Look first, if you would, at the accompanying chart, showing the phenomenal growth of several major North Carolina cities over the past 50 years and the concurrent dead-in-the-water status of several would-be-major Virginia cities.

The chart is courtesy of national development consultant and former Roanoke city council member Brian Wishneff, updated since he used it in 2007 to present, along with fellow councilman Sherman Lea, a plea for increased state funding for Virginia cities. The root of the huge disparity between the cities of the two neighboring states, according to Wishneff’s research, goes back to 1959 and 1979 respectively.

In 1959, North Carolina passed legislation allowing for involuntary annexation of contiguous, urban-character lands by cities.

In 1979, Virginia passed legislation ending what had been a robust pattern of annexation of lands by cities, highlighted locally and most recently by Roanoke City’s taking of 43 square miles of Roanoke County into its boundaries, population total and tax rolls in 1976.

Meanwhile Charlotte, roughly twice the population of Roanoke in 1960, has swollen to more than seven times our size, owing not only to population growth but to the addition of just under 300 square miles of land, in little pieces at a time, since 1980 alone.

Richmond's (top) population shrunk by 8 percent between 1960 and 2010, struggling to stay above 200,000 people. Land-eating Charlotte, N.C., (bottom) grew at 363 percent, '50-'10.

So it’s fairly straightforward, no? Go to Richmond, get the nation’s only system of independent cities undone and then restore those cities’ right to take on additional lands, not only to end their population stagnation, but also to assure that surrounding counties help support the urban-core services and amenities they now enjoy without anteing up. Simple, right?

Well, of course not. In fact, while there is hue and cry in North Carolina to end annexation, there is not a peep in Virginia about reestablishing it. And affluent counties surrounding poor cities would oppose it strongly.

The modest and reality-acknowledging proposal from Wishneff and Lea a few years back is worth restating if only to demonstrate the baby steps needed to get Richmond thinking about helping its strangling cities:

1. Receipt of an additional 1/3 of 1 percent of state sales tax receipts collected in their frozen borders.

2. Establishment of downtown cultural districts with state funds, matched locally, going to cultural entities.

3. Exemption from state sales tax for any art (painting, sculpture, music, writing, etc) produced and sold by artists within the cultural district.

Tiny steps toward overcoming what Wishneff sees as the root of Virginia being the most populous state without a major-league professional sports franchise.

Newspaper and television reports as well as county officials have been fairly gushing about the first year of operation, citing 7,000 members and 350,000 visits, and best of all that the new facility, projected to lose $600,000 in its first year, actually made $100,000. County officials reported first year revenues of $2.4 million with expenses of $2.3 million.

And that does sound good, if only it were true.

A more accurate reflection of the costs associated with Green Ridge shows a very different picture. Amazingly, county officials seem to have forgotten about the $30 million they borrowed to build the park. According to Windsor Hills District board of supervisor Ed Elswick, an early skeptic of the project, the numbers being cited by the county are “operational costs only,” and do not include the largest single expense item, the mortgage. (Most homeowners would have no problem balancing their household budgets if they could just ignore their largest monthly expense – the mortgages.) In effect, that’s exactly what Roanoke County officials are doing as they spin this “success story” to the media.

And what was the real cost? You’ll have to add another $1.9 million in interest expenses for the $30 million borrowed through a bond issue to build the splash park.

So, if you’re going to be a nitpicker and add things like interest expenses to the operation, this “hugely successful” first year ends up costing county taxpayers a cool $1.8 million. And that’s apparently with attendance numbers that exceeded expectations.

The county’s justification for the controversial Green Ridge project was that it would be a wonderful amenity for county residents. But its location behind ValleyPointe north of the Roanoke airport makes it geographically undesirable for the majority of county residents. It is more convenient to many Botetourt County neighborhoods than to most county neighborhoods. Of the 350,000 visits, about 95,000 were by non-county residents.

So let’s see: If the facility lost $1.8 million to provide this service for 350,000 visits, county taxpayers were in effect paying an extra $5.14 every time someone entered the facility. And that’s for all visitors – County, City, Botetourt, etc. So all you non-county residents, how about pitching in an extra $5.14 on top of the regular charges next time you go, so you won’t be mooching on the county folk.

How did this happen? Consider two factors. First, the real estate boom of the last decade when real estate values climbed rapidly and our local governments’ coffers overflowed with revenues from taxes on residential real estate. Second, take a look at the county property tax rates. On a per capita basis, Roanoke County has the highest property tax rate of any metropolitan county in the Commonwealth, according to rates from the Weldon Cooper Center.

So, rather than reduce taxes, the county did what all governments seem to do; it looked around for other ways to spend your tax dollars.

Hence, a grandiose new county library on the south side and, just to be fair and balanced, a “splash park” on the north side. Besides, it’s a great economic development tool. When potential business prospects want to talk about tax rates, show them the new sliding board at the splash park.

The impulse to retire debt, or allow citizens to keep more of their hard-earned income, never seems to be considered.

Pete Haislip, director of parks and recreation at the county, said in January the county was conducting surveys of those people who were members but had left the Green Ridge facility. The county hopes the surveys will help create a better experience for its members.

What about a better experience for its taxpaying residents?

One way to look at it: Roanoke is a lot more like fellow Industrial Core Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) than it is the “Next Frontier” MSAs like Austin or Denver, which are characterized by above-average population growth, diversity and educational achievement.

Dig a little deeper and you find the Roanoke MSA (cities of Roanoke and Salem, counties of Roanoke, Botetourt, Franklin and Craig) at number three among the 11 Virginia MSAs for oldest population; and at seventh for educational attainment.

Compare us to like-sized MSAs across the country, and again the picture is mixed at best. While the MSA is more diverse than eight of the 10 comparable MSAs, Roanoke saw a lower population growth betweeen 2000 and 2009 than five of the metros, including Boulder, Green Bay and Lincoln, Neb.

But despite the economic crisis that has plagued the nation over the past few years, Roanoke has managed to sustain a relatively comfortable economy. According to a Moody’s Précis METRO report for early 2010, the medical and retail industries have allowed our metropolitan area to keeps its head above water during the economic downturn. Carilion Health Systems is the area’s top employer with almost 10,000 employees, accounting for almost 7 percent of Roanoke’s employed labor force as of early this year.

Roanoke’s relatively low unemployment rate is another indicator of the metropolitan area’s economic stability. In fi rst quarter 2010, 7.2 percent of the MSA’s labor force was unemployed, compared to 7.8 percent in Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, and 11.6 percent in Danville. Although higher than the state rate, Roanoke’s unemployment rate is 27 percent lower than the national rate of 9.9 percent and also lower than the rates of comparable-size Columbus, Ga-Ala., and Fort Smith, Ark.-Okla.

Social Security may well overshadow job security as a primary concern for the Star City. With the exception of Bristol and Danville, Roanoke has the oldest population in the state. Between 2000 and 2009, the MSA saw an increase of 15 percent in the 45- to 65-year-old age group. According to Proximityone.com, 23 percent of the MSA population is over 60, compared to 16.9 percent in Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford and 17 percent in the nation. Roanoke’s population is older than that of Boulder, Lincoln and Green Bay, to name a few.

