by Neil Richard
While I had assumed the previous meeting of the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee was the last one, I apparently proved the adage correct about what making assumptions does to "u and me." So when I went to the June 12, 2018 Board of Supervisors budget work session meeting, I was not prepared to join the Board at the grown-up table and was rather content to sit in the audience.
Instead, as the Board settled in, somebody asked where the rest of the citizens were. Within seconds, I was directed to step up and participate in the discussions on a two-year budget.
It quickly became apparent that it was a three-year budget and that it was not set in stone. In fact, if I could reach through whatever screen you're reading this on and make this so painfully clear, I would. The budget Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, presented was a draft, expenditure-based budget that could almost be called a wish-list. While that phrase, "wish-list," was used a few times, I'm hesitant to use that label as it feels a little unprofessional. And based on the numbers discussed and the department leaders that presented them, I didn't think it was quite the right phrase to use.
Dr. Young was quick to dive into the FY2020 and FY2021 projections by saying they were based largely on the formats used by Fairfax and Fluvanna. He said he originally planned to develop a two-year budget but staff recommended a three-year budget due to the financial demands that would be coming in the future. Again, Dr. Young said the budget he was showing was for planning purposes only, not set in stone, and not adopted. He also cautioned the public to not use it as a gauge for what future tax increases would look like since the County's revenue was also due to increase. In other words, Dr. Young did his best to make it clear that this was simply a draft budget.
For FY2020, Dr. Young said some of the key factors in the roughly two percent increase included the beginning of digital archives, new County employees, and IT upgrades. Most interesting to me was the plan to digitize the County's documents. While the initial process would take a few years to complete, Young said the general idea was to make over 300 years of material available to the public. He said his fear was that a single natural disaster could erase the history of the County as well as impact present-day operations. By having a digital archive stored outside of the County, the records would be preserved and easily accessible to the staff and general public.
I remained quiet as Smoot Library was once again discussed. As in previous sessions, I stayed quiet on the sensitive topic. While I didn't agree with the stance of the Board, I feel like I did, finally, get a better understanding of where they stand on things. Because the Library is not a County department, the Board feels they are not as obligated to fund them in ever-increasing amounts. And not that the Board doesn't want to fund the Schools, they too are in a similar boat as they get funding from multiple sources. In the end, the Board appeared to be intent on level-funding the Library going forward. While I wholeheartedly disagree with that stance, I at least have a better understanding of where the Board is coming from.
For FY2021, Dr. Young said the three percent budget increase was largely due to the increased cost of firefighters. He said the grant that currently covers their pay will expire and the County will be required to pick up the tab going forward. He also cited other reasons such as potential retirements of County employees, increased staffing at the Sheriff's Office, and other needs.
Also discussed was the desire to have the County School system partner with the County itself on sharing resources. There was also a desire to start the next budget cycle earlier and suggestions were given on other ways to save County money.
With the budget presentations over, Dr. Young and Annie Cupka, Grant Writer, then presented the Economic Development Strategic Plan. The presentation was essentially a final draft of what will become the Strategic Plan going forward. It's the end result of the SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) Analysis done by Ryan Gandy, Director of Economic Development, over the past few months. By engaging various individuals and groups across the County, the idea was to gather information and develop a plan to improve economic development.
The presentation included a lot of the same information from previous meetings but in a more refined and polished format. There was discussion about various points in the presentation but a few stood out in my mind as important. As a fan of history, and as an employee of the Dahlgren Heritage Museum, I took note of the section about historical assets. My previous theory on where the Board stood with the library was emphasized again when the Board didn't want language that said the County would provide a location for a historical museum. Instead, it was changed to language more along the lines of fostering growth of a museum and providing an amenable environment for one. In other words, the Board was not willing to completely fund a museum or to just give them a location to operate out of, but rather they were more inclined to help the museums become self-sufficient.
Another interesting point for me was the idea behind a lack of entertainment in the County. Having been recently fascinated with the concept of the "Third Place," I've begun to wonder what was missing in King George. For me, it really is that third place behind home and work that you go to for socializing, community building, food, drinks, and everything else. Hopefully this plan will help address that community need for a place to gather.
