Game ANDROID UPDATE Yang Seru
3 months ago
Friday, December 25, 2009
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays
I hope during this holiday season that everyone has a very Merry Christmas, happy holidays and a safe, joyous new year.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Monday's Disorder
This past Monday Roanoke City Council met to discuss a number of items affecting the city. Entering the meeting I felt like there was a lot of work to do and that we could be productive in moving towards budget preparation for the next fiscal year. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.
I have no other way of describing Monday's events but that it was a circus. As many of you know, the Market Building has become a hot political topic these days, largely as a matter of maneuvering and with a great showing of disrespect for city staff. The conversation (which was more one person talking than any actual conversation) took 2.5 hours, contained little in the way of substantive or pragmatic solutions to the coming difficulty that the market vendors will experience during renovation of the building, and was clearly an attempt to score political points.
I understand that we work in an environment on Council that does include politics. But Monday's meeting and particularly the conversation regarding the Market Building was a new low in my mind. All parliamentary procedure was ignored, one member of Council spoke nearly the entire time, and the disrespectful treatment of city staff was totally unacceptable.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with any position on the Market Building, creating chaos during a Council meeting to gain political favor, inappropriately treating staff (or anyone for that matter) and dominating most of the afternoon to fulfill a personal agenda is wrong. It should not have happened and I've already requested that Council discuss this at our very next meeting in order to try to prevent any one member of Council from acting in such an unprofessional way.
The citizens of Roanoke have a right to be upset at the conduct of the December 7th Council meeting and to expect more from their representatives.
I have no other way of describing Monday's events but that it was a circus. As many of you know, the Market Building has become a hot political topic these days, largely as a matter of maneuvering and with a great showing of disrespect for city staff. The conversation (which was more one person talking than any actual conversation) took 2.5 hours, contained little in the way of substantive or pragmatic solutions to the coming difficulty that the market vendors will experience during renovation of the building, and was clearly an attempt to score political points.
I understand that we work in an environment on Council that does include politics. But Monday's meeting and particularly the conversation regarding the Market Building was a new low in my mind. All parliamentary procedure was ignored, one member of Council spoke nearly the entire time, and the disrespectful treatment of city staff was totally unacceptable.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with any position on the Market Building, creating chaos during a Council meeting to gain political favor, inappropriately treating staff (or anyone for that matter) and dominating most of the afternoon to fulfill a personal agenda is wrong. It should not have happened and I've already requested that Council discuss this at our very next meeting in order to try to prevent any one member of Council from acting in such an unprofessional way.
The citizens of Roanoke have a right to be upset at the conduct of the December 7th Council meeting and to expect more from their representatives.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
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....
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....
Monday, October 5, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
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...
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...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
City Council: Correcting the media record
Yesterday was the first City Council meeting of the new fiscal year, and one of the main areas of discussion centered on the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which determines what we will build or repair in terms of capital expeditures. Most of the money for any capital improvements would be borrowed and payments, as with any loan, would be due plus interest.
It is important that I correct some errors that a couple of news outlets reported yesterday/last night/this morning. NO project (Market Building, Amphitheater, Washington Park Pool) was approved to move forward yesterday. Yesterday required no votes. It was City Council directing staff to include certain items in the CIP which has to be FINALLY approved in the next month or so.
This said, and knowing these mistakes in reporting by the media were based on a complicated system of legislating, I think it would do the community a service for those outlets to run corrective stories, and hopefully they will.
So, where do I stand on capital projects? I will support moving forward with an extensive renovation of the Market Building. It is sorely needed and badly overdue.
As of now, I will not support construction of an amphitheater ($13 million), municipal operation of a golf course (minimum $2 million known) or a regional waterpark ($3.6 million). I do not believe we can afford these items and that both will require subsidies in perpetuity once they are built. In a city with over $60 million in needed stormwater repairs, more than $7 million in bridge renovation and repair and millions in needed neighborhood improvements, I cannot support building luxury items that will cause increased taxpayer subsidies when we already are forced to subsidize other facilities we own (civic center, market building).
To clarify once again, there was no need for any vote on the CIP yesterday. For instance, I voted yes on putting the Amphitheater on the table for inclusion in the CIP. I could have as easily said 'no,' but again, these were not technical votes. The real debate will begin as the final CIP draft is provided to us.
Just wanted to set the record straight.
It is important that I correct some errors that a couple of news outlets reported yesterday/last night/this morning. NO project (Market Building, Amphitheater, Washington Park Pool) was approved to move forward yesterday. Yesterday required no votes. It was City Council directing staff to include certain items in the CIP which has to be FINALLY approved in the next month or so.
This said, and knowing these mistakes in reporting by the media were based on a complicated system of legislating, I think it would do the community a service for those outlets to run corrective stories, and hopefully they will.
So, where do I stand on capital projects? I will support moving forward with an extensive renovation of the Market Building. It is sorely needed and badly overdue.
As of now, I will not support construction of an amphitheater ($13 million), municipal operation of a golf course (minimum $2 million known) or a regional waterpark ($3.6 million). I do not believe we can afford these items and that both will require subsidies in perpetuity once they are built. In a city with over $60 million in needed stormwater repairs, more than $7 million in bridge renovation and repair and millions in needed neighborhood improvements, I cannot support building luxury items that will cause increased taxpayer subsidies when we already are forced to subsidize other facilities we own (civic center, market building).
To clarify once again, there was no need for any vote on the CIP yesterday. For instance, I voted yes on putting the Amphitheater on the table for inclusion in the CIP. I could have as easily said 'no,' but again, these were not technical votes. The real debate will begin as the final CIP draft is provided to us.
Just wanted to set the record straight.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Brief Hiatus
As you might be able to tell, I have been on a bit of a summer hiatus. We have three weeks between meetings this month (just how the calendar falls this year) but I will resume my posting shortly.
I hope everyone's summer is off to a good start.
I hope everyone's summer is off to a good start.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Retirement of City Manager Darlene Burcham
As has been widely reported, City Manager Darlene Burcham and Roanoke City Council agreed to a March 1, 2010 retirement date for Ms. Burcham. These decisions are never easy, and given the circumstances I believe that yesterday showed great professionalism on both the part of Ms. Burcham as well as the council.
Ms. Burcham has dedicated nine years to the management of the City. While we all will never agree on every decision that has or has not been made, Ms. Burcham has been a dedicated, committed and hardworking member of the Roanoke family. She has accomplished many good things in her time in the Manager's office.