Beth Doughty, executive director of Roanoke Regional Partnership, says that although you cannot deny the increasing age of the population, there is value in an older population in terms of disposable income and social and physical infrastructure. The aging of the population is the result of the “baby boomer cohort on steroids,” according to Doughty, referencing our MSA’s portion of the 78 million people born between 1946 and 1964. While Moody’s report blames the departure of young educated residents as the cause of the aging population in Roanoke, Doughty points out the influx of young people that come to the area for work and play, but who are not included in population counts.

“Many young people come to Roanoke from Blacksburg and other surrounding areas for the recreational opportunities,” Doughty says. “There are a lot of good things going on, such as an emphasis on outdoor and adventure activities and efforts in the urban center.” Doughty also points out the number of young people who work within the MSA but do not necessarily reside here. “It is premature to judge short-term changes,” she says.

Another pressing issue that seems to be holding the Star City back from reaching its full potential is the slow growth rate. According to the Moody’s report, “slow population growth will ultimately relegate Roanoke to a below-average performer at the far end of the forecast.” Between 2000 and 2009, the MSA population increased by about 5 percent, while other state metro populations, including those of Winchester, Harrisonburg and Charlottesville, increased by double digits. Comparable MSAs like Fort Collins-Loveland, Colo., and Fort Smith, Ark.-Okla., also saw significantly greater population growth than Roanoke.

One reason for the slow population growth could be the decrease in net migration in the last five years. In 2004, Roanoke saw a net change of 1,700 migrants, but in 2009 that number fell to 1,200. While Doughty points out that there are still more people moving to Roanoke than away, the sluggish population growth continues to be a hindrance to the Star City’s potential success.

Although the increase in population as a whole is slow, the increase in diversity in Roanoke is promising. With white residents making up 85 percent of the population, there are growing black and Spanish-speaking populations. According to the Refugee and Immigration Services of Virginia Web site, the Hispanic population has more than tripled over the past 10 years in southern parts of the state.

Doughty acknowledges that while Roanoke continues to be a predominantly white population, there is a 61-63 significant immigrant population that should be taken into consideration. Roanoke has greater diversity than four other Virginia MSAs, although it still has a long way to go before it reaches the level of the nation’s most successful metro areas.

Another potentially positive aspect of the Roanoke MSA is its proximity to higher-education facilities. “Roanoke is not a college town,” Doughty says, “but we have 21 schools within 60 miles of us.”

Nevertheless, Roanoke still trails the national average in educational attainment. According to the Census Bureau 2006-2008 American Community Survey (ACS), 15.7 percent of MSA residents hold a bachelor’s degree (17.5 percent in the U.S.), while 7.8 percent hold a graduate or professional degree (10.7 percent in the U.S.). (Other sources cite higher fi gures, but with Roanoke still lagging.) As college tuition prices increase, more young people are entering the work force without post-secondary degrees. The Brookings Institute study claims that younger Americans are not making the same level of progress on educational attainment as older generations did, which could threaten upward progress in living standards and technological innovations.

Comparable MSAs, including Boulder and Lincoln, showed higher educational attainment than Roanoke, which is partly due to the location of universities in these metropolitan areas. Charlottesville and Northern Virginia also had higher rates than Roanoke.

“The proximity to Virginia Tech is a definite positive for Roanoke,” Doughty says. But with a large majority of the educated population entering retirment in the next few years and the steady increase in tuition rates deterring students from attending college, educational attainment could become another obstacle towards progress in the Star City.

The Milken Institute’s annual ranking of the 200 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. for 2009 named Roanoke number 126, up from 181 in 2004. It seems that the MSA is showing progress despite the aging population, slow growth rate and average diversity. Other comparable MSAs in the nation, including Utica- Rome, N.Y., Fort Smith and Fort Collins-Loveland also improved in the rankings between 2004 and 2009, while some, such as Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, fell behind in the same period. For now, Roanoke escapes being labeled an “Industrial Core,” but we have demographic work to do before achieving a position among the top metropolitan areas in the nation.

The best time of day is about 6:30, during the height of a Friday night pre-game in late April, when everything is so fittingly plump with expectation. The stands are filling, the hot dogs are selling, and the field looks like something right out of a W.P. Kinsella novel, with the perfectly clipped grass cut by the brilliant white of the lime as the ballplayers move through their warmups with the relaxed sort of motion reserved for the truly athletically gifted.

The sun is bright but not too bright, just enough to render startlingly clear the backdrop of the valley’s handsome hills. Man, they are some lookers. Nature always busts out her best duds this time of year along the Blue Ridge. If the developers and promoters want to find a scene that captures so much of the essence of this place, they would do well to shoot this sucker wide and post it as a mural out at the airport and slap it on all the postcards and brochures they mail out trying to lure business and industry and jobs to our sweet little corner of the universe.

Yet even as I survey this reassuring spectacle I’m reminded of the limits of vision. Back in 1994, I recall being outraged to learn that the city of Salem planned to spend $7 million on a mere ballpark. “Are they out of their minds?” I said to my wife. “Salem has more community ego than any place in America.”

Later I learned that cost overruns and changes were driving the price of the park to almost $12 million. “That’s just crazy,” I fumed.

Today, you couldn’t build this place for $40 million. Without this stadium and the adjoining sports complex and Civic Center, Salem would never have snared all the major sports events the Roanoke Valley hosts each year and never could have hoped to partner with the Boston Red Sox, one of America’s premier sports brands.

Vision, it seems, is tricky like that. For example, there’s that other outrage of the 1990s, the $5 million footbridge that connects Hotel Roanoke to the City Market. It seemed like the ultimate white elephant at the time, but how could the city’s downtown ever have developed without it? Today, it sits as the perfect link, pulling together the stately presence of the hotel and the city’s nightlife and shops to give the metro much of its mojo.

Conversely, what seems like a good idea at the time can soon be revealed as nothing short of idiocy. I’m sure that was the case a few years back for the folks whothought it reasonable to spend lots of local money to hire an out-of-town consultant who came up with the idea to rename our region NewVa.

NewVa?
Never in a million years will this place ever call itself NewVa. At least I hope not.

I travel a bit in my work, and I always tell people I’m from Roanoke, the heart of Virginia’s Blue Ridge. You can’t project a much better image than the Blue Ridge. It’s simple, yet it conjures up all the grandeur and romance of our place.

“Life’s pretty uncomplicated along the Blue Ridge,” I tell people. Then I stretch it out a bit: “If you want to find a traffic jam, you have to go out and hunt one down.”

If I wanted to cite further proof, I could tell them that the region boasts among its magazines The Roanoker and Blue Ridge Country, and fittingly enough the company that publishes those magazines is named “Leisure.”

