To learn more about Economic multipliers and how they should be viewed with much skepticism, click on the following:
Friday, October 9, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Is Bridgeforth Field finally getting the proposed $4.2million dollar makeover?
Baseball enthusiasts should easily remember the architectural drawing that was made public during the Winchester Royals games back in late summer of 2008. Bridgeforth Field Field serves as a home field for Shenandoah University, Handley High School, Winchester Royals and Winchester Baseball.
Unfortunately the picture(s) taken today, October 6th is not (IMHO) part of the $4.2million dollar renovation project. This repair work can be easily viewed as a band-aid fix to a much deteriorated press-box at Bridgeforth field in Jim Barnett Park. The $4.2 million renovation project includes a NEW press-box, new concession stand, new restrooms, new team rooms, new dugouts along with an A-Turf infield.
WPRD associates (Kevin Sine and John Haines) along with a hired outside contractor are removing the old siding on the press-box and will be installing new vinyl siding and new windows. Also, involved in this project will be Mr. Robertson's tech-ed class from Handley High School. The students from Handley will be doing work within the press-box that should include a new press row counter-top and maybe some pre-owned cabinets and new wall paneling.
It should not be a surprise to the local fans that the remodeling work on the press-box at Bridgeforth field will be a reason to justify [if approved] WPRD and City Council spending less than $500k on the renovations needed at Rotary Field that will enable Winchester Baseball to host the 2011 10-yr Cal-Ripken World Series.
Nobody is against Winchester Baseball hosting such an event BUT many local residents are against taxpayers money being spent for this event since Bridgeforth Field (constructed 1978) has many known problems, including an infield that is about as safe as playing Russian roulette with the baseballs hit at the infielders.
Also, this financial economic impact described in the article below on the local community of $1.2 - $2 million is very misleading [its not actual dollars being spent] but is determined on a economic multiplier formula.
Unfortunately the picture(s) taken today, October 6th is not (IMHO) part of the $4.2million dollar renovation project. This repair work can be easily viewed as a band-aid fix to a much deteriorated press-box at Bridgeforth field in Jim Barnett Park. The $4.2 million renovation project includes a NEW press-box, new concession stand, new restrooms, new team rooms, new dugouts along with an A-Turf infield.
WPRD associates (Kevin Sine and John Haines) along with a hired outside contractor are removing the old siding on the press-box and will be installing new vinyl siding and new windows. Also, involved in this project will be Mr. Robertson's tech-ed class from Handley High School. The students from Handley will be doing work within the press-box that should include a new press row counter-top and maybe some pre-owned cabinets and new wall paneling.
It should not be a surprise to the local fans that the remodeling work on the press-box at Bridgeforth field will be a reason to justify [if approved] WPRD and City Council spending less than $500k on the renovations needed at Rotary Field that will enable Winchester Baseball to host the 2011 10-yr Cal-Ripken World Series.
Nobody is against Winchester Baseball hosting such an event BUT many local residents are against taxpayers money being spent for this event since Bridgeforth Field (constructed 1978) has many known problems, including an infield that is about as safe as playing Russian roulette with the baseballs hit at the infielders.
Also, this financial economic impact described in the article below on the local community of $1.2 - $2 million is very misleading [its not actual dollars being spent] but is determined on a economic multiplier formula.
To learn more about Economic multipliers and how they should be viewed with much skepticism, click on the following:
- Economic Multipliers and Mega-Event Analysis
- Rejecting “Conventional” Wisdom: Estimating the Economic Impact by College of the Holy Cross, Department of Economics Faculty Research Series
An in-depth research indicates a more realistic dollar range of $337k-$472k [actual dollars] that potentially could be spent in the City of Winchester for hosting such an event. If anyone who would like to see that spreadsheet used to arrive at these figures, please send request to The1nOnlyPIBB(at)gmail(dot)com
To close, since the Bridgeforth Renovation committee meetings are few and very far between, makes many wonder, will the $4.2 million dollar makeover at Bridgeforth Field ever come to fruition?
Winchester has chance to host Babe Ruth W.S.
By Ben Brooks
The Winchester Star
February 19, 2009
WINCHESTER — Winchester Baseball President Bob Brown knows that area youth players can compete on the national level. As a coach, he’s seen it before. Now, he hopes the rest of the Winchester community will get a first-hand look as well.
They could get that opportunity if nearly $500,000 worth of improvements can be made to Jim Barnett Park’s Rotary Field in time for the 2011 Cal Ripken/Babe Ruth 10-year-old World Series.
