Finally Over

Finally. It's over.

When it comes to government in Virginia, it seems as though there is always an election going on and always negative ads back and forth. The reason is, of course, that there is an election held every single year in the state, and negative ads appear to be the answer for most all candidates.

It's a real shame that we have gotten to a point where it is rare to have the opportunity to actually discuss the issues and policy differences, but instead campaigns anymore are about soundbites and discrediting your opponent, both at the surface level in terms of policy ("such and such will raise your taxes") but more at a deeper level of personal attack.

A lot of people talk about running different kinds of races, about being positive and talking about the issues. But time and again it is shown that negative ads work, so no one is willing to change how they run their own campaigns. And I don't think this is likely to change if we only leave it to candidates to tackle.

What is needed is a consensus of sorts amongst voters who refuse to accept candidates who use personal attacks as a strategy to win an election but instead demand a real debate over the issues that confront us. And as nasty as things have gotten, I can only hope we will reach this point soon.

Finally, this election is over... but of course the Congressional races will start right up....

Choosing Priorities

Today at City Council, the majority of members voted to allocate $1.5 million to Countryside Golf Course for improvements. This $1.5 million will come from the sale of municipal bonds, so once the million and a half dollars is repaid, with interest, it will have cost taxpayers more like $2.5 million. Given the financial circumstances in which residents and businesses, as well as City government, find themselves, and given the dire infrastructural needs in our City, I do not believe that putting money into a golf course is in our best interest.

Countryside is a nice golf course that could be much better had its maintenance not been neglected for so many years. It's layout is very good, and it is a beautiful piece of property. I understand the desire of residents around the course to want to keep green space near their houses. But having said all this, I fundamentally disagree with the idea that the City of Roanoke should be in the golf course business. We could turn some of the course into a 20- or 30 acre park so that residents living around the course who don't golf can also benefit from the green space, and then seek input from developers as to what would make sense for the remainder of the property.

A few hundred residents and taxpayers in Roanoke actually play golf at Countryside. So as we invest so much money into the course, we are forcing 93,000 other non-Countryside golfing residents to shoulder the financial burden that this debt brings us. And the worst part is that we are not actually investing money that will improve the course; rather, we are patching up some deficiencies in the course such as repaving cart paths and putting in a new irrigation system. These items won't make the course better, attract new or more players and improve the experience of golfers (of which I am one). These items will simply be better than they presently are, with less potholes and higher water pressure. But at the end of the day we are sinking millions of dollars into a city-run golf course that will add debt obligation and likely general fund subsidies to our already stressed City budget.

And within the next six months or so, City Council will be addressing whether or not to add a stormwater utility fee onto each property in the City, causing residential property owners to pay an additional fee each month and commercial properties to often pay enormous monthly fees. So in this instance, and knowing that we have over $60 million in needed stormwater facility improvements, we are choosing to invest capital money into a golf course to benefit those couple hundred folks that play golf at Countryside, and then will come back to talk about adding fees to cover what we know to be a desperately needed stormwater fixes. To me, that is a total mis-prioritization of where we are spending our limited capital resources.

The decision has been made and Countryside will remain a golf course for the time being. I just hope folks remember this choice when we come back to discuss adding additional fees onto our taxpaying residents and businesses to cover our very basic, and largely neglected, infrastructure needs.

Bond Issuance

At the September 8, 2009 City Council meeting we voted on the issuance of nearly $14 million in bonds to pay for various capital projects within the City. This was an expected and scheduled vote and is the main instrument by which the City gets the resources necessary to take on construction/re-construction projects.

I voted "no" on the issuance of these bonds. Unfortunately, as often occurs in government, it was an all or nothing vote. 90% of the items that we would be taking on this debt to pay for I am supportive of - from bridge maintenance and repair to sidewalk, curb and gutter repairs to the much-needed renovations to the Market Building. These are infrastructural needs that our City has that affect the quality of life of our residents and downtown businesses, and the overall beauty and safety of our neighborhoods. Our neighborhoods are what make Roanoke what it is and infrastructural repairs and upgrades are essential.

The concern I had and have was that there are projects contained within the bond issuance that have had 1) no decision made on and 2) that I do not believe are in the best fiscal interest of the taxpayers. An example would be Countryside. We have yet to decide what will happen to Countryside, so I did not think it appropriate and responsible to issue bonds to the tune of $2 million with no decision yet made. Roanokers already pay high taxes, and increasing this burden during the worst economic period in our nation's history, to me, is not the right decision. On top of that, the governor shared the news yesterday of the more than $1.35 billion in cuts the state is having to make because of revenue shortfalls.