An Anniversary as an Occasion

In fact, we’re here to celebrate the 35th anniversary of The Roanoker, which in many ways is also the anniversary of our region’s most important sense of self. For that is chief among the many contributions made to this community by its publisher, Richard Wells. He is a primary advocate of defining our place and one of the guardians of its improvement. So it’s no accident that the anniversary of the magazine also marks the region’s growing awareness of economic development.

Yes, Wells hired me to write this piece, but he has no earthly idea that I’m going to turn part of the focus on him. Despite nearly four decades of magazine publishing, Wells retains his boyish looks and his passion for this place. He’s spent much of that time demanding that local leaders get their act together in terms of development.

“What’s the plan?” he asks of the region’s economic development bureaucracy. It’s a question he’s been asking for 35 years in magazines dedicated to savoring the people and promise of Virginia’s Blue Ridge.

To be honest, there’s a trace of bitterness and disappointment in his voice as he discusses the subject these days. He sees a record of untapped opportunity in terms of the region’s growth. Why hasn’t Roanoke become a Charlotte, or at least a Greensboro or even an Asheville?

And that issue, in turn, raises more hard questions about the future of the valley. Make no mistake, Wells also retains a guarded optimism. But as he pushes forward he wants to pause and look back, to learn enough to help the valley’s leaders gain greater focus in a time of tremendous economic challenge.

And, so, that’s my task here, to review the region’s economic development record and to pose that familiar question, “What’s the plan?” And better yet, to follow it up with another: “How’s it working?”

The Big Lick

Richard Wells’ questions about Roanoke’s future aren’t new. The place has been battling turmoil and doubt since it came to life as a railroad town in the 1850s when Western Virginia was still very much a frontier. Back then the town was largely known as Big Lick.

By the early 1880s, speculators had begun mining coal in deep Southwest Virginia, and railroad traffic increased dramatically. Big Lick became a city named Roanoke and like most railroad towns it featured a strange mix of saloons and bordellos aimed at slaking the thirsts of the workers and roughnecks that fed the early population boom. Soon enough came other industry, much of it serving the rail and coal business.

“Economic development” didn’t even seem to be a clear concept in the public mind back in the day. Government in Roanoke was young and had its hands full figuring out how to keep the hogs off the streets. Any progress just sort of happened.

American Viscose, a rayon plant that would eventually employ better than 5,000 workers, arrived in 1917. The mill jobs drove yet more population growth, though Roanoke remained largely a railroad town, its downtown tied to the schedules of passing trains. As such, the city has always seemed eager to grow beyond what an out-of-town writer once described as its “gritty” image.

That movement gained force right after World War II when a generation of civic-minded veterans returned home and vowed to improve the place. They erected the Star on Mill Mountain and dubbed Roanoke the “Star City of the South,” a quaint notion by today’s standards but also evidence of civic ambition. Most importantly, this movement cleaned up the raw sewage that had long fouled the Roanoke River as it ran through the heart of the city. Their efforts stimulated yet more growth but were met with a massive setback in 1958 when the American Viscose plant closed, stunning the community.

The loss of 5,000 jobs was the first great wake-up call that the city had better step up the pace to find a stronger, more sophisticated future. With the arrival of the 1970s, state government began taking a leadership role, but that actually loomed as a complicating factor for growth. Under Virginia law, counties and cities remained independent of one another as opposed to most other states where they were defi ned as joint entities. As a result, annexation battles had raged in the state courts for decades as cities grabbed county land across Virginia.

Finally the state declared a moratorium on annexation, but the bitter aftermath would dampen growth for decades, as hard feelings colored the relationships between Virginia’s cities and counties, something that observers say has long been a factor in Roanoke’s efforts at modernity.

Virginia’s cities and counties have remained fiercely independent of one another, and while there has been obvious strength and identity in that independence, it has also meant a lack of a strong regional perspective. Perhaps that helps explain how Western Virginia in the 1980s ended up with two smaller airports an hour away from each other in Lynchburg and Roanoke instead of one larger regional airport that might have spurred growth.

Perhaps as a remedy for its circumstances, Virginia state government began encouraging counties and cities in its various regions to join together to market their communities for economic development. In 1983, Roanoke localities and businesses formed The Regional Partnership to spur economic development for the seven different governments and numerous chambers of commerce within the Roanoke metropolitan area.

That sounded reasonable enough, but at the time Roanoke’s government leaders were nursing a host of petty differences. There was abundant speculation that any attempt at cooperation would be a challenge.

According to the plan, the Partnership would market the region but it would not actually make any economic development deals. Deal-making would be left to each local government. In turn, those governments would also have their own economic development departments, as would the major businesses in the region and the various chambers of commerce. When you add in the efforts of the various appendages of the federal government, such as the Small Business Administration, then you start to understand why public economic development efforts have posed such an immense challenge and why an observer such as Wells would harbor such skepticism.

At times, just sorting out the economic development bureaucracy can be dizzying.

It didn’t help that in getting started, The Regional Partnership raised its operating money from local government and business with projections that it would create 1,800 new jobs annually within three years. It did so by pointing to the thousands of jobs being created in Greenville, S.C.

That didn’t happen. Three years later, in 1986, The Roanoker pointed out that the Partnership had created an estimated total of just 700 jobs. The realization had dawned that this economic development thing wasn’t going to be easy.

“I’d like to have thought we could have immediately attracted a company, and I shouldn’t have expected that,” said Lucian Grove, the Partnership’s fi rst president, at the end of the three years. “We’re new at this. The main thing is that representatives of all governments and the chambers can sit together and mutually contribute on a warm, friendly and cooperative basis.”

That sounded nice, but it was during this period that two strong-willed executives moved in to run the primary governments — first Elmer Hodge as Roanoke County’s administrator and later Darlene Burcham as Roanoke’s city manager. The mix of personalities only added to the degree of difficulty for the challenge.

“It’s a marathon, not a sprint,” Bern Ewert, Roanoke’s former city manager, advised in 1986. Accordingly, the Regional Partnership soldiered on, working over the decades with the seven governments and as many as 230 businesses to drive growth, a continual effort at developing industrial and commercial sites and trying to interest manufacturers, retailers and service businesses in relocating here.

Now, that long-distance race has revealed itself 27 years later, and while the Partnership had clearly helped Roanoke find steady growth over the decades, the organization’s board decided in 2008 to shift the focus of what is known these days as the Roanoke Regional Partnership.

The New Roanoke

Beth Doughty is a veteran of Roanoke’s economic development experience. She started off working for John Lambert and Associates, the Roanoke public relations firm that played a role in the process. After working for both the Partnership and the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, Doughty became executive director of the Partnership in 2008, about the same time that the group began shifting direction. Today it boasts a staff of six and an annual budget of $1.3 million.

“We have more of a plan than we’ve ever had,” she says. But after three decades of economic development work, she also offers this startling admission. “We don’t have a bad image,” she says of the region. “We have no image.”

