes proposed the budget core services are being strained. However, I do not believe that under the current financial climate, and the uncertainties we still face, we can justify further increases in the tax rate. Residents and businesses are cutting back to make ends meet—not spending, investing or expanding. To raise taxes further will mean more of a hardship on our residents and businesses resulting in even less spending, investment and expansion that translates to less revenue in the future.

We are already facing the cost of a new court facility in the next few years and the need to equalize the personal property tax rate. We need to give city residents and businesses a break and not add to their financial burdens during the current financial downturn.

Your thoughts on the budget and the funding proposals as outlined?

THE BUDGET--What Else

2009-04-08T07:26:00.000-07:00

Here is the e-mail I sent out yesterday to staff and Council members which provides a little more detail on today's FLS story on the budget http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/042009/04082009/457892--

Good Afternoon All,

At our last work session on the budget council members expressed support for more money for the schools. There were also comments on City employee salaries and Outside Agencies. To do all this would add significantly to the operating budget. We are already dipping heavily into our Undesignated Reserves just to meet the current budget and are still looking at a tax increase of at least three cents.

As I have said many times (an no doubt you are tired of hearing about it) we have the lowest median income in the region and the highest number of residents on fixed incomes. While they may not own their homes any real estate tax increase is passed on in rents and the cost of goods and services. Today, we all know of people facing pay cuts and possible job loss. In addition, due to the crash of the markets people who once thought they had a secured source of income have seen the value of their investments, and income, decline. Under these circumstances, and the fact that we are still facing the cost of a new court facility within the next two years, raising the real estate tax beyond staff’s recommendation is difficult to justify.

However, understanding the current dynamic on Council I would like to propose the following:

1. A half-cent increase in the meals tax added with some of the saving identified in the budget should cover the $300,000 to restore employee’s salaries.The meals tax is on disposable income and spreads the pain to both residents (homeowners and renters) and visitors to the area. The small increase should not have a negative impact on visitation to our restaurants. I’ve also chatted with staff and made sure that the amount to be included in the budget takes into consideration the current economy.

2. In regard to the schools we have designated reserves for schools and the regional jail totaling $400,000.00. I would propose using a portion of these funds, not to exceed what we put towards employee’s salaries, for the schools.As staff will point out this is using one-time funds for operating expenses. In this case we are trying to maintain funding and not expanding operating expenses. What this does is put off the day of reckoning for a year. But it also gives City taxpayers a small breathing space also. I would be remiss to remind some that next year they will be facing re-election.

In looking at the lodging tax the return would not be significant at one-half or one percent and staff does have a concern that an increase now would affect business.

In regard to Outside Agencies I would point out that all were advised a year ago that this was going to be a tough year. In looking over this budget I do see opportunities to better prioritize the expenditures with existing funds.

Below is the link to the budget on the City's new website:http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/Departments/CityManager/index.aspx?id=769

A lot of people have commented on waste and overspending in the budget. Here is your opportunity to identify that waste and or recommend cuts, or just make an observation that you think is important.

Why VRE--In Context

2009-03-08T04:26:00.000-07:00

Here is the entire e-mail I sent to Spotsylvania Supervisor Jerry Logan referenced in Mr. Telvock's story, County's Inaction Costs its Neighbors, http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2009/032009/03082009/450654 in the FLS. As you can see it covers a bit more than just the issue of the cost of Spotsylvania's inaction to the City and Stafford. When read in its entirety it puts my comments in proper context--

Jerry,

I would ask that you broaden your view of VRE beyond just the gas tax and the operating costs and look at the overall impact of the service and its importance to the future development of the region. To focus on just the cost ignores the realities we now face and does a disservice to those we serve. While costs must be consider so must the impact of doing nothing, and the potential benefits that may offset those costs.

You need to take some time and review the recently adopted regional transportation plan to place VRE in its proper context in the region’s transportation plan today and in the future. The population in this region will double by 2035 and as reported, we cannot lay enough pavement to meet the growing demands on our road system. If we do not look at making transit viable the quality of life for residents will suffer.

While we all are looking for new economic development opportunities the growing congestion on our roads is making it more difficult to attract, and keep, businesses. Our region’s economic development is tied to the Washington Metro area so our ability to maintain adequate traffic flow in the I-95 corridor is critical. I am aware that there are project you would like to see in Spotsylvania and that you are being told by those bringing those projects forward VRE is important to the success of those projects.

Right now the funding for VRE is an issue that I will not deny. But I would ask that you look beyond today and the possibilities in the future. DRPT is planning to begin train service from Richmond/Lynchburg to New York. They are now taking a more active role in funding rail transportation. The new administration in Washington has now shifted the emphasis on transportation away for roads and putting more funding into transit. It is easy to look to “doomsday” scenarios to justify inaction. It takes some effort to come up with workable solutions.

VRE, like most anything else, is not perfect. It is easy to stand on the sidelines and criticize it but that gets us no closer to meeting our goal of maintaining adequate transportation north and south. As a member of VRE you would have the opportunity to bring forward changes to improve the system and become part of the solution. If you feel VRE is not the answer please tell me what you think is a better way.

I would also be remiss if I did not point out a few of the negative impact of Spotsylvania’s inaction regarding VRE on both the City and Stafford County. One of the reasons we are facing some financial challenges is because of the number of non-VRE riders we serve. Our downtown streets and parking lots are full of Spotsylvania residents (No they don’t eat and shop here-- they run off the trains and go home) and FAMPO just allocated $150,000.00 to lease private commercial spaces because existing parking lots are full—with a lot of Spotsylvania residents. Expansion of lots costing hundreds of thousands of dollars are planned in part because of growing ridership--again including Spotsylvania residents. I’ve yet to hear a member of the Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors acknowledge these, and other impacts, Spotsylvania residents are having on our communities.

This afternoon I am attending a meeting with staff to get the City to support the Towne Centre improvements on Route 3. I realize the importance of this project to the region and especially for Spotsylvania County. What I’m hearing is why should the City help Spotsylvania County when they do not seem interested in working as a regional partner. This “provincial” attitude must come to an end if we are to meet the challenges we face in the future. Working as a region brings shared costs, improved opportunities for outside funding, and less of a financial impact on our residents.

As a fellow Republican I also take issue with the rising cost of government and I have, and am prepared, to cut spending where I do not see a benefit to residents. In doing so though, I am obligated to look beyond the project or expenditure itself to judge its impact in meeting the needs and goals of our community today and in the future. It means that I may have to accept some cost today to meet future needs or goals. To that end I must be able to provide residents with the vision to justify the support.

I take issue with those in the party who begin every position they take with the word “No.” This is a statement not a solution. It provides no vision or direction for the future development of our region. I would hope you would agree that inaction could also have serious consequences. What the local Republican Party currently lacks in vision and leadership. Without it we are doomed to be in the minority and justifiably so. My question to you is this: While opposition to VRE may in your view make political sense; does it make sense in regard to the future of Spotsylvania?

If you have any question please do not hesitate to give me a call.

Please feel free to comment--

Let's Talk Taxes

2009-02-14T18:04:00.000-08:00

“The people are hungry: It is because those in authority eat up too much in taxes.”
Lao Tzu

“Taxes grow without rain.”
Jewish Proverb

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation... For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.... We, therefore... solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States.”
The Declaration of Independence of the Thirteen Colonies, 1776

“Why, sir, there is every possibility that you will soon be able to tax it!”
(PM William Gladstone, on the usefulness of electricity)

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”
Winston Churchill

“The point to remember is that what the government gives it must first take away.”
John S. Coleman, address, Detroit Chamber of Commerce, 1956

“You don't pay taxes - they take taxes.”
Chris Rock, Bigger and Blacker

Bitching about taxes has been around for a while and I’d be willing to bet what remains of my income after April 15th that taxation will continue to be the target of “thoughtful” comments well into the future. The purpose of this post is not to out-do the witty insights of those who came before me nor continue the centuries old tirades, clichés, or sound bites against taxes. The goal is to arrive at a consensus as to what level of taxation is legitimate. To tackle this question we must also make some determination regarding the legitimate role of government. Our focus will be on taxes at the local level.

I am going to step out on a limb and say that we all agree that taxes are at least a necessary evil. The question then becomes what constitutes, “necessary.” Another aspect of this question that should be considered is the direct benefit of tax dollars to the community being served—overhead vs. outcomes.

Tax dollars collected at the local level stay local. They are primarily spent on services, not programs, and a higher percentage of those dollars goes towards services than to overhead. As you get farther up the food chain to the state and federal level those dynamics change—more program spending, less percentage of tax dollars actually meeting a need due to higher overhead. And then there is the issue of using tax policy for redistribution of wealth and social policy--A discussion for another day.

As with taxes in general there are those in the community who believe their local taxes are too high while others point to the fact that Fredericksburg has one of the lowest tax rates in the state as a justification for increasing taxes. For those supporting higher taxes you need to consider the fact that the City also has the lowest median income and the largest percentage of households on fixed incomes in the region. Our level of taxation in relation to other localities is irrelevant. The level of service expected and the efficiency of providing those services are relevant. For those at the other end of the spectrum consider this--

During one of our budget discussions I received a call from a constituent who was on a fixed income and was told that to raise taxes would cause her great financial distress. Then she told me not to cut the library budget. At the same time Council announced that the city would no longer be supplying trash bags, which would mean a savings of over $60,000.00 a year. I received more calls and comments (and still do) complaining about the loss of trash bags than I did about the tax rate. We are told not to increase taxes but at the same time we are told not to reduce services. The reality is that something has got to give--higher taxes or less service. The most common response to this reality is to deny it. We are told not to reduce services, but instead cut out “wasteful” spending.

I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been told that the City could end “wasteful” spending if it were run more like a business. To date I’ve yet to receive an explanation as to what that means. Am I to believe that the private sector is free of wasteful spending and runs at 100% peak efficiency? The current situation faced by the auto industry and financial firms, for example, would seem to indicate that this is not the case. So let’s put the clichés aside and focus on whether we can really save money without affecting services.

The city has actually been reducing expenditures in areas like travel, continuing education, and supplies for the last two years. In addition, the city has deferred maintenance and put off replacement of equipment and vehicles. We have reduced our workforce through attrition and are having to do more with less. As a result of these actions last year’s city budget was actually less than the one the year before. So as any good business would do we have been trying to control costs while trying to minimize the impact on our responsibility to provide services. It is not my intent to imply the city is now running at 100% peak efficiency but rather to make clear that further reductions will start affecting services.

Another factor which has a big impact on expenditures and services comes from mandates, regulations, and funding, or lack there of, from the state and federal governments. Before you recommend that the city should reduce work crews from three to five to do a job, read the OSHA regulations. Before you point to savings in the school budget in the area of administration or in the classroom, check to see how state or federal law mandates many of those positions or programs.

In regard to funding, at the state level the current view is to hold the line on tax increases and as a result funding to localities to meet state obligations in such areas as education, transportation, public safety, and Constitutional Officers, have been reduced, or are not keeping up with increasing costs, thereby leaving the localities to face the shortfall. This statement is not meant as either an endorsement or criticism of state tax policy it is simply a statement of fact.

On the Federal side of this issue it is not so much money as an added level of bureaucracy, which just adds to the amount of paperwork and procedures, which take time and resources away from actually providing efficient and cost effective services. In applying for or using HUD funds for example, the amount of paperwork and regulations, which change almost daily, is mind-boggling. The rationale for this process is to ensure that funds are properly spent. The reality is that these regulations waste time and resources dealing with the process, thus leaving less time and resources for the desired outcome.

Here is the link to the city’s current 2009 budget:
http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/citypubs/citypubs.asp
I invite you to go through it and point out where you believe the city is wasting money. Or if you believe that there are obvious savings that don’t require a look at the budget please pass them on. I will be happy to respond by either pointing out issues with the proposed cuts or acknowledge the validity of the suggestion and pass it on to staff. Let’s put assumptions and clichés aside and instead provide specifics with a rationale to back them up.

Now that we are in the process of eliminating all wasteful spending in the budget we need to address the issue of what services local government is to provide. As I noted the sole determinate in setting the tax rate should be to ensure that we have the revenue to provide the services that City residents expect and at a reasonable cost. We are dealing with the cost issue as outlined above, so let’s now talk about services.

In previous posts I have discussed my thoughts on the level of service we should be providing. Now I want to hear from you regarding what level of service you believe should be funded at the local level. As a taxpayer what do you expect for your investment?

I would breakdown services as follows: Core services would be public works—water, sewer, roads, trash pick-up, public safety, and education. Next would come quality of life services such as recreational and library facilities. Then there are services that we fund through outside organizations primarily related to social services— SPCA, legal aid, homeless shelter, counseling services etc. You may, or may not, agree with this breakdown of services. If not, let me know how you would rank services.

If you have the view that taxes are too high then you need to point out cost savings and/or what services should be reduced (and how) or eliminated. If you believe that local government needs to be providing more services let me know what they are and then offer a viable suggestion for how we are going to pay for them. Everyone has a position on taxes. I am giving you the opportunity to prove your point. No one-liners allowed!

Happy Birthday Fred-Spot

2009-02-13T09:18:00.000-08:00

Remarks commemorating the 82nd birthday of the Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Battlefield Parks:

In 1863 to be an Irish immigrant in America was to face
discrimination and ridicule yet Peter Welsh joined the 28th
Mass. Vols. and in a letter that year to his father-in-law in
Ireland he looked beyond the present circumstances and wrote,
“Here Irishmen and their decedents have a claim a stake in the
nation and an interest in its prosperity.” Peter Welsh had
survived the Battle of Fredericksburg but would later die of
wounds received at the Mule Shoe in Spotsylvania the
following year.

In the spring of 1862 most of the population of Fredericksburg
was packing to leave the city before the hated “Yankees”
arrived. Yet to John Washington, a slave, the arrival of Union
forces brought a different response. He wrote of the time, “I
called all the servants in the Bar-Room and treated them all
around plentiful and after drinking the Yankees health I paid
each one according to orders. I told them they could go just
where they pleased but be sure the Yankees had no trouble
finding them.” John Washington would cross over to Union
lines and leave slavery behind.

