Stormwater not a problem anymore
Fear and Loathing in Waynesboro column by Chris Graham
freepress2@ntelos.net
Moving Waynesboro Forward. Three simple words. An interesting concept.
We wanted to let Waynesboro voters know the stakes that were at play in the recent city-council elections. I’ve personally been hearing for years from residents frustrated that the city hasn’t been willing or otherwise able to finish what it has started in getting a West End fire station up and running and involving itself in public-private efforts to revitalize our downtown and take care of basic infrastructure needs like stormwater-system improvements.
Looks like we can look forward to four more years of fear and loathing. The city manager, no doubt feeling pressure from the new ultraconservative majority that will take the reins of the city six weeks hence, has proposed a series of painful cuts to the 2008-2009 city budget that will effectively gut the stormwater program that the new majority had pledged just a couple of weeks ago to see through and will also slice into the muscle of our public-safety apparatus.
New majority leader Frank Lucente introduced a tax-rate ordinance last week that would keep the levy on city property owners at the current 70 cents per $100 assessed value, which would be all well and good if Lucente had stuck to his promise to city voters last year to back a proposed utility fee that would provide a stable source of funding for stormwater improvements. As we all know, though, he reversed course and now supports paying for stormwater improvements, if we can even say that now, given what is happening on that front, out of the general fund.
I hate to be the kind of person who says I told ya so, but I told ya so. I said during my campaign for city council that there was no way that we could pay for stormwater improvements out of the general fund without raising taxes, which is why I support, as Lucente did last year, as current council members Nancy Dowdy and Lorie Smith do today, the creation of a utility-fee funding system. I actually agree more with Lucente, at least where he was on this last year, than I do Dowdy and Smith, in that I think a system that begins with a 50-50 split between residential taxpayers and businesses and industries in the city and then offers credits and incentives for those who have undertaken efforts to mitigate their contribution to the stormwater problem or do so in the future is the best way to go.
Whatever funding mechanism we end up with ultimately, of course, would be better than the nothing that we’re going to get now. And folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The new majority is making it clear that public safety isn’t a priority, and we have to wonder where we’re going to be in a year or two on the economic-development front if Lucente follows through with his promise to cut off promised city funding for the Wayne Theatre restoration.
(Though I have to wonder parenthetically if he will be able to follow through on that one. The new Ward B council member, Bruce Allen, may end up having to recuse himself from any votes involving the Wayne due to what would appear to be an obvious conflict of interest in that he works as a property manager owned in part by local developer John Johnston, whose Mathers Construction has something of an interest in the outcome at the Wayne. Stay tuned there.)
Waynesboro deserves better.
Related posts:
- Follow the leader Fear and Loathing in Waynesboro column by Chris Graham freepress2@ntelos.net I’m remembering a conversation that I had at the post office a day before the...
- A lose-lose situation Fear and Loathing in Waynesboro column by Chris Graham freepress2@ntelos.net Waynesboro leaders are discussing what to do about the real-estate tax rate. One option is...
- Lucente and Williams, the NV, Little Grill Winners and Losers column by Chris Graham freepress2@ntelos.net WINNERS: Frank Lucente and Tim Williams join bond parade I’m calling them winners here not related to...
- Bond foes in Waynesboro pledge to affirm will of voters on disputed referendum Story by Chris Graham freepress2@ntelos.net Waynesboro taxpayers won’t have to foot the bill for a lawsuit or a second referendum to resolve a legal snafu...
- Did the voters send a message in the Waynesboro bond referendum? Story by Chris Graham freepress2@ntelos.net We thought we’d have some clarity after we got the numbers Tuesday night. Either the voters would show that they...
Chris -
“The city manager, no doubt feeling pressure from the new ultraconservative majority that will take the reins of the city six weeks hence, has proposed a series of painful cuts to the 2008-2009 city budget that will effectively gut the stormwater program that the new majority had pledged just a couple of weeks ago to see through and will also slice into the muscle of our public-safety apparatus.”