One final topic that was interesting for me was the discussion of leveraging Mixed Use Development (MUD) to help meet the need of affordable housing. The Planning Commission was holding a Public Hearing at the same time elsewhere and unbeknownst to the Board, had voted against adding the new MUD amendment to the zoning ordinances. But during the Board's discussion of MUD in the County, there was concern over too much development and how it could trigger a scenario where an MS4 Permit would be required. The MS4, or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, Permit is how the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) monitors and controls storm water runoff. The consensus among the Board was that in order to avoid the MS4 Permit, solid planning would need to be in place for any MUD development, private or public.
Ryan Gandy, having arrived partway through the previous presentation, delivered the next presentation on the Broadband Planning Grant Decision Points. He had previously been at the Planning Commission meeting to present the MUD amendment.
Gandy's Broadband presentation got off to a bumpy start as some of the Board seemed surprised that the end result of the grant application would be a Request For Proposal (RFP). After clarifying that point and that it would not create a monopoly or exclusive contract for a broadband provider in the County, and that any decision would be dependent upon the County's budget, the Board was ready to press on. They did so quickly with only a few clarifying questions related to various specific points. In the end, the Board agreed that a hybrid approach was best in that it gave the most flexibility. By sharing some assets and investing some capital, as the budget allows, the County would provide a reasonable and positive environment for companies to provide broadband to the citizens and businesses within its borders.
In closing, it should be noted that John Jenkins was absent from the meeting as was every other member of the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee. In fact, aside from myself, the four Board of Supervisor members, Dr. Young, and County staff, there were only two members of the public present. Compared to the 20 to 30 citizens that attended the Planning Commission meeting in the Board Room, I'm left to wonder if there was some confusion among the public about who was meeting where or if the Mixed Use Development topic was more important than I thought. Regardless of the reasons for my fellow Committee members being absent, I was, am, and will be happy that the public was involved at such a level in creating the County's budget. It may not be perfection, but it is progress.
While I had assumed the previous meeting of the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee was the last one, I apparently proved the adage correct about what making assumptions does to "u and me." So when I went to the June 12, 2018 Board of Supervisors budget work session meeting, I was not prepared to join the Board at the grown-up table and was rather content to sit in the audience.
Instead, as the Board settled in, somebody asked where the rest of the citizens were. Within seconds, I was directed to step up and participate in the discussions on a two-year budget.
It quickly became apparent that it was a three-year budget and that it was not set in stone. In fact, if I could reach through whatever screen you're reading this on and make this so painfully clear, I would. The budget Dr. Neiman Young, County Administrator, presented was a draft, expenditure-based budget that could almost be called a wish-list. While that phrase, "wish-list," was used a few times, I'm hesitant to use that label as it feels a little unprofessional. And based on the numbers discussed and the department leaders that presented them, I didn't think it was quite the right phrase to use.
Dr. Young was quick to dive into the FY2020 and FY2021 projections by saying they were based largely on the formats used by Fairfax and Fluvanna. He said he originally planned to develop a two-year budget but staff recommended a three-year budget due to the financial demands that would be coming in the future. Again, Dr. Young said the budget he was showing was for planning purposes only, not set in stone, and not adopted. He also cautioned the public to not use it as a gauge for what future tax increases would look like since the County's revenue was also due to increase. In other words, Dr. Young did his best to make it clear that this was simply a draft budget.
For FY2020, Dr. Young said some of the key factors in the roughly two percent increase included the beginning of digital archives, new County employees, and IT upgrades. Most interesting to me was the plan to digitize the County's documents. While the initial process would take a few years to complete, Young said the general idea was to make over 300 years of material available to the public. He said his fear was that a single natural disaster could erase the history of the County as well as impact present-day operations. By having a digital archive stored outside of the County, the records would be preserved and easily accessible to the staff and general public.
