DOES IT EVER END?

THEY’RE AT IT AGAIN! Having failed to stop Stafford County from endorsing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Affordable Housing Taskforce (AHTF) to continue regional discussions on workforce housing and applying as a region for HUD Neighborhood Stabilization funds (See http://questeverything.blogspot.com/2008/11/dogma-or-pragmatism.html) Board Chairman George Schwartz and Supervisor Bob Woodson decided it was time for Stafford County to discuss withdrawing from the George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC).

The AHTF made up of representatives from housing non-profits such as the Central Virginia Housing Coalition, Habitat for Humanity; and the real estate, banking, and development communities was established by the GWRC (Stafford included) to come up with recommendations to address workforce housing which has been identified as a serious need in the region.

Unfortunately for the cause of regionalism, and in this case workforce housing, Chairman Schwartz and Supervisor Woodson view the GWRC as part of an insidious right-wing Republican conspiracy. No matter the issue or the outcome it must be stopped if any Republicans are involved. This comes as a bit of a suprise to my colleagues on the GWRC who would take some offense at being refered to as a Republican.

At a time when localities are being expected to take on more responsibility with less money working together regionally should be actively perused. Instead, Chairman Schwartz and Supervisor Woodson continue to judge an issue by the party affiliation of those involved. I wouldn’t be surprised if they also had an issue with regionalism because it begins with an “R.”

I thought we were entering a new era of change. Where we are all going to work together for the common good. If so, can someone drop Chairman Schwartz and Supervisor Woodson an e-mail remiding them.

The Parties Before All Else?

Since my election to City Council I have had the privilege to work with elected officials from other localities in this region. While not always in agreement we have strived to build regional consensus on issues. Over the past three years we have rebuilt our Regional Planning District-- The George Washington Regional Commission (GWRC), and our transportation planning board —Fredericksburg Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (FAMPO), to where we are in a position to start looking at regional solutions.

While we are all aware of our respective political affiliations we have not judged our colleagues’ contributions based on those affiliations. Until now, those contributions have been judged solely on their merits. Recently an incident occurred which would indicate that some of my colleagues’ wish to change the regional dynamic to one that places party loyalty before finding consensus.

There is no question that the current political climate in Stafford County is highly charged and, for the most party, divided along party lines. It would also be understandable that it would spill over into regional organizations as was recently the case regarding appointments to the Rappahannock Economic Development Corporation (REDCO) that approves and oversees U.S. Small Business Administration 504 Loans.

As president of the REDCO Board I had recommended that two current members from Stafford County be reappointed to the REDCO Board as they we both involved in hiring the new executive director and have been actively involved in discussions regarding plans to reorganize the corporation. The GWRC Board, which appoints the membership on REDCO, approved the reappointments over the opposition of Supervisor Bob Woodson who is one of Stafford’s representatives of the GWRC Board.

As a result of this action, Stafford Board Chairman George Schwartz requested a meeting which was attended by GWRC Executive Director Bob Wilson along with the newly elected REDCO President, the new REDCO Executive Director and legal counsel. Supervisor Woodson also attended the meeting. Mr. Wilson came to the meeting prepared to explain how member of the REDCO Board were chosen and also to take the opportunity to introduce the new president and executive director of the organization. Below is the account of the meeting presented to the REDCO Board by Mr. Wilson:

The meeting was requested by George Schwartz via Wendy Mallow of the County Administrator ’s office. It was held at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 26th in the Administrator’s office.

In addition to me, also in attendance were Supervisor Bob Woodson; CAO Anthony Romanello; REDCO President Pete Humes; REDCO Executive Director Catherine McDermott; and REDCO Counsel Blanton Massey.

Here are my general observations of both George and Bob:

SCHWARTZ:

· Walked into the meeting late and didn’t bother to shake hands with the invitees.
· Immediately upon initiating the discussion, his tone and demeanor were angry and highly confrontational.
· Started off by expressing his general disdain for GWRC, FAMPO, REDCO and regionalism.
· Although not in so many words, he said that GWRC and FAMPO were essentially useless.
· Said GWRC, FAMPO and REDCO are “highly political” organizations.
· Alluded to pulling Stafford out of GWRC/FAMPO.
· Less than five minutes into the discussion he became blatantly partisan, demanding of his invitees to know why “those Republicans” (Steve Apicella and Don Newlin) were still on REDCO.
· Conveyed contempt for Apicella and Newlin.
· Ranted about “the same people” serving on boards and authorities.
· Said if GWRC/FAMPO were any good at all, we would have fixed the Falmouth intersection by now.
· After Blanton stated that he had received an opinion from the Commonwealth’s FOI coordinator that REDCO was not subject to FOI despite REDCO’s affiliation with GWRC (which is subject to FOIA), George felt the need to blurt out that he had “a problem” with FOIA.

WOODSON:

· Said that “you (not sure whether he meant GWRC or REDCO) took away the right of the Board of Supervisors to appoint members to REDCO.” When I responded that the BOS never had that right in the first place, he blurted out “Bull!”, essentially calling me a liar.
· Conveyed contempt for Apicella.
· At the conclusion of the meeting, when I sought to end it on a high note by reassuring he and George that REDCO deliberations were purely financial in nature – dealing with things like credit worthiness, business plans, etc. – Bob said “Well, someone’s probably getting something under the table.” That is an exact quote.

My own conduct during the meeting was driven by that of George. I came into that meeting prepared and expecting to have a direct but gentlemanly discussion of the process for appointing members to REDCO. When it became apparent from George’s tone and comments that that was no longer possible, and that he was attempting to browbeat my colleagues and me, I responded accordingly. I then directly and very forcefully refuted any of his assertions with which I disagreed, and I refused to let him disparage the Commission, FAMPO or REDCO without refutation. However, with possibly one exception, I was duly respectful. The exception may have been when – after George shared that he had yet another problem, this time with FOIA – I sarcastically said “Shocking.” He clearly did not appreciate that.

Needless to say no one expected this type of a reception. To accuse officials without cause of lying and taking kickbacks is offensive, as was the lack of civility shown. At the center of these comments and actions was the view that party membership should be the determining factor as to whether an individual was fit to serve. And because the GWRC Board approved the appointment of two individuals who were deemed unfit due to their political affiliation, Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Woodson deemed regionalism itself suspect. Is this the type or regional dialogue we can expect in the future?

Politics will always play a role in any discussions between elected officials. Our respective political philosophies will always have a bearing on how we view an issue. But up to this time we have not determined the validity of an argument based on political affiliation. We have not utilized a political litmus test to determine who is fit to serve nor do we use our discussions to embarrass or intimidate the, “political opposition.”

The issues faced by this region are complex and arriving at solutions will require balancing the varied needs and views represented in our region. It will require reasoned debate and compromise. The task is daunting enough. To judge the validity of a person’s position solely on their political affiliation is not only counter-productive but will ensure that our efforts will result in failure.

Let's Talk Taxes

While at the polls on Election Day it was pointed out to me that I had given up my Republican credentials because I was supporting the two, “tax and spend liberal” candidates for the At-Large seats on City Council. It was the “tax and spend” comment, to which I have also been associated, that I would like to comment on.

I’ve never felt comfortable with the current party mantra of, “No New Taxes.” It’s a negative statement that provides no vision/direction or solutions to the problems we face. On the other hand I remembers the days (and some will say they are still here) when the only solution to a problem was to throw more tax dollars at it—with little result.

There are those who point to the fact that we have the lowest tax rate among cities in Virginia, and in the region, as justification for increasing taxes. This approach does not take into consideration that there are those in our community, regardless of the current tax rate, where any increase becomes a burden. It also does not recognize that the reasons for taxation are limited. Any consideration of raising taxes should be based on meeting needs, return on investment, and/or for stated goals that have community support.

I have come to the conclusion that the issue is not how much we are taxed but rather on what tax dollars are spent on and outcomes. People expect a certain level of service and understand the cost associated with them. And if the proper use of tax dollars result in positive outcomes that expenditure could translate not only in a better quality of life but could also result in increased revenues thereby reducing the need to raise taxes.

At the local level all taxes dollars collected go back into the community through services—water/sewer, trash pick-up, etc.; and infrastructure—schools, police stations, etc. These expenditures are focused on three core areas of service, public safety, public works and education. While we could discuss how dollars are spend in these areas no one would dispute that these are where our tax dollars should go.

During the last years budget discussions in the City I received more calls on the decision to stop providing trash bags than I did on the tax rate. I also received calls asking me not to raise taxes but to fully fund groups like the Regional Library. Here is where we must deal with the issue of needs vs. wants.