Let’s note that the City Manager proposed $1.5MM in cuts, with only $600k of them having to be made. It’ll be up to the Council members to decide what actually gets cut, and there’s plenty of other things that may go before stormwater does.
“The new majority is making it clear that public safety isn’t a priority, and we have to wonder where we’re going to be in a year or two on the economic-development front if Lucente follows through with his promise to cut off promised city funding for the Wayne Theatre restoration.”
One, when has the new majority said anything specifically about public safety? Two, although I agree that there is little likelihood of further Wayne funding, it is worth pointing out that there was no money scheduled for the Wayne this coming budget year, so any discussion of that is premature and the WTA has a long way to go before they even reach the performance goals previously discussed for the 2010 money.
“(Though I have to wonder parenthetically if he will be able to follow through on that one. The new Ward B council member, Bruce Allen, may end up having to recuse himself from any votes involving the Wayne due to what would appear to be an obvious conflict of interest in that he works as a property manager owned in part by local developer John Johnston, whose Mathers Construction has something of an interest in the outcome at the Wayne. Stay tuned there.)”
This is an interesting and touchy issue. As was discussed during the campaign, just about everyone on the Council has conflicts. Nancy owns a building downtown. Lorie’s husband works for the City (in stormwater no less). Frank founded the Boys and Girls Club and franchises a business downtown.
As you point out, Bruce works for a company that’s partially owned by John Johnston, who also owns Mathers, which has a contract to work on the Wayne. Mathers is a pretty big company that has dozens of contracts to build all kinds of things, and the Wayne is far from the biggest.
This is like 3 degrees of separation at best, and the Wayne isn’t exactly going to make or break Mathers. Add to that the fact that there isn’t any money due to them for another year AND that Bruce has come out publicly against funding the Wayne, and this seems like a thin conflict, if any at all.
I don’t know that Mr. Johnston would agree with you regarding the importance of the Wayne project to its bottom line, one.
Two, I think a clear case can be made that Mr. Allen has an obvious conflict of interest in regard to this vote and other votes involving River Town LLC, Good Faith LLC and projects involving people who are partners thereto.
People threw around the term “conflict of interest” early and often regarding my campaign for city council. Look up Virginia’s conflict of interest law. Read the fine print. I’m not pulling something out of the air here like was done to tarnish me. This is a real issue, and it will have to be resolved before Bruce can cast any votes yea or nay on the Wayne and I can imagine on a number of other rezoning and development issues in the next four years,
Well, let’s get to the fine print then.
Here’s the clauses that seems to apply of the Act, with the disclaimer that I am not an attorney, of course.
What’s at issue is Bruce’s work for River Town LLC and Good Faith LLC, and the clause that applies is:
Under “Definition of personal interest”
3. the council member has a salary from the business involved in a contract that exceeds or reasonably could exceed $10,000 annually.
That certainly excludes him from voting on any issue that involves those two entities.
However, you bring up the issue of Mathers Construction and their contract to build the Wayne.
First, there is a question of ownership. We then get into the concept of Parent-Subsidiary and Affiliated-Business. For those to apply, the same corporation or owner has to control both Mathers and the above-mentioned LLCs – this is not necessarily the case, although I frankly don’t know.
Second, there’s the fact that the City is not contracting with Mathers directly, or specifically giving money to the Wayne for construction as opposed to money for other uses.
As the WTA has said many times, the City’s funding represents a small percentage of the Wayne funding, and therefore the argument that one necessarily affects the other may not apply. In addition, at this point all City funding contemplated to the Wayne is through the EDA, further adding a degree of separation.
For the record, I agree that Bruce should seek an opinion (probably immediately upon taking office) on which issues he has a conflict on, particularly with regards to Mathers’ projects. I’d be surprised if a conflict exists with the Wayne, but I’ve been wrong before.
You have found and cited the exact clauses in the Act that I had referenced in my comment above.
I agree that Bruce should seek an opinion. There is a lot of gray area here, as you point out.