In short, when issuing debt I believe we have to look at what is in the overall best interests of the entire City. And I do not believe that pushing the City over it's self-imposed 10% debt ceiling is responsible (which we are already up against). Money is money, and by including debt issuance for projects that I do not believe we can afford now in our City puts more of a burden on folks who are already feeling the pinch in this tough economy.

Like everyone else, we should live within our means and, just because we have the capacity to borrow money, doesn't mean we should.

Countryside and the Future

Today's Roanoke Times had an article today discussing the future of Countryside Golf Course and the likelihood that it will remain a golf course for at least the next five years. Having read the article (and not having been available yesterday to comment) I do have a few thoughts that I thought I would share.

These thoughts do not reflect anything discussed in City Council's closed meeting as contracts are being negotiatied and it was my understanding we should not discuss ongoing negotiations. So here are a few thoughts:

- I do not believe it is fundamentally fair in a city of 93,500 people, of whom maybe 500 residents actually play the course, to spend so much money for the benefit of relatively so few. So we will have nearly 93,000 city taxpayers paying millions of dollars for a very few to play golf - and we have a disproportionate number of golf courses in the area, many of whom, if not all, are struggling financially.

- We cannot assume that this piece of property would not be bought if put on the open market as is said in the article. Yes, the economy is bad, but to commit to spending millions of dollars to keep it a golf course simply because we think it won't sell is not in the best interest of taxpayers. Never hurts to try selling.

- I do not believe that because this topic has been debated for a few years that we should just put it to rest and start spending millions of dollars.

- I do not believe that we should commit to spending millions of taxpayer dollars simply so this does not become an issue dealt with year after year by City Council. To spend millions so that seven of us do not have "to pay the political price" is wrong. The price we should be concerned about is the overall costs to the taxpayer.

In the end, this course will cost us millions of dollars. Period. A solution would be to cut a large portion of acreage off the course and to turn it into a wonderful park for residents of the city and in particular in northwest Roanoke. This would accomplish the creation of open space and a park, the alleviation of millions of dollars of subsidies and capital expenses that will be put into the course, and better represent the interest of the taxpayers of this city.

We subsidize the Roanoke Civic Center, the Market Building, potentially an amphitheather, a golf course... millions and of dollars worth of operational subsidies a year...

Council and appropriate involvement

Last evening, Council weighed in on the proposed merger of the city's recreation teams into four regions. There was much controversy over whether or not teams should be allowed to "stand-alone" or whether it is in the best interest of the children who participate to have the merger go forward.

The truth is that this matter should have never come to Council. I can say without a doubt that a majority of the Council would have liked to have seen this resolved in a way that could be favorable to both sides rather than brought to a political environment, that respected the Youth Athletic Council's decision while also respecting the history of the various other teams who have made huge contributions to the city.

The vote forced upon Council last evening was not on the agenda and was verbally created by a member of Council at the previous meeting. What this tells me is that in the future we need to be more direct in our expectations of Council as a governing body and matters that should rightly be handled at a staff level.

Lesson learned.

Capital Projects

Yesterday at City Council the decision to delay a municipal amphitheater was reversed and the project (design phase) will proceed. There is a maximum $1.2 million price tag for this portion, and hopefully we'll learn well before spending that amount of money whether an amphitheater has any feasibility as a capital construction expenditure in the future.

While I did not support moving forward with this capital expenditure at this time, the decision has been made and a majority of council (now) wants to proceed. I believed and still do that there are other capital needs in the city that currently outweigh a wonderful, though not necessary, amphitheater project. We have major storm water, road, bridge and curb/gutter/sidewalk needs that must be addressed soon for the future prosperity of Roanoke. We also have a lot of residents struggling and pinching pennies every day and felt the city should lead by example and exercise fiscal restraint.

Having said all this, a majority of council has spoken, and though there were extremely aggressive lobbying efforts undertaken by the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce and DRI (which is certainly well within their rights to do), a majority makes the decisions for the policy matters that affect Roanoke and its residents. At this point, we should all hope for the very best outcome as it relates to the amphitheater and that any further information we receive from the management group will help us to best determine how to proceed in terms of the actual construction of an amphitheater.