I am confident that the next nine months will be a fruitful time for the City Council and Ms. Burcham to work together to accomplish great things, from hiring a new Director of Economic Development to lead our increasingly important efforts in that area to the much-needed renovation of the Market Building. Ms. Burcham is committed to working tirelessly until the day she retires, and as a council we have come to expect nothing less from her. We will work closely and collaboratively with her to make decisions that are in the best interest of the most residents of the community.
As Council moves forward in its search for Ms. Burcham's successor, my focus and work will be to help find a new city manager with a strong background in economic development and financial management, and someone that recognizes the many wonderful attributes of our diverse community. I think this is particularly important for Roanoke in this economic climate and want to make certain that Roanoke is poised to take advantage of opportunities to attract more and better jobs to the area and encourage business growth and expansion.
Increased and expanded opportunity is in the best interest of each member of our community and I look forward to working to accomplish these goals.
Ms. Burcham has dedicated nine years to the management of the City. While we all will never agree on every decision that has or has not been made, Ms. Burcham has been a dedicated, committed and hardworking member of the Roanoke family. She has accomplished many good things in her time in the Manager's office.
I am confident that the next nine months will be a fruitful time for the City Council and Ms. Burcham to work together to accomplish great things, from hiring a new Director of Economic Development to lead our increasingly important efforts in that area to the much-needed renovation of the Market Building. Ms. Burcham is committed to working tirelessly until the day she retires, and as a council we have come to expect nothing less from her. We will work closely and collaboratively with her to make decisions that are in the best interest of the most residents of the community.
As Council moves forward in its search for Ms. Burcham's successor, my focus and work will be to help find a new city manager with a strong background in economic development and financial management, and someone that recognizes the many wonderful attributes of our diverse community. I think this is particularly important for Roanoke in this economic climate and want to make certain that Roanoke is poised to take advantage of opportunities to attract more and better jobs to the area and encourage business growth and expansion.
Increased and expanded opportunity is in the best interest of each member of our community and I look forward to working to accomplish these goals.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Statement on Personnel Matter
I have received nearly two dozen calls or emails regarding the piece that ran in today's newspaper concerning the future of City Manager Darlene Burcham.
I am a true believer in an open and transparent government and believe that the citizens of Roanoke deserve and should expect that information be shared with them by their elected officials in a timely and succinct manner - our government is only as good as the citizens that support it and the faith that they have in their decision-makers.
Out of respect for the City Manager and the Office of the City Manager, however, I will not address current discussions surrounding a highly sensitive and important personnel matter. Ms. Burcham deserves the professional respect and courtesy to have public comments withheld until the appropriate time.
Thank you.
Court Rosen
I am a true believer in an open and transparent government and believe that the citizens of Roanoke deserve and should expect that information be shared with them by their elected officials in a timely and succinct manner - our government is only as good as the citizens that support it and the faith that they have in their decision-makers.
Out of respect for the City Manager and the Office of the City Manager, however, I will not address current discussions surrounding a highly sensitive and important personnel matter. Ms. Burcham deserves the professional respect and courtesy to have public comments withheld until the appropriate time.
Thank you.
Court Rosen
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Happy Memorial Day
I haven't posted in a little while as I have been decompressing from the long, protracted city budget work period. It had been quite intense for several months so it's been nice to have some quieter time to spend with our son, family and friends.
I hope everyone has a nice Memorial Day. It's a good opportunity for a long weekend and a time to reflect on and think about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers stationed overseas, both in areas with peaceful relations and areas entrenched in war. While we relax for a deserved day off, there are American men and women abroad working seven days a week to keep America safe.
Memorialize them on this day.
I hope everyone has a nice Memorial Day. It's a good opportunity for a long weekend and a time to reflect on and think about the hundreds of thousands of soldiers stationed overseas, both in areas with peaceful relations and areas entrenched in war. While we relax for a deserved day off, there are American men and women abroad working seven days a week to keep America safe.
Memorialize them on this day.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Pools Will Open, Schools a Bit Less Fortunate
Earlier today Roanoke City Council met for what is known as Budget Study. Essentially, Budget Study is where the Council finalizes the next fiscal year's budget before it goes to a formal vote to be adopted into law.
During this meeting, we discussed an item that I believe to be important to the youth of the City. We decided, after weeks of debate and searching for the resources, to open both the Fallon Park and Washington Park swimming pools for the upcoming summer. At one point there was talk of a public/private partnership that would have kept Fallon Park open and seemed to be the only financial way to do so. That fell through, however, and during the course of those negotiations the City projected a slight increase in revenue and other resources that could be available.
I would have had trouble supporting the opening of one pool and not the other. Though public/private partnerships can be a model for good government, in a City as divided as ours, opening one pool without the other would have sent the wrong signal to our residents. So I'm happy we were able to find the resources that will allow children from various parts of town to have recreational opportunities this summer that will hopefully keep kids busy and out of trouble.
On another note, we did not agree to provide the schools with additional resources to help boost enrichment in summer school offerings, stave off elimination of teachers' assistant positions or fill ten empty elementary teacher positions. I believe this is a mistake and, if you recall, made a proposal a few weeks back that would have provided $1.6 million of taxpayer money from the Budget Stabilization Fund (rainy day fund) to accomplish just this (http://courtrosen.blogspot.com/2009/04/proposal-for-additional-funds.html).
Our school division is ranked second worst in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have suffered from declining achievement for years, and while efforts to attract new business and create new jobs have been many, until we make fundamental changes to the way we educate our children and prioritize our schools, I simply think these efforts will prove to be less than effective. We cannot make small, incremental changes in the way we educate this City - we must make a tidal wave of change to turn around a system that has not improved in many years.
I appreciate my colleagues willingness to increase City funding to the schools... I truly do. The state did not fulfill their financial obligation, and as much as we choose to blame the state for shirking its responsibility, these are still our schools whose success will affect the future of our City. Major policy changes and programs have been enacted over the last couple of years with the by a dedicated school board and superintendant. And it is my belief that until we dedicate ourselves to seeing through a major overhaul of our school division, a tidal wave of change, we will fail to see a major turnaround in our economic climate here and our ability to create new, highpaying jobs for our residents.
Education is the key to fighting poverty in our City and to improving the quality of life for everyone. I'm disappointed that we did not do more to avoid the programatic elimination that RCPS has been forced to undergo. But I know that they will do the best they can with the resources they do have. And we should be grateful for their dedication.