“It would be a real plus for Winchester Baseball and the community to host this and for our children to be able to play on a national stage,” Brown said Wednesday. “And they would be able to compete. We’ve played in two World Series over the years and numerous regional tournaments.”
Brown, along with other members of Winchester Baseball, petitioned the national Babe Ruth Baseball organization several years ago about bringing the showcase event to this area. Winchester has hosted several state and regional tournaments in previous years. Last fall Brown and several Winchester Baseball representatives were invited to a training session in Van Buren, Ark., to learn more about how to prepare for such an event.
“They said it’s ours if we can make the commitment and get some things done,” Brown said.
The bulk of the money used for improvements to Rotary Field would go toward building a larger press box. Upgrades would also be needed in lighting, dugouts, and seating.
Winchester Parks and Recreation Director Brad Veach, who Tuesday night presented City Council with the idea of Winchester hosting the 2011 tournament and the price tag for necessary field improvements, said the next step is to gauge how much support there is for such a project within the community.
The councilors said they would be more inclined to support hosting the tournament if the expenses were shared regionally and through sponsorships with local businesses.
“Now’s the hard part,” Veach said. “During these tough economic times there’s not a whole lot of money to give away. I’m going to do what they asked and try to get that community support.
“Winchester Baseball is a major fundraiser. They’ve made great improvements on the fields over the years. I wouldn’t put anything past them. If they’re passionate about something they’ll do whatever they can.”
Both Brown and Veach stressed that a tournament like a Babe Ruth World Series would likely bring in more money to the local economy than it would cost.
Citing an economic analysis that Babe Ruth Baseball does for host cities, Veach said that areas normally generate between $1.2 and $2 million over the 10-day tournament. That money comes from hotels (an estimate of 700 rooms needed) meals at local restaurants, gas and other expenditures.
Monday, October 5, 2009
“Healthcare Soundoff’s” perspective on Valley Health's $56million in "community benefits" for 2007
For the record, I am NOT disputing Valley Health's quality of care, but I am trying to get a better understanding on these huge profit figures that are NOT shared with the local community and the massive “community benefit” figures that they throw out in the public eye.
Bottom-line, it's becoming more known that the nurses are under compensated along with the blue-collar workers, for example: housekeeping associates.
As we all need to get a better understanding on this term "community benefit", an outside organization in Northern VA identified as HealthCare Soundoff was called upon for some help. Attached below is their perspective on Valley Health's $56 million "community benefit" figure.
As it was explained to me in regards to "charity care" ... If you make a widget and you sell it for $100 but it only costs you $2 to build it, then you are only allowed to write-off $2 when you donate those widgets. That will help to explain "cost" vs. "charges" below.
Based out of Northern, VA
1. They claim to have actually rendered $18.9 million in charity care. Care they gave away. The trick here is what does the $18.9 represent? My guess is that they use "charges" as the basis for calculating this figure. No hospital receives charges for their services anymore. All hospitals regularly give substantial discounts off of charges to insured patients. So this is an inflated figure.
2. They claim a loss on Medicaid of $10.8 million. This represents what they collected from Medicaid for services and what they did not receive if they had again received "charges." This is also funny money. They got paid for these services according to a Medicaid agreement they have signed but have accounted for it in a way that allows them to claim a loss for "charitable purposes."
3. They wrote off $17.5 million in bad debts as noncollectable. This is off a "charges" figure as well. This is self explanatory. Couldn’t collect.
This totals $47.2 million. The remaining $8.8 million they claim must be part of the expenses of all the services they list on that web page.
So if you were trying to figure out what the actual figure should be it would require you to assign a factor to "charges." This represents a figure that the typical Blue Cross patient would pay. I would say 85% of charges would be a good conservative starting point. So the real figure would be closer to $40.1 million if they were using realistic numbers. So overall it looks like Valley gave away $48.9million.
Now here is the kicker … Bad debt and Medicaid write offs are the bulk of this calculation. Many have argued that using Medicaid write offs to bolster your charity care number is intellectually and actually off base. Why? The hospital actually collects something for all of these services, not their charges or even what they want but they do collect.
To get the most accurate information on how they are reporting I would suggest you got to the IRS website and pull down the Valley Health Form 990 which is a public record. Looking at the IRS 990s will be the best source. It is what they file with the IRS and vouches for their charitable purpose. When they are counting bad debt, Medicaid bad debt, and free services in the figure they use on their web page, I am sure they are using figures that are based on "charges" and those figures have no relationship to net patient revenue.
