Windle's Winchester Wrap-up

March 6th, 2024

• February 21, 2024 - City Manager reviews selected budgets with Public Health and Safety Committee
• February 29, 2024 - City Manager reviews selected budgets with Planning and Economic Development Committee
• March 5, 2024 - City Manager reviews selected budgets with Finance Committee
• March 12, 2024 - Winchester Public Schools Budget Presentation to Council and City Manager reviews FY 2025 Budget Options for Council feedback
• March 19, 2024 Five‐Year Capital Improvement Plan presented to Planning Commission
• March 23, 2024 - Not to Exceed Tax Rate Ad Published
• March 26, 2024 - City Manager presents FY 2025 Proposed Budget Updates to City Council for Council feedback
• April 2, 2024 - City Manager reviews FY 2025 Budget Options with Finance Committee
• April 9, 2024 - City Manager presents FY 2025 Budget Options and Real Estate Tax Rate Ordinance to City Council
• April 23, 2024 - City Manager presents FY 2025 Proposed Budget; City Council Public Hearing, Second Reading and Adoption of Real Estate Tax Rate Ordinance

• May 14, 2024 - City Council First Reading of the FY 2025 Budget Ordinance Public Hearing,
• May 28th, 2024 - Second Reading and City Council Vote on FY 2025 Budget Ordinance

- Earlier this year, City Council approved $267,000 for the creation of a new non-profit to oversee Main Street Activities. This sets a precedent of potential approval of funding for other nonprofits...However, at the March 5th Finance Committee meeting, the Democrat led committee forwarded recommending denial a proposal for real estate tax exemption for New Eve Ministries, which celebrates and supports at-risk mothers. So, we are okay with funding a nonprofit to benefit the downtown but won't even work with one that helps vulnerable mothers? Wild!

- Completed "Poles Park" and approved the use of $30,000 in ARPA funding to acquire property for the potential expansion of the park. See below image. (https://www.winchesterva.gov/poles-park)

----> Don't get me wrong, I love the outdoors and park system our city has created. BUT, one option for the use of ARPA money is the improvement of our water infrastructure (Source: https://www.gfoa.org/american-rescue-plan-spending-guiding-principles). Rather than acquire a plot of land for potential park expansion, wouldn't you have preferred the money go toward stormwater infrastructure?

- The City is seeing continued growth in administrative salaries (Finance Packet, 3/5) for example: The City Manager's administrative budget increases from $371,412 in 2022 to $569,189 now proposed in FY25. Additionally, tourism cost the city more than $900,000 in FY23. When expenses are subtracted from revenue, the city was left with only $145,402 to show for their investment. It makes you wonder, is the juice really worth the squeeze?

A new in-house City Attorney is forthcoming (pending budget approval). The budget for this department would change from $250,000 to $354,300. While no one is cheering about having to find more money in an already tight budget year, this is one area where the investment should be well worth it. With continued growth in every area of the city, additional legal support is much needed.

In January, the stormwater fee hit our water bills, and many of us are, quite honestly, drowning. The fee estimated $1.9M in new revenue from the Stormwater Fee, but instead brought in $2.1M. The fee is for stormwater system repair. ARPA and CDBG funding could have been used to contribute to this system, although it would not have been a total solution. City Council selected the highest rate presented to them.

Business Impact: The credit system delineates different options for residential and business properties to attain credits to mitigate their bill. The system leaves our small businesses in a lurch because the cost to satisfy business credits often is not going to payoff for several years when relief is needed now. I am pushing for a "Small Business Credit" that would allow small businesses to take advantage of the same or similar credit options available to residential property that are much more accessible and provide needed relief from the fee. We want to incentivize businesses to maintain their stormwater responsibly, not chase them out of the city.

While I do not think the situation created was intentional, I do believe it was a result of the rushed implementation of a fee that was not ready for prime time. We are now forced to be reactive, instead of proactive, to protect businesses in our city. The other thing that situation highlights is the arbitrary nature of the credit system. If a home can add a rain barrel and get a 5% discount, why should the same option not be available for a hairstylist that operates a business in a formerly residential property downtown? Is the rain barrel suddenly less effective because it is sitting outside a business as compared to one outside a home?