During this meeting, we discussed an item that I believe to be important to the youth of the City. We decided, after weeks of debate and searching for the resources, to open both the Fallon Park and Washington Park swimming pools for the upcoming summer. At one point there was talk of a public/private partnership that would have kept Fallon Park open and seemed to be the only financial way to do so. That fell through, however, and during the course of those negotiations the City projected a slight increase in revenue and other resources that could be available.
I would have had trouble supporting the opening of one pool and not the other. Though public/private partnerships can be a model for good government, in a City as divided as ours, opening one pool without the other would have sent the wrong signal to our residents. So I'm happy we were able to find the resources that will allow children from various parts of town to have recreational opportunities this summer that will hopefully keep kids busy and out of trouble.
On another note, we did not agree to provide the schools with additional resources to help boost enrichment in summer school offerings, stave off elimination of teachers' assistant positions or fill ten empty elementary teacher positions. I believe this is a mistake and, if you recall, made a proposal a few weeks back that would have provided $1.6 million of taxpayer money from the Budget Stabilization Fund (rainy day fund) to accomplish just this (http://courtrosen.blogspot.com/2009/04/proposal-for-additional-funds.html).
Our school division is ranked second worst in the Commonwealth of Virginia. We have suffered from declining achievement for years, and while efforts to attract new business and create new jobs have been many, until we make fundamental changes to the way we educate our children and prioritize our schools, I simply think these efforts will prove to be less than effective. We cannot make small, incremental changes in the way we educate this City - we must make a tidal wave of change to turn around a system that has not improved in many years.
I appreciate my colleagues willingness to increase City funding to the schools... I truly do. The state did not fulfill their financial obligation, and as much as we choose to blame the state for shirking its responsibility, these are still our schools whose success will affect the future of our City. Major policy changes and programs have been enacted over the last couple of years with the by a dedicated school board and superintendant. And it is my belief that until we dedicate ourselves to seeing through a major overhaul of our school division, a tidal wave of change, we will fail to see a major turnaround in our economic climate here and our ability to create new, highpaying jobs for our residents.
Education is the key to fighting poverty in our City and to improving the quality of life for everyone. I'm disappointed that we did not do more to avoid the programatic elimination that RCPS has been forced to undergo. But I know that they will do the best they can with the resources they do have. And we should be grateful for their dedication.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Proposal for Additional Funds
Yesterday, during discussion of the upcoming FY 2009-2010 budget, I proposed that the City withdraw a little over $1.9 million out of the Budget Stabilization Fund (BSF), also known as the "Rainy Day Fund." I did not take my proposal to use this money lightly and spent significant time researching and determining the benefits vs. costs of doing so. In the end, I decided that, in my opinion, the needs of our schools and certain city services were too important to not attempt to address additional funding for the next fiscal year.
It is my belief that the future success, prosperity and long-term stability of the City of Roanoke is directly correlated to the success of our public schools and certain other programs that benefit, in an educational way, the youth in our community. There is no doubt that we are faced with a national economic recession that has sent ripples throughout state and local governments. Had we not faced such an unexpected and immediate emergency, I would have been loathe to even consider using any of the more than $19 million of unencumbered funds in the BSF, but feel as though we have little additional ability to raise resources. I am not in favor of raising taxes as I fundamentally believe that raising taxes during a recession, with folks losing jobs and discretionary income in decline as well as significantly reduced pension and retirement plans, is not the answer.
The BSF is comprised of taxpayer money paid in over the years. It is not the City's money, and I don't believe we should fear using taxpayer money when there is a real need for it. That said, I understand why some members of City administration do not want to use any of these funds. There are two main reasons that some are opposed - I completely understand these reasons and would agree with them 99% of the time. To me, however, this is that rare instance where we should go into the BSF. The two main reasons not to go into the BSF are:
1) Bond-rating agencies look at local government reserves when rating the locality. Ratings are important because they impact the interest rate that a locality can borrow money for and a downgrade in rating will increase that interest rate. I contend, however, that a slight downgrade is not the end of the world. IF we were to be downgraded, it would increase the interest rate by .25%. In other words, if the City were to borrow $20 million, this increased interest rate would cost the City between $50k and $60k per year. Is this ideal? No. But given the state of the City's budget, I believe worthwhile given the immediacy of the need. Additionally, in the scheme of a $257 million per year budget, this interest payment is rather minor.
2) This is one-time money for what could be recurring expenses. That is, if we find ourselves in the same, tough budgetary situation next year, we would have the same expenses and would then have to decide whether to go into the BSF again to pay for the services. This makes sense, though again would contend that any emergency or unexpected need can always be recurring. No one can ever predict what will and will not be a recurring event. For example, even a natural disaster can be recurring. Locations are hit by tornadoes two years in a row, floods two years in a row or other uncontrollable events. Likewise, we may or may not be out of the current recession next year, and though it appears we will be in a similar situation, nobody can predict that.
I believe to the core that now is an emergency that we could have never predicted but that we should not ignore when the effects on our schools and certain city services that are vital to the future of Roanoke are in danger. Major decisions and policies have been set that we all hope will be successful and will fundamentally change and improve our schools. Now is not the time to watch those recently implemented programs to be allowed to disappear.
Below is a breakdown of the proposed money and where it would go. Please feel free to leave your comments, both positive and negative, regarding my belief that we should withdraw money from the BSF for the FY 2009-2010 budget.
Total $1,907,867
$202,867 - Would keep both Washington Park and Fallon Park pools open.
$60,000 - Would keep the bookmobile operational.
$25,000 - Would keep libraries open 5 days a week.
$300,000 - Would maintain enriched, technology and life skills courses in RCPS summer school.
$600,000 - Would retain 20 teaching assistants, all accredited and the future teachers of RCPS.
$120,000 - Would retain 2 guidance counselors.
$600,000 - Would enable 10 empty elementary teaching positions to be filled.
Again, I want to remind any reader that I did not take this proposal lightly, believe that the above needs are vital to the community's educational attainment and economic future, outweigh the costs associated with going into the BSF, and are the right thing to do.
Court
It is my belief that the future success, prosperity and long-term stability of the City of Roanoke is directly correlated to the success of our public schools and certain other programs that benefit, in an educational way, the youth in our community. There is no doubt that we are faced with a national economic recession that has sent ripples throughout state and local governments. Had we not faced such an unexpected and immediate emergency, I would have been loathe to even consider using any of the more than $19 million of unencumbered funds in the BSF, but feel as though we have little additional ability to raise resources. I am not in favor of raising taxes as I fundamentally believe that raising taxes during a recession, with folks losing jobs and discretionary income in decline as well as significantly reduced pension and retirement plans, is not the answer.
