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.