To move this nation towards fulfilling Peter Welsh’s vision
and ensuring John Washington’s freedom a terrible cost
was paid. Tally Simpson of the 3rd South Carolina
Volunteers writing to his sister while here in Fredericksburg
on Christmas Day 1862, “If all the dead (those killed since the
war began) could be heaped in one pile and all the wounded be
gathered together in one group, the pale faces of the dead and
the groans of the wounded would send such a thrill of horror
through the hearts of the originators of this war..”

The Civil War, like any human endeavor, is a story of great
triumphs and compassion as well as great blunders and
cruelty. By taking time to understand the past, succeeding
generations can build upon the successes, and avoid the pitfalls,
and recognize the sacrifices that have been made, and
understand that they may also be called on to make them, to
maintain the liberties we enjoy today. Events like the Civil
War are also a point of reference helping us understand from
whence we came and how far we have come in meeting the
ideals of our founding fathers.

Today we are celebrating the 82nd anniversary of the
establishment of the Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania National
Battlefield Park and to recognize the men and women of the
National Park Service who have not only maintain the park
but who have committed themselves to passing on the stories
and the lessons of this pivotal event in our nation’s history to
succeeding generations.

Eighty-two years ago John T. Goolrick writing in the Free
Lance Star on the dedication of the park noted that, “….but in
fact it (referring to the park) will never be completed. Year by
year memorials and groups and new park space will be added
by those who wish to honor their dead or aid in preserving
history.”

Working with the Park Services and other community
partners like the Civil War Preservation Trust, and our own
Central Virginia Battlefield Trust, Fredericksburg has done its
part to fulfill Mr. Goolrick’s vision.

Today the Sunken Road has been restored. Willis Hill and
portions of the Smith Run Battlefield have been preserved. By
placing an easement on its riparian lands along the
Rappahannock and Rapidan Rivers Fredericksburg has
preserved numerous Civil War sites.

The city has confirmed the importance of the park in its
Comprehensive Plan to include acknowledging the importance
of preserving site lines from the park in regard to future
development. Civil War sites within the City have been
identified and a process is being put in place to work towards
their preservation.

Fredericksburg has been working, with representatives of the
National Park Service, in drafting a citywide preservation plan
that acknowledges the importance of the battlefield park.
Memorials have been added to honor the Irish Brigade and the
exploits of the 7th Michigan. These efforts have not only help
preserve our history and tell the story of the Civil War they
have added to the quality of life and economic health of
Fredericksburg

It is somewhat ironic that the prosperity and the quality of life
in Fredericksburg are tied to events that devastated this city
and turned it into a battlefield over a century ago. Yet today
thousands of visitors from across the country and around the
world visit the city to learn about, and experience, through
tours, lectures, and reenactments, those terrible years in
Fredericksburg’s history.

These visitors stay in our hotels, eat in our restaurants and
shop in our stores providing the revenue that has helped
Fredericksburg build schools, police stations, and other
amenities that have improved our quality of life. The
battlefields also provide recreational opportunities such as
walking trials, biking, and green space to be enjoyed by
residents and visitors alike.

We are now only a few years away from the 150th anniversary
of the Civil War. The city, National Park Service and
community organizations are working together to plan events
to commemorate this event which will bring many new visitors
to Fredericksburg and provide new opportunities to tell the
story of the Civil War and highlight the need to protect these
battlefields for future generations.

While we are today rightfully celebrating our successes we
must not forget the challenges that we still face. These
battlefields are located in the fastest growing region in
Virginia. The reality is we cannot, nor should we, stop growth.
However, we must recognize both our obligations to future
generations in preserving their history, and the lessons learned
from it, and acknowledge the importance of these battlefields
to the long-term prosperity of the region.

As we consider the future development of our communities we
must keep three simple truths in the fore front of our
deliberations. That these parks are both unique and
irreplaceable. That people do not travel from across the
country or from around the world to visit a retail store. That
the average positive impact of a retail development is around
fifteen years while the positive economic impact of these
battlefields will last for generations as long as we continue to
protect them.

I look forward to continuing the strong relationship between
the city and the National Park Service as we face the challenges
of the future--To go beyond just maintaining the parks and to
take every opportunity to enhance them. On behalf of the City
of Fredericksburg I wish the parks a Happy 82nd birthday and
look forward to many more in the future.

This weekend I hope to post some musing I’ve been working on regarding taxes. Looking forward to a good discussion on this issue in light of the current financial situation in which we find ourselves. Stay tuned!

The Courts, Round II (Addendum)

2009-01-19T14:17:00.000-08:00

I’ve noticed that those who support moving forward with the court project, or believe we should avoid a confrontation with the judges, are not inclined to explain the basis for their position. I do wish to understand the rationale for why we must move forward with the construction of the new court facility. I would ask that if you do support moving the project forward that you would take a moment to post the reason(s) for your position. Thank-you.

-The Management-

The Courts, Round II

2009-01-18T09:12:00.000-08:00

From the Moseley Report:

Analysis and Conclusions

Page 66--"City staff has indicated that a cost of more than about $30 million for new court facilities is not affordable for the City at this time. As a result, any of these three options are cost prohibitive."

Page 67 -- "Only Princess Anne Street Option C (Rebuild on the JDR site) meets all of the criteria detailed in the table above at an initial cost that is affordable."

From the City Manager’s cover letter to the 2009 budget:

“…the outlook for FY 2010 is extremely difficult. The City continues to call upon its dwindling fund balance reserves, while at the same time the construction of the Court complex, the expansion of the Rappahannock Regional Jail, cost inflation, and deferred maintenance items creates additional pressure to raise expenditure levels just to maintain consistent service levels. The City will not be able to use its fund balance reserves in a significant way to construct the FY 2010 budget. Without significant new revenue growth, the current austerity climate for the City will continue for at least the next two or three years.”

The Moseley Report was released in August 2007 and the Manager’s letter was written in July 2008-- Both before the meltdown of the economy. If the city couldn’t afford more than $30 million dollars for a court facility before the recession why are we talking about $50 + million to build the facility now?

The answer till recently was that if we didn’t do it the judges would order the City to build the facility. We would then loose control of the project and the judges would run up the cost and we would be paying even more. Frankly, this statement does a diservice to our judges by impling that they would inflate the cost of the project. This view is also not correct.

I have linked to the state code section relating to the judges’ authority in ordering court repairs (15.2-1643). The optimum word is repair—not build. Even if the judges ordered the city to address the courts current security and space needs the City Council can appoint a (5) member panel, including three architects, to review the courts needs and make recommendations to address them. A Circuit Court judge appointed by the Supreme Court then makes a decision based on that report. The code specifically states that a locality cannot be ordered to build new facilities unless recommended by the panel.

In reviewing the cases where localities were ordered by the courts to address inadequate facilities—Richmond, Lexington, Surry County, and Portsmouth—all maintained or have maintained control of the project. Time lines were established to complete work and as a member of Council pointed out that could mean losing control of the project. It’s hard to believe that we can be made to proceed any faster than we already are at this point.

At the last City Council meeting it was pointed out that since 1974 the city had completed (20) + projects on the JDR court facility and just finished renovating the Circuit Court. This was not meant to show that the city has dealt with all the issues but rather to refute the comments made that we have ignored the courts. As problems have been brought to the city’s attention we have taken steps to deal with them.

Some pointed to the amount of work done on the courts as a justification for building a new facility now. That the courts have waited long enough. This position ignores the fact that it has only been in the last three years or so that the judges have begun the push for new facilities--As opposed to decades in the cases of Portsmouth, Lexington and Richmond. I’ve talked with a number of former Council members and Mayors and none remember the judges demanding new facilities.

This view also does not justify the current direction that the Council is moving. The Moseley report recommended other alternatives short of a $50 million + dollar court facility. As already noted the recommendation was to build on the current JDR site. We are required to address security concerns and current space needs not necessarily build a new court complex.

Another point made is that we must move forward because costs for the facility will continue to go up. Why didn’t we use this rationale to justify building the recreational facilities at Dixon Street all at once instead of in (3) phases? The answer--staff pointed out that to build the complex all at once was cost prohibitive. The cost of phase three was put in the area of $20 million. Cost is an issue but it must be looked at in the context of its impacts in other areas. City services for example.

Today we see businesses continue to close, property values are still dropping, and a jump in the unemployment rate. Revenues to the city will continue to drop and we are faced with the real possibility of reducing services. City school for example have taken a mid-year cut in state funding and looking at significant cuts in state funding next year. State funding to the city for such services as public safety are also being reduced. With our own declining revenues we are not in a position to make-up further cuts from the state nor maintain services without considering tax increases.

To try and minimize the financial impact of a new court facility staff has put together a plan that would hold off debt service payments until 2014, requiring tax increases in 2013, hoping that the economy will have turned around by then. Even if the economy turns around in two or three years our first priority should be to make up lost ground in areas such as public safety, services, and education--not taking on another $3 million a year in debt service for a new court facility. Such an increase in debt will preclude, and may even exacerbate, our ability to provide services.

When we embarked on the building of the schools we had a good reserve, and all indicators regarding revenue showed that we could move forward on these projects. The one caveat that staff made was that the city could not take on any more significant projects over the next few years. The economic situation today is far worse yet Council seems prepared to continue to move forward on a $50 + million project not because we have established that we can afford it but rather because to stop now, "would be based on an incomplete picture."

The reality is that the courts have issues that need to be addressed. However, the current economic picture clearly illustrates that the city cannot afford the current option being considered by City Council. As noted, both City staff and Moseley Architects made this point even before we entered the current recession. It should be understood that any option considered under the economic situation we face would come at a cost. But we must pick an option that looks beyond just the needs of the court and give at least equal weight to the needs of city residents.

The economic picture has radically changed since the city embarked on looking at new court facilities. Is it time to review other options?

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING???

2008-12-29T09:28:00.000-08:00

Over the past year as we have wrestled with such issues as incentives, taxes and the courthouse complex I have received some comments and criticism regarding how I have dealt with the issues of the day. So I have taken a little time to reflect on how I view my role as a City Councilman as well as how I deal with issues.

I have deliberately stayed away from issues of political philosophy and stuck with the nuts and bolts of the decision making process. I’ve also taken the liberty of getting some comments from those more learned than myself.

Please feel free to take issue with, elaborate, or just comment on what follows:

1. The guiding principle--

“When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people.”

“Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

Edmund Burke

The percentage of popular support on a particular issue is not as important as understanding the basis for that support or opposition. This information should be considered as you deliberate and come to a decision. In making a decision you must be prepared to place before the public the rationale for your decision and to address the concerns expressed by those who oppose it.

In the end your decision should not be based on what may be popular but rather on what you believe is in the best interest of the community.

2. A dose of reality a day is a good thing--

“Illusions commend themselves to us because they save us pain and allow us to enjoy pleasure instead. We must therefore accept it without complaint when they sometimes collide with a bit of reality against which they are dashed to pieces.”

Sigmund Freud

It is human nature for us to associate with those who hold the same ideas and opinions as we do. However, an elected representative makes no greater mistake when they bask in the accolades of their friends and supporters only to discover that those supporters don’t represent the majority view.

As an elected representative you must broaden your associations to include ALL your constituents. While accolades are great for the ego accepting, learning from criticism, will serve you and your constituents better in the end. This is not to say that you must sacrifice your views. People cannot expect that you will agree with their position on a particular issue but they should expect that their position would be given a fair hearing. The goal is not to expect agreement but rather understanding.

Seek out those who take issue with you. You will find your suppositions tested, see an issue from another point of view, and may come away with a better solution. This is what the democratic process is all about.

3. When it becomes personal it’s time to leave--

“Do good to your friends to keep them, to your enemies to win them.”

Benjamin Franklin

Each vote is a new day. You will make your case on the issue and have the potential of getting a unanimous vote. Those of your colleagues who voted against you in the prior vote are back in play on this one. This should always be the case if your focus is on making decisions that you feel are in the best interest of the community.

What too often happens is that you were not happy that the last vote didn’t go your way or that a comment was made that you took personally and the best interest of the community becomes a little less important and getting some form of personal satisfaction becomes a little more important. Unfortunately this situation tends to have a snowball affect and you reach the tipping point where personal issues trump the good of the community. This situation is not unknown to this region. Nor can any of us call ourselves saints.

It takes a conscious effort to avoid the slip into this situation. If you have issues with a colleague or staff it’s time for a chat. If you cannot refocus on the needs of the community it’s time to go.

4. You will never make everyone happy--

"It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you get off on sometimes. What matters most is getting off. You cannot make progress without making decisions.”

Jim Rohn

While this statement may seem a bit obvious one has to ask then why do we keep trying to do it. What is even more astounding is that in trying to make everyone happy we only seem to annoy people even more; or at the least, we will sacrifice the outcome we wanted.

Compromise is part of the process. However the focus of that effort should be to achieve a desired outcome. When you instead make compromises to curry favor you most often
overcomplicate the process, add unnecessary cost, and nine times out of ten, you lose your original base of support or just annoy another interest group.

Another casualty of focusing on the unattainable goal of making everyone happy is your own integrity.

5. It’s about outcomes not process--

“However beautiful the strategy (process), you should occasionally look at the results.”

Winston Churchill

Process is important to make sure of the complete vetting of an issue and ensure that the execution of the final decision is orderly and efficient. However the goal of the process is to arrive at a plan of action to address the issue—an outcome.

Prepare to be amazed when you question some aspect of the process and you can’t get an explanation as to why it is done that way. A recent example-- a state agency has three different departments looking into their own procurement policy to determine whether conducting interviews by conference call is legal. With no explanation ever given as to why interviews had to be done face to face in the first place.

One of the biggest challenges you will face in government is the process. Do not accept the response of either, “I don’t know,” or “No, you can’t do that.” These are statements not answers. If you cannot get a logical answer for why something is done it is time for a change.