The BSF is comprised of taxpayer money paid in over the years. It is not the City's money, and I don't believe we should fear using taxpayer money when there is a real need for it. That said, I understand why some members of City administration do not want to use any of these funds. There are two main reasons that some are opposed - I completely understand these reasons and would agree with them 99% of the time. To me, however, this is that rare instance where we should go into the BSF. The two main reasons not to go into the BSF are:
1) Bond-rating agencies look at local government reserves when rating the locality. Ratings are important because they impact the interest rate that a locality can borrow money for and a downgrade in rating will increase that interest rate. I contend, however, that a slight downgrade is not the end of the world. IF we were to be downgraded, it would increase the interest rate by .25%. In other words, if the City were to borrow $20 million, this increased interest rate would cost the City between $50k and $60k per year. Is this ideal? No. But given the state of the City's budget, I believe worthwhile given the immediacy of the need. Additionally, in the scheme of a $257 million per year budget, this interest payment is rather minor.
2) This is one-time money for what could be recurring expenses. That is, if we find ourselves in the same, tough budgetary situation next year, we would have the same expenses and would then have to decide whether to go into the BSF again to pay for the services. This makes sense, though again would contend that any emergency or unexpected need can always be recurring. No one can ever predict what will and will not be a recurring event. For example, even a natural disaster can be recurring. Locations are hit by tornadoes two years in a row, floods two years in a row or other uncontrollable events. Likewise, we may or may not be out of the current recession next year, and though it appears we will be in a similar situation, nobody can predict that.
I believe to the core that now is an emergency that we could have never predicted but that we should not ignore when the effects on our schools and certain city services that are vital to the future of Roanoke are in danger. Major decisions and policies have been set that we all hope will be successful and will fundamentally change and improve our schools. Now is not the time to watch those recently implemented programs to be allowed to disappear.
Below is a breakdown of the proposed money and where it would go. Please feel free to leave your comments, both positive and negative, regarding my belief that we should withdraw money from the BSF for the FY 2009-2010 budget.
Total $1,907,867
$202,867 - Would keep both Washington Park and Fallon Park pools open.
$60,000 - Would keep the bookmobile operational.
$25,000 - Would keep libraries open 5 days a week.
$300,000 - Would maintain enriched, technology and life skills courses in RCPS summer school.
$600,000 - Would retain 20 teaching assistants, all accredited and the future teachers of RCPS.
$120,000 - Would retain 2 guidance counselors.
$600,000 - Would enable 10 empty elementary teaching positions to be filled.
Again, I want to remind any reader that I did not take this proposal lightly, believe that the above needs are vital to the community's educational attainment and economic future, outweigh the costs associated with going into the BSF, and are the right thing to do.
Court
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Budget Update and Roanoke Regional Partnership
City Council met Saturday morning, April 4th for a special meeting on the City and School budgets for the upcoming year. Overall it was a positive, collegial meeting at the end of which we voted to provide the schools an additional $1.5 million with a $500,000 contingency should some state revenue we expect to go to the schools not make it.
By working to provide this additional money, 31 teachers will not lose their jobs and three school nurses will remain in RCPS to provide health services to students, many of whom rely upon school nurses for their only source of healthcare. Given where we were financially only a month ago I'm proud that Council made this decision.
Truth be told I would have liked to have seen more resources go to our schools to avoid cuts in programs such as summer school, swimming classes for elementary students, pre-kindergarten and others. I believe we have a responsibility to make sure that kids in the City of Roanoke have access to an excellent educational system that prepares them for life. Our economic, social and cultural future as a city relies on it. And I do believe our current School Board and RCPS administration has made significant progress to this end.
The reality is that we have more than $19 million in a "rainy day" fund that we could use if the Council decides to. Using this money will certainly make it more expensive for us to borrow money (due to bond ratings, which are inherently flawed and likely to be changed at the national level), but if this is not a rainy day in the present economic recession then I'm not sure what we could consider an emergency. That fund is taxpayer money, so as we are forced to tell our citizens and employees that we have no money for X program or Y program, the fact is that we do have the money.
I totally understand why some in the city administration do not want to use this money, but again, I believe this is the rainy day that that fund is intended to offset. I do think this will be addressed again over the coming weeks. Taxpayers should expect it.
Finally, I do want to point out, and wish that it had been covered in the newspaper today, that the City Council restored 5% (half) of the previously decided reduction in funding to the Roanoke Regional Partnership. To me, this was very important because cutting economic development activities during times like these I believe to be an enormous mistake. Now is the time we should be ramping up activities. And I think this additional funding to the RRP signals Council's desire to focus on economic development, the efforts of which we must be successful at in order to create more and better jobs and to retain existing jobs.
More to come soon...
By working to provide this additional money, 31 teachers will not lose their jobs and three school nurses will remain in RCPS to provide health services to students, many of whom rely upon school nurses for their only source of healthcare. Given where we were financially only a month ago I'm proud that Council made this decision.
Truth be told I would have liked to have seen more resources go to our schools to avoid cuts in programs such as summer school, swimming classes for elementary students, pre-kindergarten and others. I believe we have a responsibility to make sure that kids in the City of Roanoke have access to an excellent educational system that prepares them for life. Our economic, social and cultural future as a city relies on it. And I do believe our current School Board and RCPS administration has made significant progress to this end.
The reality is that we have more than $19 million in a "rainy day" fund that we could use if the Council decides to. Using this money will certainly make it more expensive for us to borrow money (due to bond ratings, which are inherently flawed and likely to be changed at the national level), but if this is not a rainy day in the present economic recession then I'm not sure what we could consider an emergency. That fund is taxpayer money, so as we are forced to tell our citizens and employees that we have no money for X program or Y program, the fact is that we do have the money.
I totally understand why some in the city administration do not want to use this money, but again, I believe this is the rainy day that that fund is intended to offset. I do think this will be addressed again over the coming weeks. Taxpayers should expect it.