In its marketing efforts, the Partnership met with eight corporate decision-makers earlier this year. Only one of them had ever been to Roanoke, Doughty says. “No one knows where Roanoke is. They have trouble figuring out what state we’re in…”

The Partnership actually began confronting that reality before the 2008 global economic meltdown, Doughty says, when its board and leadership reorganized and raised more money, most of it from the private sector.

“Only a little” of the new money for marketing Roanoke came from government, Doughty explains. “The private part of it had been underfunded.” About 65 percent of the Partnership’s budget had come from the public sector, she adds. “It’s now 51 percent private money, 49 percent public… The new program is a hybrid of old school business recruitment and modern theories.”

That means the Partnership still hustles to market the properties developed by the local governments, but it has begun paying more attention to “branding” the Roanoke region.

That strategy is based on the data of recent studies and on new ideas about how to grow a community, Doughty says.

This new approach calls for communities to work on attracting people because some studies show that “jobs will follow people,” Doughty says. “The recruiting of big boxes (companies) is not the answer to creating sustained economic prosperity… In this model community development becomes more important.”

With this approach, it seemed only logical to focus on the natural beauty of the Blue Ridge Mountains and the recreation they offer. After all, people move to a place like Colorado because it has an outdoorsy image, which means that businesses and then jobs soon follow the population growth. Why not Roanoke?

“We have ignored it forever, trying to be like Charlotte, to be like someplace else…,” Doughty off ers. “We have one of the most photographed spots on the Appalachian Trail in McAfee Knob.”

City Councilman Court Rosen, receiver of Gold awards for Best Public Official and Person We'd Like to See Running the Valley and a Silver for Public Official Most Likely to Cause a Problem, stands by his decision to call for the temporary two-percent increase in the city meals tax, which the Council unanimously approved in early April.

In late winter Roanoke’s recent financial woes came to a head when one of City Council’s newest members – 31-year-old Court Rosen, voted by our readers with a Gold Award as Best Public Official – did something few politicians would dare by proposing a tax increase in the middle of a recession.

Driven by an $8.8 million deficit in the city schools’ 2010-11 operating budget that he and other council members attributed in large part on the state’s recent cuts to school funding, Rosen proposed a temporary two-cent increase in the city meals tax. Council was quick to come to a consensus in favor of the idea despite opposition from a number of area restaurateurs, and voted unanimously to pass the increase in early April.

Here’s a summary of the increase with Rosen’s comments:

• The temporary increase will give Roanoke the highest meals tax in Virginia by raising the tax from 5 to 7 cents per dollar for a period of two years, beginning July 1 and sunsetting June 30, 2012. Rosen points out the meals tax affects only those who choose to eat out (including those from outside city limits), as opposed to an increase in the real estate tax, which would affect all city property owners. Rosen estimates the increase will raise about $4.4 million (as opposed to $4.6, with a current projection) per year for city schools.

“Council has made it clear that we intend to keep local school funding level from the city,” Rosen says. “The shortfalls were created by state funding cuts. This is a problem schools are facing across the state.”

• Rosen lists possible cuts if council had failed to OK the proposal: additional school closings, additional teacher layoffs, continued lack of summer school programs and increases in class sizes.

“Roanoke City schools cut more than $4 million out of their budget last year, which resulted in the closing of four schools, redrawn attendance zones, privatized transportation, 88 employee eliminations, frozen wages and drastically reduced summer school. Add to this a $9 million shortfall this year causing even more critical program eliminations and classes at maximum sizes. Other cuts include 94 positions, mostly instructional, the closing of Round Hill Elementary, the closure of CITY school, the elimination of Spanish for elementary students, and an inability to restore summer school.”

• When asked why, with enrollment effectively flat, and (until this year) inflation essentially covered by increases in recent-past school budgets, the need is suddenly so dire, Rosen points to recent cuts in funding.

“This isn’t an increase in school funding – it’s an effort to offset some of the massive decreases in school funding over the last two years. If the proposal is adopted, the schools will still be nearly $4.5 million short of last year’s funding level. In the last two years alone, school funding has been reduced nearly $13 million – a major decrease in a school system that has increased the graduation rate nearly 15 points, opened an overage academy and accomplished full  accreditation of 25 out of 26 schools. The idea is to avoid our schools being set back years and saving the most critical programs that benefit our urban youth.”

• How does Rosen respond to the opposition from some restaurant owners and residents?

“I spent a lot of time meeting with restaurant owners while working on the idea. Many didn’t like it, but most understood the need and believed that this temporary increase wouldn’t hurt their business or change their customers’ eating habits or behaviors.

“It’s critical to remember that on a $10 meal, this proposed increase would add only 20 cents to the cost of the meal; a dollar on a $50 meal. In my mind, and as someone who enjoys eating at our local restaurants, it’s a small price to pay for the future of our school system.

“The city also plans a marketing campaign, and I’d suggest we have a citywide ‘Eat Out for Education’ Day. We could also involve city students creating artwork or posters for restaurants to display.”

Here’s a look at a top-10 list Roanoke County doesn’t want you to know about:

Virginia’s Largest Counties Ranked by 2008 Real Estate Tax Rates

Perhaps there’s some correlation here. Maybe…

1. …High taxes have a negative effect on per-capita income?

2. …The more a county taxes, the fewer people it attracts?

3. …Low-income residents like to pay high taxes for $32 million “splash water parks?”

Tell us what you think below.

Ed Elswick at the new Green Ridge Center in Roanoke County.

There may be clues in a few of the tenets of Elswick’s platform:

• “I will pursue cost-cutting programs . . . under a philosophy that county expense should not exceed what the average citizen can afford.”
• “I will advocate freezing tax rates and assessments until the county reduces expenses as much as possible.”
• “I will not approve the issuance of any more lease revenue bonds. Any bond issue should be approved by taxpayers.”

There may also be a hint of a highly effective campaigner, as witness Elswick’s 111-9 crushing of McNamara in the Bent Mountain precinct, where Elswick has long served as president of the civic league. He and his “campaign staff” of neighbors Karen Scott and Kay Moore reportedly knocked on more than 1,000 doors.

And there may also be a pinch of down-home charm from a guy who doesn’t look much like a politician.

Ask Elswick for his view on the key factors in his win and he cites three: Voters ready for change; voters feeling the county was spending too much on projects that were not needed; and citizens feeling they were being ignored.

“It is time that people stood up and said let’s stop this and put common sense into how we should run our government,” he says. There’s one more factor.

Construction on the Greenridge Center in Roanoke County

“Rural areas like Catawba and Bent Mountain are still ignored by the county administration,” Elswick says. “And that’s okay – we want to be left alone. But there are things that happen that show us that we aren’t left alone. They threaten up here to close our schools. At one point they took away our two permanent fire fighters. We want more of a say as to what the county does. The rural areas are so important to the citizens. We get tons of visitors coming to us. We felt like we needed a voice to what the county affairs are all about.”

Whatever the reasons, it was a major upset in Roanoke County politics, and sets the stage for Elswick’s run in November against Democrat Sarah Goodman, a real estate agent and former teacher who has filed papers, but as we go to press has not formally announced her campaign.