We must define needs and wants. We must make sure we first provide tax dollars for needed core services. Only then, and only with community support, do we consider the funding of wants. Last year there were many community organizations that provided programs and services but one had to question whether it was the role of government or the community itself to support them.

An example of investing tax dollars on outcomes can be found in how we deal with our transportation problems. Richmond seems ready to give local government more control in planning for our future transportation needs. This effort will require additional funding that will probably, at least in part, need to be raised locally.

If local governments are freed to plan and implement local road and other transportation related projects based on a set of outcomes such as congestion mitigation and reduced road trips, we not only improve our quality of life but also decreases the cost to business making them more profitable, and attracting compatible new business to the area thereby taking some of the tax burden off residents.

In the face of uncertain revenues, increased costs, reductions in state and federal funding and more unfunded mandates taking the position of “No New Taxes” flies in the face of reality. To be able to continue to provide a quality of life residents expect, and to take advantage of opportunities to invest in improvements that will in time take some of the tax burden off our residents, we must have all options on the table. Its not only about taxes its about priorities and outcomes.


P.S. --In response to Larry Gross' post regarding a breakdown of local spending I would refer readers to http://tinyurl.com/2mdtmn then click on City & County Spending and you can get this information. Thanks to Larry for providing this site on a previous post on my other site Question Everything.

ROUND II

IT’S A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD……Needless to say I am quite content with the outcome of this election. Mayor Tomzak ended up with 64% of the vote and won in all four wards. I do have to say that the early posting implying that because my newborn niece, who obviously supported Mrs. Girvan, didn’t vote we should not read too much in the Mayor’s victory, is a bit of a stretch.

While the Mayor’s victory is impressive and signals that the majority of the community supports the direction of the current Council I do believe, through their own fault, that the views of a large group of residents were not truly represented in this election.

There are those who truly have concerns about preservation, the use of incentives, taxes, and the perceived degradation of the unique character of the city. Yet instead of putting forward a candidate(s) that shared their concerns they supported a candidate(s) that were prepared to tell them what they wanted to hear up until the day after the election—and a lot of them knew it.

Speaking for myself I am prepared to keep the debate going on these issues, and where possible, address them. For those who feel that Fredericksburg “lost” as a result of this election you have only yourselves to blame.

Just A Remider--It Takes a Team Effort

Much has been claimed over the past few months regarding credit for bringing the Cal Ripken project to Fredericksburg. Below is the first article to appear in the Free Lance Star that provided the details on how Fredericksburg was chosen.

Ripken Pitches City Ball
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/112006/11302006/240465

"Ripken Jr.'s sights were turned on Fredericksburg after last spring's College World Series in Omaha, Neb. Omaha native and investing legend Warren Buffett, an avid baseball fan, knew Ripken Jr. was in town for the games, and invited him to dinner.

As they dined, the pair talked about the Ripken foundation's work with young people, and Ripken returned to Baltimore asking his staff how his organization could partner with the Buffett family on a youth-serving venture.

Ripken's publicist happened to know the sister of Fredericksburg attorney Charles Payne, who does pro-bono work for Doris Buffett, a local philanthropist who is Warren Buffett's sister.
Payne said Ripken's publicist called him one day and asked if he'd be interested in helping to set up a partnership between Fredericksburg and the Ripken foundation.

"I said, 'Are you kidding?'" Payne said yesterday. "This is a great gift, I think, having these guys here."

This is how the Ripken Foundation came to Fredericksburg. Not to detract from anyone’s participation in this effort but they are just one of many people who has brought this project forward—city staff, the Parks & Recreation Commission, the City School Board, other members of the Council (excluding yours truly) and community volunteers.

No individual can take credit for moving a project like this forward. It will take the effort of many individuals and organizations, and a willingness to work together, to make this project a success. Building team spirit, focusing on the goal, and recognizing the efforts of others is also important. Fighting for credit and photo ops will doom this project to failure.

UNBELIEVABLE!

On April 25th the Free Lance Star, in a story entitled-- Checking the Facts
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/042008/04252008/374410 laid out the inaccuracies of Mrs. Girvan’s position on Auto Chalk. Mrs. Girvan’s response—post that same inaccurate information on her web site-- Autochalk aka "Robocop" - It's about Spending Priorities
http://www.girvanformayor.com/robocopstats.htm

In addition to the multiple inaccuracies pointed out in the FLS story Mrs. Girvan goes on to ADD a few more. “This system penalizes tourists & visitors - the very customers we're trying to encourage to visit downtown.” Mrs. Girvan KNOWS, and residents should know, that first time offenders, usually tourists, ARE NOT GIVEN A TICKET. They receive a warning letter along with information pointing out where parking is located downtown.

As for revenue, even with first time tickets being waived, it has increased since Auto Chalk went into operation. In a presentation before the College Heights Civic Association LAST NIGHT, Chief Nye reported that revenues to date for tickets are UP $20,000.00 over last year!

On her website Mrs. Girvan implies that the system has been ineffective because most of the tickets issued are hand written. The reason for this has also been explained on more than one occasion to Mrs. Girvan—because it takes less time to cover downtown, parking enforcement officers have more time to check for violations around the train station and the University.

I would invite readers to read the Free Lance Star story linked above for more of the details regarding the inaccuracies of Mrs. Girvan’s statements on Auto Chalk.

Mrs. Girvan KNEW that she was putting out inaccurate information. Even after the story appeared in the Free Lance Star she continues to put out inaccurate information. What does this say about her credibility?

Mrs. Girvan-- A Preservationist???????

Today, former Mayor Beck endorsed Mrs. Girvan because, in his words, Mayor Tomzak has an, “obvious disdain for those to whom history is important.” He points to the recent demolition of building and comment’s made by the Mayor about preservationists such as they want to, “preserved (the City) in amber,” and they are, “very affluent people who would like to freeze the city in time.” Mr. Beck, by implication, is putting forth the argument that Mrs. Girvan is stronger on preservation issues. What is perplexing to me is that he knows that this is not true.

Two years ago in an OpEd Mr. Beck stated:

“One worries that had Ms. Girvan held sway in the 1890s, the Mary Washington House would have been shipped off to the Chicago World's Fair. The offered $5,000 was certainly more than its appraisal would have been.”

It’s Time for our City to Approve the Easement
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/022006/02232006/169640/index_html?page=1

Let’s ponder at what Fredericksburg would have looked like if Mrs. Girvan had held sway between 2004 and 2008—

--The parking deck would be one story higher and instead of a brick and block, award winning architecturally compatible structure, it would have been made of pre-cast panels.

--There would be a cookie cutter Marriott hotel on Sofia Street.

--The buildings that have come down would still have come down. It should be noted that one of the owners of these buildings made a $200.00 donation to Mrs. Girvan’s campaign. The builder of the new office building on Wolfe Street is a supporter.

--The Demolition Ordinance would not have been rewritten. Mrs. Girvan opposed the concept that if it was economically viable to restore the building, regardless of the owner’s economic position, that was a basis of denial for a demolition permit.

--The ARB review process would not have been tightened because Mrs. Girvan felt the recommendations were too restrictive and would discourage downtown development.

--We would not be looking at expanding standing in the Historic District because Mrs. Girvan applauded the courts decision to deny standing to Historic District residents.

--We would not be looking at trying to end McMasions being built in the City because Mrs. Girvan questions the amount of extra work developers will be required to do to meet the conditions of the new ordinances. I would recommend a check of the ownership of some of the properties Girvan signs are in.

The concern Mr. Beck articulated two years ago is just as relevant today when it comes to Mrs. Girvan preservation record.

While I would agree that Mayor Tomzak has not been an ardent supporter of preservation he does recognize its importance. He supported the smaller parking deck and the need for the downtown hotel to be compatible with its surroundings. He endorsed the changes made to the ARB process (except for standing), and the Demolition Ordinance. He is now also ready to consider the expansion of standing in the Historic District. Mayor Tomzak has made some unfortunate comments over his tenure but his actions shows he sees the importance of preservation. While you may question the level of his preservation credentials they are much higher than those held by Mrs. Girvan.

I do take exception to the inclusion of the Frederick Street property in Mr. Beck’s list of demolished or endangered properties. He is well aware of the efforts the city have, and are, making to preserve that property. An effort that shows that the City has, and will continue to take steps, to protect the historic character of Fredericksburg. Currently we are working on a citywide preservation plan, which I hope will be in place within the next year.

Mr. Beck has issues with the direction of the City Council, which we have, and hopefully will continue, to discuss. I understand and respect his positions though I do not agree that they meet the future needs of Fredericksburg. What I cannot understand is why he would support a candidate that he knows does not believe as he does on most issues facing the city. For him to imply that her election would benefit preservation in the City is incomprehensible.