There are very few hospitals that do not use "charges" to peg their write-offs and equate that with charity care. Look at the 990s. There are a couple of websites that store them. Go to google and search IRS 990 or nonprofit 990 and you might find the 2007 990 for Valley Health. It will include all sorts of interesting information.
They will probably file their 2008 sometime in February or March. The 2007 should be there. Also contact wherethemoneygoes.org. They may be interested in your story and position.
Unexpected resignations of the former City Mgr and Director of Administration
Was anyone else taken back with the unexpected resignations over the summer from the former City Mgr who was on the job less than 18 months in mid-June and then early July, the Director of Administration resigns. I did not see these resignations coming.
The Winchester Star's own editorials on this issue on the City Manager back on July 11th and 13th.
Looking back
Buettner: the last two years were a ‘perfect storm’
— almost
A“perfect storm” — as the eponymous book and 2000 movie starring George Clooney so aptly described — can, and did, occur when two or more weather systems meld meteorologically and combine their energy to create an apocalyptic event.
Acting City Manager Jeff Buettner understandably hesitates to characterize the circumstances and events in and around City Hall over the past two years in such terms. But the analogy, sans the apocalyptic gravity, works, in no small way, as an explanation of the situation in which Winchester now finds itself — seeking once again the services of a city manager.
As Mr. Buettner, by implication as well as statement, told us during a lengthy interview Thursday, City Council was the central energy force in this drama. When longtime City Manager Ed Daley left Winchester for Hopewell in June 2007, council rushed to fill the void created by his departure and, at the same time, embarked on a mission to find someone with a different leadership style than Mr. Daley.
This proved an uneven fusion of roles and goals, largely because Mr. Daley had long been the conduit of ideas to the city’s staff. When council assumed that role, it found itself dealing with a staff with which it had previous little interaction, and then perhaps exacerbated the situation by over-compensating. It started to micro-manage, and thus lost sight of the city’s “big picture.”
At the same time, in searching for a new city manager, council members, Mr. Buettner said, “dwelled on things Ed didn’t do well instead of what he did do well,” such as overseeing the budget and having a detailed knowledge of each and every city project. They looked for someone with a more “hands-off” approach, one who would let the various city departments develop and implement their own ideas.
But, as council sought this alternative to Mr. Daley, its members continued to get more involved in the day-to-day workings of the city. “We were all trying to find our roles,” Mr. Buettner said, “and we got into micro-managing too much.”
Thus, when council finally hired the different sort of city manager it thought it wanted — J. Brannon Godfrey Jr., who came on board 61/2 months after Mr. Daley’s departure — the ground was not cleared for his coming. Or, as Mr. Buettner said, “Brannon was so different from Ed, but it was hard for staff to change . . . and it was hard for us (on council) to pull back.”
The result: Man and moment did not align. The city was not, in truth, ready for an alternative style of leadership.
“The timing was all wrong,” Mr. Buettner said. “Brannon did not do anything wrong. It was just the wrong leadership style at that time.”
Finally, 10 months into Mr. Godfrey’s tenure, the complexion of council radically changed. Six members, representing 55 years of experience, left office as council reduced its ranks from 11 to nine. As the new year began, six of the nine councilors were first-termers; only three veterans remained. The learning curve was steep.
“They were told they had to hit the ground running,” Mr. Buettner said. “It was not like when I started (on council). I had a good group of councilors” — he cited the likes of Harry Smith and John Schroth — “who, when I said something stupid, told me to slow down. We didn’t have this luxury . . . It was a learning process, and, at times, a rocky one.”
This situation, coupled with a new city manager seeking his sea legs, prompted Mr. Buettner to consider the “perfect storm” analogy.
“It was not a ‘perfect storm,’” he said. “I don’t want to use that term, but that’s what we faced.”
Now the question is: With Mr. Godfrey having resigned, what does the future portend? Mr. Buettner knows what he would like to see once he returns to his more familiar post as council president — namely for council to “pull back” and a sense of “equilibrium” to return For that to happen, he says, the city must find a “strong person” to fill the shoes of city manager.
On Monday: What Winchester wants in a new city manager.
Looking forward
. . . To the next city manager
Edwin C. Daley presided over Winchester’s governmental affairs for so long — 21 years, to be exact — that when the time came to replace him as city manager in the summer of 2007 no one on City Council, save Mayor Elizabeth Minor, had any working knowledge, experience, or memory of such a hiring process.