I remained quiet as Smoot Library was once again discussed. As in previous sessions, I stayed quiet on the sensitive topic. While I didn't agree with the stance of the Board, I feel like I did, finally, get a better understanding of where they stand on things. Because the Library is not a County department, the Board feels they are not as obligated to fund them in ever-increasing amounts. And not that the Board doesn't want to fund the Schools, they too are in a similar boat as they get funding from multiple sources. In the end, the Board appeared to be intent on level-funding the Library going forward. While I wholeheartedly disagree with that stance, I at least have a better understanding of where the Board is coming from.
For FY2021, Dr. Young said the three percent budget increase was largely due to the increased cost of firefighters. He said the grant that currently covers their pay will expire and the County will be required to pick up the tab going forward. He also cited other reasons such as potential retirements of County employees, increased staffing at the Sheriff's Office, and other needs.
Also discussed was the desire to have the County School system partner with the County itself on sharing resources. There was also a desire to start the next budget cycle earlier and suggestions were given on other ways to save County money.
With the budget presentations over, Dr. Young and Annie Cupka, Grant Writer, then presented the Economic Development Strategic Plan. The presentation was essentially a final draft of what will become the Strategic Plan going forward. It's the end result of the SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunity, Threat) Analysis done by Ryan Gandy, Director of Economic Development, over the past few months. By engaging various individuals and groups across the County, the idea was to gather information and develop a plan to improve economic development.
The presentation included a lot of the same information from previous meetings but in a more refined and polished format. There was discussion about various points in the presentation but a few stood out in my mind as important. As a fan of history, and as an employee of the Dahlgren Heritage Museum, I took note of the section about historical assets. My previous theory on where the Board stood with the library was emphasized again when the Board didn't want language that said the County would provide a location for a historical museum. Instead, it was changed to language more along the lines of fostering growth of a museum and providing an amenable environment for one. In other words, the Board was not willing to completely fund a museum or to just give them a location to operate out of, but rather they were more inclined to help the museums become self-sufficient.
Another interesting point for me was the idea behind a lack of entertainment in the County. Having been recently fascinated with the concept of the "Third Place," I've begun to wonder what was missing in King George. For me, it really is that third place behind home and work that you go to for socializing, community building, food, drinks, and everything else. Hopefully this plan will help address that community need for a place to gather.
One final topic that was interesting for me was the discussion of leveraging Mixed Use Development (MUD) to help meet the need of affordable housing. The Planning Commission was holding a Public Hearing at the same time elsewhere and unbeknownst to the Board, had voted against adding the new MUD amendment to the zoning ordinances. But during the Board's discussion of MUD in the County, there was concern over too much development and how it could trigger a scenario where an MS4 Permit would be required. The MS4, or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, Permit is how the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) monitors and controls storm water runoff. The consensus among the Board was that in order to avoid the MS4 Permit, solid planning would need to be in place for any MUD development, private or public.
Ryan Gandy, having arrived partway through the previous presentation, delivered the next presentation on the Broadband Planning Grant Decision Points. He had previously been at the Planning Commission meeting to present the MUD amendment.
Gandy's Broadband presentation got off to a bumpy start as some of the Board seemed surprised that the end result of the grant application would be a Request For Proposal (RFP). After clarifying that point and that it would not create a monopoly or exclusive contract for a broadband provider in the County, and that any decision would be dependent upon the County's budget, the Board was ready to press on. They did so quickly with only a few clarifying questions related to various specific points. In the end, the Board agreed that a hybrid approach was best in that it gave the most flexibility. By sharing some assets and investing some capital, as the budget allows, the County would provide a reasonable and positive environment for companies to provide broadband to the citizens and businesses within its borders.
In closing, it should be noted that John Jenkins was absent from the meeting as was every other member of the Citizen Budget Advisory Committee. In fact, aside from myself, the four Board of Supervisor members, Dr. Young, and County staff, there were only two members of the public present. Compared to the 20 to 30 citizens that attended the Planning Commission meeting in the Board Room, I'm left to wonder if there was some confusion among the public about who was meeting where or if the Mixed Use Development topic was more important than I thought. Regardless of the reasons for my fellow Committee members being absent, I was, am, and will be happy that the public was involved at such a level in creating the County's budget. It may not be perfection, but it is progress.
No comments:
Post a Comment