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.

Council and Countryside

Today, during City Council's 2PM session, I made the request of the City's Director of Finance that she put together a projection of what the debt service, capital needs and other necessary expenditures will be over the next five and ten years if the City retains ownership of Countryside. During my request, I made mention of wanting to have as much information as possible, and as a businessperson, the most effective way for me to look at the future of the course is to, as part of that outlook, know what the numbers will look like.

I made the mistake, admittedly, of mentioning that as we rush to put out a Request for Proposal with five and ten year terms for management of the course, we should not eliminate the option of selling Countryside if it makes the most sense. As you might imagine, this set off a firestorm amongst the mayor and a few members of the audience who are strong advocates of permanently keeping Countryside as a golf course. I was not intending to debate the highest and best use of the property itself, though it provided a political opening that was taken advantage of.

I have learned my lesson in terms of being more direct and clearer in what I am requesting.

I believe one can never have too much information. As our national, state, and to a lesser degree, local economies contract, we as a City government must also contract budgetarily. To me, this isn't a matter of politics, it's a matter of fiscal responsibility and the ability to be disciplined when times are tough and the budget is tight.

After forty-five minutes of banter about the merits of selling Countryside or seeking private management or the City itself managing the course, we finally came to a vote on my request (for the record, I really was only requesting information so no vote was actually needed).

The mayor stated that the voters had spoken and that they clearly wanted Countryside to remain a golf course. First, I am not sure who "the voters" are and when they made a decision on this particular issue, and second, the request was for information, not a determination on the future of the course (again, the request was not a vote on the highest and best use of the property). It was simply a request to have all the information available when deciding whether to contractually obligate the City to a five or ten year lease. If we don't take a look at the numbers now, it may be ten years before we can revisit this decision.

Council Members Price, Mason, Trinkle and I voted to request the information. Councilman Nash wants the information but did not like the process and how we arrived at needing a vote for information, and the mayor voted "no." I simply don't understand how one could not want more information to make a decision that could have such significant and long-term implications for the financial stability of our community.

Sometimes, you've got to put being good stewards of the taxpayers' money and a willingness to learn as much as possible ahead of politics. Let's take one step at a time, know what our options are, and understand the impact the decision we may make today will have on our community ten years from now.