A Challange from the Fourth Estate--The Budget

In a conversation with a member of the Fourth Estate regarding the content on this blog the point was made that I was focusing only on Mrs. Girvan’s inaction on the budget when all the candidates seemed to be avoiding the issues. A legitimate observation that should be addressed—

At the last City Council Meeting both Councilman Dixon and I expressed our frustration regarding the pace of discussion on the budget. It is my hope that before we take our second vote on the school budget the second week of May we will have come to some agreement on the budget and tax rate. While most of the candidates have not provided specifics they have commented on their support for paying teachers competitive salaries, providing the services residents expect, and support for a raise for city employees. To achieve those goals will require additional revenue.

Unlike the other candidates however, a major theme of Mrs. Girvan’s campaign is her perceived problems with how the City handles the budget and controls taxes. Yet through out this campaign, and in meetings on the current budget, she has made few comments on these perceived problems, nor proposed any solutions. Lets take a look at Mrs. Girvan’s views on the budget as outlined on her website:

I support responsible spending & tax control

• We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
• We must create operational cost efficiencies to do more with less.
• We must seek sources of sustainable revenue and funding partnerships to minimize the impact on taxpayers.
• We must establish better spending priorities & fiscal planning.

Let's take a closer look at how Mrs. Girvan has addressed these points--

We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.
We DO have a revenue problem and if we had adopted Mrs. Girvan’s approach to the budget last year the situation would be much WORSE. I would refer you the Emily Battle’s recent story in the Free Lance Star.

Budget Is Part of Politics in the City
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/042008/04202008/372163

As for a spending problem Mrs. Girvan supported the construction of the two new schools, police station, and swimming pool that accounts for the largest investment in Capital projects in Fredericksburg’s history totaling $66 million dollars. Yet her example of a spending problem is a $100,000.00 investment in Auto Chalk. And as pointed out in another Free Lance Star article her grasp of this expenditure was wrong:

Checking the Facts
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/042008/04252008/374410

Short of cutting employees, services and programs the Council has limited leeway with the budget. The school budget, salaries and benefits for city employees, and debt service account for almost 75% of the budget. The remainder includes funding mandates from Richmond/Washington and regional agreements that dictate funding levels. The message from most city residents is don’t cut services. Options to reduce the budget are there but they are limited unless cuts in services are considered.

Last year Mrs. Girvan proposed no significant cuts in the budget, recommend against a real estate tax increase, and use fund balance to cover operating expenses. A great political move—try to make everybody happy. Very bad fiscal policy.

If she has a new plan we are still waiting to hear it.

We must create operational cost efficiencies to do more with less.
Great sound bite but where are the suggested “operational efficiencies” today. It’s been over three months since Mrs. Girvan announced her candidacy for Mayor, and over a month since the City Council began its budget review, and she has made only one mention of suggested “operational efficiencies.”

The review of the current budget was the perfect opportunity for Mrs. Girvan to enlighten the Council, staff and the community on how to better handle the budget. What we got was another suggestion to require more information from Outside Agencies on how many people they serve in the city.

Prior to Mrs. Girvan’s arrival on the City Council staff began to revamp the application for funding to Outside Agencies. They are already required to identify either the number of people or groups they serve. In addition they have to provide us with a breakdown of their request and how their service meets the goals of the City. What Mrs. Girvan is requesting is already there if she would looked for it!

We must seek sources of sustainable revenue and funding partnerships to minimize the impact on taxpayers.
We have not only been seeking new sources of sustainable revenue we have already brought them to Fredericksburg—Wegmans, Kalahari, Capital Ale, and the expansion of Kybecca. Even with the incentives provided the revenue to be generated will be more than what has been generated by new economic development projects in at least the past five years. And with a projected $80 million price tag for Capital projects that will be required in the next five years the revenue from these projects came just in time.

Mrs. Girvan’s approach is to oppose these projects except for Wegmans. Two and a half months into the campaign and after numerous questions about what she would do instead Mrs. Girvan finally suggested bringing smaller high-end businesses to the city—education, healthcare, new media, and data collection.

It should be noted that WE ARE looking for these types of businesses already. If fact, Mrs. Girvan’s allusion to healthcare is based on some discussions staff has had with the Council and she seems prepared to take credit for the effort. Higher end job development has been a City goal before my election to Council and we are about to make some decisions that will bring this type of development to Fredericksburg. But while revenue from higher end employment helps support the service and retail revenue sources, with more disposable income available, it doesn’t generate a lot of direct revenue. Mrs. O’Neil, a member of the City’s Economic Development Authority put it best in a recent Letter to the Editor—

“Plan B?” Rename It “Plan F” for “Fantasy”
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/042008/04262008/374245

The Council understands that we need to diversify our tax base. We need to get away from a reliance on retail sales and real estate taxes. We want to go more into the areas of tourism and higher end employment. If Mrs. Girvan disagrees with this approach lets hear a different one.
As for forming partnerships WE ARE moving on that front also. The developer has paid for the infrastructure, roads, water and sewer, for Celebrate VA. The right of way for Fall Hill Ave. has already been obtained as well as commitments for some funding by development interests. The fire station site was donated and station will be build from funds provided by either a CDA or a Special Tax District on business in Celebrate VA and Central Park. Money has been committed towards the construction of an interchange at Celebrate VA. These are just some of the partnerships the City is working on to put the needed infrastructure in place while minimizing the use of City tax dollars.

We must establish better spending priorities & fiscal planning.
Again the city does set spending priorities and tries to plan for future. These are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, and the Council’s Goals and Initiatives that are reviewed every two years at a Council Retreat. We also have a five year Capital Plan. Again, if Mrs. Girvan has another approach she has had (3) months to articulate it and she hasn’t said a word.

Conclusions:
My reason for focusing on Mrs. Girvan in regard to the budget is because she is the one candidate who feels we have significant problems in how we handle the City’s finances. Yet she has not articulated any problems beyond the expenditure on Auto Chalk. It is now been show that she either did not fully understand how that process worked or was misleading the public. The few other suggested changes she has put forward have already been done. Again we are looking at either a case of ignorance or misleading the public. In either case, her misrepresentations have unfairly demeaned the hard work of staff and the Council.

Mrs. Girvan is presenting herself as the fiscal hardliner on Council. Yet she went along with the first two budgets, proposed a budget in year three which would have placed us in a more difficult fiscal position this year, and now won’t comment on the current budget. She has not shown any leadership on the budget. What is worse is she seems prepared to play politics with the fiscal well being of the City.

I know there are those who oppose the direction the City is going in under the current Council. While I disagree with you on this point I respect it and will do what I can to address your concerns. However, you either need to step up yourself or find candidates who believe as you do and let’s have a true debate on the City’s future. Mrs. Girvan is not that candidate.

There She Goes Again! The River Easement

In response to Dr. Tomzak’s claim that he worked to get her to support the River Easement Mrs. Girvan stated, “Actually, the Mayor had very little to do with my vote on the easement.” She went on to state that, “she wanted two conditions met—that the document be legally sound, and that the money the city was getting for the easement be protected in perpetuity in an endowment.” Let’s take another walk down Memory Lane shall we—

Actually what Mrs. Girvan wanted were best expressed in a motion she made at the meeting of Feb. 14, 2006. http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/record/021406rg.asp
and later in an OpEd appearing on March 6th http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/032006/03062006/172495 In her motion she proposed the removal of third party easement holders, securing funding for the boundary survey, property appraisal, and river steward through continued negotiations with the localities adjoining the City’s river lands. She wanted to negotiate an agreement with the localities only. In regard to the $1.6 million from the Nature Conservancy she stated it was, “insufficient funding to protect these lands.” The fact that the counties could not commit to any long term funding for river protection was not mentioned. So how did her claim for wanting to have a legally sound document obtain her goals as she had stated?

To establish a “legally sound” document Mrs. Girvan insisted on having another attorney look at the easement before it was voted on. The fact of the matter was that up to this point attorneys representing The Corps of Engineers, The Nature Conservancy, the Virginia Outdoors foundation, and the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries had looked at the document. All organizations familiar with easements and representing state and federal interests as well as conservation groups. Add to this list our own City Attorney and Mr. George Freeman a retired attorney with expertise in easements brought on to assist the City.

But in Mrs. Girvan’s mind we had to have an “independent” review of the document. This attitude, which continues today, is to question any information, regardless of the expertise involved, which does not support her position. So, more city tax dollars were spent to hire another attorney, Mr. John Lain of McGuire Woods, to review the document. The result of the review was present to Council at their March 28, 2006 meeting http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/record/032806rg.asp in which Mr. Lain stated that the easement, “met the goals of the City and would protect the river; further, the City could have side and amendment agreements if they foresaw the need to do so at a later time.”