WATTS Coldest Night of the Year

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The lack of a formal adoption of Roberts Rules or similar statue of oversight for our governing body concentrates power in city staff and dilutes the ability of dually elected City Councilors from doing what they were elected to do: work for the people. In late January, following an error in nominations of officers, I requested a conversation on our proceedings with specific emphasis on how councilors get items on the agenda. At that meeting, it was confirmed that two members of council can bring an item of interest to the City Manager for consideration to be added to a future agenda. The City Manager, at this meeting, confirmed that he has the power to deny a request. This not only flies in the face of code but also circumvents the democratic process by which elected officials are allowed to address new business to best serve their constituency. In a correctly run meeting, there should be a "New Business" section where items can be added to the agenda by way of a motion, a second, and a majority vote.

When these procedural errors have occurred, the City has cited Roberts although it has never been formally adopted even as a fallback set of rules to follow. This is like applying New York law to Virginia cases. You can't apply a set of rules that has never been adopted when it is convenient for your side of the argument.

The lack of any apparent structure of rules, and the haphazard application of Roberts is a disgrace. It speaks to the reason why we need an in-house attorney to serve as a true, unbiased, parliamentarian. It also begs some questions for the upcoming election. Will the potential candidates work to bring power back to council, as it was originally intended, or will they continue to concentrate power in city staff and grow the bureaucracy in Winchester?

Development plan is coming before Council for zoning approval (https://winchesterva.civicweb.net/document/314916/RZ-23-936%20AN%20ORDINANCE%20TO%20REZONE%20APPROXIMATELY%20.pdf?handle=7DDBABB328ED4060B56BBCC35C395968)

City Council was given little notice that People Inc wanted to partner as our Community Action Agency. Despite several options in the Commonwealth (https://www.vacap.org/agencies/), none were considered. Additionally, the MOU presents a contract that automatically renews. Before entering into any agreement, we should always look into the pro's and con's of each decision and ensure that the MOU provides appropriate safeguards for the city.

Winchester is about to embark upon a large experiment that could have very significant (good and bad) consequences for Winchester. The WinReady transportation, involving city-supplied services funded by Federal and State grant money, replaces Winchester’s bus service with a free, door-to-door “ride-share” program. On the surface, it seems like a wonderful program. However, it behooves Winchester residents/taxpayers to ask the following questions of their city leadership:

1. Winchester Transit federal and state grants for the program ($1,727,508) were only appropriated for FY23. How will the program be funded should these year-to-year grants end?
2. It is an economic principle that, when you subsidize something, demand soars. How will Winchester address exploding ridership demand once grant funding ends?
3. Should demand explode and this program be forced to grow, what will the program’s cost be and who will bear that cost? At the onset of the program, rides will be offered for free. Sometime this summer, Council is expected to evaluate the rate with the common perception that they will adopt a $1 per ride rate.
4. Should the WinReady program fail, what would it cost taxpayers to rebuild the bus transit program from scratch?
5. What percentage of current public transportation users are currently trained or have the wherewithal necessary to use the ride-share app? Will the app be available in Spanish and other languages?
6. This is a program that competes directly with current ride-share businesses, such as Uber and Lyft. How many Winchester residents provide rideshare services as a means of supplementing their incomes in an increasingly tight economy with rising prices and tax rates? Private “gig” contractors will not be able to compete with “zero-fare” or "$1 per ride" competitors funded by taxpayers. What will be the impact of the WinReady program on our independent contractors and free market?
7. Why provide a "Density Bonus" to developments in proximity to bus stops when technically now transportation can be accessed everywhere?

These are all hard questions that deserved our Winchester City Council’s full attention before making such a commitment. It is quite possible that the program will be a resounding success. It is equally possible that it could be a catastrophic and expensive failure at a time when Winchester has difficulty meeting its own budget revenue requirements.

This section was written in conjunction with the Best Dan, Dan Best.