Finally, I do want to point out, and wish that it had been covered in the newspaper today, that the City Council restored 5% (half) of the previously decided reduction in funding to the Roanoke Regional Partnership. To me, this was very important because cutting economic development activities during times like these I believe to be an enormous mistake. Now is the time we should be ramping up activities. And I think this additional funding to the RRP signals Council's desire to focus on economic development, the efforts of which we must be successful at in order to create more and better jobs and to retain existing jobs.
More to come soon...
Monday, March 30, 2009
Baby Hiatus
As many of you know, Brooke and I were blessed with a healthy baby boy last Monday about this time. This has been consuming and enjoyable, which is why I have failed to post in the last week. I never thought that looking at my own child would be such a moving and emotional experience, and I love it.
The current budgetary situation with our schools and any additional funding to them from the City is coming to a head in the next week or so, and I will be sure to post as that process moves forward. Thanks for understanding my absence.
The current budgetary situation with our schools and any additional funding to them from the City is coming to a head in the next week or so, and I will be sure to post as that process moves forward. Thanks for understanding my absence.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Continued Budget Work
This past Monday, City Council continued its work of finding ways to reduce expenditures in the required effort to balance the City's FY2010 budget. As everyone knows, we are experiencing a severe economic contraction that is affecting government, businesses and non-profits, as well as families trying to make ends meet. Tough decisions have to be made, ones that are not fun but required.
As one member of City Council, and as I look through the line items that as a whole make up the entirety of the budget, it is important to me that as we reduce services and eliminate programs, we make an effort to do as little harm to as few people as possible. But there is no doubt, and I fully recognize and understand this, that any reductions or eliminations will negatively impact some citizens. We all wish that the economy was robust and expanding, but as we face the reality of the seriousness of the situation, there is no escaping the fact that we are significantly short in our revenue. Additionally, I believe that it is imperative and responsible for the City to do anything and everything we can to provide the school system additional funds to continue progress that is being made to improve our schools and to avoid unnecessary teacher layoffs.
I hope that anyone with suggestions or other input will contact me via this blog, my email or cell phone. I welcome it. Tough decisions will be made, and there will be unpopular reductions or cuts. These are unavoidable.
But now is the time for City Council to step up, make the tough decisions that have to be made, and show that in times of crisis, leaders can and will step forward and work to carry the City forward. I will do my best to be a part of the team that must work to help continue much of the progress we have made.
As one member of City Council, and as I look through the line items that as a whole make up the entirety of the budget, it is important to me that as we reduce services and eliminate programs, we make an effort to do as little harm to as few people as possible. But there is no doubt, and I fully recognize and understand this, that any reductions or eliminations will negatively impact some citizens. We all wish that the economy was robust and expanding, but as we face the reality of the seriousness of the situation, there is no escaping the fact that we are significantly short in our revenue. Additionally, I believe that it is imperative and responsible for the City to do anything and everything we can to provide the school system additional funds to continue progress that is being made to improve our schools and to avoid unnecessary teacher layoffs.
I hope that anyone with suggestions or other input will contact me via this blog, my email or cell phone. I welcome it. Tough decisions will be made, and there will be unpopular reductions or cuts. These are unavoidable.
But now is the time for City Council to step up, make the tough decisions that have to be made, and show that in times of crisis, leaders can and will step forward and work to carry the City forward. I will do my best to be a part of the team that must work to help continue much of the progress we have made.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
The 17th House District
This past Saturday, Del. William Fralin announced that he will not be a candidate for re-election to the Virginia House of Delegates this upcoming election. And as one might expect, jockeying for position began in earnest almost immediately. There are a lot of good folks out there who are considering runs for this seat, including many of my fellow Democratic colleagues.
I continue to be asked about my interest in running for Del. Fralin's seat, so I thought it appropriate to post on my blog to be clear in response to the inquiries: I will not be a candidate for the nomination of my party for the 17th House district.
I am flattered by the encouragement that I have received. It's humbling to have people suggest that I could do a good job representing the 17th in Richmond, but now is simply not the right time for me personally or professionally.
First, Brooke and I, within the next three weeks, are expecting our first child. I want to be around as much as possible to experience and get used to fatherhood and the many wonderful things it will bring to my life. And I want to continue to spend as much time with my wife as she will allow! Undertaking what will certainly be a challenging campaign is something I am not willing to take time to do right now.
The second reason I will not be a candidate is because I feel a responsibility to the citizens that elected me to Roanoke City Council to help as we work through what can be described as nothing less than a fiscal crisis. We are in the midst of trying to figure out how to balance the City's budget while avoiding harm to our schools and other major services. Personally, and I only apply this to me, I am not ready to turn from this task and believe that I have a responsibility to continue working hard on the many issues affecting our citizens. We have a bright future ahead of us, and again, the time necessary on the campaign trail is more than I am willing to commit at this time and in the midst of preparing the City's FY2010 budget.
I certainly wish whomever decides to enter the race the very best of luck and will look forward to hearing issues that affect our City and region discussed during this campaign season.
I continue to be asked about my interest in running for Del. Fralin's seat, so I thought it appropriate to post on my blog to be clear in response to the inquiries: I will not be a candidate for the nomination of my party for the 17th House district.
I am flattered by the encouragement that I have received. It's humbling to have people suggest that I could do a good job representing the 17th in Richmond, but now is simply not the right time for me personally or professionally.
First, Brooke and I, within the next three weeks, are expecting our first child. I want to be around as much as possible to experience and get used to fatherhood and the many wonderful things it will bring to my life. And I want to continue to spend as much time with my wife as she will allow! Undertaking what will certainly be a challenging campaign is something I am not willing to take time to do right now.
The second reason I will not be a candidate is because I feel a responsibility to the citizens that elected me to Roanoke City Council to help as we work through what can be described as nothing less than a fiscal crisis. We are in the midst of trying to figure out how to balance the City's budget while avoiding harm to our schools and other major services. Personally, and I only apply this to me, I am not ready to turn from this task and believe that I have a responsibility to continue working hard on the many issues affecting our citizens. We have a bright future ahead of us, and again, the time necessary on the campaign trail is more than I am willing to commit at this time and in the midst of preparing the City's FY2010 budget.
I certainly wish whomever decides to enter the race the very best of luck and will look forward to hearing issues that affect our City and region discussed during this campaign season.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Support Local Businesses and Jobs
Today, Vice-Mayor Sherman Lea and I introduced the resolution that follows. The purpose of this resolution isto encourage residents and employees of the City of Roanoke and Roanoke Valley, during these troubled economic times, to support local businesses as much as possible. By supporting local businesses, we not only have the opportunity to create new jobs but, particularly in our current recession, we can retain existing jobs.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 2nd day of March, 2009.