Contrary to Mrs. Girvan’s current claim, especially in light of her position stated prior to the review, Mr. Lain’s involvement did not result in any significant changes in the document. In fact, in a memo to the Council outlining Mr. Lain’s suggested modifications, the City attorney stated, “The changes are primarily editing changes, or clarifications, or making express what had been implied.”

So the changes Mrs. Girvan supported, removal of third party easement holders, and negotiating with the counties, were not made.

In regard to the issue of the endowment Mrs. Girvan stated that she had gotten what she wanted based on an e-mail from the City Manager received the day before the vote. The City manager did send an e-mail outlining the terms of the endowment the night before and in the April 11, 2006 edition of the Free Lance Star it stated, “Yesterday, Councilwoman Debby Girvan said that a revised draft of a resolution setting up a permanent endowment to protect that initial sum appeared to satisfy her concerns.” Let’s look at how this came about--

It should be understood is that the endowment was not part of the river easement document. The endowment was a mechanism providing funding for the River Stewart program. In an e-mail to Council on March 27, 2006 the City Attorney stated that, “The resolution (on the Endowment) would not be scheduled for Council action until Council has approved the easement itself – i.e. there is no reason to establish a separate fund unless and until you’ve agreed to the easement. You could act on the resolution on April 11, or on any date between April 11 and the execution of the easement document (i.e. prior to the City’s receipt of the $$$.)”

Also the concept of the endowment had always had the support of the entire Council. There were some issues related to how it was to be put in place and what authority we had as a locality to do it but there was never a question that it would exist in some form. However, the majority of the Council agreed with the position outlined by the City Attorney that without approval of the easement there was no reason to spend time and effort on the details regarding what form an endowment would take.

In her March 6, 2006 OpEd Mrs. Girvan’s position on the establishment of the endowment was no different than any member of the Council at the time. But there was no mention in the OpEd that the endowment had to be passed with the easement. And as so often with Mrs. Girvan, what was important one day may not be as important the next. When she had an opportunity to make it an issue at the next Council meeting she didn’t even mention the endowment.

At the Council meeting of March 14, 2006 http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/record/031406rg.asp a motion was made by Mrs. Devine, and seconded by Mrs. Girvan, to set the vote for the easement on March 28th. No mention was made by Mrs. Girvan that the endowment had also to be in place by that time. None of her e-mail communication to council members between March 14th and the 28th requested that the vote on the endowment also take place at the next meeting. So what happened to bring about a vote on the endowment the same evening as the easement?

The change came about in response to the City Attorney’s e-mail cited above. The change was NOT initiated by Mrs. Girvan but by Mayor Tomzak. In his March 27, 2006 e-mail he stated—

“Dear Kathleen;

I am asking that the River Easement vote be POSTPONED until the first meeting in April.

First, let me say that you have my word that the vote will be held that evening and that I will support it.

My request is based on the following reasons:

1. I want to discuss the proper handling of the $1.6 million. This is very important particularly in the context of the future of the river follow-up.
2. Clear up some confusion I have on the Virginia Outdoors Foundation & legal services.

I will call you later,

Tom”

As a result of the Mayor Tomzak’s initiative the vote would be postponed until the Council’s April 11th meeting. The Mayor, not Mrs. Girvan followed up on April 3, 2006 with an e-mail to both the City Manager and Attorney stating—

“P & K,

It is very important that we are all on the same page regarding the 1.6 Million $.This money has to be invested as part on an permanent endowment to maintain the River . The principal shall not be spent. My hope is that the endowment increase by public/ private donations.Short term support for the steward is a separate issue.I think the Council is on the same page on this issue. Is staff on the same page?. We need a resolution to direct this money to a protected account”

Up to this point, based on her recent comments and votes, Mrs. Girvan had not insisted on the endowment be finalized and voted on the same night as the easement. It was only after the Mayor raised the issue did she take it as her own.

Again, the facts do not support Mrs. Girvan’s view of events. She was not a supporter of the easement. The delays in the vote on the easement, and the cost to city taxpayers in hiring another attorney, didn’t change anything. And Mrs. Girvan’s last effort to claim her vote for the river easement was based on her efforts to have the endowment voted on with the easement has proven false.

Playing Politics With Fredericksburg's Future

Mrs. Girvan now claims that she was opposed to the incentives package the day it was presented to her in a meeting with Todd Nelson and Jud Honaker. Let's take a walk down Memory Lane and see whether her actions and words support that claim:

What Kalahari Plans to Build
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/112007/11172007/334327

This is the photo taken (by Sara B. Tews of the Wisconsin Journal) at the announcement of the

Kalahari project. If Mrs. Girvan was opposed to the incentive package from the beginning , what is her smiling face doing in this picture?

Kalahari Project Pitched to Locals (Nov. 29, 2007)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/112007/11292007/337298

No comments from Mrs. Girvan.

Kalahari Supporters Repeat Their Case (Dec. 05, 2007)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/122007/12052007/338705

No comments from Mrs. Girvan.

Kalahari Decision Delayed (Dec. 9, 2007)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/122007/12092007/339459

No comment from Mrs. Girvan. However, in the comment section of this story on the on-line version of The Free Lance Star, MrZorro, now a diehard supporter of Mrs. Girvan, was calling for her and Tomzak's defeat in the next election for supporting Kalahari.

Council to Take a Look at Kalahari Ohio Park (Dec. 31, 2007)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/122007/12312007/344620

Girvan said she'll be interested to learn what Fredericksburg can expect as far as spinoff development from a water park resort here.
She said going to Ohio is the best way to get a feel for what Sandusky's experience has been.
"It always helps to see it in person," Girvan said. "The magnitude of the facility itself is supposed to be impressive."

Are these the comments of someone opposed to the incentives package? Where are the objections about the length of the incentives?

Its Cold Outside, But its Warm, Welcoming Inside the Kalahari (Jan. 5, 2008)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01052008/346378

If opposed to the incentive package why did Mrs. Girvan go to Sandusky in the first place? If she did have concerns here was her opportunity to express them. Emily Battle was there. Also, why didn't she get answers to the questions she would bring up later. What did Mrs. Girvan do for two days? I beginning to think city taxpayers deserve a refund for her airfare and accommodations.

Kalahari’s Impact is Still Being Questioned (Jan. 6, 2008)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01062008/346433

The Vice-Mayor is quoted about her concerns. Where are Mrs. Girvan's quotes?

Kalahari Incentives Add Up to $61 Million (Jan. 9, 2008)

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01092008/347110

Council members approved the basic framework of this package at a closed session before Kalahari announced its plans for Fredericksburg in November.

Emily Battle of the FLS by this time had talked to every Council member on more than one occasion giving Mrs. Girvan ample opportunity to express her opposition to the incentives package. Why didn't she do it?

Incentive Packages Become Routine (Jan 13, 2008)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01132008/347469

No comment from Mrs. Girvan.

City May Delay Expo Center Funding (Jan. 15, 2008)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01152008/348502

Councilwoman Debby Girvan also thinks it makes sense to hold off.
"I think we need to get more information about Kalahari anyway before we can even make a decision about that project," she said. "The question is, what is the true relationship going to be between Kalahari and the Expo Center?"

Does this sound like someone who has been opposed to the incentives package since the Fall of 2007?

Girvan Sets Sights on Mayor’s Office (Jan. 16, 2008)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01162008/348837

Girvan, 44, said she thinks she has the time available to do the job well. "This job takes a lot of time to do well," she said. "We're not just filling potholes here. ... We have a lot of growth issues, a lot of development issues. We're going to really have to pay close attention."

Kalahari is not even mentioned in Mrs. Girvan's Press Release announcing her candidacy for Mayor. This was the opportunity to lay everything out regarding her opposition to the incentives and all her other concerns about the Kalahari project.--Not a word.

Citizens Have Say on Water Park (Jan. 16, 2008)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01162008/348816

Another opportunity lost by Mrs. Girvan to express her opposition to the incentives package.

Kalahari Plan Faces Additional Scrutiny (Jan. 20, 2008)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01202008/349547

No comments from Mrs. Girvan.

Council Approves Kalahari Letter (Jan. 23, 2008)
http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/012008/01232008/350795

"A vote on this is inappropriate at this time. There has not been enough due diligence," said Girvan, who was one of four council members who spent two days earlier this month at Kalahari's resort in Sandusky, Ohio.
Girvan raised a variety of objections to the vote for the letter of intent.
She worried that the projected 800 employees of Kalahari would not have their benefits fully paid for by the company.
She asked for a written commitment that Kalahari would hire local firms to do engineering, construction and other work on the resort.
She worried that voting on the letter of intent before the city receives a consultant's report it has commissioned would "mislead a business owner that these [incentives] terms are OK" prematurely.Girvan said she was against approving the letter of intent last night, but "I do support continued negotiation on this Kalahari project."