Elswick’s run also sets the stage for the trotting out of that platform built upon doing “everything possible to reduce Roanoke County’s current monetary commitments.”

Just who is Ed Elswick?

At first impression, Elswick’s soft-spoken approach and casual, country appearance make you wonder if he is really up to the task. Is he ready to deal with the complicated financial matters that have become a part of local government?

Consider his background.

As an 18-year-old, he left his home in Eastern Kentucky with $10 in his pocket to attend Berea College, where there is no tuition and students work their way through school. He then went on to Ball State University and earned a Masters in Education.

Ed Elswick at the recreation center in Roanoke County

He taught high school and then went to work at General Electric, spending three years at GE’s Financial Management program, among the premier such programs in the world.

He then served as a financial manager at four different GE locations. He also spent time as a quality manager during the last few years, negotiating government contracts for GE.

Yes, it appears Elswick is indeed ready to deal with complicated financial matters.

“I think the negotiation skills I acquired working with numerous department managers at GE and government auditors – who by the way are worse to deal with then the IRS – would come in handy negotiating contracts for the county,” Elswick says. “The first thing I would do is use my expertise in finance and examine where the money is being spent and look for ways to reduce. I would talk to people who are spending money and see how they are doing it. I would look at how they are carrying out their responsibilities and see how we could improve upon that.”

And while Elswick may be a newcomer to the political campaigning, he is no stranger to political activism. He has long had an interest in reviewing county contracts to fully understand how the county was spending “his” tax dollars.

He also personally lobbied the county supervisors to take serious action when gypsy moths invaded Bent Mountain, asserting that the county was ignoring a serious problem that continues to destroy vegetation in parts of the county.

Basics yes, extravagance no

Elswick has also been vocal in disapproval of the continued escalation of the real estate tax burden on the citizens of the county, which provide more than half of Roanoke County’s general government budget.

“I don’t have a problem with basic services such as schools, garbage collection, police and fire/rescue,” Elswick says. “I think these services have been managed well.”

His objection is to the county’s spending on things beyond the basic services.

“The issue I have with some of the spending is the extravagance,” he says. “A library or a school may be a great use of money, but why the extravagance with designs and construction?”

Elswick says smaller details can also use attention.

“Even a very basic item like writing pens at the Roanoke County building having specific department names on them,” he says. “At GE, we all had basic pens that everyone used – there were no department names on them. In addition, if you look at the furnishings in the county building, they are nicer than what people have in their homes. Why is that? Don’t county employees work for the people, or is it the other way around?”

On the larger scale, prime among Elswick’s worries is the $30 million, 76,000-square-foot recreation center with a 20,000-square-foot water park that is being constructed in North Roanoke County, which Elswick contends is not a high citizen priority, despite county staff assertions to the contrary and citings of metrics that show county residents in favor of things such as “adult fitness and wellness programs” and “water fitness programs” ranking high in several survey questions.

Elswick cites survey question 11 – “How well parks and recreation facilities in Roanoke County met the needs of respondent households” – as key in his assertion that the results are misleading.

“Indoor fitness and exercise facilities came in sixth” [by percentage of respondents citing a need for facilities], Elswick says. “And even if this survey, which was only based on 1,100 respondents, had come out strongly in favor of a recreation center, it still is not valid to base a $30 million decision on.”

He also questions the hiring of six new police officers that “cost us $2.7 million, according to county management discussion and analysis for the year ended June 30, 2008.” His reading of the county budget yields the conclusion that the funds were directly related to the hiring of the six new officers.

“The hiring was based not on an increase in crime statistics, but merely from alleged increased phone calls to the county,” he says, noting that annual police reports actually show a decrease in phone calls and actual crime statistics during that period.

Elswick also questions the necessity of about 275 of the county’s 400 vehicles being dedicated to individuals as take-home vehicles.

“I think public officials should follow the same practices with company cars as businesses do – only where absolutely necessary,” Elswick says. “At GE, we had only one company car that was dedicated to a specific person. We did have other company cars, but you had to sign them out. I don’t see any reason why any county personnel should drive a company car home. And in the case of police cars, we should investigate a little more on having a police car in the neighborhood and its effect on crime.”

Elswick believes many of these projects that are not part of the basic function of local government are initiated and supported by elected officials for the purpose of leaving a legacy and getting re-elected.

“Anytime politicians get involved in handling the public’s money, they will use it in a way that helps get them re-elected,” Elswick says. “They brag about it to their constituents, and say ‘look what I’ve done for you.’”

Who’s watching the hen house?

Another question on Elswick’s mind is if elected officials are spending money the county doesn’t have on projects the voters don’t want, then why are they for the most part voted back into office every election cycle? Elswick suggests the people don’t really see a clear relationship between frivolous projects and money being taken out of their own pockets to pay them.

“Some people understand the relationship between County spending and higher taxes, but many do not,” he says. “In fact, I have run into many citizens who don’t even know how many supervisors there are and who they are. The only time they are interested in their government official is when they get their tax bill and they get upset. But even then, for the most part, people are just too busy to care. People just don’t see the relationship with their taxes going up and the extravagant projects. Many assume that the elected officials will do a good job overseeing the spending of their money.”

In some cases, it appears voters don’t know that the money is being spent and they are on the hook for the debt being incurred. Take the $58 million lease-revenue bond issue that the Roanoke County Supervisors passed in 2007-2008, bonds that according to Elswick will cost county taxpayers $82.9 million including interest. In doing so, county supervisors bypassed the citizens by not using the standard general obligation bond referendum. Since these bonds use the facilities they finance as collateral, no voter approval is needed.

“I don’t really understand why the Roanoke County Supervisors did it this way,” Elswick says. “I know that [former Roanoke County Administrator] Elmer Hodge was very convincing in the projects he undertook. I think the supervisors thought that since other municipalities around the country were using lease revenue bonds, it was okay for Roanoke County to use them.”

The bond package includes a new Southwest County library, fire and rescue building, fleet maintenance center, the recreation center and other upgrades and facilities.

Elswick’s view: “I think most the projects that were being packaged together under the one lease revenue bond would have been approved if done separately, except for the biggest expenditure – the recreation center – which was $30 million. I think the projects should have been voted on separately and that way each one would have gotten more visibility and some of them could have been stopped – especially the recreation center. This was a very arrogant approach to spending the citizens’ money by the board of supervisors.”

Size matters

Which leads to Elswick’s worries over how Roanoke County pays for services and facilities when the money isn’t already in place.

“When you make unrealistic projections and then spend based on those projections,” Elswick says, “you place a high tax burden on your residents to pay for programs and services, and you put the county and its residents into never-ending debt.”

A Roanoke Times study in 2007 seems to support this statement, noting that Roanoke County had the highest “effective” real estate rate of all 95 Virginia counties.

The higher real estate rate in Roanoke County may also be driven by the county’s high per capita expenditures for public safety. According to “Expenditures and Population: Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts Comparative Cost Report for FY 2006,” per capita cost for public safety was four times that of Montgomery County (which has approximately the same population and is about 50 percent larger in geography).