A RESOLUTION encouraging the residents and employees of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, when purchasing goods or services, to take into account the importance of using city or regional businesses whenever possible.
WHEREAS, the residents and employees of the City of Roanoke, in the course of daily life, purchase necessary and essential goods and services from outside businesses and vendors.
WHEREAS, contracting with local businesses will demonstrate confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the region’s business infrastructure and send a positive message to companies that will locate and grow here.
WHEREAS, many existing businesses located in the City of Roanoke and Roanoke Valley have unique capabilities, are award-winning and recognized leaders in their fields.
WHEREAS, the local purchase of goods and services is a great investment for the community because more money stays with local businesses and in the local economy.
WHEREAS, using local businesses and vendors to provide for the needs of the residents and employees of the City of Roanoke will help to create new jobs, retain existing jobs, and strengthen the local economy.
WHEREAS, people are more likely to invest in or move to the community if we preserve the culture embodied in our unique local businesses.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
Council adopts this resolution as a means to encourage residents and employees of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley to seek goods and services from local businesses that provide jobs to city and regional residents, whenever possible.
The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution in electronic form to all City employees.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The 2nd day of March, 2009.
A RESOLUTION encouraging the residents and employees of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, when purchasing goods or services, to take into account the importance of using city or regional businesses whenever possible.
WHEREAS, the residents and employees of the City of Roanoke, in the course of daily life, purchase necessary and essential goods and services from outside businesses and vendors.
WHEREAS, contracting with local businesses will demonstrate confidence in the strengths and capabilities of the region’s business infrastructure and send a positive message to companies that will locate and grow here.
WHEREAS, many existing businesses located in the City of Roanoke and Roanoke Valley have unique capabilities, are award-winning and recognized leaders in their fields.
WHEREAS, the local purchase of goods and services is a great investment for the community because more money stays with local businesses and in the local economy.
WHEREAS, using local businesses and vendors to provide for the needs of the residents and employees of the City of Roanoke will help to create new jobs, retain existing jobs, and strengthen the local economy.
WHEREAS, people are more likely to invest in or move to the community if we preserve the culture embodied in our unique local businesses.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
Council adopts this resolution as a means to encourage residents and employees of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley to seek goods and services from local businesses that provide jobs to city and regional residents, whenever possible.
The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution in electronic form to all City employees.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Commentary from Roanoke Times
The following is Commentary that appeared in today's Roanoke Times:
Roanoke City Public Schools are a reflection on our city and a fair measure of our priorities. I consider the perceived lack of quality in our schools to be one of the greatest hindrances to economic development in the city. I use the word "perceived" because I am convinced that we have good schools and teachers and they are getting better. Progress is being made to improve the quality of Roanoke's schools (Community College Access Program, New Honors Program in middle schools, and many others), but we can't ignore that our schools are ranked near the bottom among our peers in the commonwealth. To make matters worse, this year we face an unprecedented financial shortfall that could seriously impact our progress in the school system.
As elected officials, government administrators, business leaders and community residents, our priorities for the city should include creating an environment that encourages entrepreneurship and produces good jobs. Obtaining these goals requires a high-quality education system. While we can provide the very best services to our adult residents, enjoy wonderful capital amenities and a high quality of recreational life, there will always be a ceiling on how strong we can be as a community if we find it acceptable to have barely 51 percent of our students graduate from high school on time. This will be what we are known for and will have a direct and negative financial impact on the city for generations to come.
This is going to be a tough year financially for everyone and, with an expected $15 million budget shortfall, our schools will not be exempt. As with any enterprise that runs on a budget, the Roanoke school board and city council have tough decisions to make. These decisions pale in comparison, however, to the thought of having to halt, and maybe reverse, the progress we have made in improving the quality of our city schools. The troubled economy and loss of 10 percent of the resources that go to our schools could result in school closures and classroom size expansion, which means children may find themselves getting less attention and instruction than needed. I worry about the devastating effect this may have on our most vulnerable students and their families.
During times of shrinking budgets, we are forced to take a hard look at our expenditures. A byproduct of this examination is that we will have an opportunity to identify areas of unnecessary spending, such as programs that are underused or outdated, and generally make government function more efficiently for citizens. And certainly, like other areas of government, our schools will and must find some areas to reduce expenses. But a $15 million budget shortfall cannot be recovered by cuts to superfluous spending; rather, this shortage will require tremendous gouges to our system -- cuts that are far deeper than our students should have to endure.
A top-quality education is the one, common way for people to improve their lives, positively change their circumstances and continue to push forward the limits of innovation and accomplishment. With the many challenges we face throughout our community, this is the gift we can give to Roanoke's children, all of whom deserve a chance and all of whom need an education for the success of their individual and our collective futures.
Unfortunately, perception and politics are a part of the reality we face. But the future of our schools, the quality of education afforded our children and our priorities must transcend perception and politics. These are our schools. Their success will determine the long-term economic future of our city, which includes the jobs that we have for our residents. These issues affect children from all socio-economic households, regardless of whether these effects are immediate or arise in the future. If we are not willing to stand up for our schools, then it is my belief that we are misguided in where our priorities should be.
This is about leadership and whether Roanoke City Council is willing to do whatever necessary to support the city schools and the tough decisions they face. We should be ready to roll up our sleeves, get down in the trenches and work alongside the school board to try to figure out a way, as hard and painful as it will be, to protect our schools as much as possible. It is not any student's fault that we are in troubled economic times and financial hardship. It is not their fault that state revenues are down. It would sadden me deeply if we are not willing to try our best to make the coming school years as stable and smooth as possible.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Community Input Budget Meetings
Many thanks to City staff for their hard work in scheduling two community input budget meetings to be held at the beginning of March. These meetings will offer residents the chance to learn how the budget process works, where scarce resources may or may not be allocated and other information that contributes to the very tough decisions that will have to be made during the current budgetary crisis.
The second purpose of these two community meetings, and the main reason I think these meetings are so important, is that while each department within city government is being asked to label programs high priority, medium priority and low priority, taxpaying citizens ought to have the opportunity to tell City staff their priorities in this tough fiscal time. We need to make sure that we acknowledge that sometimes staff might consider something low priority while citizens consider that very same thing a high priority. Open communication and a transparent process are vital .