Supporting continued negotiations means you have accepted the 20-year term of the incentives. While one shouldn't have any problems with the questions raised the timing has to be questioned. Why were these concerns not brought forth when the Council was drafting the Letter of Intent? Why didn't Mrs. Girvan take the opportunity to get answers during her trip to Kalahari Sandusky?

It is clear that Mrs. Girvan is being less than honest when she now claims she was opposed to the incentives package from the beginning. Here own words, or lack thereof, as outlined above contradicts this claim. What is happening is that Mrs. Girvan is taking a project that will have a significant impact on Fredericksburg, hopefully for the better, and instead of looking out for the interests of the City is instead looking out for what she perceives to be in her best political interest. She has gone from supporting both the Kalahari project and incentives to opposing them only after her announcement that she was running for Mayor.

There are those residents in Fredericksburg who are sincere in their opposition to the Kalahari project and the use of incentives. And while I do not agree with their position I respect it and do believe we all have what we believe are the best interest of Fredericksburg as our focus. For those who oppose both Kalahari and the use of incentives I have but one question? In this election do you support the candidate(s) who believe they are making decisions in the best interest of the City or for themselves?

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

A few thoughts on Today's OpEd--

Girvan: "However, I don't think the answer is to look for additional revenues without also looking at our spending."

Go back through the budget discussions over the past four years (See Budget Discussions 2007) and look for how many budget cuts have been recommended and or supported by Mrs. Girvan.

Answer: One—To stop providing free trash bags.

Girvan: "One of the things that concerns me is we have a certain degree of off-cycle spending."

Remember this:

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/122006/12102006/241516/index_html?page=1

I guess it comes down to whether or not you support the, “off-cycle spending.”

Girvan: "Yes, I do. If I were mayor at the time, I would not have agreed to the incentive package before negotiations began."

Just ignore the picture of the smiling Mrs. Girvan at the announcement of Kalahari coming to Fredericksburg and focus on her comments expressing concerns about the project.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/112007/11172007/334327

No you don’t have to go back and read it again—There are none. They don't start showing up until about the time she announces her run for Mayor.

Girvan: "We need to be asking some tough questions,"

We also need vision, plans, and solutions. We are still waiting for those from Mrs. Girvan.

THE FIRST DEBATE

Here are my thoughts regarding the first debate sponsored by Micah Ministries held at Fredericksburg Methodist Church. The major topics were Kalahari/incentives, the homeless issue, and taxes. A question was also asked of the Mayoral candidates on how they would work with the Council. Lets take them one at a time:

Kalahari/Incentives:
Mayor Tomzak is a supporter of both the Kalahari project and the use of incentives as an economic development tool. He stressed that the revenue from this project will take the pressure of city taxpayers and provide jobs. He also saw it as a catalyst for future tourism development at Celebrate Virginia that should not require incentives. On the issue of incentives the Mayor pointed out that we had been touting our location and character for years and that had gotten us very little in the area of economic development. If we want to protect our unique quality of life and services we were going to have to actively work to expand our tax base.

Mrs. Girvan has added a few new twists to her opposition to Kalahari. She has now added that she would try to attract business that fit Fredericksburg’s historic character. No explanation on how she fits this new position into her prior actions of supporting a prefab (5) story parking deck and a cookie cutter Marriott hotel in our historic downtown. You know what they say, “Actions speak louder than words.”

Another new twist was the emphatic statement that she was opposed to the amount of the incentive from the start and took issue with the Mayor’s statement that we had reduced the original incentive request. She went so far as to claim Mr. Honaker of the Silver Cos. told her that Kalahari had asked for 60% and he had gotten it reduced to the 47.5%.

This is news to yours truly. Actually, what happened was that the original request was in the 50% range. However, staff pointed out that our policy on incentives was that the city always gets the higher return. Staff handled the preliminary discussions and the 47.5% figure was put before the Council to see if we were willing to begin discussions. Everyone, including Mrs. Girvan, agreed to move forward with discussions. Thus her smiling face appearing in the Free Lance Star at the announcement of the project.

She again stated that she was not opposed to incentives but had concerns about the City’s policy in awarding them. What those concerns are were not—as expected-- explained.

When asked by the moderator Ed Jones to explain what was “Plan B”--What if Kalahari didn’t come to Fredericksburg? What plan did she have to replace the revenue the project would bring? Mrs. Girvan again had no answer.

Both Vice-Mayor Devine and Mary Katherine Greenlaw supported the Kalahari project and the use of incentives for the reasons of expanding the tax base, taking the tax burden off city residents, and having the resources to provide the services citizens expect and maintain the City’s unique quality of life.

Mr. Huff stated that he was not really opposed to Kalahari but felt the city should have negotiated a better deal. I would have been interested in hearing exactly how he would have negotiated a better deal but that was probably too much to expect. In the end he played it safe. Neither fully supporting nor rejecting the project. A textbook answer from Politics 101—Try not to alienate anyone on an issue. STRIKE ONE

Taxes:
Mrs. Girvan stated she didn’t like taxes and suggested that the Council should have more time to look at the budget. How this is going to help she didn’t explain. She also talked again about problems with the budget process but again no solutions to correct these alleged process problems. Yet she later talked about subsidizing the Cal Ripken facility, building a cold weather shelter, and a transitional facility for immigrant students. No taxes but all the programs you want. Pandering at its best.

Mayor Tomzak, Vice-Mayor Devine, and Mrs. Greenlaw were on the same page sighting the current revenue problems, keeping the services residents expect, and the possibility that a tax increase may be possible. They again stressed the need for economic development in the tourism/business areas to bring in revenue and take the tax burden off of real estate.

Mr. Huff avoided comment on raising taxes. He instead stated that he would go through the budget to make sure we are spending our money wisely. He did point out what he believes are the Council’s wasteful spending on outside consultants. He pointed to how the Feds deal with consultants and suggested we use them as a model. I had to ask my neighbor twice if I had heard that correctly.

Mr. Huff was provided a copy of the budget so why not be specific on how much we waste and where he would cut? Because the Politics 101 textbook tells him that to do so might alienate a voter or two that a particular cut may affect. STRIKE TWO


The Homeless Issue:
This is an issue I’ve been involved in for a while and we have made a bit more progress than was alluded to last night. We have reorganized the Continuum of Care (COC) group regionally which is now meeting on a regular basis. The membership includes all local social service groups, both public and private, that deal with the homeless and housing issues. The COC is the group, with assistance from City Staff and the George Washington Regional Commission, which has been submitting the application to HUD for funding. During the previous year we were awarded funding for the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) that will allow us to better tract the homeless and the services provided. Funding also allowed for the hiring of a part time person to integrate the system region wide.

We did lose funding this year due to our low score. However we know, and have known, where the problems are that we are not addressing. They are dealing with the chronic homeless and affordable housing.

Mayor Tomzak talked about the recent initiative launched by Micah and the City to bring the discussion of a facility for the chronic homeless to the regional level. The first meeting of this group was held a week ago and Micah will be making a presentation on the types of services and facility we will need at the end of the month. Representing the City in these discussions are Mayor Tomzak, myself, the City Manager, Chief of Police, and our Director of FRED.

On the housing front the George Washington Regional Commission has a taskforce representing local governments, builders, bankers, real estate interests, and service groups to come up with a regional approach for affordable housing. The preliminary report is due in about three months.

Mrs. Girvan talked about getting interested groups together, identifying resources, and coming up with a plan. Well she is about two years behind the power curve. Here statement shows how little she has followed this issue.

Mrs. Greenlaw has a good understanding of the issue as a member of the shelter board. Vice-Mayor Devine has been involved in the front line efforts volunteering in serving meals and in dealing with homeless students in our schools. Mr. Huff applauded the communities’ involvement in this issue but had no proposals or ideas to put forward as he has no real experience with the issue.

As Mayor How Would You Work With Council?
The most telling exchange between Mrs. Girvan and Dr. Tomzak was on the issue of running meetings. Mrs. Girvan was correct in calling the Mayor on his comment that there will always be people who oppose projects. It was an unfortunate comment as all residents have a right to speak before the Council no matter what views they express. While the comment was unfortunate I would ask anyone to provide an instance where Dr. Tomzak has cut a citizen off or denied anyone from speaking.

However, after chastising the Mayor for his comments she complained that he had allowed three individuals to “attack” her during their presentations at the last Council meeting. I would ask anyone to look at the tape of these presentations and see whether you would define them as an, “Attack.” In each case a citizen pointed out inaccuracies in Mrs. Girvan’s public statements. They took issue with her positions not her personally. So if Mrs. Girvan is elected Mayor residents will be able to speak as long as they don’t criticize her positions. Did any one else catch the hypocrisy in this statement?