But now, in the wake of J. Brannon Godfrey Jr.’s abbreviated tenure as Mr. Daley’s successor — less than 18 months — a majority of the membership, leavened by that experience, boast a decidedly firmer grip on what council wants, and doesn’t want, in a city manager.
Significant as well, so states council President (and Acting City Manager) Jeff Buettner, is how a council compelled by circumstance — at least in its view — to “micro-manage” the city in the fluid and volatile days since Mr. Daley’s departure now sees itself vis-a-vis the city manager’s office.
“We want to find a strong person who will stand up for the position of city manager and let us pull back,” Mr. Buettner informed us during an extended interview Thursday at his tire distributorship.
“As we see it, we (council) will create the vision, and the city manager will create the implementation strategies to get it done.”
And then, as if to further hammer home the point, Mr. Buettner added, “We don’t want a paradigm shift here, that we feel we should be running the city. We had to do so for a time . . . But we want to pull back. We have to, to let the city manager establish his own leadership style.”
So then, what, precisely, is council looking for in a new city manager? Mr. Buettner cited five key qualities that would, if found in one package, constitute the “perfect candidate.” To wit:
* A “strong leader,” he said, is “paramount.”
* Critical as well is an ability to “develop vision within the departments . . . and then delegate to bring it to fruition.”
* The new city manager must also be “fiscally responsible” and “keep the budget under control.”
* Council, added Mr. Buettner, wants the city’s top administrator to be a civic leader “visible” in the community.
* Finally, he or she should exhibit a familiarity with the concepts of the “new urbanism” council favors. These concepts include “walkable communities,” “town centers,” and the strategic redevelopment of existing space. While increased density is a goal of the “new urbanism” approach, so, too, is a heightened median income within the city and an improved quality of life.
The “national search” for such a candidate commenced Friday. The city, Mr. Buettner said, will accept applications through Aug. 9. By Aug. 24, council hopes to have the mass of applicants whittled down to a core group of top candidates — less than 10 but “preferably four or five.”
The time frame for personal interviews is the second week of September, with an offer to be made by Sept. 22. Council’s aim is to have a city manager “on board” by Oct. 22.
Mr. Buettner realizes that questions pertinent to Mr. Godfrey’s resignation after less than 18 months on the job will certainly arise during this process. But, upon conversing with the folks at Springsted Consulting Services, the Minneapolis-based firm assisting in the search, Mr. Buettner does not envision Winchester’s recent unsteadiness — or Mr. Godfrey’s short tenure — being a “deal-breaker.” For one thing, Springsted’s consultants have stated that administrators following longtime predecessors tend to stay for significantly shorter periods.
“We’ll just have to explain what happened,” Mr. Buettner said. “Anyone who has spent any length of time in government will understand that sometimes the fit isn’t there. So, the question is: Do we dwell on those 18 months or on our tradition of longevity in Winchester?”
That would mean emphasizing Mr. Daley’s 21 years of service, not to mention the 19 years turned in by his predecessor, Wendell Seldon. That sort of longevity is what the city is seeking, in addition to those five aforementioned qualities.
“That is the perfect candidate,” Mr. Buettner said. “It may be a little like Dr. Pangloss (the optimist in Voltaire’s “Candide”) looking for the perfect world. But, that is the plan.”
What about the former Director of Administration who was forced to resign?
Friday, July 10th The Winchester Star:
City administrator is forced to resign
Council won’t discuss Gromling’s ouster
By Eric Beidel
The Winchester Star
A 30-year city employee has resigned under pressure following a disagreement with members of the City Council.
A city press release issued Thursday announced Administration Director Sharen Gromling’s retirement.
The announcement came a week after Gromling was escorted from Rouss City Hall by a City Council member and had her computer confiscated, according to eight sources familiar with the incident.
Council members will not discuss the matter, calling it a personnel issue.
Gromling also did not respond to The Star’s efforts to reach her for comment Thursday.
The city press release issued by Assistant City Manager Anne Lewis states that Gromling’s retirement will take effect Aug. 1.
However, she has not been at work for several days, sources said.
Council President Jeffrey B. Buettner said her resignation, which he received Wednesday night, is effective immediately, but that her state retirement benefits will not begin until Aug. 1.
