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.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, March 24, 2008
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?
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.
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.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
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………..
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".
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".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