In the aforementioned example we wrote up and adopted our own procurement policy. We streamlined the process so we could better achieve the desired outcomes.

6. Start with all options then narrow them down--

“We must dare to think the ‘unthinkable’ thoughts. We must learn to explore all the options and possibilities that confront us in a complex and rapidly changing world.”

J. William Fulbright

Never begin a discussion focusing on what you cannot do. Always begin the discussion by focusing on all the different ways you can accomplish your goal. Every option must begin on the table and no option is ultimately taken off the table without a valid reason.

The most common reasons given for not considering a particular option are political, or process issues. Both are transient reasons that can change or be altered and as such should not be considered the sole reason for elimination of a particular option. The amount of effort or resources needed to make changes is a valid consideration.

While you must understand and consider the current political/governmental dynamic do not be boxed in by it from the start. Sometimes changes are needed to, “business as usual” if you are to achieve the outcome you want. You won’t see those needed changes if you accept the limits as initially presented to you.

7. It will not work without staff support--

“Only fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experiences of others.”

Otto Von Bismarck

The first kick in the reality you receive upon entering elective office is that all the great and innovative ideas you brought with you to bring about the second renaissance of your community are not new. After coming to the rather sobering realization that you are not the next Washington or Lincoln you ask--Who had brought them up before and why weren’t they acted on? And your journey begins……

Staff not only has the answer to your questions they have intimate knowledge of how the system works and in the end will have to take the decisions made and turn them into action. If you expect to get anything done the relationship you established with staff is of critical importance. It is also important to remember that while staff has the institutional knowledge and expertise you need, how it is put to use ultimately rests with you.

Before you bring a proposal forward get staff input, not necessarily staff approval. If they have issues discuss them. If they say something can’t be done ask for another approach. If they have a better approach consider it. To have these types of discussions requires a relationship with staff where they feel comfortable that their criticisms will be taken as intended—to assist you in getting the result you are looking for and lay the groundwork for implementation.

8. Important Asset--The community--

“I’m not the smartest fellow in the world, but I sure can pick smart colleagues.”

FDR

You do not have the knowledge or the ability to make informed decisions on your own. Fortunately there is a wealth of information and expertise within the community on which to draw. Seek out people who can help you with an issue and don’t be afraid of using the phrases, “I don’t know,” or, “I don’t understand.”

By bringing in as much community input as possible you not only gain valuable input you also gain community buy in, or at least understanding, of your position on an issue.

9. The press is an important part of the process--.

“The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is. [For} to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves-and the better the teacher, the better the student body.”

Warren Buffett

There is a dedicated group of people who follow the deliberations of local government but most residents’ understanding of local government comes from what they read in the local paper or hear on the radio. It is imperative to work as closely as possible with the local press to ensure that constituents fully understand the issue at hand.

Every elected official has that moment after reading or hearing a news story where they question whether they and the local reporter were attending the same meeting. We must accept some of the responsibility for this situation. Reporters are on a deadline and are usually hearing what you consider a well-reasoned and articulate discourse on the issue of the day for the first time while having to deal with all the other well-reasoned articulate discourse from your colleagues—on multiple issues.

If you want to get your point across you need to sit down with the reporter before the meeting to discuss the issue and make yourself available for any follow-up questions. If your comments are as well reasoned and articulate as you think then you should submit them as an OpEd.

10. You will be frustrated--

“Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.”

Edmund Burke

You will have days when you send e-mails out like this one, on the issue of transportation--

“I've been reading John Coski's book on the history of the Confederate battle flag from its inception to today. I was struck by the debate going on in the Confederate Congress over the adoption of the "Third National" flag. In the end they decided to add a red vertical stripe on the end. This took place in March 1865! The world was crashing down around them and here they were debating a flag that was never going to fly! Here we are today watching a train wreck and all we can talk about is why we can't stop it from happening. We've come a long way since 1865--We don't ignore problems anymore we just talk about why we can't solve them.”

It is at times like these that you must remind yourself that some things take time and some issues will probably remain unresolved during your tenure as an elected official. That it will be others who succeed in bringing the issue to resolution. In the grand scheme of things you must resign yourself to playing only a small part in moving the issue towards final resolution and must be satisfied with that role.

But just because you do not have it within your power, or because the current dynamics conspire against you, is not a justification to do nothing. Frustration accentuates the importance of the issue and calls you to do all you can to move it closer to resolution.

WE WILL OVERCOME

2008-12-14T15:11:00.000-08:00

I was asked to make a few remarks to commemorate the 146th Anniversary of the Battle of Fredericksburg. As a student of history I take every opportunity to stress the importance of understanding our history as we make decisions that will affect our future.
In drafting my remarks I was given the opportunity to reflect on those events 146 years ago and consider how they relate to the issues we now face.

Today there is economic uncertainty at home and turmoil abroad that threatens the ideals on which this country was established. This is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that we as a nation will face such challenges. If there is only one lesson that we can take from our past it is that we will make mistakes, suffer, sacrifice, and even argue amongst ourselves; but in the end we will overcome the challenges put before us.

Here are my remarks commemorating the 146th Anniversary of the Battle of Fredericksburg:

From history lesson can and must be learned. Our history is more than dates, maps, pictures and documents. It is the story of how far we have come as a nation, our success, our failures, and at what cost. It shows us how far we can fall into the depth of great evil such as war and inspire us with examples of great compassion and sacrifice as witnessed by Richard Kirkland’s action, which we honor today.

Today it is our duty to build on the foundation of sacrifice, perseverance, and determination of the generations that came before us, like those who defended this wall and those who crossed these fields 146 years ago; so that we too can pass on to generations to come a nation that is a little closer to achieving the goals set forth by our founding fathers.

These men here today, dressed in blue and gray, are a reminder of the trials we as a nation have faced and overcome. Today is no different from 146 years ago in that this nation still faces great challenges both home and abroad that must be overcome. As 146 years ago we too are called to defend our nation’s ideals and we must do so with the understanding that there may be sacrifices, both great and small, that we may be asked to make.

I would like to end my remarks with a prayer written by a wounded confederate soldier that is as appropriate today as it was when it was first penned. It truly represents the courage, determination, and humility on which this nation was built and provides us with words of wisdom as we embark to face the challenges of today--

I asked God for strength, that I might achieve,
I was made weak, that I might learn humbly to obey....
I asked for health, that I might do greater things,
I was given infirmity, that I might do better things....
I asked for riches, that I might be happy,
I was given poverty, that I might be wise....
I asked for power, that I might have the praise of men,
I was given weakness, that I might feel the need of God....
I asked for all things, that I might enjoy life,
I was given life, that I might enjoy all things....
I got nothing that I asked for -
but everything that I had hoped for,
Almost despite myself, my unspoken prayers were answered.
I am among all men most richly blessed.

THE COURTS--WHAT NEXT?

2008-12-12T17:13:00.000-08:00

Concerns have been expressed that some of the information circulated regarding the plans on the new court complex has been inaccurate. I would like to point out that I do check my facts and numbers with staff. However, the editorial comment regarding those facts and numbers is my own and does not represent the views of staff or other members of the City Council.

So what are the next steps if we continue to adhere to the timeline currently being discussed. Here is the outline as confirmed with staff:

In January 2009, City Council will:

· Consider/Approve conceptual site plan of Courthouse/Mixed Use Development, and interior space layout of new courthouse
· Consider/Authorize Keating to proceed with Phase II work under the MOA (pre-development studies, land options, etc.)
· Consider/Approve the “Recommended Plan” to build the courthouse all-at-once.

In June 2009, City Council will:

· Consider/Approve master development agreement with USPS and Keating. This agreement/contract will define the financial and legal parameters of the project, including establishing the GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price) for the project.

The formal City review processes won’t begin until Architectural/Engineering plans are more advanced. Schematic design is currently shown from July–Nov 09.

The City Council should authorize debt issuance at about the same time it executes the master development agreement (June 2009). Payment on the debt is not planned to begin until 2014. Council can, if it so chooses, either wait until 2013 to raise taxes to support the debt or phase in tax increases between now and 2013.

From the City Manager’s Transmittal and Summary of the FY2009 budget:

“…the outlook for FY2010 is extremely difficult. The City continues to call upon its dwindling fund balance reserves, while at the same time the construction of the court complex, the expansion of the Rappahannock Regional Jail, cost of inflation, and deferred maintenance items creates additional pressure to raise expenditure levels just to maintain consistent service levels. The City will not be able to use its fund balance reserves in a significant way to construct the FY2010 budget. Without significant new revenue growth, the current austerity climate for the City will continue for at least the next two or three years.”

As previously posted city council cut the current FY2009 budget and more cuts are on the way in FY2010. Even with these cuts current forecasts on city and state revenues indicate that we will still be facing a budget deficit in the area of $1.5 million, which is a 4-cent increase in the tax rate. There is nothing on the horizon for 2011 or 2012 at this point that will have a significantly positive impact on revenue.

The projected revenue for Wegmans and the hotel are already being factored into next year’s revenue figures. While we hope to have significant projects like Kalahari move forward we have no confirmed timeline on this project and it will take some time for it to get up and running and start generating significant revenue for the city. Right now, whether the tax increases are phased in, or done all at once in 2013, the major burden will fall on the real estate tax rate—city residents.

Just to maintain city services in the coming year, or two, real estate taxes will probably have to be raised. This would be in addition to any tax increase for the court complex if Council were to decide to phase it in. If not, then the entire increase, in the area of 9-cents, will just be another in a series of increases. At a time when we hope to be pulling out of a national economic downturn we will be hit with the debt service for the court complex.

No one right now is predicting how long this recession will last beyond 2010 or how bad it will get. Yet City Council will be deciding next June whether to commit to at least a $47 million dollar investment for the new court complex.

I understand the reality that local judges can order the city to build the complex. I take great issue with judges having that authority but I do recognize that they have it. I do understand that there is a cost associated with not proceeding. However, when balanced against the current economic reality faced by the city--and residents, the court comes second to maintaining city services for residents and the economic well being of the City.

My hope is that the local judges will consider the current economic climate and what the potential economic/service impact moving forward on this project will have on the city. The court complex is needed and will be built. But it should move forward with the understanding that city/residents interests must also be considered.

Is the threat of legal action by local judges sufficient justification for moving the court complex forward?

The Poll is Open! (Again)

2008-12-05T14:26:00.000-08:00

Someone has taken issue with the fact that the poll on whether the new court facility should be built now was only up for (7) days. Actually, most of my polls have been limited to (7) days because 1) that is the default setting, and 2) most votes are cast in the first week.

Being the accommodating person that I am I have re-posted the poll and set the deadline for January 9th which is the night City Council will vote on whether to proceed with the project.

In the meantime I am preparing an OpEd on the subject that I will also post on this blog for comment. For now my initial post is below. I would also refer you to Brad Ellis’ site for his position on the court facility. http://www.fburgimpact.com/topissuescomingbeforecitycouncil This is an import issue facing the city that will have far reaching impacts on the City’s financial future. All comments and suggestions welcome.

Court Facilities--Now or Later?

2008-11-19T14:10:00.000-08:00

“The rest of that $5.5 million estimated shortfall is based on projections that tax collections will continue to slow. The prospect of additional cuts from the state means the gap could widen.”

The above from Emily Battle’s story in the Free Lance Star http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/112008/11192008/426232 sums up the current financial situation that the City now faces. Staff provided a scenario to address this projected shortfall by further cuts to departments and services, a reduction in school funding below the current level, the suspension of Capital projects—excluding the Courthouse, and further reductions to Outside Agencies. Even with these reductions a gap of about $1.5 million would remain. We are facing some very tough decisions and all indications are that we have not seen the bottom of the current economic downturn that is expected to carry over to 2011.

Another factor that must be considered is the impact of the current economic downturn is having on our tax base. Home prices are falling and will be reflected in the latest assessment. Economic development projects like Kalahari are being pushed back due to the credit crunch and Circuit City has filed for bankruptcy—probably not the last area business to do the same or just close the doors. Sales tax revenues are heading south as are related sources such as BPOL. Finally, the word from the state is that they will be reducing the contributions to localities to balance their budget. We have been told that during this round of cuts there will be no sacred cows.

On the bright side Wegmans is a head of schedule, the downtown hotel is expected to open next summer, and the new Eagle Village project, when started, will have a positive impact on our bottom line. However the income form these projects will not help us in the coming year.
The end result of this situation is, in the coming year or two, city residents will probably have to open their wallets to just help maintain current levels of service. Speaking for myself, my decisions related to the coming budget, as outlined in previous posts, is to maintain core services—public safety, public services—water, sewer, street maintenance, etc, and education. I agree with the staff recommendation of Capital projects, not related to core services, should be put off but I would add the new Court facility to that list.

I do understand the need for new court facility. I agree that we should move forward on this project as quickly as is feasibly possible. However, now is not the time. The cost on the debt service for this project alone translates to 10 cents on the tax rate and right now that is where the money will have to come from to move this project forward—city residents.

The rationale for moving forward on the construction of the court facility is safety concerns, the advantages of consolidation, and the projected increase in case loads which is regionally driven. I agree with these points but I do not agree that the court facility is an economic development project that will some how pay for itself or even come close.

It will not be bring a lot of “new” revenue to the City. The facility is being built to meet growing demand that is coming whether we like it or not. I agree that the courts should remain downtown to help the economic vitality of downtown but it will not be a large revenue generator. While there will be both a commercial and residential component to the project the revenue generated will not cover the over $3 million dollars a year in debt service.

All I have requested of my colleagues is that we push back the project to allow for the impact of real economic development projects like Kalahari, the downtown hotel, Wegmans and Eagle Village to begin generating revenue for the City. Lets, get through the next two years and give the overall economy time to bounce back--as it will. Most importantly, lets not place the burden of this project on City taxpayers now when there is a legitimate feeling of uncertainty about our economic future.

