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.

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.

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.

Slow Time

My apologies for having failed to post anything over the past three weeks. Like many folks, I've been caught up with the holidays, visiting family out of town and having family visit here, as well as the general end-of-year rush.

The upcoming year promises many challenges: a sluggish economy, budget deficits, job layoffs and other difficulties that we will likely all face. But I also believe that with great challenges come great opportunities.

During difficult economic times we have opportunities for continuing education, career re-training that leads to career changes, government working to minimize waste and maximize the utility of hard-earned taxpayer money, among others. Times are no doubt tough, but if we work together and weather this recession we can all come out better on the other side, with greater opportunity for everyone.

These are just a few thoughts...

The real purpose of this post is to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah or whatever holiday one observes. Have a safe and happy new year.

Court

Holding Public Servants Accountable

This week, it was determined that enough evidence existed supporting improper procurement procedures and forgery of quotes from vendors to suspend two employees from The Greater Roanoke Transit Company. The wife of one of the employees has been implicated and warrants have been issued for a search of GRTC offices and the home of one of the employees.

It must be noted that no one has been convicted of any crimes, so the presumption of innocence must be afforded to those involved. Regardless of criminal convictions, however, it is clear that an improper procurement process occurred and that employees of GRTC were irresponsible and showed extraordinarily poor judgement at a minimum.

Beyond the potential illegalities and misuse of public money, this incident brings to the forefront an even more important, yet often unstated, belief that I share with so many others. We often hear that "public officials/public employees should be held to the same standards as everyone else."

I disagree with this statement. I believe that public officials and those who work in government should be held to higher standards than everyone else. For public officials, elected by citizens, we have chosen to put our names forward for office. We understand when we do this that the public eye, and the many probing eyes of the media that hold us accountable, are on us as we do our jobs. And for those that have chosen to work in government, and who are in particularly responsible roles in charge of the expenditure of public, taxpayer money, responsibility for only the highest ethical standards should be a job requirement.

The public has the right, in my opinion, to demand that those of us charged with making the decisions as to how to spend their money, elected or otherwise, be held to the highest possible standards. There is no doubt in my mind that this is exactly what the residents of Roanoke expect, and I couldn't agree more.

Real Estate Tax Relief

Over the past two months, our economy has faced serious challenges (understatement). The financial markets have taken serious hits, the housing market nationally has been laden with foreclosures caused in large part by subprime lending, and the pension and retirement accounts of a vast number of people have suffered significant losses. While we can do little to control the financial or housing markets, there is something we can do to help many folks who have seen a lifetime of hardwork and retirement savings diminish.

Many seniors and disabled citizens of Roanoke are on fixed incomes. Often, these two groups subsidize their Social Security (SSI or SSDI) with money they saved during their working lives through pensions or other accounts. Suddenly, with these accounts significantly reduced, it is becoming increasingly difficult for these folks to continue to meet their financial obligations, such as mortgages, health care costs, utility costs etc.

Roanoke City offers real estate tax relief for the elderly and disabled who qualify - currently those who earn less than $34,000 per year gross income or have a net worth of less than $125,000. Those who meet these income or net worth requirements may apply to the City to have their real estate taxes "frozen," meaning that the amount the household pays in real estate taxes remains the same as long as the requirements are met each year. This is hugely important for those on fixed incomes, primarily seniors and the disabled, who can little afford increasing property taxes each year.

Due to the declining retirement and pension account values, I believe it more important than ever to increase the limit at which seniors and the disabled qualify, as many who subsidized their fixed incomes to pay their taxes or the other previously mentioned living expenses simply cannot continue this way. Fortunately, we are able to increase these limits to $42,000 per year gross income and $160,000 per year net worth. This should, and I believe it will, offer additional tax relief to many of the most vulnerable in our City.

Vice Mayor Sherman Lea, who has, from the outset been supportive of this change in City policy, and I, with the support of the rest of City Council, worked to increase these limits so that many of our residents can afford to stay in their homes and pay for those items necessary for their continued quality of life. I want to thank Vice Mayor Lea - without his support I am not sure this would be occurring.

The City will lose some revenue, most likely in the lower hundreds of thousands (maybe $200,000), though it is hard to forecast exactly how much because the City does not keep income or net worth statistics of our residents. But I believe this is the right thing to do - to help our senior citizens and disabled citizens remain in their homes with the ability to afford life's essentials. Cutting a few hundred thousand dollars of spending elsewhere, in my opinion, is minor compared to the relief many in our community desperately need. This is the good that government can do for its residents.

The following is the motion offered at City Council's regular session:

Real Estate Tax Relief for Elderly & Disabled Residents

of the City of Roanoke

That the City Manager and City Attorney prepare an Ordinance to be adoptedat the December 1, 2008 City Council meeting that increases the limits atwhich Senior citizens and Disabled citizens in Roanoke City qualify forreal estate tax relief from the current limits of $34,000 per year grossincome and $125,000 net worth, to $42,000 per year gross income and$160,000 net worth.

This increase in gross income and net worth limits should provide relief to additional residents, many of whom have fixed incomes, and expresses thesense of the City Council that, given current economic conditions and thesignificant decline in pension and retirement accounts, Senior citizens andDisabled citizens, who have little opportunity or ability to return to theworkforce, face increasingly difficult financial times. Raising limits forreal estate tax relief is the City's effort to acknowledge and address thesignificant hardships these two groups of citizens are experiencing.

Yesterday

While I committed a while back to not discussing national political issues but instead to keep this blog focused locally and on Roanoke City, I do feel the need to comment on the election results of yesterday in a broader context.

There's been a lot of talk about the history-making nature of Barack Obama's victory to become our 44th President, and I'm sure this talk will continue. It was only 45 years ago that Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I have a dream speech." And it was only a year before that that LBJ pushed the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

Yesterday showed just how far our country has come in the last 50 years. As many of us have discussed this election for some time now, it has impressed me a great deal that even friends of mine who did not support Obama and do not like many of his policies recognize and appreciate the historic nature of an African-American being elected president.

Hopefully the Obama message of bipartisanship and progress will help to unite Washington, and that the 2008 Democratic sweep of Congress does not in the end prove problematic as it did for the 1994 Republican takeover. Both parties need to work together, avoid becoming greedy with power, and try to accomplish positive policies that help the most people.