In addition, Albemarle County, which is identical in population and about three times the size of Roanoke County, spends about 20 percent less for public safety.

“Definitely one of the reasons why real estate taxes are too high is to pay for public safety,” Elswick says. “While public safety is very important, I think we have gone overboard with some of the capital expenditures in this area. Based on the expenditures by similar counties, we are spending more than we should.”

One way to look at county expenditures is to compare population and spending. Weldon-Cooper figures show county population increasing from about 79,000 in 1990 to 93,000 in 2009 (17 percent; the county’s own figures for both years are slightly lower). Over the same period, the total Roanoke County budget (including school expenditures) has increased from $148 million in 1990 to $371 million in 2009 (150 percent increase). Per capita spending for the overall budget has risen from $1,873 to $3,989 (vs $837 to $2,088 omitting school spending).

Citizens on the watch

And while Elswick is hopeful that people will begin to take more control of the county’s spending, he’s worried they will not.

“I hope people will start taking control of their own destiny,” he says. “I am not running for county supervisor for my own personal advancement. When you see government wasting money, at all levels of government – when you see institutions borrowing more money than they should, it’s time to say enough is enough.” Elswick has hopes for the nascent anti-tax “tea party” movement to have an effect in that direction.

“I hope the basic tenet of the tea party takes over. My only concern is that the politicians are taking over the tea parties – which could change what the originators had in mind. I think if the politicians take over, the people will stop attending, since the politicians continue saying the same things. I think the people are looking for someone that is different.” That “different” for Elswick comes down to a careful, systematic process.

“It’s a simple thing to do,” he says. “You look at all areas of government, every office, every individual. You look at the functions of government, and ask the question: Do we really need to spend that money?

“Businesses reduce cost wherever they can – we need the same approach in the county.”

Still, Elswick is not naïve about obstacles to such an approach.

“Every government office is trying to protect its own job, so it requires close scrutiny on each department. And what makes uncovering wasteful spending more difficult is that every elected official wants to be reelected, so they don’t want to say or do anything that would possibly jeopardize their next election.”

In the September/October 2009 edition of The Roanoker, we take a look at this surprise win of this political newcomer over three-time incumbent Roanoke County Supervisor Joe McNamara.

“It is time that people stood up and said let’s stop this and put common sense into how we should run our government … Rural areas like Catawba and Bent Mountain are still ignored by the county administration. And that’s okay – we want to be left alone. But there are things that happen that show us that we aren’t left alone.”

“They threaten up here to close our schools. At one point they took away our two permanent fire fighters. We want more of a say as to what the county does. The rural areas are so important to the citizens. We get tons of visitors coming to us. We felt like we needed a voice to what the county affairs are all about.”

-Ed Elswick

Read more about Ed Elswick and his campaign for Windsor Hills District Supervisor for the County of Roanoke in the September/October 2009 edition of The Roanoker.

You can also visit Ed’s campaign website at edelswick.com.

Note: Of the eight questions submitted by Wells, seven are addressed. The last one – “Some of you during your election campaigns expressed dissatisfaction with the way things were being run at city hall. What changed once you were elected?” – was in effect answered on Monday, June 1, when council ended the city manager’s tenure with the city, effective in March.

Richard Wells’ Letter

It’s been 3½ weeks since The Roanoker published an in-depth look at Roanoke city real estate taxes and the skyrocketing cost of city government.

Never in the 35 years since I founded this magazine has any article created more response or interest than has QUEEN DARLENE. We’ve had dozens of calls, numerous letters to the editor and more than 100 comments to our website. Based on these responses, the overwhelming majority of readers disapprove of the current administration, the existing real estate tax rates and other issues raised in our story.

Most respondents express surprise that a city that ranks at the absolute bottom of the state’s largest 11 cities in household income has one of the highest real estate tax rates.

In our next edition, we’ll show that the city’s real estate taxes make Roanoke the “least affordable” city in Virginia. The affordability of housing may help explain why the city’s population continues to decline.

One of the most interesting points, made by several readers, is that the only way to express dissatisfaction with city management and city policies is through city council elections. They point to the significant turnover on council (14 have come and gone) in the last eight years, as evidence of that dissatisfaction. One writer said it this way: “Voters keep shooting at the city manager but they keep hitting council members.”

The resulting “revolving door council” has created the general opinion that council can’t seem to make a decision and that council votes one way today and then flip flops.

There were a number of questions and issues raised by our story. The purpose of this communication is to provide you with an opportunity, as one elected to oversee the administration of our city, to respond to some of the questions raised and to allow our readers to know where you stand.

As a long time city resident, as one who mortgaged my business in the late ‘80s to invest in a deteriorating Farmer’s Market that looked like Beirut, and as the publisher of our community’s city magazine since 1974, I respectfully request your response.

1. Were you aware of the $83 million growth in Roanoke city government budget in the last eight years?
2. Are you comfortable with a city government that is growing at twice the rate of infl ation while serving fewer and fewer citizens?
3. Based on numbers from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, real estate taxes for a $200,000 home in the city of Roanoke take a greater proportion of average household income than any city in the state. What, if anything, are you doing to making home ownership in the city of Roanoke more affordable to residents?
4. The city’s record of maintaining its property is dismal. From Victory Stadium to the rat-infested City Market Building to the latest revelation about a terminally neglected school bus fleet, the city has a poor record of maintaining its assets. What does this say about city management?
5. By our estimates, the city has invested $3 million directly (and millions more indirectly) in the ill-fated stadium/amphitheater site behind Berglund Auto on Williamson Road. Now there’s another $4 million invested at Countryside Golf Club. What, if anything, do you advocate for these burdens on city taxpayers?
6. The City Market Building has been studied three times, the amphitheater how many times? Seems like council and the city can’t make a move without hiring an out-of-town consultant. Is there no company or professional in Roanoke qualified to advise council what it should do?
7. Declining populations. Are you comfortable with the fact that your city continues to lose residents? (Yes, there is an uptick of 700 over the past five years, but we are still down by almost 2,000 since the year 2000, and down almost 13,000 since 1959.) What does this say about our city’s future? Our leadership?
8. Some of you during your election campaigns expressed dissatisfactions with the way things were being run at city hall. What changed once you were elected?

Thank you for your response and for your service to the city of Roanoke. We will share your answers as fully as possible in our next edition.

J. Richard Wells
Publisher

City Council Response
(Sidebar pieces are Roanoker magazine content, not part of council response.)

Roanoke is one of the best places to live in the United States. The progress made in The City in recent years includes the revival of downtown, the creation of the new medical campus on South Jefferson Street, two new high schools, and neighborhood improvements such as the Grandin Theater, branch library additions, and the greenways. This progress came about because of the combined efforts of a progressive city government, enlightened private business leaders, and effective nonprofit organizations working together.