I do understand that construction costs will continue to rise but if the money isn’t there then we have to wait. What I do not understand is the explanation that this project must move forward because if we don’t the area judges will force us to build it. I was elected to serve the best interests of the City and its residents not local judges. Moving this project forward at this time is not in the City’s interest and its time we make that position clear.

What would be your recommendation on the building of the new court facilities?

Dogma or Pragmatism?

2008-11-15T07:00:00.000-08:00

Before embarking on my last OpEd http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/112008/11092008/422493 on workforce housing I had to consider the question of making use of taxpayer’s dollars to intervene in the private sector and reconciling that with my, “less government is better,” philosophy. In the end I wrote it and will work to achieve the goal outlined in the piece.

Like any business local governments have to face escalating costs. Like business local government should look at all options to address those costs beyond just the traditional solutions of cut spending or raise taxes with the only results being reduces services or just increases cost. Any business that operated under such constraints would not be open long.

Local government’s biggest expense is personnel and we are in a competitive market. And unlike private business we are subject to state/federal madates. Where a business can hire and fire based on market forces local goverments do not have as much flexibility.

In the case of our region we are not in a position to compete with the jurisdictions to the north when it comes to salaries. There is also the reality that the cost of living in this region continues to go up and to just say hold the line flies in the face of this dynamic. Such a position also comes with a cost in having to rehire, retrain, and disruption in services as people go north for higher pay. In either case, tax or not tax, there are costs.

The use of taxpayer’s dollars to intervene in the local housing market gives me pause but I am not prepared to dismiss the opportunity, or any opportunity, on purely philosophical grounds. Rather I am must, in my role as an elected official, look at the cost and benefits to the residents of Fredericksburg, and our region.

In this case, by way of federal legislation, funds have been made available to purchase foreclosed homes. While I may have issues with the decision the funds are now there and for me the question becomes can these dollars be used to achieve our shared goal of providing good services at a reasonable cost. In this case I believe we can.

By taking these funds and acquiring properties we have an opportunity to provide housing for our employees. Employees that live in the community they serve are less likely to leave. In providing this housing, we also obtain equity and, through charging a reduced rate of interest, can acquire funding to support other programs such as down payment assistance, rental assistance, etc. In the end, we have a self sustaining program that provides a benefit that most employees would like to have thereby reducing the upward pressure on local costs.

If you do not believe that this is the direction we should be going in I am prepared to listen to alternatives. Just saying no is not an alternative. Political dogmas such as cut spending or services are not enough. Comments that ignoring the realities that local governments face such as, reduced state and federal funding, more mandates, and increased demand for services do not help. I am not interest in hearing what we can’t do but rather what we can do to achieve our goal of providing services to our residents in a cost effective manner.

Taxes--Politics vs Reality

2008-09-21T13:04:00.000-07:00

In the blizzard of comments on my last post a comment by Eric Martin caught my attention. In a reference to my service on Council he noted, “…he's only human, and except when he raises taxes and says yes with the crowd to things that a government has no business being involved in according to our constitution and founding fathers' intent in the role of government…” I will save the discussion on the role of government for another day. With localities facing declining revenues, reductions in state and federal support, and taking on more responsibilities usually the perview of state/federal government, the topic of taxes does deserve our attention.

In a post on my political blog, Into the (Political) Arena,
http://intothepoliticalarena.blogspot.com/2008/05/lets-talk-taxes.html
I posted my “heretical” view that my party’s mantra on “No new taxes” lacks vision and is overly simplistic. The issue is not taxes. The issue is on what our tax dollars are spent on and the outcome of those expenditures--Do we get the maximum bang for our buck? Then there is the difference between expenditures related to services, a legitimate perview of government, versus programs.

At the local level the vast majority of tax dollars are spent on services--fire, police, water and sewer, trash pick-up, street maintenance, etc. As you go up to the state, and federal level the amount of taxes spent on programs increases--subsidies, earmarks, funding for midnight basketball etc. Another factor to consider is that at the local level all your tax dollars stay in the community. Again, as you move to the state and federal levels less of your tax dollars are spent in your community and the higher up you go the impact of the expenditure decreases as more of your tax dollar goes to support the bureaucracy.

While Mr. Martin and I would probably have similar views with regards to the use of our tax dollars at the state and federal levels we seem to disagree on tax policy at the local level. Mr. Martin’s approach is any increase in taxes is unacceptable. My approach is to provide the level of services that City residents expect and recognizing the impact those services have on the financial health of the City.

Good schools, safe streets, and good services do not just benefit our quality of life but also the future economic viability of the City. Degraded services, lack of educational opportunities, and congested roads for example, do not attract economic development opportunities and negatively impact residents by devaluing their investment in the City—their homes.

This year, and in the coming year, the state will continue to reduce funding to localities. In addition, in areas that are traditionally a state responsibility such as transportation, we will see reductions in funding which localities are having to make up. Add to this equation reductions in local revenues and the question does become one of taxes vs. level of service.

Unlike most localities this year’s City budget was less than the one the year before. In a previous post I dealt with the breakdown on the budget and my views on how we should deal with it. http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2008/02/budget.html
My approach to coming budget discussions will be along similar lines.

1. Funding for core services first which would include schools. However in the coming year new funding for schools will be difficult to achieve.

2. Word from constituents is no further reduction in basic services, public safety, trash pick-up, etc.

3. As per agreement on the last budget, unless the revenue picture changes, Outside Agencies will have to make up $450,000 paid this year to give them time to find alternate funding.

4. If City Departments are faced with further reductions I will expect similar reductions from groups such as the Regional Jail and Constitutional Officers.

Since my election I have tried to keep taxes as low as possible and will continue to do so. However, hiding behind a phrase such as, “No new taxes” may be good politics but it is bad policy.

Where do you stand on the issue of taxes?

WARD #1--Questions From the Community

2008-08-29T17:22:00.000-07:00

What questions would you like to see the candidates for appointment to the Ward One seat address? Or if you already support one of the candidates--why?

The Future of Incentives

2008-08-27T18:53:00.000-07:00

Below is a copy of an e-mail I had sent to Council and staff before the meeting at which an incentives package was passed for Creative Design Group (CDG) who has now decided to stay in Spotsylvania after receiving a more lucrative incentives package from the county. What happened with CDG points up the need for us to better plan for the use of incentives in the future. And just as important--gain community support and understanding of how incentives can be used to meet our shared goals.

Re: special Meeting

As I will not be able to attend tomorrow's meeting I wanted to pass on a few thoughts to support my request to discuss the future of incentives at our September retreat.

When discussions first started regarding the use of incentives with David Holder it was in the context of identifying the type of projects we want for the city and actively trying to recruit them. Projects that help diversify our tax base, insured that the remaining land we had in the city would generate a large return while fitting the overall goal of maintaining the unique character of the City. Wegmans comes closest to fitting this approach. There was strong community support to attract an up scale food market to the city with efforts going back at least (8) years to try an attract one here--Mayor Beck's effort to get Ukrops to open a small market in the Fredericksburg Hardware building downtown. In providing Wegmans with incentives we secured a "unique" business that had a history community support with a documented history of economic success.

The incentive for Kybecca shows that existing businesses could benefit from the Incentive program. Kalahari and Capital Ale were more "targets of opportunity." These projects will help secure the City's future economic viability but we found ourselves having to build public support for these projects--trying to explain how they fit "The Plan" to secure Fredericksburg's future. In the case of Kalahari, we talked about a tourism project in a tourism zone and the need to expand our tourism tax base. In the case of Capital Ale we stressed how this business had attracted a more upscale clientele from outside the area and its community involvement. The fact of the matter is we have not had the time to sit down and discuss exactly what "The Plan" is. We have the basic concept, but not a plan with everything in place--zoning, ordinances, target businesses, etc. And just as important-- a plan that the community both understands and supports.

We have completed the Comp Plan. We are now talking about changing our zoning to allow mix-use development, and making changes to assist in implementing the goals of JumpStart. We are also now looking at redevelopment corridors and should start looking at re-development opportunities in some of our older shopping centers, as well as infill development, and identify areas for employment centers. Decisions we make in these areas will help define what incentives will be used for and place projects in a context of an overall development plan whether we recruit them or they are, "targets of opportunity." These are discussions that cannot be completed in an evening, Nor can we continue to discuss incentives without placing them in context of the City's future financial security while meeting the community's shared goals.

As previously noted we have all discussed both the successes and failures of the incentive process thus far. Based on my discussions with the Council and staff it was agreed we needed to have all the parties involved--applicants, developers, and staff-- at the table for some frank discussions about the process. Mary Katherine has implied that the business community probably has something to say about incentives and should be given an opportunity to express them. The work session as planned does not have all the players at the table and I would hope that no action is taken regarding changes to the incentive program until such a meeting is held. We also need to have a long discussion in how incentives fit the City's goals and how they will be achieved-- with community support.

-Matt-

What happened with CDG also points to the need for the localities of Planning District 16 to better coordinate their economic development efforts to preclude the possibility of businesses moving around the region chasing the better incentive package or engaging in bidding wars for a particular business. This will require good communications between the Economic Development offices within the region. Something that does not currently exist and CDG is the example of what happens without it.

At the elected official level we have discussed working together to market the region on the understanding that everyone can benefit from a project even thought it is not physically located in their locality. Lets us look at the CDG experience as a lesson learned, take steps to avoid the situation from occurring again, and look to how we can work together for our mutual benefit.

Museum of the Confederacy

2008-08-22T10:12:00.000-07:00

“Built in 1852 to the design of nationally renowned architect James Renwick (Designer of the Smithsonian), the City of Fredericksburg Circuit Courthouse is among the architectural treasures in the Fredericksburg Historic District and one of the most prominent buildings on Princess Anne Street. It is the only Gothic Revival courthouse in Virginia.”

As part of the Court Facility Study undertaken on behalf of the City by Mosley Architects in 2007 a group of citizens met at the Circuit Court to discuss the future of the courthouse after the new court facility is built. There was, “strong agreement that the building should continue to be part of the city’s public life, whether as a courthouse or with a new use.” It was also agreed that, ”the courthouse should be respected, preserved, and used so that it continues to enhance and enrich downtown Fredericksburg, the city at large, and the surrounding region.”

The report also went on to cover the condition of the building and made some recommendations for changes to meet the stated goal of continued public use of the facility. These involve electrical upgrades, ADA compliance issues, heating & air upgrades, floor weight ratios, and of course the problem of moisture around the building’s foundation. This would require a significant public investment.

The reality is that the construction of the new court facility will increase the City’s debt service to $10 million a year. Based on current projections the revenue from Wegmans, Kalahari, and the new downtown hotel will be needed to cover the new debt. Council has been advised that a large number of planned Capital projects will have to be put on hold indefinitely due to the increase in debt and falling revenues. We don’t have the money to renovate the courthouse.

The situation with state funding is no different. Funds allocated to assist in some basic work on the courthouse were reduced this year. The word from Richmond today is revenue continues to drop and more cuts should be expected, not only for projects like the courthouse, but across the board.

We could be facing the specter of another Maury School. A public building sitting vacant for years with tax dollars being spend to just slow down the rate of deterioration waiting for funding to become available to restore it for a public use. Fortunately, there is an organization that has expressed a potential interest in renovation of the courthouse. This will meet our goal of continued public use and will draw more visitors downtown, thereby helping to generate more tourism revenue for the City. That organization is The Museum of the Confederacy.

Fredericksburg sits in the center of the most fought over piece of ground in the United States. Four major Civil War battles were fought in and around the city, which attract thousands of visitors here every year. The addition of the Museum of the Confederacy would be a natural fit and enhance visitor’s experience of the Civil War. We are looking at the possibility of a restored courthouse with a public use component that would also help bolster heritage tourism to the area that translates to longer stays, and more spending by tourists.

In preliminary discussions with the museum it has been made clear that the City does not have funds to invest in the renovation of the courthouse. What we can do is make the building available to the museum under some form of lease agreement on the understanding that they would have to bear the cost of the renovations. It is also understood that space would be made available to the public and there have even been discussions about maintaining a court use to continue the record as the longest continuously operated courthouse in Virginia.

While the Museum of the Confederacy looks to be a natural fit for Fredericksburg there are issues that must be addressed before we move forward. There is the issue of whether the museum can financially handle the renovations and upkeep of the courthouse. Will the timeline for occupancy of the old courthouse allow the museum to open on their schedule? What type of renovation would have to be made and how much would they, if at all, compromise the historical integrity of the building? And then there is the issue of the topic itself.

The story of the Confederate States of America still engenders great passion today. There are those who admire the romanticized view of the, “Lost Cause;” while others see slavery and racism. Like any other creation of man the Confederacy cannot be categorized by absolutes.

History is intermingled stories of man’s achievements and innovation, as well as his failures and missed opportunities. Of great deeds and compassion as well as great evil and inhumanity. We have learned, and continue to learn, from these events, both good and bad, and from these lessons we try to build a society that improves on the one left by the previous generation. If we oversimplify history, edit it, or ignore it, we will begin to make the same mistakes, and miss the lessons, of those who came before us.

We must be mindful of sensitivities and ensure than the story of the Confederacy is placed in its proper context and all aspects addressed—from military success on the battlefield as well as the institution of slavery. All must be open for discussion and debate.

Since beginning their search in this area the Museum of the Confederacy has been sensitive to this issue and have met with community groups to explain their goals for the museum and answer questions on how the Confederacy will be presented. http://civilwarmemory.typepad.com/civil_war_memory/2008/03/museum-of-the-c.html
I would also invite you to visit the museum’s website http://www.moc.org/site/PageServer to learn more about the museum. If you have questions or concerns they would be happy to address them.

This project should engender community discussion and no doubt some debate. From such discussions comes understanding and consensus. All I would ask is that you do not just dismiss the proposal without giving the museum and its supporters the opportunity to address your concerns and answer any questions you may have.