In short, council never gets boring... and yesterday was a perfect example of just that! Now it's time to move forward and get on with the important work that lies ahead.

Amphitheater and Priorities

As was stated today in the Roanoke Times, I have expressed serious concerns over the construction of a new, $14.2 million amohitheater in downtown Roanoke. While I would love to have another great concert and arts venue, I simply do not believe that Roanoke can afford such a luxury item at this time.

The article in today's newspaper was, at its very best, incomplete. A number of items stated as suggestions are are not suggestions at all, but factual. For instance, it is not a suggestion as to what the debt service and subsidy would be for a new amphitheater, it is fact. Because of the incomplete nature of the Roanoke Times article, I have decided to post the letter I wrote to my colleagues here.

- START LETTER -

All,

I wanted to write this email to you all regarding the inclusion of the amphitheater design in the CIP that we discussed Monday. As you recall, the design itself is projected to cost $1.2 million with construction not able to commence until 2013.

My purpose in writing this is because, after really looking closely at the numbers year over year debt and subsidy, I do not believe it is in the best interest of the taxpayers of the city to proceed with this project at this time. Below are my reasons for this conclusion.

First, we are all aware of the enormous infrastructural challenges we face in the city. We have more than $7 million in bridge maintenance and repair, more than $60 million in stormwater needs (this is in today's dollars and does not include additional needs and costs that will arise in five, ten and years beyond that), as well as two pools, the market building and other existing needs that must be addressed.

Second, between the time the design would take place ($1.2 million) and the time the amphitheater would be built ($13 million) is several years and two possible council changes. As we all know, when councils change then priorities change. I do not believe it is fiscally responsible to commit to $1.2 million now when the chances of priorities changing over the next four years is rather strong.

Third, I do not believe we have near the necessary financial information to make such a serious and costly decision. Please see the follow:

-At $14.2 million total cost for the amphitheater, our annual debt payments, given current market conditions and interest rates (which may be higher in four years) would be $1,178,600 (that's $83,000 per $1 million borrowed).

-On top of this, and something we have really hardly discussed, is that the projected numbers indicate that, beyond the nearly $1.2 million in annual debt service payments, there is a $500,000 per year subsidy that is called for - this subsidy assumes the projected numbers are correct - if they are not, the subsidy could be even more than $500k per year.

-So, if market conditions stay the same, and we have unusually low interest rates right now, and the cost of construction remains fairly constant, we as a city will have to pay nearly $1.7 million per year just to meet our debt and subsidy obligations. This does not include maintenance costs.

Fourth, we have had no discussion, and I don't believe that the City Manager or Finance Director have been asked, but have we done any projections as to what we believe the indirect revenue impact would be with an amphitheater?? By this I mean do we have any idea how much tax revenue would be generated or any projections of this from downtown food, shopping and the indirect benefits from an amphitheater? I cannot find anything that even begins to address this, which to me is vital and necessary information to have to know whether the costs of the amphitheater are outweighed by the benefits.

And lastly, the Civic Center in '08 required, debt payment and subsidy, $2.7 million from the city. If we are having to subsidize it to such an extent, it is difficult for me to understand how we would not be required a continued and large subsidy for an amphitheater. And will we be pulling attendance from the Civic Center and thus creating the need for an even larger subsidy. We are hopeful that Global Spectrum will be able to reduce the Civic Center subsidy, but we are no where near close yet.

In closing, I believe that an amphitheater should not be a priority for our city at this time. We have some real needs in our neighborhoods and in the community that I believe have a direct impact on the future prosperity of the city. I would love an amphitheater as one resident, but having spent so much time in the neighborhoods across the community, I believe that concerns over curb, gutter and sidewalk, stormwater, economic development and the need for new and better jobs, and other needs are a much higher prioirty for our residents. We must take care of the facilities we already have, such as our pools that do need significant renovations, before we begin to build new capital facilities.

I would only ask that before we finalize the CIP we address this again and do more homework. I do not believe we have a full understanding of the implications of committing our taxpayers to more than $14 million and believe it would not be a responsible course of action to proceed with so many unanswered questions. Given all this, I will not support moving forward with the $1.2 million design at this time.

Thanks for your consideration and I hope you will agree that we should discuss this more, ask Ann Shawver if she can figure out some projections for indirect tax implications, overall subsidy and debt service and the real numbers that we need, aside from consultant projections, to determine whether this is a wise project or not.

Sincerely

Court