The two community meetings will be held on:
Tuesday, March 3
Virginia Western Community College
6:30PM
Thursday, March 12
Roanoke Civic Center
6:30PM
I strongly encourage all those interested in providing input and understanding budgetary requirements, and those leaders throughout our neighborhoods, to come to one or both of the community meetings.
Hope to see you there!
The second purpose of these two community meetings, and the main reason I think these meetings are so important, is that while each department within city government is being asked to label programs high priority, medium priority and low priority, taxpaying citizens ought to have the opportunity to tell City staff their priorities in this tough fiscal time. We need to make sure that we acknowledge that sometimes staff might consider something low priority while citizens consider that very same thing a high priority. Open communication and a transparent process are vital .
The two community meetings will be held on:
Tuesday, March 3
Virginia Western Community College
6:30PM
Thursday, March 12
Roanoke Civic Center
6:30PM
I strongly encourage all those interested in providing input and understanding budgetary requirements, and those leaders throughout our neighborhoods, to come to one or both of the community meetings.
Hope to see you there!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Who should City Council Appoint?
City Council must appoint someone to fill out the remainder of the term for the seat being vacated by Alvin Nash. I would love to hear your thoughts and suggestions... any feedback, positive or negative, is welcome and appreciated.
Who should serve until July 2010??
Who should serve until July 2010??
Monday, February 9, 2009
Resignation of Alvin Nash
As has been widely reported, Alvin Nash has announced his resignation from Roanoke City Council. In my mind, Mr. Nash made the right decision for himself and for the City. We face an unprecedented fiscal crisis in Roanoke (as at every level of government) and need to have all members focused on the budget, the impact it will have on our schools and City services, and fully prepared for the difficult decisions ahead.
Fifteen years ago, Mr. Nash founded Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation, and it holds a special place in his heart. As Blue Ridge struggles, Mr. Nash made the decision to return to his employment there and to work to try to save the troubled organization. Additionally, there has been lots of attention focused on the HUD repayment matter, and it had become a distraction to Alvin and his ability to focus on City Council decisions.
I wish Alvin the very best in his return to Blue Ridge and respect his decision.
Fifteen years ago, Mr. Nash founded Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation, and it holds a special place in his heart. As Blue Ridge struggles, Mr. Nash made the decision to return to his employment there and to work to try to save the troubled organization. Additionally, there has been lots of attention focused on the HUD repayment matter, and it had become a distraction to Alvin and his ability to focus on City Council decisions.
I wish Alvin the very best in his return to Blue Ridge and respect his decision.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Roanoke Times Editorial
The Roanoke Times had an editorial in today's paper that deals with the recent Council vote to hire a consulting firm to come up with conceptual plans for the Market Building. If you missed it, please visit:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/192408
I think it does a good job of addressing the need for vision in directing the renovation of the building. I encourage you to read it.
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/192408
I think it does a good job of addressing the need for vision in directing the renovation of the building. I encourage you to read it.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Market Building vote... again (and open government)
Market Building
Earlier this evening, Roanoke City Council voted to hire a consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. to perform work surrounding the Market Building. The Market Building is an icon in Roanoke, the center of the downtown market area, and vital to the economic future of our city center.
I voted against hiring this firm (it was a 6-1 vote). My reasons are fairly simple, and I will try to succinctly explain below.
First, I still feel, as I did several weeks ago, that City Council has not yet provided a clear vision for what we want the building to be for the next 20, 30 and 40 years. For example, "we are committed to maintaining the building as a public market, with food vendors, retail and entertainment opportunities." Following this we can consult the numerous past studies conducted for ideas and concepts and work to pull together this vision. Maybe outdoor seating on the mezzanine level, a community room for rent on the top floor, food vendors with service both inside and outside of the building... etc.
Second, I believe that we need to decide on a budget. What can we afford presently, could we phase the project into two steps, etc. This is an obvious point but vital to moving forward and committing money to conceptual ideas.
At this point is when I believe that we should hire an Architecture & Engineering firm, and if appropriate, would like the firm to be a local business. As a City Council we should certainly try to do our part to help the economy in Roanoke.
We do need to assess the facilities, such as HVAC, plumbing, electrical and structural soundness. In all fairness, this is the piece of the contract that I believe is the most useful. But I believe that the A & E should be part of an overall design/construction document contract.
My fear is that we spend $120,000 (amended amount of contract) with this consulting firm, don't think about it until the report comes back in May (out of sight, out of mind), and realize that Council has "lost taste" to move on with the renovation. Then, we have a $120,000 conceptual report sitting on a bookshelf. No construction documents. If the overall A & E were part of the actual contract where Council has decided to move to contruction, we can guarantee the usefulness of the information gained.
I simply did not feel comfortable committing $120,000 to a hopefully useful report at the same time that our schools are slated to lose between $10 million and $15 million in funding this year, with no certainty that we would actually get to the renovation itself.
I'm hopeful I've been clear.
Open Government
As you all are aware, an issue has come up surrounding Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation and Councilman Alvin Nash. I have enjoyed getting to know Alvin over the last six months and enjoyed working with him.
I do not have all of the information surrounding this yet, but do feel that Council should have been informed immediately once this issue arose. When it involves a sitting member of City Council, I believe it is appropriate that each member be told of any matter involving official business.
I am committed, however, to getting all the information and will comment further at that point.
Earlier this evening, Roanoke City Council voted to hire a consulting firm based in Washington, D.C. to perform work surrounding the Market Building. The Market Building is an icon in Roanoke, the center of the downtown market area, and vital to the economic future of our city center.
I voted against hiring this firm (it was a 6-1 vote). My reasons are fairly simple, and I will try to succinctly explain below.
First, I still feel, as I did several weeks ago, that City Council has not yet provided a clear vision for what we want the building to be for the next 20, 30 and 40 years. For example, "we are committed to maintaining the building as a public market, with food vendors, retail and entertainment opportunities." Following this we can consult the numerous past studies conducted for ideas and concepts and work to pull together this vision. Maybe outdoor seating on the mezzanine level, a community room for rent on the top floor, food vendors with service both inside and outside of the building... etc.
Second, I believe that we need to decide on a budget. What can we afford presently, could we phase the project into two steps, etc. This is an obvious point but vital to moving forward and committing money to conceptual ideas.
At this point is when I believe that we should hire an Architecture & Engineering firm, and if appropriate, would like the firm to be a local business. As a City Council we should certainly try to do our part to help the economy in Roanoke.
