May 2, 2007
Discussed at Council’s May 1 meeting
Below are a few points that came up:
a) Re: VHDA financing and High Street Lofts– This discussion has been tabled to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, so that VHDA specialists and representatives of Miller & Associates (the developers) can be present to participate in discussion.
b) Re: taxes– i) The proposed budget as initially drafted includes a proposed increase in tax assessments, but a (partially)Ôø?offsettingÔø?decrease in the tax rate. ii) In response to a question as to tax relief for the elderly in view of rising tax assessments, the City Manager indicated that the income threshold for relief will rise (or that he proposed that it be increased — I don’t remember which was the case).
c) Re: the school budget (feel free to correct any inadvertant goofs in the details) — i) Several people asked Council to approve the school’s increased budget request, but with the expectation that the school system report on the use of funds. ii) On the subject of teacher salaries, the City Manager noted that it is well understood that teacher salaries are low relative to those in surrounding jurisdictions, but pointed out to those present that the same is true across the board (fire, police, dispatchers, social services, etc.) as a result of all that the revenue side of the budget supports. iii) The City Manager explained that at the time the proposed City budget was being drafted, representatives of the school system had indicated that the school’s proposed budget would be the same in 2008 as in 2007 (the proposed tax rate reduction was proposed under this assumption). The City Manager received the school system’s budget proposal, which requests an increase, only several days before having to complete the budget proposal. The implication is that the proposed budget will be a starting point for Council discussion, as [my interpretation here] any increase in funding allocated to the school system would likely have to be funded by decreasing other expenditures and/or forgoing a decrease in the tax rate.
Today’s P-I on last night’s Council meeting.
Note that the article reports that the school budget was received by the City Manager 10 days after the City Manager’s proposed budget was finalized. The point remains that the school’s proposed budget increase request came too late to be incorporated into the City’s proposed budget, and hence that the proposed budget serves as a starting point.
vhda financing for high street lofts is just what high street needs, since there is not enough section 8 housing. imho, there is too much white gentrification on high street and this section 8 housing will help to restore some diversity to the neighborhood. this project will fit well with the group home that is rumored to be locating in the high street inn. property values in the area should decline so homeowners will be happy, since they can look forward to lower property taxes going forward.
It was suggested that the financing under consideration would require that 20% of the units (5 units) be set aside for people who earn 150% or less than the median level of income ($68K, ?). If this is the case, that would mean that 5 units would have to be set aside for folks that earn less than roughly $102K.
Chris — are you joking?†
Section 8 would bring “diversity”?† So you are saying that minorities are poor (since “diversity” is the latest code word for “minority”, and section 8 implies low income)?
Not enough Section 8?† I differ. We should be working to make sure there are LESS Section 8 residents by making sure the rising tide lifts all boats.
Gentrification???† What†exactly is that?† If people let their neighborhood turn to weeds and then abandon it and other people move in and fix things up this is a BAD thing?
That ìGentryî living on High street are working tax payers that bring MONEY to Petersburg. No one has a job unless someone hires him. Think of the trickle down from someone fixing up a house in Petersburg. Even if the contractor is from out of the city, buys his supplies from out of the city, has a crew that lives out of the city, and they†all buy their lunches†outside the city, that house is STILL being fixed up, that home owner will STILL be paying property taxes (and MORE on the increased assessment) and the home owner will probably be spending money in town. Thatís more than can be said of a vacant wrecked shell of a house.
Spare me.
Yep, as everybody knows, there’s nothing better for a city than property values (and revenues to the city) spiraling downward year by year and more section 8 housing. Its also a great magnet for tourism and the arts.
I bet the residents of High Street can’t wait to return to the “good old days.”
and the teachers and emergency personnel whose salaries depend on tax revenues would no doubt be tickled too.
I refer interested readers to a related thread on Church Hill People’s News.
From the related minutes:
Woo-hoo — I got the before/after detail in the original post correct. (I’m still getting my reporting-sort-of-sometimes legs under me, so yes, I’m tickled to learn I got the details straight.)