The undersigned, all of the Members of the current Roanoke City Council, disagree with your characterization of the City of Roanoke in the May/June issue of The Roanoker magazine. We believe your article is excessively negative and certainly misleading. You seem to see the glass as half empty. We see it as more than half full. This letter responds to the letter you sent to all of us by e-mail on May 28. All of us have contributed to this letter, and we are in agreement on its contents.

There is good news to spread about Roanoke. The cost of living here is very low, mitigating the fact that our personal income level is below the state average. Our strength is our regional draw. So, while it is true our population as a city has declined (but is growing again now), the beauty of Roanoke is its role as the capital of southwest Virginia. The Hotel Roanoke, our bustling downtown, and the Farmers’ Market are some of the shining stars in that category.

HIGH TAXES & LOW INCOME MAKE ROANOKE LEAST AFFORDABLE IN VIRGINIA.

With a real estate tax rate of $1.19 per $100 of valuation, an average per-household income of $35,530 and an average home-sale price in the range of $200,000, the percent of household income required for real estate taxes is the highest of Virginia’s 11 major cities. Real estate tax receipts by the city during this decade increased from about $45 million in fi scal year 2000-01 to about $75.5 million in FY 2008-09, with the increase achieved through aggressive reassessments every year of the decade until 2008 when, according to Multiple Listing Services, the average home-sale price dropped from 2007’s $213,459 to $197,889 for 2008. According to Roanoke City, some assessments were increased this year, but for the vast majority of homes, assessments did not change despite the decrease in real estate values, and reassessment notices were not sent to owners: What goes up doesn’t, it turns out, always come down, even when it does.

You told your readers, “Real Estate Valuation decided not to conduct an assessment. In a year when an assessment might actually lower residents’ tax bills, the City decided not to reassess property.” That statement is incorrect. The City of Roanoke is required by State law to appraise property at 100 percent of its market value, and the City Code mandates the Real Estate Valuation Office to appraise the real property on an annual basis. Each staff appraiser is responsible for about 5,000 parcels in the City each year. Even when the trend of property sales is lower than the year before, or sales prices of real property are indicating trends of stabilization, city employees appraise each parcel in the City on an annual basis. They look at neighborhood statistical data and complete a thorough review of each property each year.

As a result of those inspections, some owners receive an increase in their assessment because improvements made to their property are found during those field reviews. In 2009 the annual increase was lower than years past, reflecting the downward trend in the real estate market and the fact that our State Sales Ratio is at 91 percent. (The Department of Taxation computes a State Sales Ratio each year that compares the sale price to the assessed value for all the real estate transfers recorded in Roanoke City Courthouse).

You told your readers, “The real estate tax while growing at a slower rate than in past years, is steady with a 4.5 percent growth, 1.5 percent contributable to new construction and three percent to reassessments.” This is a misleading statement, making it appear we sent out a 4.5 percent increase for FY10 when we actually kept most residential assessments at the same level as the prior year. The actual projected increase estimated for FY09-10 is 1.76 percent, with .68 percent contributing to reassessment and another 1.08 percent for new construction.

You asked us, “Were you aware of the $83 million growth in Roanoke City government budget in the last eight years?” Of course we know that Roanoke’s budget has expanded and that our capital program has expanded considerably. We feel we needed to get some important things done. Yes, expenditures have increased $83 million from FY00 to FY08. This averages 5.8 percent per year. It reflects the aggressive campaign we have undertaken with our capital plan in the past decade. It was a tremendous undertaking to replace the two high schools in the same decade, but a succession of City Councils felt this was the right thing to do and undertook the added capital burden to achieve this goal. These two projects combined amount to $111 million. They were almost entirely financed by the issuance of debt, which means that the operating budgets of the City and Schools had to expand in order to repay this debt.

You asked, “Are you comfortable with a city government that is growing at twice the rate of inflation while serving fewer and fewer citizens?” Our response is that, when comparing Roanoke’s expenditure growth to inflation, one must consider Roanoke’s disproportionate share of citizens with high levels of social services and welfare needs. Roanoke’s expenditures for health and welfare grew 8.2 percent during the period under examination, well above the average total growth during that time.

Here's a look at the actual cost of real estate taxes, based on 2008 tax rates, on a typical $200,000 home in each of Virginia's 11 largest cities. Percentages reflect ratio of property taxes vs. average household income in each city.

You asked: “Based on numbers from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia, real estate taxes for a $200,000 home in the City of Roanoke take a greater proportion of average household income than any city in the state. What, if anything, are you doing to making home ownership in the City of Roanoke more affordable to residents?”
This statement ignores the fact that Roanoke’s cost of living is considerably lower than that of most other areas of the state. If these data were adjusted for the cost of living, Roanoke would look much better. Roanoke’s real property tax rate is only slightly above the average of the older cities in Virginia to which we compare ourselves. While our rate is above that of neighboring Roanoke County, the City provides far more services such as much higher per capita police and fire/EMS staffing.

Council has reduced the real estate tax rate several times in recent years. The tax rate in the early 1990s was $1.25 per $100 assessed value, and the rate is currently $1.19. Roanoke offers several programs that promote home ownership. The City Rehabilitation Program allows abatement from five to 15 years, depending on the location and the property class of the real property. The Energy Efficient Building Program allows a 10 percent reduction in the tax rate for buildings showing a 30 percent reduction in energy from the Virginia Standard Building Code model. And the City offers an Incentive for building on an in-fill vacant residential lot.

You asked: “The City’s record of maintaining its property is dismal. From Victory Stadium to the rat-infested City Market Building to the latest revelation about a terminally neglected school bus fleet, the City has a poor record of maintaining its assets. What does this say about city management?” We respond that all governments struggle to maintain their infrastructure, for example the Commonwealth’s struggle to maintain its roads. We have added funding to capital maintenance as part of our annual budgeting process but agree more can be done. Using a private contractor has addressed this problem at the Civic Center and this model may be used at a refurbished Market Building.

You asked: “By our estimates, the City has invested $3 million directly (and millions more indirectly) in the ill-fated stadium/amphitheater site behind Berglund Auto on Williamson Road. Now there’s another $4 million invested at Countryside Golf Club. What, if anything, do you advocate for these burdens on city taxpayers?” While it is true that the Orange Avenue/Williamson Road site has more invested in it than a reasonable fair market value, the final result of Council debate regarding where high school stadiums should be built – on the high school campuses – is the right one, but the debate left this site temporarily vacant. You need only see the team spirit at Patrick Henry High School and the high voltage excitement during soccer season there to comprehend the wisdom of separate stadiums at the new high schools. Council is currently awaiting proposals submitted for the long-term management of Countryside as a golf course though future, alternative uses must still be discussed.

LEAKS IN THE RAINY DAY FUND

As part of the response to our May/June issue’s cover story, a few of our readers pointed out that city of Roanoke does have a rainy day fund that currently amounts to $19.7 million.

What we feel is important to add to this information is that, based on city budget numbers, this amount reflects an annual savings of less than three tenths of one percent during the Darlene Burcham-era administration. That means over the last nine years the city has spent 99.7 percent of every dollar taken in.