She went on to imply that at the last hearing people who were opposed to Kalahari were in some way intimidated into not speaking during the public hearing. No evidence was presented to back up this claim. On this point Mrs. Girvan owes both the Mayor and the City Council an apology for making such an unfounded and false accusation. This statement is also indicative of the regard Mrs. Girvan has for other members of the City Council.



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

For the most part the closing statements were predictable. All of the candidates but one talked about their experience, what they saw as past accomplishments, and what they bring to the City Council. Mr. Huff, however, made the point that the City needed to be more proactive and less reactive. That he would be out front looking for opportunities and going after them. Yet throughout the entire debate he did not suggest one initiative, put forward any type of action plan, or outline what he would achieve while in office. In fact, he followed the political playbook and stayed away from making any commitments. STRIKE THREE

Last night you were presented a choice between electing good leaders or good politicians. From Mrs. Girvan and Mr. Huff we heard some pandering on issues, no vision, nor any plans or proposals to deal with the hard choices currently facing the city. In the end we do not know what they stand for and that is called good politics.

Whether you agreed with them or not Mayor Tomzak, Vice-Mayor Devine, and Mrs. Greenlaw explained to you the realities we face and told you how they were prepared to act. This is called leadership. I'm off to pick up my Mary Katherine Greenlaw sign.

THE POOL--THE REAL STORY

There is no question that Mrs. Doris Buffett deserves the thanks of the entire Fredericksburg community for providing the funds to allow the Dixon Street Pool to be enjoyed by all city residents. The events leading up to this gracious gift deserves a review in light of the credit now being claimed by Mrs. Girvan. First, lets cover what has not been disclosed in the story.

The City Parks & Recreation Commission at the time (and probably still is) the only locality who recognizes that there are youth in the community who require financial assistance to participate in our recreational programs. Working with the School Board such children are identified and fee waivers provided. To imply, as has been done, that the City failed to recognize this situation is false.

Another fact not covered in this story was that there had been a meeting between the Parks & Recreation Commission and community leaders and groups concerned about the fee issue. At that meeting it was agreed that the EXISTING waiver program would have to be expanded. At the end of the meeting ALL involved thanked the commission for working with them on this issue.

As outlined in the Free Lance story of June 30th http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2006/062006/06302006/202725 the fees being charged by the Parks & Recreation Commission were in line with every other community pool in the region. But unlike other localities the City Parks & Recreation Commission was prepared to work on a program to EXPAND the fee waiver program for those who could not afford the pool entry fees.


At the next Council meeting on June 27, 2006 http://www.fredericksburgva.gov/record/062706rg.asp Mrs. Girvan presented her proposal to open the pool up to city residents for free--Two days before the pool opening. The projected cost to the city would be about $67,000.00. This was the first the Council had heard of the proposal. I’ve gone back and checked my e-mails for any prior communication about this from Mrs. Girvan and there are none. Nothing was brought before the Parks & Recreation Commission who had been meeting for months trying to work out the fee schedule.

In light of the prior meeting between the Parks & Rec Commission and community leaders, and the fact that they were already working on this issue, I made the motion to let the Parks & Rec Commission come back with a recommendation and agreed that the meeting should be held as soon as possible.

The next morning I was contacted by an acquaintance of Mrs. Buffett and was told she had received a phone call from someone explaining that I had stopped an effort to waive pool fees for underprivileged children and was asked to call her, which I did.

I explained to Mrs. Buffett the current waiver program and that it was going to be expanded. I asked her to call some of the community leaders who had attended the meeting with the Parks & Recreation Commission. She still was not happy with yours truly and the city and was going to City Hall with a check. I contacted staff and the Mayor and advised them of the conversation. I also send out an e-mail to the Parks & Rec Commission members advising them that Mrs. Buffett was going to be at City Hall at 2pm the following day with a check.

There followed a series phone conversations with the Mayor and staff to verify with Mrs. Buffett that she was going forward and get more details on what precipitated this decision. Finally, it was decided that Bob Antozzi, and what members of the Parks & Rec Commission could attend, should be there to accept the check.

At the appointed time Mrs. Girvan arrived, family in tow, to accept the check on behalf of the city. Up to this point there had been no communications from Mrs. Girvan. It wasn’t until 3:31pm that day that she sent out an e-mail to the Council announcing the gift. When asked why she had not informed anyone else about the gift she stated that she had only just received notification and didn’t have time to tell anyone else.

This story had a happy ending though the work of the Parks & Rec. Commission in dealing with this issue has bee ignored. The question to ask is what if there had not been a Mrs. Doris Buffett to intervene?

What credit does Mrs. Girvan deserve for, by her own admission, just showing up to pick-up a check? What does it say about how she will work with the Council and/or Boards and Commissions? The majority of the Council has always talked about how “we” the City—Council, staff, and residents, have accomplished things. Only one member insists on using the term, “I.”

FACTS & SUBSTANCE JUST GET IN THE WAY

In her OpEd today Mrs. Girvan stated that she was opposed to the Capital Ale incentives because they had already signed a lease and were coming here anyway. The truth, and it had been explained to Mrs. Girvan, was that Capital Ale was looking to locate in Charlottesville, Petersburg, or Fredericksburg. The lease she alluded to was contingent on the approval of the incentives package. Without the incentives package it would have been off to either Petersburg or Charlottesville.

I was surprised that Mrs. Girvan had to go so far a field looking for examples of incentive packages. All she really needed to do was look in her own back yard. They Spotsylvania Towne Center incentives package of $17.5 million over (20) years or the state incentive package for Rolls Royce totaling $58.6 million for a $100 million investment.

Finally, we are constantly hearing about the need for better planning and the need for a vision for the City. Yet we have yet to hear what kind of planning we need to be doing and have yet to hear Mrs. Girvan’s vision for Fredericksburg.

We have specific guidelines for incentives. What specifically would Mrs. Girvan like to see changed? How is her vision different from the Comprehensive Plan or the Council’s Goals & Initiatives that she helped draft? When do you think she will stop talking about planning and vision and start defining them?

THE TAX RATE--THE REAL STORY

Taxes are always a topic of conversation in an election year. One candidate for Mayor, Mrs. Girvan, claims to be the fiscal conservative on the Council. The claim is based on her proposal to set last year’s tax rate at 50 cents. Let’s put this claim to the test by looking at her position on taxes in previous years and by taking a closer look at the 2007 tax rate discussions. Finally, we will look at what Mrs. Girvan may have in store for us in 2008.

In 2003 Mrs. Girvan actively supported the 89cent tax rate. The equalized rate that year was 80cents. The rate was set to support the debt service for the schools, pool and police station.

In 2004 Mrs. Girvan had been elected to Council but could not vote on the tax rate. This was the year that newly elected Mayor Tom Tomzak found himself defending his comment accepting the need for the 1 cent increase in the tax rate. Mrs. Girvan made no public statements on the tax rate.

In 2005 and 2006 while there were no increases in real estate taxes other taxes did go up and Mrs. Girvan supported both budgets. She made no comments on cuts or additions to the budget beyond questioning why the Library budget was not fully funded. Now lets take a closer look at the tax rate discussions in 2007.

I have enclosed links to the stories that ran in the Free Lance Star regarding the 2007 tax rate. Let’s take a look at Mrs. Girvan’s contribution to those discussions and how and when she made her proposal for a 50-cent tax rate.

In the April 3rd story – “Councilwoman Debby Girvan asked that local tourism and lodging officials be consulted about what effect the increased lodging tax could have on luring conventions to the city.”

In the April 22nd story Mrs. Girvan is not quoted but she did share the sentiment of the Council— “Council members went around the table last week telling the School Board they believe the teachers deserve better pay and that they would do what they could to find the money.”

In the April 23rd story -- "We need to make sure that the outside funding that we are appropriating is directly proportionate to how much they benefit city residents," Councilwoman Debby Girvan said. "It should not be based just on what they were funded at last year."

Then later in the story – “Girvan said she thought the cuts were too arbitrary and "seem to hit our most vulnerable citizens the hardest."

In the May 16th story – “ Councilwoman Debby Girvan proposed to set the real-estate tax rate at 50 cents without any additional cuts.

She said the city consistently brings in more revenue than it budgets for, and suggested the city raise its revenue projections for next year by $1.4 million to balance the budget without raising the tax rate.”

In the May 22nd story – “Councilwoman Debby Girvan disputed the city’s math in calculating the equalized tax rate.”