1200 Prince Edward--What Next?

2008-07-27T13:47:00.000-07:00

It has been over four years since fire destroyed the seventeen-unit apartment building located at1200 Prince Edward Street. What remains is a 19th century brick façade that is structurally sound. Next month City Council will again debate whether this structure should be demolished and the lot restricted to single-family use. The Council’s decision on this issue will impact not only the historic character of our downtown but also Council’s housing goals, and the City’s urban character.

What will occur next month in City Council Chambers is a continuation of a debate that began two years ago when the owner, Al Sharp, presented a proposal to build four condominium units using the existing facade. Prior to Mr. Sharp’s proposal the Architectural Review Board (ARB), in response to City efforts to declare the property blighted, unanimously voted against the blight designation and recognized the, “historical significance of the building.” http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/042006/04252006/186215
At its next meeting the ARB gave, “conceptual approval” of the owner’s plans to restore the building. http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/052006/05092006/189788

A month later the Planning Commission approved the proposed reuse of the structure on a 6-1 vote. http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/062006/06292006/202804

On August 8, 2006 the project came before the City Council. A Council majority, 4-3, voted against the proposed reuse. The majority rationale provided was that the new use was not in compliance with the current zoning.
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/082006/08092006/212572

There is no question that the proposal submitted for the re-use of the building was not in compliance with the zoning. In this case, Mr. Sharp did not even have the option of applying for a Special Use permit. His only option was to apply for—a Special Exception. Two observations on this point—1) The Planning Commission and staff recognized that the project could have been considered to have met the Special Exception criteria. 2) A large number of structures in the Historic District are not in compliance with City zoning and their owners would find themselves having to apply for Special Use Permits or Special Exceptions in similar circumstances.

This is what happens when you apply 20th century planning concepts—zoning—to an 18th/19th century downtown. Under these circumstances ridged application of zoning makes no sense. Some common sense must be applied. In this particular case we must look at this project in the context of our Comprehensive Plan and economic realities. When we look at these we find that the single-family home option does not work and frankly doesn’t meet our goals.

On the economic side when one takes into consideration the cost of the lot along with the cost of demolishing the structure we are looking at a single-family home in the million dollar range. I have talked to a number of developers in the area and they all agree that a single family home is not economically feasible.

Then there is the issue of the Comprehensive Plans goals for housing. Two state the following:

“3. Encourage retention and rehabilitation of existing residential dwelling units as a means to maintain affordable units. (See also Neighborhoods Policy #12.)”

“15. Promote the development of a variety of housing types (e.g., single-family units, townhouses, loft apartments, accessory apartments, etc.) throughout the City, while promoting homeownership.”

How does replacing (17) apartments with a single house achieve our goal, “ to maintain affordable units, " and “Promote the development of a variety of housing types.”

While I would prefer a plan that provided housing options for teachers, firemen, and police I would have to say four condos comes closer to our goal that another “McMansion.” I share former Councilman Wilson’s much stated fear that we are pricing our children out of the City.

Downtown is not suburbia. Within two blocks of 1200 Prince Edward Street there are apartments and commercial development. This is an urban setting. Today, as in the past, downtown residents reside above commercial establishments, in apartments or single-family homes. This mix provides opportunities for diverse economic groups working both inside and outside of Fredericksburg. These residents are the employees and patrons that help make our downtown a success. We need to maintain this diversity not eliminate it.

Finally there are our preservation goals. Every member of Council who voted in August 2006 acknowledged the historic and architectural significance of the building. Those that voted against the four-condo proposal made this clear. On the issue of demolition they pointed out, “Voting against the four-condo proposal is not the equivalent of demolition." At our August 12th meeting we will begin to discuss a staff recommendation to do just that—demolish the building.

We need to revisit all options for the reuse of this property in the context of our goals, economic realities, and a little common sense. In 2006 the Planning Commission put strict guidelines on their approval to expedite the redevelopment of the property. We can do so again.

Post Script--Councilwoman Mary Katherine Greenlaw has advised me the brick structure still standing was built around 1934. I was referring to previous Historic District surveys which refer to parts of the building dating back to the 1880s. As Councilwoman Greenlaw has extensive experience with this issue I would defer to her position and offer my apologies for the error. I would point out that in June of this year the ARB again reaffirmed their position that the building was a contributing element to the Historic District.

58.1-603.3 A Step in the Right Direction

2008-06-27T15:26:00.000-07:00

58.1-603.3. Imposition of additional state retail sales and use taxes in certain regions.

A. As used in this section, unless the context clearly shows otherwise:

B. There is hereby levied and imposed, in addition to all other taxes and fees now imposed by law, a general retail sales and use tax at the rate of one percent in any urban region of the Commonwealth that has at any time an aggregate of at least 8.5 million daily vehicle miles traveled in the area in accordance with the most recent written determinations of daily vehicle miles traveled by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Based solely on this requirement, the Tax Commissioner shall be responsible for making the written determination of whether an urban region has met such requirement.

The tax shall be imposed on July 1 of the calendar year following the date of the Tax Commissioner’s written determination, with a regular session of the Virginia General Assembly intervening between the time of the written determination and the imposition of the tax.

The Tax Commissioner shall promptly provide a copy of any written determination to the Governor and the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, the House Committee on Finance, and the Senate Committee on Finance. The written determination shall include the date on which the tax shall be first imposed in the respective urban region.

(Sections C. through G pertain to what is subject to the sales tax. Food is excluded.)

H. The revenues generated and collected pursuant to the tax imposed under subsection B shall be deposited by the Comptroller into a special nonreverting fund within the state treasury for the respective urban region entitled the “Revenue Fund for the Urban Region of ……....” The Fund shall be established on the books of the Comptroller when the tax under subsection B is first imposed in the respective urban region. Interest earned on moneys in the Fund shall remain in the Fund and be credited to it. Any moneys remaining in the Fund, including interest thereon, at the end of each fiscal year shall not revert to the general fund but shall remain in the Fund.

For the purposes of depositing such revenues into the Fund, there shall be deposited into the Fund an estimate developed by the Department of Taxation of such revenues to be received into the state treasury each month, net of the estimated applicable portion of any refunds to taxpayers and after subtraction of the direct costs of administration by the Department of Taxation. Such estimated deposits into the Fund shall be adjusted for the actual net revenues received in the preceding month.

I. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, the net revenues generated and collected from the tax imposed under subsection B shall be allocated by the Commonwealth Transportation Board solely for transportation projects in the respective urban region that are included in the federally mandated Regional Transportation Plan approved by the metropolitan planning organization for the respective urban region (or any successive plan).

As outlined in previous posts, the Fredericksburg Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO) has spent the last two years reorganizing itself and planning to meet our region’s future transportation challenges. Over the next few months the public will begin to see the results of these efforts—

--A multi-modal (cars, trains, buses, trails) transportation plan based on a comprehensive review of the development plans of member jurisdictions.

--An approved set of guidelines to prioritize transportation projects based on categories such as safety, congestion mitigation, and cost-to-benefit.

--Plans to look beyond large transportation projects to consider smaller, and possibly more cost effective, projects; i.e., adding turn lanes, intersection improvements, etc.

--Finalizing plans with VDOT to allow local jurisdictions more authority in planning and building secondary roads.

--A policy to ensure public involvement in discussions on regional transportation.

FAMPO has done, and is doing, everything it can do to ensure that transportation dollars spent in this region have the maximum positive impact in meeting our transportation needs. We now need help to ensure we have sufficient resources to meet our future needs.

Our current Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) through 2035 identifies $1.4 billion dollars available to our region. FAMPO has identified almost $7 billion in projects to maintain a passable transportation system. As local elected representatives, we will need to review our respective Comprehensive Plans to bring them more in line with the resources available. In turn we must expect our elected representatives in Richmond to recognize the growth rate for this region and provide realistic funding.

For the past two years, we have taken every opportunity to remind our representatives in Richmond that we are the fourth largest and fastest growing region in the Commonwealth and that the current process and funding dynamic for meeting our transportation needs is inadequate. As the current Special Session on Transportation opened, two members of our delegation had taken steps to address this issue.

Delegate Mark Cole introduced two bills, HB601 and HB603, that change the current funding formula. HB601 would allocate transportation dollars based on the number of vehicles registered in a jurisdiction, while HB603 would allocate funds based on population. Either bill would benefit this region but neither has any chance of passing. In a recent interview on the special session, Governor Kaine echoed the position of a majority of General Assembly members when he said, "I don't think that's helpful to Virginia. I don't think it's helpful to get in a deep allocation debate that pits one region against another.” So we will put off that critical discussion for another day.

Senator Houck attached an amendment, 58.1-603.3, to Transportation Bill SB6009 which imposes a one cent sales tax (excluding food) in areas serviced by an MPO where there are more than 8.5 million daily vehicle miles a day. FAMPO would easily qualify under these conditions. What would this amendment mean to us?

Over the coming years FAMPO can expect transportation funding at a level of between $28 to $30 million dollars. A one-cent increase in the sales tax as outlined in 58.1-603.3 would generate an additional $36 million dollars-- more than double funding for transportation within the MPO.

I would prefer that the jurisdictions of the MPO be given the option of imposing this tax; i.e, all three MPO jurisdictions – Stafford, Spotsylvania, and Fredericksburg – would have to make the case to residents of the need for the tax increase. We plan to begin the public involvement phase of our CLRP review at the end of this summer and this would provide the forum for such a discussion. However, in making this recommendation I would have to acknowledge the hypocrisy of my position after I have on numerous occasions criticized our state representatives for pushing off the tough decisions onto local governments.

I have also read some criticism of the proposal since the Commonwealth Transportation Board would have the final say on what projects the money could be spent on. As noted in the legislation, that decision would be based on “federally mandated Regional Transportation Plan.” The CTB would be picking the projects from a list provided by the FAMPO. While I would question the need to involve the CTB, I understand the rationale of working under the current process. We can, and must, deal with the process another day.

While I have some issues with Mr. Houck’s legislation, I have to acknowledge that this is an effort to address an issue that FAMPO has been putting forward for years. There are also the political realities consider — what we can realistically expect to have some small chance of passing.

While there are big issues still unresolved – the funding formula, reforming the process, and more local control of transportation projects – 58.1-603.3 represents a step in the right direction. Finally, there is an acknowledgement that there are regions in the Commonwealth beyond Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads that face transportation challenges. I believe FAMPO is prepared to make the case that the additional funding is needed and will fund projects that will have a positive impact on the region’s transportation system.

The political reality is that SB3009 will be used by both sides to meet perceived political objectives – either to show one side’s commitment to raise taxes or pointing to the inaction of the other. It does not look like Richmond has reached the point where the transportation needs of the Commonwealth trump political considerations. However, should we be surprised and some compromise is reached, I would hope that Senator Houck’s amendment in some form is part of it.

If you agree with the position to support Houck’s amendment 58.1-603.3 I would urge you to contact your elected representatives in Richmond. If not, please provide alternatives to meet our transportation needs.

THE SLAVERY MUSEUM PARTNERSHIP?

2008-06-15T07:51:00.000-07:00

At our last meeting former Governor Douglas Wilder addressed the City Council in support of a request to provide the National Slavery Museum a three-year exemption on real estate taxes. The amount involved is $42,745.00 per year for a total exemption of $128,235.00. In his statement before Council Governor Wilder placed the request in the context of, “Either you want the museum here or not.”

Many I have talked to question why Governor Wilder would seem to be drawing a line in the sand over such a small amount of money in light of the over all cost of the project which now must be significantly higher than the original $200 million price tag established over six years ago. Some are asking whether the former governor is only looking for an excuse to take the project back to Richmond blaming the move, and lack of progress, on the city. I hope this is not the case as such a decision would be both unfortunate and unfair to Fredericksburg. The City has in fact tried to work with the Slavery Museum staff to move the project forward. Unfortunately this effort to form a working partnership has not been reciprocated.

In June of 2005 Council members were asked to respond to a March request by the National Slavery Museum to consider waiving construction fees. Comments by all members of the Council were positive. My comment was, "I don't think it's excessive (fee waivers) in comparison to the museum's potential to the community,"

The actual request for the fee waivers came before City Council at its meeting of July 12, 2005. Based on conversations held with other members of Council I moved to defer the vote on the fee waivers until we could have an update on the project provided by representatives of the museum. As I stated at the meeting, "We're not asking anything we haven't asked of any other organization that is asking for money."

The response to the City’s request for additional information was answered in a memo sent by museum Executive Director, Ms. Vonita Foster, to City Manager Phil Rodenburg. The request for fee waivers was withdrawn without explanation.

A few days later Ms. Foster responded to the Council’s action in an interview with the Richmond Times Dispatch in which she was quoted as saying, "We need partners who are visionary, fair and unbiased." She went on to imply that the museum many not be built in Fredericksburg. An E-mail was sent directly to Governor Wilder, again expressing support for the project, and requesting clarification of Ms. Foster’s statements. In part the e-mail stated, "I hope that the decision of the museum board to withdraw their request for fee waivers is not an indication that the information requested will not be forthcoming; or that the museum may be considering relocating as implied by your Executive Director in comments to the press."

There was no direct response from either Governor Wilder or museum staff. Instead, Ms. Foster did an interview with Adelphia Channel 3, the local Spotsylvania cable station, to announce that the museum would be built in Fredericksburg.

Prior to Council’s next meeting on July 28th I had what I thought was a good conversation with Ms. Foster and there seemed to be agreement for a meeting with the Council to provide a project update. At the next Council meeting Mrs. Girvan again suggested, as she did on July 12th, a meeting with the museum, which I endorsed.

A letter had been received from Ms. Foster stating that the museum had raised around $49 million, had picked a builder, and planned to open in 2007. It wasn’t much but it was a start and Council put a positive face on it hoping we had turned a corner. That thought came to an end when the answer came back on our request for a meeting. Again the answer came second hand a day or two later in a Free-Lance Star interview with Museum Assistant Mr. James Damron. When asked whether Ms. Foster was amenable to a meeting his response was, “We have no comment.”