Here’s how we arrived at these numbers:
When Mrs. Burcham arrived in 2000 the rainy day fund stood at $13.1 million. Over the past nine years that sum has grown by $5.6 million. On average that’s an increase of about $622,222 per year, or a rate of just .28 percent, based on an average budget size of $217.1 million. That leaves 99.72 percent of all funds leaving city coffers each year under the Burcham administration.

Perhaps if city government had been putting a little more away during these years of relative plenty they would not now face the need to close two public schools, suspend trash pickup and outsource school bus services to balance their budgets.

You asked: “The City Market Building has been studied three times, the amphitheater how many times? Seems like Council and the City can’t make a move without hiring an out of town consultant. Is there no company or professional in Roanoke qualified to advise Council what it should do?” You would criticize us if we kept expensive consultant-like talent on staff with the capacity to perform feasibility studies at the drop of a hat. You would question the objectivity of such in-house staff. Therefore, we must hire consulting firms to assist with such projects. One reason there have been so many studies, we acknowledge, is City Council turnover. As Council’s priorities change, projects change in ranking. Each Council has the prerogative to request changes in direction.

You ask: “Declining populations. Are you comfortable with the fact that your city continues to lose residents? (Yes, there is an uptick of 700 over the past five years, but we are still down by almost 2,000 since the year 2000, and down almost 13000 since 1959.) What does this say about our city’s future? Our leadership?” We note that many other older Virginia cities have also incurred population declines. Hampton, Newport News and Norfolk all declined in recent years. As a landlocked, completely built-out city, it is difficult for Roanoke to grow significantly. What is more important about Roanoke is its significance as a regional drawing area. Consider these positive points: The Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area was third in retail sales per capita in 2006 in The Commonwealth of Virginia lagging only Northern Virginia and Winchester. And the City of Roanoke’s sales per household ranked tenth in the nation in 2004, coming in at $72,652.

We, the Members of the Council of the City of Roanoke are optimistic about the future of our great city and we believe that optimism is shared by a majority of the citizens of Roanoke. We pledge to do our best to keep the City on a sound financial footing while addressing its needs and opportunities.

Sincerely,
David A. Bowers, Mayor
Sherman P. Lea, Vice-Mayor
M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Gwendolyn W. Mason, Council Member
Anita J. Price, Council Member
Court G. Rosen, Council Member
David B. Trinkle, Council Member

Enclosures*
pcc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Ann H. Shawver, Director of Finance
Stephanie M. Moon, City Clerk

Would an amphitheater compromise Elmwood Park?

A wise man phoned our offices the other day from another town, and began talking about the SWOT process for analysis: Strengths. Weaknesses. Opportunities. Threats.

The context was Roanoke’s downtown, and the wise man, who asked that his name not be used, said the key to progress is to first decide on the desired outcome. His desired outcome for downtown Roanoke, likely shared with many, is to get more people into it; both those living there and those visiting. With a visit frequency of at least once, or preferably twice per month.

The next step, he asserted, is to look at the assets that cause people to spend time in downtown – those things that are scarce or irreplaceable.

And with an emphasis on people who live downtown, to protect those irreplaceable assets. Prime among them, the wise man said, is open space, which provides “a place for them to walk the dog or to walk themselves.”
And that place, in downtown Roanoke, is Elmwood Park, where Red Light Management has suggested we should place our proposed amphitheater, owing to the site’s topography and proximity to downtown, among other things. Many have agreed.

Not so fast, opines the wise man: The approximately one-acre footprint of the facility, vacant 95 percent of the time and usable for only about half the year, would deeply compromise the irreplaceable asset of downtown green space.
The wise man suggests an activity toward finding the best spot for a possible Roanoke City amphitheater, an activity that perhaps the city planning department could take on if it hasn’t already: Equipped with an aerial view of downtown, cut a one-acre square piece of paper and place it here and there on that aerial view. Are there places – ideally radiating out from as close to the city market as possible – where such a square might fit without compromising the green asset?

Behind the new fire/EMS headquarters on the largely undeveloped slope from Franklin Road up to 2nd or 1st street? Somewhere near city hall? Somewhere between the market and Jefferson Center?

The wise man, again citing the goal to have more feet in the street in downtown Roanoke, said it bothers him to see council being tempted to devalue downtown’s primary open space.

He also provided the aside, with the same goal, of a downtown with a more-changing product, and cited the example of Charlottesville’s downtown six-plex, where sophisticated, changing product brings people downtown again and again for the basic activity of dinner and a movie. And in a building that’s used every day, with oft-changing product, and without compromising open space.

Click here to read the full article and come back to leave your thoughts and comments below!

Roanoke city council announced the decision after meeting in closed session for several hours Monday night. Burcham says she will use her final 272 days to wrap up some unfinished business.

Burcham – who said she hadn’t even contemplated retirement before it came up – also made it clear during her public comments following the meeting that city council was behind the decision, not her.

“It’s clear from the conversation that council believes that it’s time for someone new or someone different,” Burcham said in a statement to the press.

Post your thoughts below, or click here for more details.

Bet you didn’t know we’re also on the radio. Listen to our radio broadcasts below and then get involved in the conversation.

[display_podcast]

The first is the acreage behind Berglund Auto on Williamson next to VDOT’s road maintenance facility that was to be a new stadium site. This investment totals approximately $3.5 million and has been sitting there for at least seven years with a City sign.

The second is the $20 million of City taxpayer monies the Roanoke Redevelopment Authority has or is in the process of investing in Carilion’s Riverside Complex; all sanctioned and pushed by Mrs. Burcham.

How is this large sum to be paid back to Roanoke citizens specifically?

Is there an agreement/contract we can review between Roanoke Redevelopment Authority and Carilion?

It appears that Mrs. Burcham was the architect of the conversion of this “research park” to a privately owned “medical clinic”. What are the details?

Has the marketing report strongly indicating that a research park would be a waste of money ever been made public?

Why hasn’t the Roanoke Times mentioned they have this damning document? Why has it never been brought to light?

What we feel is important to add is that this amount reflects only a 0.3% savings during the Burcham-era administration. Based on city budget numbers, records show that over the last nine years the city has spent 99.7 percent of every dollar taken in. And this comes as city revenues have increased $83 million.

Here’s how we arrived at these numbers…

Since Mrs. Burcham arrived in 2000, the city of Roanoke has saved less than three tenths of one percent – or $622,000 – each year from an average annual budget of $217 million. Said another way, the Burcham administration, while increasing the cost of city government by more than $83 million, has spent 99.72% of all taxes collected.

Consider; The rainy day fund in 2000 was at $13.1 million, meaning $5.6 million has been added over the past nine years. On average that’s about $622,000 per year, or a paltry rate of just .28 percent, based on an average budget size over those years of $217.1 million.

Perhaps if city government had been putting a little more away during these times of relative plenty they would not now face the need to close two public schools, suspend trash pickup and outsource school bus services to balance their budgets. But we suppose that’s the nature of government – “spend it all.”