Finally, in the May 23rd story –“ The other two—Debby Girvan and Hashmel Turner—said they believed the city could adopt a 50-cent rate by bumping up the city’s revenue projections by $1.4 million.”

It wasn’t until TWO MONTHS into the budget discussions that Mrs. Girvan made her first AND ONLY proposal on the tax rate. She proposed a 50-cent tax rate at the May 15th work session ONE WEEK before the vote on the tax rate. It came in the form of a memo that she presented to Council that evening and she then left the work session because of, “ a prior engagement!”

There was no communications from her to the Council or staff on this proposal before or after the work session. No effort to build consensus around her position or work towards a compromise. Just dropped a memo on the table and walked out.

And lets look at the financial rationale for her proposal. Mrs. Girvan “believed the city could adopt a 50-cent rate by bumping up the city’s revenue projections by $1.4 million.” How many of you spend money you don’t have for your rent/mortgage, to pay your utilities, to buy food? Would you increase your monthly expenses because you think you might get a raise next year or win the lottery? I would ask readers to contact any other jurisdiction in Virginia and ask whether this proposal was financially sound. The answer will be a resounding—NO.

And as it turned out we did not get a 1.4 million surplus this year. IN FACT we didn’t meet our revenue projections this year. If we had followed Mrs. Girvan’s advise we would have to be covering an additional 1.4 million this year, which translates to an ADDITIONAL 3.5 cents on the tax rate! What about this coming year.

On March 18th Council had its first opportunity to comment on the budget. Councilman Turner wants to see full funding for the schools and Head Start. Councilman Dixon had some funding issues and wanted to get the tax rate down. He, along with Councilman Turner, myself, Councilman Solley and Vice-Mayor Devine, spoke in favor of raises for employees. There were also discussions on what could be cut and under what circumstances.

Through out all of these discussions Mrs. Girvan only asked two questions about last years budget, and wanted to know why all localities couldn’t apply together for insurance. NO comment on the tax rate. NO comments on what she saw as important to fund. NO comment on where we could reduce expenditures. NO vision for the coming year. I guess we will have to again wait till the last moment to find out what she is thinking.

I would urge you to read the Free Lance Star articles on the Council budget/tax deliberations last year (see above links) to see which council members were trying to keep you taxes down. You will find it was not Mrs. Girvan. Whatever your position on taxes you have to agree that Mrs. Girvan’s tactics on this important issue can be described as little more than political grandstanding.

THERE SHE GOES AGAIN

I received an outline of Mrs. Girvan’s statements made before the Rotary Club on March 19th. I did confirm this information with individuals present but I also forwarded a copy to Mrs. Girvan to allow her an opportunity to comment. I am Still awaiting a response--

Mrs. Girvan stated that four years ago she was the only candidate to support the downtown hotel & had led the way for the hotel to move forward successfully and unanimously.

Over a year before Mrs. Girvan’s election City Council made a commitment to Mr. Mitchell and his partners to provide 100 parking spaces for a downtown hotel. In March 2004, again prior to Mrs. Girvan’s election, a Marriott franchise was awarded for a downtown hotel. There was a majority on the Council supporting a downtown hotel before Mrs. Girvan election!

Upon her arrival on Council Mrs. Girvan supported every plan put forward for the hotel by the Marriott team while the Council majority worked towards a plan that fit the character of downtown. Mrs. Girvan’s participation in these discussions was limited to complaints of why we just didn’t do it the way Marriott wanted it.

The claim, “she led the way” is not the case and again does a disservice to all those who moved this project forward.

She said she doesn’t believe in giving incentives to every business that asks for them. She approved the incentives for Wegmen’s, because, “that was different because they agreed to benchmarks & limited their package to 10 years; they are also providing a meals tax.”

Who does? As per the Incentive Guidelines the applicant must meet revenue, and employment goals. In addition, the project is judged on it compatibility with the City Comprehensive Plan and, in the case of downtown, the JumpStart plan. Capital Ale and Kybecca, an established local business, “agreed to benchmarks & limited their package to 10 years,” and both provide amongst others, meals tax. Mrs. Girvan, why don’t you support them?

Mrs. Girvan went on to state that revenue generation is not the most important thing when making these decisions and many downtown shops can’t be judged by the amount of revenue they bring in; their value is intrinsic to downtown.

Again there is agreement. The character of our downtown is very important. I would point out that Mrs. Girvan’s prior statements regarding the character of downtown don’t match the sentiment expressed above. As already noted she was prepared to accept any plan Marriott put on the table for the hotel whether it fit downtown or not. She also expressed her disappointment that we spent so much money on the façade of the parking deck. She would have preferred it to be one story higher. The result would have been a prefabricated structure looming over our historic downtown.

Regarding Prost’s presentation to City Council on the Kalahari incentives package Mrs. Girvan stated that the newspaper did not accurately report the presentation because the paper said it had been very positive. She felt that not only was the consultant hesitant, but ineffective because he, “only looked at one side of the issue.” He didn’t discuss services for the project – specifically, a third fire station will have to be built to accommodate Kalahari.

I would invite anyone to view the tape of Mr. Prost’s presentations. He was quite positive. Where he hesitated was when he was asked the same questions over and over again by Mrs. Girvan and was trying to make sure she was understood what he was saying.

To say his presentation was “ineffective” because he didn’t discuss services for the project is disingenuous at best. Mrs. Girvan was well aware that Mr. Prost was not expected to look at service impacts but rather only whether the project is viable, the revenue projections plausible, and whether the incentive package was justified. His answer on all three questions was—yes.

The issue of service costs had been addressed both to the Council and the public over the past four months culminating in a televised work session (show repeatedly on public access) with department heads outlining the impacts regarding water & sewer, traffic, building services, and emergency services. And all this information, including the staff reports, is on the City web site!

Mrs. Girvan went on to state that the third fire station will cost taxpayers $11 million, or $2 million a year for operations.

Fire station #3 was in the Capital budget well before the arrival of Kalahari. It has always been planned to cover both Central Park and Celebrate VA. It is not being built solely because of Kalahari.

Mrs. Girvan should know that in addition to donating the site for the fire station the Silver Cos. are prepared to establish a Special Taxing District over parts of Celebrate VA and Central Park to pay for and help maintain the fire station. City taxpayers will not have to pay for this station.

Said Kalahari is not interested in funding a shuttle bus to downtown and that this service would cost the FRED bus system a million dollars.

Kalahari’s arrival was again not the catalyst for providing FRED service to Celebrate VA. It was understood when the tourism campus concept was put forward that there would need to be a FRED bus link to downtown. If Kalahari were to decide not to come to Fredericksburg those discussions would continue.

As part of the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Silver Co, approved in 2006 (pre-Kalahari), we are receiving a $25,000.00 a year payment to put towards this expense. Discussions are ongoing to arrive at a plan for the Celebrate VA project to continue to assist with service impacts on the city.

The FRED bus service plan put forward by staff is meant to service all of Celebrate VA not just Kalahari. It should also be understood that most of the Capital costs (the buses) would be covered by Federal grants. And as the case with the current FRED service operating expenses are in part covered by state and federal funding—95% the first year, approx. 60% the second and levels off at 50%. What the City is responsible for is covered by existing gas tax revenues. City taxpayers will not be shouldering this cost either.

Mrs. Girvan stated that when she first heard about the incentives package, she went “straight to Silver Companies and told them 47.5% for 20 years with no accountability is not good enough.” Said they are not contributing to our capital needs; they will not meet needs at our wastewater treatment plant.

This statement comes as a surprise to me, as well as to the Silver Co, and Todd Nelson as I understand it. Mr. Honaker as well as Mr. Nelson denies any such conversation ever took place. All I can say is that when the project was presented to the entire Council with this condition Mrs. Girvan made no such comment. Then there is the smiling picture of her in the Free Lance Star during the announcement of the project. In fact, a quick archives search of the Free Lance Star has no such comment coming from Mrs. Girvan. Strangely enough her first statements questioning the project came out at about the time she announced her candidacy for Mayor.


Another problem cited was visibility from I-95. Said Kalahari will be viewed from the road. Said went to Sandusky and saw the building there, which was huge and painted with an “African theme with primary colored slides coming out of the sides of it.” Further indicated that Kalahari plans a billboard on I-95. Asked, “Is this the image that we want for Fredericksburg?”

Is a five story prefabricated garage and cookie cutter Marriott hotel the image we want of Fredericksburg? Again, as we have moved through the review of this project this statement doesn’t surface until after the announcement of her run for Mayor.

Finally, Mrs. Girvan stated that she had hoped that we would have negotiated better, and expressed disappointment that it didn’t happen; the incentives have remained the same as when she first spoke to the Silvers.