What we did get was a visit from former Governor Wilder on July 29th for an invitation only press conference on the project, which was not open to the public. Only certain members of the Council were invited and the local press was ignored. I did, “crash” the event and was not turned away. It was not a venue for asking questions regarding infrastructure impacts etc. It provided information on what the project would look like but that was about it.

Even though the museum continued to balk at providing the City with information related to the project and its impacts, both positive and negative, City Council approved a variance for the project allowing for a height of 118 feet in a zone with a 90-foot height restriction.

The next time the Slavery Museum came to the forefront was in November 2005 in regard to the contract between the City and National Slavery Museum that resulted in the $1 million loan. The agreement stipulated that the money could not be spent directly on the museum but rather was a contract for “governmental services. " Those services involved completing road, traffic, and tourism studies related to the entire Celebrate Virginia project.

The breakdown of expenditures provided a list of big numbers but little detail. Over $500,000 went to cover administrative and personnel costs, $180,000 for workshops, articles, and websites, and $250,000 on preliminary plans and engineering. Only about $15,000 was spend on the studies outlined in the agreement. The response to requests by Council members for additional information and copies of the reports was predictable. The museum felt they had met their obligations and in regard to the studies, “Spokesman Michael J. Smith said museum officials "don't plan to release any of the reports." At the same time the museum requested that the City consider additional funding. "I believe the museum would like to keep the loan open-ended," Smith said.

Again the Council kept the door open to this request on condition that additional information on the loan, the reports produced, and the current status of the project were provided to the public.
Continued Council requests for a more detailed breakdown of the expenditures and for the studies brought about one of the strangest responses in this entire saga coming from former Governor Wilder—

“On Friday, museum founder and Richmond Mayor L. Douglas Wilder was asked at a press conference about the difference between his push for more information from the nonprofit Virginia Performing Arts Center in Richmond and Fredericksburg City Council members' requests for more information about the Slavery Museum.

According to The Associated Press, Wilder said the difference is that in Richmond, the city administration has demanded an accounting, while Fredericksburg's city administration has not.”

The former Governor’s statement was that elected local officials could be ignored while at the same time refusing to acknowledge that the Fredericksburg “administration” WAS asking for more accountability at the request of those same local elected officials to who the City administration was accountable.

In an effort to resolve the impasse Mayor Tomzak and myself met in January 2006 with Ms. Foster at her office. We were shown the reports, thought Ms. Foster again insisted that they were not going to be released, and received a briefing on the project. Again a public presentation was requested, the possibility of adding a member of the Council to the Museum Board, and, due to the unique construction of the museum, a request to begin discussions with Building and Development Services as soon as possible, was discussed but no commitments were made.

It was agreed to meet again after the museum got through some planned fundraisers. My comment to the press after the meeting was, "We all realize we need to get beyond the current misunderstandings we are having in building a stronger relationship with the city and Slavery Museum."

The final required financial report from the Slavery Museum was received in April and there was no change from the previous report and there have been no follow-up meetings. What information that has been obtained has been through media sources outside the City as the museum staff continued to boycott the local media outlets.

Based on what information that has been provided, the National Slavery Museum will have a greater impact on the City, and region, than the Kalahari project. Museum representatives have claimed a million visitors a year. Yet while Kalahari went through a public review process, which included extensive staff review on impacts to City services, and continued cooperation between staff and the developer; the National Slavery Museum has yet to provide any usable information to help the City deal with the project impacts. Nor has the Fredericksburg community, who will have to deal with those impacts, been given an opportunity to have their questions answered or concerns addressed.

To date the “partnership” between the City and the National Slavery Museum has been one sided. Before the City gives any further consideration to requests for assistance the Slavery Museum must take concrete steps to keep the City and the community informed of developments to include benchmarks and timelines. In short, to provide information and establish a working relationship that would be expected of any project of this magnitude—a true partnership.

In regard to the request for tax-exemption my research of State Code and reviewing what other localities have done, confirms the position put forward by City staff. Under the Code of Virginia an exemption is considered an exception and exemptions are to be strictly construed. If there is any doubt about whether a property is qualified the issue must be resolved against the party claiming the exemption. In the case of vacant land there must be a stated, and documented, use of the property. The optimum word is use—not planned use.

In my view to state that on some undefined date a museum will be constructed on the site does not fall under the definition of use. If the Slavery Museum obtains an approved site plan, secures building permits, and begins construction they would then probably qualify for tax-exempt status.

When the Slavery Museum begins construction Council will be in a position to grant tax-exempt status that will represent a significant windfall to the museum. In the meantime there are other avenues to assist the Slavery Museum with staff and financial support. And I believe the Council is prepared to have those discussions.

The Council has supported the National Slavery Museum by both its words and actions. Even after being rebuffed in our efforts to obtain information on a project that will have a significant impact on the region the Council continued to take steps—the height variance—to move the project forward. It is now time for the National Slavery Museum to show its commitment to this community in which we hope they will soon be calling home.

RICHMOND--ARE YOU LISTENING?

2008-05-25T14:42:00.000-07:00

As Richmond prepares for their special session on transportation I would like to point out a few facts that should be considered in the upcoming debate. Planning District 16, the fourth largest and fastest growing region in the Commonwealth (The counties of Stafford, Spotsylvania, King George, Caroline, and the City of Fredericksburg) is in the process of finalizing their Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP) for 2035.

As per the request from both sides of the aisle in Richmond, we have spent over a year going through the Comprehensive Plans of the member jurisdictions and ensuring that our transportation plan takes into consideration the current growth pattern policies of our member jurisdictions. In addition, the CLRP will have a transit and pedestrian/trails component. Unlike our previous CLRP this one will include all necessary transportation projects to try and meet our MINIMUM future needs. By this we mean that all future transportation projects in the region will ensure our system maintain at least a “D” level of service rating.

In going through this process we have learned the following:

Our traffic congestion is caused in large part by our land development policies, which tend to spread out that development and to make transportation and other services very costly and uneconomical.

The cost of all the multi-modal projects currently identified is about $6.5 billion dollars. Our projected funding from state/federal sources, which will be the basis for our CLRP, is about $1.5 billion dollars. Even if we could afford all of this additional asphalt to ease congestion, people would object, as ever wider roadways would disrupt neighborhoods and degrade the historical and environmental resources we so value.

As a region we must, and are, reviewing our current development plans to look at ways of changing growth patterns to minimize their impact on our future transportation infrastructure. Part of this effort was addressed in HB3202 with the adoption of Urban Development Areas (UDAs). As local government we must also look at changing our zoning to allow for more mixed-use development. By doing this we will focus our infrastructure needs, make transit a more effective option, reduce sprawl and preserve more open space.

In addition to this effort we have, and are planning as a region, to take additional steps to meet our transportation needs—

--We have formed public-private partnerships to help build needed transportation infrastructure.

--A transportation bond package have been passed to help build need transportation improvements.

--A new interchange on I-95 to serve the City and Spotsylvania is planned, together with a toll road.

--Special Tax Districts are being used to fund road improvements.

--A process is being worked on to prioritize projects within the region, based on specific criteria such as congestion mitigation and safety.

--We are looking at putting together a list of smaller projects to ease congestion, such as extending turn lanes and synchronizing traffic lights. These projects can be done quickly and will have a positive impact on traffic.

--We are working on a regional prioritized list of transportation projects ready to take advantage of Bonus Obligation Funds.

--We are currently working with VDOT to give this region the ability to plan, build and maintain secondary roads thereby building them faster and at lower cost.

This region is doing everything it can, with the limited resources and authority it has, to try and meet our future transportation needs. With a little help from our state representatives on both sides of the aisle we can do much more. Unfortunately, the real solutions to our transportation dilemma are not on the agenda for the special session in June. Two of the more important items missing are fundamental to arriving at real solutions to our transportation problems.

While State funding, especially dedicated funding, is important, how Virginia distributes funds is probably of even greater importance. Fundamental changes in the State highway funding formula need to be made to take into consideration growth rates not just population. Also, the impact a project has on moving traffic, or decreasing traffic congestion, must score higher than it currently does.

As the fourth largest and fastest growing region in the Commonwealth, PD16 can expect $1.5 billion over the next 20+ years for transportation projects, while the Northern Virginia region will received well over ten times this amount. This is twenty times what we can expect, yet Northern Virginia has only six times our population. While Northern Virginia fights to keeps it head above water in regards to transportation we have an opportunity to avoid their mistakes if properly funded.

Another area that must be addressed in June is to provide other regions, beyond just Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads, the authority to raise funds locally and Regionally for transportation projects—in other words give Regions the option to establish Transportation/Transit Authorities. It is obvious that current funding coming from Washington and Richmond cannot meet our transportation needs. PD 16 has shown that we are looking to every possible end to meet those needs, short of raising new revenue. We would like to provide our residents with the option to decide whether they are prepared to invest more to ensure less congestion.

Another advantage of the Transportation Authority concept is that all funds provided to the authority must be spent on transportation and must be spent HERE. This is different and better than the current system of our State government in Richmond, were funds earmarked for transportation can be diverted to the priority of the day in any given part of the State. Recent events in Spotsylvania have also shown how transportation bond funds could be diverted. Finally, such an authority would allow localities to pool their resources to provide the expertise to oversee transportation projects in their respective localities as currently envisioned by Richmond.

In June the Governor and the General Assembly have an opportunity to make effective changes in how we spend our transportation dollars and provide localities with the tools to implement what was laid out in HB3202. I hope that they will be able to get beyond the politics of the next election cycle and provide the leadership necessary to come up with lasting and effective solutions to our transportation problems.

BUDGET V--WILL IT EVER END!

2008-05-11T16:54:00.000-07:00

The rationale for the poll question regarding next year’s assessment is to see whether we could possibly save another $150,000.00 by putting it off in exchange for a pledge not to increase the real estate tax next year. I’ve been opposed to putting off the assessment because we made a promise to city residents to go on a two-year assessment cycle to avoid the sticker shock we’ve gone through in the past and because the values have obviously come down since the last assessment. This option saves us some money this year in exchange for no real estate tax increase next year. To ensure no tax increase next year would also mean we would have to push all major Capital projects currently scheduled back at least a year.

Based on my conversations with other Council members there is still no majority consensus on the budget. Staff is pushing for a reduction of expenditures of $200,000 to provide a 2% raise for city employees beginning in January. Based on their calculations we can show approx. $150,000.00 in savings as outlined in my last post as a result of passing through the state reductions on to the affected Constitutional Officers and programs. This leaves only another $50,000 in reductions needed to be found. I am not in favor of this proposal.

The school budget will pass as is with an additional $1 million in funding but still $1.2 million short of the School Boards request. No one is interested in going back and reducing their budget further. Head Start funding will also be maintained at the staff recommended level, which also leaves them with a shortfall.

Mr. Dixon and myself have asked staff to let us know if there would be any additional savings if we maintained a hiring freeze, except in regard to public safety, through this year. We will get our answer at Tuesday night’s work session.

Based on my numbers here are the savings identified to date:

Additional 5% cuts in Outside Agencies $350,000.00
Budget/State Savings $153,000.00
Put off Assessment $150,000.00
Hiring Freeze Savings ?

As per my previous post there are still some questions regarding the cuts to Constitutional Officers. Why the Sheriff is taking such a big hit and the Clerk of the Court is not taking much of cut at all beyond the loss of a rent payment we should not be paying in the first place? Currently there is NOT majority support for these propsed reductions.

Mr. Dixon and myself hope to have a budget proposal to put before Council on Tuesday night. More to follow.

To go beyond what has been outlined in my previous posts would require cuts in services and staff. What are your thoughts on such a course of action?

BUDGET IV

2008-04-19T10:01:00.000-07:00

We are three days out from making our first vote on the budget—The first read of the school budget. We are required to have this budget approved by mid-May. There could still be some change between the first and second read but that possibility is becoming less likely.

At the outset County Administrator Randy Wheeler of Spotsylvania provided no increase in funding for the schools over the previous year. In Stafford, County Administrator Anthony Romanello allowed only an additional $500,000 for the schools over last year. Neither administrator got a tax rate approved to support their respective budgets leaving shortfalls in both. Based on the most recent stories in the Free Lance Star teachers in both systems are not expecting significant raises, if any, this year.

At our work session with the School Board we were advised that they needed an additional $2.2 million to fully fund the budget. Down from $2.8 million. Most of the increase was related to a 6% raise for teachers as part of an agreed effort to make city teacher’s salaries more competitive.

Earlier in the year I had talked with members of the School Board to prepare them for the possibility that this year, and probably next, we may only expect to maintain what we had gained the previous year. The City Manager allowed for an additional $1 million in this years budget leaving the gap at $1.2 million. That additional funding should allow for teacher raises and keep us in line with our neighbors. Some members of Council have told the School Board we would see what else we could do but raises for city employees would be our first priority.

At our last work session on the budget staff recommended passing on most of the state cuts, $286,000.00, onto the affected agencies. They stopped short of recommending passing on the full cuts to the Constitutional Officers, except for the Sheriff, because that would mean layoffs and disruption of services. The fact that the City was facing the same choices was made by myself and Mrs. Devine. We also questioned why only the Sheriff was facing the full brunt of the cuts. There will be additional discussion on this point. The staff proposal results in an additional $153,000 in revenue.

In addition, after identifying Outside Agencies with which the City has made specific financial commitments--SPCA, Moss Clinic and some others, staff put forth a proposal for a further cut to Outside Agencies of 5%. With the inclusion of both the Regional Jail and Juvenal Detention Center this amounts to $390,000.00. However, staff is not recommending the inclusion of the Regional Jail and Juvenal Detention Center which would cut this number by a third. There is a concern about the response from the other regional members of these organizations. We were advised that the 4% cuts approved in Spotsylvania for Outside Agencies did not apply to these two entities. We are still awaiting a decision from Stafford on how they will handle funding Outside Agencies.

I've expressed my frustration on the escalating costs of the regional jail and am not too sympathetic when I am asking my departments to reduce costs and am told not expect the same from outside agencies. The same applies to Constitutional Officers. Whether this represents the majority view on City Council remains to be seen.