We do need to assess the facilities, such as HVAC, plumbing, electrical and structural soundness. In all fairness, this is the piece of the contract that I believe is the most useful. But I believe that the A & E should be part of an overall design/construction document contract.
My fear is that we spend $120,000 (amended amount of contract) with this consulting firm, don't think about it until the report comes back in May (out of sight, out of mind), and realize that Council has "lost taste" to move on with the renovation. Then, we have a $120,000 conceptual report sitting on a bookshelf. No construction documents. If the overall A & E were part of the actual contract where Council has decided to move to contruction, we can guarantee the usefulness of the information gained.
I simply did not feel comfortable committing $120,000 to a hopefully useful report at the same time that our schools are slated to lose between $10 million and $15 million in funding this year, with no certainty that we would actually get to the renovation itself.
I'm hopeful I've been clear.
Open Government
As you all are aware, an issue has come up surrounding Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation and Councilman Alvin Nash. I have enjoyed getting to know Alvin over the last six months and enjoyed working with him.
I do not have all of the information surrounding this yet, but do feel that Council should have been informed immediately once this issue arose. When it involves a sitting member of City Council, I believe it is appropriate that each member be told of any matter involving official business.
I am committed, however, to getting all the information and will comment further at that point.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Market Building (again)
As most folks know, at its last meeting, City Council brought to a vote the allocation of $160,000 to a consulting firm from Washington, D.C. to provide us with three conceptual plans for the renovation of the City Market Building. Due to technicalities, we have to re-vote on the matter at our next council meeting, even though the vote yesterday was 4 to 3 in favor of hiring the consulting firm.
Let me say right off that I respect the opinions and decisions of each Member of Council, whether I agree with them on this particular matter or not. Any thoughts I share are mine and mine alone and guide my reasons for voting against hiring this firm. Below are my reasons.
The City Market Building is an historic landmark in the center of our downtown, next to many restaurants, retail stores and offices. In fact, it houses small businesses. Because of this, I do believe that we need to move forward and renovate it with an eye towards the next five, ten and twenty years. The Market Building has been neglected for far too long, which is one of the reasons it is now in such disrepair and requires such a major renovation. So let's renovate, right?
Not quite yet.
Over the past several years, there have been public sessions with input from interested residents and parties as to what the Market Building and market area should look like. We paid for a received a report in 2006, and a coalition of downtown businesses commissioned a study with suggestions that was authored by the Partnership for Public Spaces, the leading national experts on market areas.
So now the idea is to hire this consulting firm out of D.C. to provide us information on the utilities of the building, hold three public hearings, and then provide three concepts. It is important to note that the concepts are not architectural renderings sufficient for construction, but rather general conceptual ideas. We will then have to come up with the money to pay for the actual construction design documents.
I voted against hiring this consulting firm for a few major reasons. First, given the past few years and the studies we have regarding the market building, I am not convinced that we need to hire another firm to tell us what they think the building should look like. Second, City Councils past and present have yet to provide a clear vision as to what we want the Market Building to function as for the next several decades. Without a vision for the future use of the building, why bother paying a huge amount of money to consultants to conceptualize for us.
Yet another reason (the most important) I voted against hiring this firm is that we learned less than three weeks ago that our schools could be losing more than $5 million in state funding this year. And yes, you read the number correctly. I believe that it is the responsibility of the City and its governing body to do everything within our power to help the schools offset this enormous gap in funding. $160,000 clearly won't solve the entire budgetary problem, but it sure is a good start.
And last but not least, I simply do not believe that we need to hire a consulting firm from Washington to tell us what the electrical, plumbing, structural and HVAC systems look like and need - we can certainly hire local businesses to tell us that once we begin actual architectural design. We can also handle holding our own public hearings. So what are we really getting for the huge sum of money we will pay? In my opinion, it is not the best value for taxpayer money.
I intend to vote again in two weeks against this hiring. We can move forward renovating the Market Building right now if only we would provide a vision to a local architectural firm, express to them the budgetary constraints in which we find ourselves, and are willing to be decisive in our action.
Let me say right off that I respect the opinions and decisions of each Member of Council, whether I agree with them on this particular matter or not. Any thoughts I share are mine and mine alone and guide my reasons for voting against hiring this firm. Below are my reasons.
The City Market Building is an historic landmark in the center of our downtown, next to many restaurants, retail stores and offices. In fact, it houses small businesses. Because of this, I do believe that we need to move forward and renovate it with an eye towards the next five, ten and twenty years. The Market Building has been neglected for far too long, which is one of the reasons it is now in such disrepair and requires such a major renovation. So let's renovate, right?
Not quite yet.
Over the past several years, there have been public sessions with input from interested residents and parties as to what the Market Building and market area should look like. We paid for a received a report in 2006, and a coalition of downtown businesses commissioned a study with suggestions that was authored by the Partnership for Public Spaces, the leading national experts on market areas.
So now the idea is to hire this consulting firm out of D.C. to provide us information on the utilities of the building, hold three public hearings, and then provide three concepts. It is important to note that the concepts are not architectural renderings sufficient for construction, but rather general conceptual ideas. We will then have to come up with the money to pay for the actual construction design documents.
I voted against hiring this consulting firm for a few major reasons. First, given the past few years and the studies we have regarding the market building, I am not convinced that we need to hire another firm to tell us what they think the building should look like. Second, City Councils past and present have yet to provide a clear vision as to what we want the Market Building to function as for the next several decades. Without a vision for the future use of the building, why bother paying a huge amount of money to consultants to conceptualize for us.
Yet another reason (the most important) I voted against hiring this firm is that we learned less than three weeks ago that our schools could be losing more than $5 million in state funding this year. And yes, you read the number correctly. I believe that it is the responsibility of the City and its governing body to do everything within our power to help the schools offset this enormous gap in funding. $160,000 clearly won't solve the entire budgetary problem, but it sure is a good start.
And last but not least, I simply do not believe that we need to hire a consulting firm from Washington to tell us what the electrical, plumbing, structural and HVAC systems look like and need - we can certainly hire local businesses to tell us that once we begin actual architectural design. We can also handle holding our own public hearings. So what are we really getting for the huge sum of money we will pay? In my opinion, it is not the best value for taxpayer money.
I intend to vote again in two weeks against this hiring. We can move forward renovating the Market Building right now if only we would provide a vision to a local architectural firm, express to them the budgetary constraints in which we find ourselves, and are willing to be decisive in our action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