I found this statement to be the most amazing of all. Mrs. Girvan has been involved in all the briefings on this project regarding the negotiations. She has had ample opportunity to make her position know to her colleagues and staff but has chosen not to. Instead, we learn about her concerns in memos passed out the night of Council meetings or in newsletters sent out to constituents that we get second hand! And again, this has only started around the time of her announcement that she was running for Mayor.

She is now expressing horror over the inclusion of the Expo Center in the TIF district with Kalahari. Yet when the issue was brought before the Council by staff she expressed no such outrage. Not even a mild concern.

Whether you support Kalahari or not you would have to agree this is not showing leadership. This is politics at its worst.

WE CAN'T AFFORD SOUND BITES.

While incumbents defend their records challengers can promise the world and don’t have to come up with deliverables (or explain the lack thereof) until after they are elected. This years City budget will require some tough decisions by Council. Next year the prognosis is that the decisions will be tougher. Understanding these realities it is imperative that city voters get beyond the catch phrases and sound bites of the campaign and get a clear understanding of how potential new City Council members will handle these decisions.

On his campaign web site at-large Council candidate Mr. B. J Huff touts his families’ ties to teaching and promises to, “fight for the necessary resources to recruit and retain the best teachers, and will work to bring new technologies into our classroom…” Family connections aside (The Vice-Mayor is a teacher and my wife is also a teacher) the last three Councils have made good progress on the education front.

Unlike our neighboring jurisdictions the City Council and School Board have a good working relationship developed over the past six years as we planned and built two state of the art schools. The Capital budget includes $370,000 for technology improvements in our schools. As part of last year’s discussions, we are working together to get teacher’s salaries as close as possible to our neighbors. This as our Composite index continues to rise requiring more local revenue to cover the school budget.

This year, even as we cut and hold the line on city expenses we did provide the schools with an additional $1 million, which is still under the additional $2.8 million requested. Discussions are on going regarding the impact of this shortfall on salaries and programs and are looking for possible solutions. At this point we must look at another of Mr. Huff’s campaign promises.

“Homeowner’s taxes are out of control with runaway tax assessments…. B.J. Huff will focus spending on core functions of city government, like education and public safety, so we can better keep taxes low for Fredericksburg residents.”

Contrary to the rhetoric the City’s current tax rate is one of the lowest of any city in Virginia. As for tax increases, even some of his advisors who know, should be telling him that taxes in the city have risen at a rate well below what our neighbors have faced. And the reason for the increase was to pay for projects that had, or have, wide support in the community.

The issue today is not, as implied, that we are spending new revenue as fast as it is coming in. The issue today is revenue is down. The current budget is smaller than last years. We are to start the assessment process next year and property values will be down and the sales tax revenue is also expected to be down.

My questions to Mr. Huff are-- What specific proposals do you have to achieve your educational goals? What are the costs of those proposals? Under the current budget realities would you fund them? Would you consider tax increases? If not, what plans do you have to find the revenue?

LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE--AUTO CHALK vs LEOS WHICH IS THE BIGGER WASTE? & WHAT IS BAD PLANNING?

Councilwoman Girvan has taken the position that the City does not have a revenue problem it has a spending problem. The almost $70 million spent on capital projects is not the issue but rather the example provided for these expenditure excesses is Auto Chalk which had a one time equipment cost to the city of $100 thousand. Lets take a moment to compare this expenditure with the $108 thousand spent on the LEOS benefit for regional jail guards that the councilwoman supported.

I would call your attention to Bryan Metts' blog piece on Auto Chalk entitled, “Auto Chalk Love it/Hate It,” http://burgnews.blogspot.com/2008/03/autochalk-love-ithate-it.html which does a little math to show that the City is getting a return on its investment. In addition, it has allowed for the expansion of coverage to include the residential area around the train station helping to alleviate parking problems there as well. And if it wasn’t working so well we could sell both the vehicle and equipment and get some of our money back and reduce operating expenditures.

Last May Councilwoman Girvan voted to give regional jail guards the LEOS retirement benefit that is costing the city an additional $100,000 A YEAR. We were told that the expenditure was necessary to allow the jail to keep existing guards and help to hire new ones.

I remember when we were told that the Regional Jail was going to make the region money. Well, as with the promise of a jail cranking out the dollars, so the claim that LEOS was going to make a difference proves to be a little over optimistic. This year’s Regional Jail budget request includes a 5% salary increase-- for what? --To keep existing guards and help hire new ones. There is no raise for City employees in our current budget.

The LEOS expenditure beats Auto Chalk by a knockout when it comes to the bigger waste of City tax dollars.

The second card of this event is Councilwoman Girvan’s recent complaint that reducing funds in other accounts—Cowan Blvd, and the Executive Plaza—to assist with balancing the budget and acquiring some trucks for Public Works showed bad planning. I would assume making a $200,000 appropriation in the middle of a budget year should also be considered bad planning.

In December 2006 Councilwoman Girvan actively supported giving the Area Museum an additional $200,000 above what the City had promised. The point was made by Councilman Dixon that it was bad planning to make such an appropriation in the middle of a budget year. Now where did I hear that before?

Coming soon………Education and Taxes a question or two for Mr. Huff.

TOPIC DU JOUR--COUNCIL ELECTIONS

On May 6th city residents will go to the polls to elect two at-large members to the City Council as well as a Mayor. Comments will be posted as the candidates state their positions throughout the campaign. Their achievements, their viewpoints and their plans for the city will be subject to discussion. The candidates are on my blog list so that they have the opportunity to agree with, or to take issue with, comments.

In the interest of full disclosure I am supporting the re-election of Mayor Tomzak and of Vice-Mayor Kerry Devine. This is not to say that we agree on all issues; however, they both have shown a commitment to this city, a willingness to examine all sides of an issue, and an ability to work together with their colleagues in a positive, productive fashion.

Having gotten the preliminaries out of the way let's begin with some of the claims being made in the mayoral race………..

SCHOOLS AND A RIVER EASEMENT

Over the past few weeks I have read Letters to the Editor in support of Ms. Girvan’s run for Mayor. While I applaud public participation in the democratic process some of the claims made in these letters require clarification. More importantly statements made in these letters fail to recognize the hard work of others.

Several letters assert that Ms. Girvan is responsible for the construction of the City’s two new schools. These opinions are based on the efforts of Ms. Girvan and Mrs. Laura Bradshaw in their circulation of petitions in 2003 which were in support of the constructions of the schools. On May 23, 2003, the Free Lance Star ran a story on the petition effort. The petitions were subsequently submitted to Council on June 24, 2003.

However, voters should be aware that the construction of two new schools was already a topic of conversation on the council in 2002. Discussions with the School Board had already progressed to the point such that in a March 12, 2003 OpEd piece the then Mayor Beck proposed to begin construction of a new Upper Elementary School in 2005 and to begin a renovated or new high school by 2007.

By mid June 2003, Council had adopted, as recommended by staff, the Public-Private Education Act procedures, which provided the financial/construction mechanism for the schools. Council went on to work with the School Board to pick the site for the high school, and subsequently set a tax rate which would support the debt service for the schools.

While Ms. Girvan’s and Mrs. Bradshaw’s efforts, along with all those who assisted them, helped reinforce the effort to move forward, the majority of the credit for the schools' construction rests with the respective School Board and Council staffs who spent countless hours putting the financing, the process and the final construction agreement together. The point being made is that construction of new schools was in place and was supported by a council majority before Ms. Girvan's involvement.

Another inaccurate statement being made is that Ms. Girvan improved the River Easement. Throughout the discussions on the River Easement, Ms. Girvan made clear her opposition to third party easement holders and to making the agreement in perpetuity. In numerous discussions with Friends of the Rappahannock and Nature Conservancy representatives Ms. Girvan stated she could not support the easement in its "present form".

At Ms. Girvan’s request, Council did agree to have a review of the river easement done by an outside law firm. This review was carried out by Mr. John Lane of McQuire Woods who reported to Council on March 28, 2006 that the document, “Met the goals of the city and would protect the river.” He did not recommend any significant changes to the document.

The river easement passed without changes. The only affect Ms. Girvan's involvement had was to delay the vote at least a month. In making the easement a reality, the list for those responsible is long and at the top of the list credit should go to the leaders and members of The Friends of the Rappahannock, not to any single individual.

The theme of these Letters to the Editor has been leadership. However, taking sole credit for outcomes is not leadership; taking sole credit is unfair to the countless individuals and groups who truly deserve the credit; and finally, taking sole credit does not build community. Leadership is building consensus on an issue or issues. Leadership is being able to work with other Council members, city staff, and the public in a positive, productive manner. Leadership is recognizing your role in making Fredericksburg a better place to live. A true leader says "we" and not "I".