As I have said I don't like making, "across the board," cuts as there are Outside Agencies that do provide cost affective services thereby saving us additional future costs. I hope if it is agreed that we make additional cuts that we spare those groups as much as possible.

The number for City employees to receive a 2% COLA is $400,000. Staff has shown us how we can achieve this goal. As noted above there are additional savings that staff is not recommending. We have also asked if there is any further savings from our budget short of layoffs. Haven't gotten an answer on this yet.

At our last work session we had staff provide us with the affect of cuts from one to five cents in the proposed tax rate to show residents that with cuts come degradation in services. It is easy to say no new taxes until you discover what services you may loose. I remember a call I received last year asking that I not raise taxes and fully fund the Library's requested budget. This years budget is LESS than last years--as is revenue. Significant cuts would mean cuts in service.

Mr. Solley was correct in pointing out that we currently have the lowest tax rate of any City in Virginia (and in comparison to our neighboring jurisdictions) and that the proposed increase is at the low end of what is being proposed in most other jurisdictions. However, any increase in taxes for some means less money for the basics. Our lower tax rate also does not absolve us from showing City residents that we are being good stewards of their money.

More important is that we are not expecting any improvement in revenues for the coming year. While staff has now proposed a scaled back Capital Improvements Plan for this year it still will require a three cent increase in real estate taxes for debt services next year. This is still open for discussion but it clearly shows we cannot ignore what is coming next year as we face the challenges of the current one.

Thoughts and prayers appreciated.

THE BUDGET III

2008-04-03T11:40:00.000-07:00

I’ve gone through the city budget and had some time to talk with members of the Boards of Supervisors in both Stafford and Spotsy to get their perspectives and approaches to their budgets especially as they related to the funding of regional and outside organizations. I’ve also chatted with our Superintendent of Schools, as well as members of the School Board, to get a handle on our school needs not only for this year but the next, and to make sure we all understand the current funding realities.

We are all still awaiting word from Richmond regarding the extent of additional revenue cuts from the state. This could be as much as $200,000 for the city budget and that would eliminate the proposed savings from the reductions in the Regional Jail budget after the amount for raises was reduced from 5% to 2.5%. Finally, the city’s cost for Workmen’s Compensation has gone up another $130,000.00. With everything balanced out we are still looking at a potential INCREASE in costs to the city.

Because we can expect the revenue picture to be tighter next year we do not want to increase the size of the operating budget. In fact, the current budget is less than last years. Nor should we use fund balance to cover operations. To do so would mean an even larger expenditure of fund balance next year just to maintain current spending levels. If we are looking at employee raises or programs this year the funds would need to come from the existing budget.

In regards to the Capital budget we must push back the construction of the court facilities as well as other projects that, while nice to have, can frankly wait a year or two to start. The focus should be on core services such as public safety—bridge rehabs and fire equipment.

As I have said these next two years the focus of the budget should be on core services, which includes education. This year I would like to see city employees get at least a Cost of Living raise and if possible make sure we do not loose any of the ground gained last year regarding teacher salaries. The latter goal will be influenced by the actions taken by neighboring jurisdictions regarding their funding decisions on their school budgets.

The possibility of achieving these goals gets harder each passing day. Further, reductions in the city’s operating budget will get into employee, and level of service, reductions.

One possible solution is to either pass on, or not cover; the state cuts as they relate to the Constitutional Officer’s budgets. Frankly I’m getting a bit tired of the political cowardice of our state representatives passing on costs to localities and claiming they are holding the line on taxes. Also, we have asked the City staff to go through the budget again for possible savings and I would hope our Constitutional Officers are doing the same.

Finally, we need to review the budgets for Outside Agencies. To fund those that provides a needed service at the same levels as the City budget—no new programs and either no or limited raises. Our neighboring jurisdictions are going thru the same process.

Contrary to what some are saying our situation is not unique-- we are in the same financial boat as most jurisdictions in the state. And while we are facing some tough choices we are in better shape than most. The proposed tax rate is at the lower end of what have been proposed by most area jurisdictions except for Stafford, which is now faced with significant cuts in staff and services. And unlike most jurisdictions we have some commercial projects coming on line, which will ease the burden on City taxpayers.

My one concern as we go through the next two years is that, like the early 80’s, city leaders will go back to a bunker mentality-- doing nothing while waiting for the next downturn. We need to continue to both protect and enhance our City’s unique character and quality of life and ensure we have a tax base diversified enough so we don’t have to face these challenges again in the future.

Questions, comments, and suggestions appreciated.

A NEW ENDEAVOR

2008-03-22T14:22:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks I have wanted to respond to statements I’ve heard, Letters to the Editor, and news stories on the City Council elections. As some of you know I have become a regular in responding to these stories and letters in the on-line version of the Free Lance Star. However, this medium is rather restrictive (to 512 characters) which limits “discussion” to a series of one-liners.

“Question Everything” was set-up to discuss, in a constructive way, the policy decisions faced by the city and the region. It is about ideas, concerns, addressing those concerns, and through dialogue, come up with the best solutions. It is about governance not politics. To stray into the realm of politics would be counter-productive to the goals of this blog. So to cover the rough and tumble political aspects of our region I’ve started another blog—Into the (Political) Arena.

My new blog will cover politics in the city and region. Unlike this one the only rule for the new blog has to do with not using foul language. Needless to say for the next few months the topic will be the city elections. I’ve included the candidates on the blog list and hope they will chime in from time to time. I am looking forward to some serious partisan discussions.

The new site can be found at: intothepoliticalarena.blogspot.com.

PERSONAL SECURITY DETAIL

2008-03-22T12:54:00.000-07:00

With Carlos Mencia

With the band Disturbed

With Nicloe of the Pussy Cat Dolls

Not all assignments are bad.

THE BUDGET II--A PRELIMINARY LOOK

2008-03-15T12:28:00.000-07:00

All indications are that the effects of the downturn in the economy will take at least two years to work out. This means we need to be looking beyond just the current budget and be prepared for lower or stagnant revenues for the following year. We will have to hold the line on the operating budget and look carefully at new capital expenditures.

At first glance this years budget is less than last years. It provides for no new programs or positions. There are no raises in the budget for city employees and it calls for the elimination of ICMA retirement benefit for city employees—again. There are also reductions across the board in all departments. We are increasing the school budget by 1 million, which is less than the 2.8 million dollars requested. While holding the line on local expenses the costs for insurance, and other related costs have continued to go up. Even under these circumstances the budget comes with a recommended real estate tax increase of 5 cents.

We will have discussions with staff to go over the methodology used on the revenue projections but I do not expect any significant modifications to the numbers provided. Our staff has done a good job during my time on Council in projecting revenues. While some have been making accusations of revenue excesses; as a percentage of the budget, the actual differential is only in the area of 2% to 3%.

The major concern I have with the budget is the 51 million in capital expenditures to keep us on track for the new court facility in 2010. The affect of this decision is an increase in the tax rate next year of at least 8.5 cents—an increase of at least 13.5 cents in two years. With the expected continued decline in revenues and the lack of new sources of revenue city residents would have to shoulder the entire burden of this cost. This project must be put off at least two years so that new commercial revenue sources can come on line.

Another area of concern is outside agencies budgets. The Regional Jail expenses continue to go up. Last year we were told that by providing the LEOS benefit to jail guards (I was the sole vote against this) we would remain competitive with other jail facilities. Now it seems they need a 5% salary increase as well. I remember when the new Regional Jail facility was first being discussed as a moneymaker for the region with revenue coming from space for housing state and federal prisoners. Today it continues to be a black hole that does nothing but suck in more and more revenue.

In reviewing budgets for other outside agencies I noticed that some included raises, both cost of living and merit, for employees, and in other cases new programs. While staff did not fully fund most of the requests made by outside agencies they will still need some additional scrutiny. If city employees are not getting raises, and the city is foregoing new programs, I am not inclined to provide raises and new programs for other outside agencies. We will need to take a close look at this budget again this year.

I would like to give employees a cost of living raise or restoration of the ICMA. The cost for a 2% raise would require $400,000.00. Another option would make the raise effective January 1st at a cost of $200,000.00. On the ICMA I’ve asked staff to review its current use to determine whether it can be restored at a lower match. In either case, the revenue for either raises or restoration of the ICMA will have to come from the within the current budget, i.e, taken from somewhere else and not come from any increase in taxes.

I’ve not heard any word yet from the School Board regarding the reduction in their request. In conversation prior to receipt of the budget I’ve stated that we could probably not finish the planned raises this year to bring them closer to our neighbors but hope we could make sure that we don’t loose any ground. More on this after discussions commence.

As for the new tax rate that is a discussion to have after I’ve had more time to go through the budget. Last year we asked the City Manager to go back through the budget and find further reductions. In my preliminary review any further significant cuts would probably result in a reduction in services. Based on feedback I’ve received this will not be viewed favorably.

As recently reported in the FLS we did reduce amounts in designated capital funds to cover this years budget and make some needed one-time purchases of equipment. A review of current designated reserve line items outside the Enterprise Fund is probably in order. Especially, the financial impact if we slow or push back projects. I wouldn't expect much here.

The guiding principle for this year is maintaining core services, including education, first. Understand that the revenue picture is probably going to be worse next year, which means no expansion of the operating budget and slowing or pushing back any new Capital projects even more than proposed. No further raids on the undesignated reserve for operating expenses, which will only result in a bigger raid next year while putting our bond rating in jeopardy, and increasing future debt costs.

I will continue to post as I continue my review of the budget and as budget deliberations proceed. I look forward to a spirited dialogue as this budget moves through the approval process. Concerns, suggestions and questions welcome.

The Chronic Homeless

2008-03-09T19:11:00.000-07:00

The first Shelter Board established twenty years ago set the goal of assisting the homeless of our area. That goal has not changed to this day. What has changed is the role of our one homeless shelter.

When the shelter first opened its operations were limited to the cold weather months and the location rotated from local church halls and later found a home at Maury School. At first any homeless person, regardless of condition, was allowed in. I remember breaking up fights, and intervening in disturbances before they became violent, as a volunteer shelter worker. Over time the focus of the shelter shifted from an emergency cold weather shelter into one that today is open year round and provides services and educational opportunities to get people and families back on their feet. The Thurman Brisban Shelter has become what HUD would define as a transitional shelter.

In making its transition the Thurman Brisban Shelter has excluded those who are defined as the chronic homeless. Those who, for reasons known to them, refuse help, or due to mental or abuse issues cannot function normally. While you may have little sympathy for these individuals they cannot be ignored-- not only on basic humanitarian grounds but also on economic ones. To ignore these individuals come with a cost in services such as, medical, police, and social. And as reported, HUD funding for the region is at risk for all homeless programs.

As reported in the Free Lance Star, this region had one of the lowest HUD scores in the state when it comes to dealing with the homeless issue. For those who complain that we are attracting homeless to our region this fact should dispel that belief. Both to our north and south programs have been put in place, the majority by private organizations and church groups, to provide needed services for their homeless populations. And there in lies the key—private participation. While government has a role to play in assisting with resources, most homeless programs are run by local non-profits.

A non-profit organization of Fredericksburg churches known as Micah is prepared to take on the role of assisting the chronic homeless in our area. What they need from local governments is assistance in finding a location from which to operate. From the community they will need volunteers, financial support, and understanding.

As reported in the Free Lance Star we are going to step up, hopefully regionally, and help provide a facility to provide basic services to the chronic homeless in our region. Micah will be in charge of the facility and actively seek financial support from grants and the private sector to help keep it running.

In recent conversations with Micah representatives it was agreed that the focus should be on taking care of the homeless in our region. They have been providing bus fare home to some who have come into the area, and are prepared to work with localities on the issue of panhandling and related issues.

For our part, we must not forget that we are dealing with human beings. Some of who are dealing with issues beyond their control and other who have difficulty coping with the circumstances of life. Lets us view them with a little more compassion and a little less contempt.

I would like to hear your concerns, questions, and suggestions on how we should approach homelessness in our region.

A Moment of Reflection

2008-03-01T16:31:00.000-08:00

When asked to write my thoughts on the passing of William F. Buckley Jr. I decided not to focus on his achievements. When looking back on an event or life I believe we should focus on what we can learn from that event or life that can be applied today. From what I have come to know of Mr. Buckley I believe he would have approved.

Like Mr. Buckley I wanted the opportunity to focus on the issues and engage in some constructive debate--free of the talking points, cliches and personal attacks which contribute nothing to moving us towards solutions, consensus, or at the least, understanding. The result has been this blog.

I want to thank those who have taken the time to engage in the discussions and those who have just stopped by for a look. I encourage the latter to throw a few comments/questions my way. I will respond though it may take a day or two and I will update it at least once a week.

While this isn't the National Review it is an effort to provide people with another avenue to participate in that wonderful, chaotic, sometimes frustrating, but never dull pastime we call democracy.

Below for those who may have missed it are my comments on the late great William F. Buckley Jr. My thanks to Editorial Editor Paul Akers who did a great job tightened up my original draft so you did not have to suffer through some of my added ramblings:

He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skills. Our antagonist is our helper.

--Edmund Burke

WRITTEN more than two centuries ago by political philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke, these words well describe the late William F. Buckley Jr.

More than the architect of the modern conservative movement in America, Buckley approached political discourse in a way that challenged us--conservative and liberal alike--to question, re-evaluate, and refine our views. He made us think.

Buckley's focus was on issues. To the consternation of many, no position was sacred. All were subject to scrutiny. He stood firm on what he believed regardless of its popularity; he used reasoned arguments to make his case and with pointed questions tried to expose flaws in positions he opposed. He tried to reason us to his point of view.

For some, Buckley provided validation for their beliefs. For others, he challenged their views and required of them a rational response. Through this process we all became more informed and more aware of differing views, and we had our own views tested. We emerged with a broader perspective.

Today, principles are sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Commentators talk about how one's positions must be crafted to curry favor with particular constituencies. The important issues of the day are condensed to sound bites and laid out in comic-book formats. Fear-mongering and personal attacks have replaced reasoned discourse, while, it seems, personalities have become more important than issues.

For this nation to continue to face and overcome challenges, we must be informed and prepared to fully debate the questions before us. Through such discourse better solutions emerge, and, when they do, we all understand the rationale and purpose for the ultimate decisions.

Buckley fulfilled the role of moderator in the debates of his time. Whether you agreed with him or not, he informed us and challenged us to take another look at the issues we faced, to contemplate alternatives and ideas.

Alas for the nation, few on either end of the political spectrum are able to step up to take his place.

The Next Mayor

2008-02-24T19:59:00.000-08:00

Having now experienced first hand all aspects of politics—as a candidate, and now as an elected official—I have come to understand the difficulty in overcoming those traits necessary to win elective office that become obstacles to effective governance.

As candidates you speak in terms of your actions determining outcomes. You speak of issues on which you will not compromise. You have solutions to every problem. Once elected you face the realization that you must work with others-some looking for different outcomes; having limited options to achieve the outcomes you want because you have taken positions that eliminate the possibility of compromise. And solutions that during the campaign had to fit on a 3” x 5” palm card now make you wince.

With this realization a decision is made. To continue the “campaign” into elective office whereby you continue the rhetoric and blame others for the failure to achieve the outcomes you want; or you take the hit to your ego, and begin the work necessary to build consensus to move towards achieving the outcomes on which you ran.

You do not have to agree with a position but you must understand it. You must be able to take criticism and understand that if addressed it could lead to better solutions. There will be a point where a vote will be taken. The outcome of that vote should not affect how you work with your colleagues in preparing for the next one.

This May we will elect a Mayor from two candidates who are completing their first terms on City Council. Over the past four years I have had, and will continue to have disagreements with them on issues facing the city. Both worked for my opponent during my last reelection campaign. For me the determining factor in my decision to support one over the other is not based on past actions. It is not based on issues but rather on how they approach them.

Since his election as Mayor Dr. Tomzak has tried to work with all members of the City Council. He makes an effort to build consensus through dialogue and willingness to compromise. On those issues where consensus is not achieved he is respectful of opposing positions and is prepared to make clear his own views in a collegial manner.

Whether the vote has gone his way or not Dr. Tomzak understands that maintaining a good relationships with members of the Council is crucial if we are to be successful in overcoming the challenges we face. And while we do not always agree on the course the City should take there is no question that Dr. Tomzak decisions are based on what he feels are in the best interest of the city.

Dr Tomzak has made the transition from candidate to elected official and avoided the pitfall of maintaining a “campaign approach” to the important issues facing the city. He wants to work towards solutions-- not the next campaign issue. I urge city residents to reelect Dr. Tomzak as Mayor of Fredericksburg.

It's Time to Talk Transportation

2008-02-17T17:13:00.000-08:00

At the end of this month the Fredericksburg Area Metropolitian Planning Organization (FAMPO) will release the region's 2035 Constrained Long Range Plan (CLRP). The CLRP is a list of transportation projects that can be constructed based on expected transportation funding through 2035. Unlike previous CLRPs this plan will be based on the development projections for the region and will include projects outside the requirement for financial constraints.

For the past one and a half years GWRC/FAMPO staff has been working with the planning offices of the member juristictions, including regular MPO members Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania, and Stafford, and Planning District (GWRC) members King George and Caroline, reviewing Comprehenisive Plans and development/demographic information to anticipate the region's growth patterns. The development models, in five year increments, have been turned over to VDOT for modeling future transportation needs and returned to the jurisitictions for review.

While by law we are required to complete a fiscally constrained plan FAMPO will include a list of all the projects, road, mass transit, rail. bike, pedestrian that will meet the minimum transportation requirements to accomodate our region's projected growth. The projects will be mapped, priced out, and listed in priority based on maximum impact on traffic congestion.

The plan will clearly show that under the current funding dynamics, post HB3202, we will not recieve sufficient funding to meet our transportation needs.

Discussions have begun at GWRC/FAMPO on how we will meet this funding gap. One solution under discussion is the establishment of a transportation authority. Such an authority would be comprised of local elected officials and would have taxing authority based on that granted to Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads. Such an authority would need approval from Richmond. The amount of revenue projected to be raised would be twice that we could expect from Richmond. And unlike Richmond, any money raised by the authority could only be spent on transportation. To date we have only had preliminary discussions about the authority option awaiting the completion of the 2035 CLRP.

If we are to meet our transportation goals as this region develops we cannot depent on on the current transportation dynamic. To be successful we will have to come together as a region and be prepared to fill the revennue gap.

Would you support the establishment of a Regional Transportation Authority with taxing powers, similar to those granted to the Northern Virginia anf Hampton Roads Transportation Authorities for the sole purpose of building and maintaining transportation infrastructure? What other options should be on the table for discussion?

THE BUDGET

2008-02-17T10:59:00.000-08:00

We have accomplished a lot over the past six years and still have the lowest tax rate of any city in Virginia at 53 cents. While the tax rate has fallen revenue to the city have increased in part to cover the cost of construction of schools, recreational facilities and the new police station. However, in comparison to our neighbors the City comes in last in the percentage of that increase over the past six years.

With the falling real estate market and retail sales the City is now faced, as are most localities, with a revenue shortfall. In addition, there is no indication of new revenue coming on line over the next two years to cover increased cost for the regional jail, coverage of a larger percentage of the school budget, and new costs such as a court facility and water/sewer upgrades. In light of these realities how will we face the coming budget year?

A few observations on the city budget are in order before getting into this discussion. Unlike state and federal budgets local budgets do not have a lot of programmed spending. Most of the budget is for salaries—firemen, policemen, trash men, etc., and benefits. This accounts for about 35% of our budget. The next big expenditure is the transfer to schools that accounts for another 30% of the budget. Debt service is currently about 8.5%. These three areas account for almost 75% of the budget.

If there is an area that could be considered funds for programs it is our Outside Agency budget that accounts for about 7% of our budget. The larger parts of this budget are based on formulas as is the case with the regional jail, and library. The remainder of the budget is for capital transfers, paper clips, pens, supplies, travel, education etc.

A comment on the City’s reserves—City policy is to maintain a reserve of 12% and no less than 7%. This translates to roughly 10M. We have held reserves higher than this over the past years to allow us to pay cash down for projects such as the schools, pool, Rec. facilities and the police station. This fund is maintained for emergency/ unexpected expenditures. If we reduce them below 12% we are expected to bring the reserve back up within five years. If we draw down below 7% we must bring it up in two years. For reserves above the 12% figure it is expected that these funds to be used on one time capital expenses and not operating costs as has been suggested.

To use reserve funds for operating is a last resort to cover critical services. To do otherwise is to increase expenses without having the revenue to cover them the following year. It would be comparable to you using you savings account to cover your monthly bills. Before we consider using reserves for operating expenses we should first consider reducing non-essential expenditures.

Factors facing the current budget:

--Increase of about 1.3M for additional employees and debt service on the Regional Jail expansion.

--Reductions in State and Federal funding. At least 5% from the state.

--Another increase in the percentage of the School Budget the City must absorb.

--2nd phase of salary increases to teachers to make them competitive, not in line with, area localities.

--The planning and construction of a new court facility.

Another issue to be considered is the fact that we have held our own employees to cost of living raises and the possibility of a 2% merit pay while we have provided funds and benefits to other agencies which included higher salary increases and benefits. This was a major consideration in Councilman Dixon’s and my effort to reduce payments to Outside Agencies last year. While we had the Mayor’s support the majority of Council would not support the level of cuts suggested.

At our November Budget Retreat Council was apprised of some of the issues we would face in the coming budget year and it was agreed that we would consider no new expenditures beyond the land acquisition on the river. This investment would increase property values in the downtown and spur further investment.

There was not total agreement on the court facility beyond the location. I continue to maintain that this is a cost we cannot take on under the current fiscal situation. To maintain the 2010 timeline for the facility would mean placing the initial costs squarely on the shoulders of city taxpayers.

In reviewing the coming budget my philosophy will be:

1. To protect city core services first. This includes education. The School Board has worked well with the Council and has recognized the budget issues we face. They have not increased programs and have kept a handle on expenses. We did cover an increase in salaries last year and I would hope that under the current situation we at least do not loose any ground to our neighbors. We also need to look after our own employees.

2. I cannot support any expenditures related to the new court facility on the current timeline of 2010. We need time to get projects such as Wegmans, and possibly Kalahari, on line before taking on the courts. This project can be dropped back two years without incurring major increases in cost.

3. Outside Agencies should be judged on outcomes and need. I wouldn’t support an across the board cut because some agencies do provided needed services. Others such as GWRC/FAMPO generate funds. We use our contributions for matching state and federal dollars from $7 to $9 for every dollar we put in. However, we cannot support new program, positions, or raises if it means adversely affecting core services. And we cannot be expected to make up for state and federal cuts.

4. While we do not want to reduce services to city residents we must ensure we have made every reduction in the budget possible before we consider any tax increase.

What philosophy would you bring to the budget? No new taxes? Are services or programs more important that holding the line on taxes? The following year will not be much different than this year suggestions to you have on dealing with that situation?

News Coverage of Local Issues

2008-02-10T10:12:00.000-08:00

Since becoming involved in local politics in the early 80's there has been an on going discussion on how the local media covers, or doesn't cover, local issues. Over time coverage of local issues seemed to have been relagated to 4th place behind national, state, and human interest stories.

Today Council elections involve one story on the candidate, additional stories only if there are candidate forums, and an election story. In the early 80's the paper ran stories on issues and provide readers with more details on the candidate's positions.

When there is coverage on an issue it seems to be somewhat supperficial. Politicians are asked to explain themselves in 25-words or less. While we read and hear a particular politician's short answer on an issue the issue itself is not usually explained. How can a person put in context a statement about a transportation project when the process to move projects forward is never explained. When a politician states he will bring more business to the area you seldom hear or read the follow-up question that you are waiting for--How are you going to bring more business or what type of business are you going to bring?

In my conversations with members of the press I've ben told that people are not as interested in local affairs as in the past. Another reason given is that some issues are too complicated to cover or too much detail turns readers off. And finally they don't have enough time or space.

To be fair, I've seen improvement. The coverage of the Kalahari project has been good. FLS reporters now have blogs to get additional info out. Yet there has been little or no effort to inform the public about this new medium.

Do you believe that the coverage you get on local issues is adequate? If not what suggestions to you have to change it? Do we need to bring additional media to the area?

Defining Fredericksburg

2008-02-02T11:35:00.000-08:00

There has been much written recently in the paper and blogs that projects like Kalahari do not fit the character of the City and is destroying its unique character and quality of life. On the otherside there are those who do not consider city land on the west side of I-95 as part of Fredericksburg. That commercial development has already ovetraken the west side of the interstate and is separate from the historic core of Fredericksburg.

Are historic attractions negatively impacted by other types of entertainment venues? If the development west of I-95 is critical to maintianing our unique character and quality of life then what would be appopriate development?

WHY INCENTIVES

2008-02-02T10:56:00.000-08:00

The discussion of using incentives to attract business began with our previous Economic Development & Tourism Director Dave Holder. With the City approaching build-out the question was whether we should let the free market take care of developing the remaining tracts in the city or should the City go out and recruit the type of development that fit the Comprehensive Plan and brought in the biggest return to the City. At the time the discussion centered on an up scale food market downtown.

We had already approached most of the better known markets and were told that at this time we didn't meet their demographics requirements. The question then was whether to intervene in the free market and overcome the demographics issue with incentives. We went forward but ran into problems with a downtown location due to space and parking issues.

Then Wegmans took another look at Celebrate VA and for the third time decided against locating in Fredericksburg. This time there were no space or parking issues to address and Wegmans, at our request, provided us with what it would take them to reconsider their position. We came up with an incentives package that met their needs and they are now in the process of builing a new store in the city.

While in the process of negotiating the Wegmans deal we began to put together the criteria for providing futre incentives. They are--the project has to fit the Comprehensive Plan, in the case of tourism business it needs to be unique and have the potential of attracting visitors from out of the area, a "tourism destination;" and finally the City would always get a majority of the revenue generated. Unlike other localities we would not be providing tax incentives in the 50% to 75% range.

Many people have expressed concerns about the use of incentives on the issue of fairness to exisitng businesses and on the question of why should some pay less than others. And then there are those who feel the free market should determine how the City should build-out.

Speaking for myself I would sat that if we don't take pro-active steps to attract business we are left with only one option--raising yours. Whether it be real estate or business taxes we have few other options.

How do you view incentives? Should we leave the future of the City to the Free Market or are there other options we should be considering?

Kalahari--Questions Please

2008-01-09T19:53:00.001-08:00

In reading some of the posts on Emily Battle's story of the Kalahari incentives a concern has been expressed that people will not be able to make it to the January 15th public hearing. This is an extremely important issue that will impact the City's future and I want to make sure everyone has an opportunity to raise questions, concerns or comments and to share them in a public forum. Please post your comments, questions, or criticisms. I will answer questions posted as quickly as possible. Feel free to respond to what others have posted and to my comments. The letter of intents outlining the proposed agreement between Kalahari and the city can be accessed at http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/notices/LOI_Kala_final_0108.pdf
Emily Battle's story on the incentives can be accessed at http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01092008/347110 I look forward to hearing from you.

In repsonse to some of the questions I've seen I am adding sites to look at. The first is the City's Comprehensive Plan--http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/citypubs/comp_plan_aug07_draft.pdf
On page (97) you will find the outline of the City's Plans for the Celebrate VA tract.

The second are two stories that ran in the Free Lance Star regarding the water and traffic impacts of this project in comparrision with other types of development--http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/122007/12082007/339453
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/122007/12082007/338420

I will keep this post on site for questions as the discussions on Kalahari continue.