Gromling came under scrutiny from council members for her recent handling of an internal investigation into an alleged improper relationship between two other city employees, according to three sources with direct knowledge of the issue.
In reference to the former Director of Administration's resignation from one of my impeccable sources ...
Not sure who their "eight sources" were but I can think of at least a few people in city government I'll never believe again.
The identity of this individual is not important but their quote is. This person has close ties to the local gov't body on a regular basis.
Here's something to ponder, WHY should these issues remain private?
Are not these folks who work in Public Administration employed by the taxpayers? These closed door "executive sessions", is that really "open government"? There is the perception within the community that the majority of the decisions are made behind these closed door "executive sessions".
Makes many wonder, Is that perception reality?
Has the City of Winchester embraced Shenandoah University into our local community?
There is no doubt that the City of Winchester has embraced Shenandoah University into our community.
I want to make it clear that I am a supporter of SU, but I am concerned as well as a plethora of local citizens with SU's growth at the local taxpayer’s expense. SU has purchased up some very, very prime-time real-estate from the City at basically “wholesale value” vs. “true market value”.
Did you know that OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE expressed interested in purchasing the Old Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squad Building? It was shared with me that a local realtor approached the Park-n-Rec board that OUTBACK wanted to offer $2million for the property.
Could you imagine how much tax base that would have added to our City Budget?
Also, it was shared with me that Rite Aid expressed interest to purchase that land for $1million and was going to proffer up to $3million for a new Rescue Squad building up on Rt. 522 beside COSTCO.
Wonder why the OUTBACK or RITE AID interest were never pursued of why that property was not offered out on the open market?
Another somewhat controversial issue on the old Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squad building and which is the NEW home of the SU business school. There were (2) leases on that property. A prominent family in Winchester gave WPRD a 50-year lease on that property because it contained so much rock in the ground as it was not much use to them. During the late 70’s-early80’s the WPRD leased that property to the WVRS for 99yrs according to a former Park-n-Rec board member during that time-frame
This is how this deal was broken down in February of 2004, as a council member shared with me, there was a quit-claim deed in which SU paid the City $325k and $872k went to Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squad. It was shared with me from a former SU employee that an SU official stated there was some small called loop-hole and they hope nobody called them out on it.
SU got the deal of the century when they purchased Rouss Park (7.2446 acres) for $1.5million @ 0% interest on a 3yr note. $600k was paid at closing and $900k was due by July 1, 1996. (Three separate payments of $300k were made by 7/1/96)
A statement from WincStar back on November 30, 1994:
Review the real estate deals that took place between 1993 and 1996 to support what easily be called the deal of the century. Pay attention to the variance in the price per acre average and please note, 3 of the 4 real-estate transactions were less than an actual acre and as I recall, these 4 properties were vacant land with no buildings residing on them when they were purchased by Shenandoah University.
$8.09 per sq. ft or $327,956 per acre avg – 710 Millwood Ave, 5/14/93 (0.93 acres) SU paid $305k
(Old Exxon Station lot which is now a SU parking lot beside Bob Evans)
$5.80 per sq. ft or $252,772 per acre avg – 1680 Apple Blossom Drive, 7/29/93 (0.3877 acres)
SU paid $98k (piece of land behind TV3 bldg beside Jubal Early Drive)
$4.75 per sq. ft or $207,050 per acre avg – 620 Millwood Ave, 8/17/95 Rouss Park (7.2446 acres)
SU paid $1.5million (The home of Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater)
$9.71 per sq. ft or $423,370 per acre avg – 647 Millwood Ave, 4/1/96 (0.5905 acres)
SU paid $250k
(piece of land beside TV3 bldg, at one time, there was a service station located there)
633 Millwood Ave, 12/2/93 ( 0.9182 acres + old C&P Telco bldg) SU paid $1 buck
(the old C&P Telco building where the NEW home of TV3 was built)
How can anyone dispute that SU did not get the deal of the century when they purchased Rouss Park (7.2446 acres) for $1.5million @ 0% interest on a 3yr note.
To give you a little history on Rouss Park, former Park-n-Rec Director, Jim Barnett raised the necessary funds to build a new baseball field in 1978 at Rouss Park (current home of Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater) and once the dirt started to move, the officials from SU came running and protesting that WPRD could not put a baseball field there that it would mar the beauty of the campus. SU officials pledged a couple of thousand of dollars for water and sewer lines if the field was moved into the Park which is current location of Bridgeforth Field beside the BMX track. Unfortunately, it was clearly stated that SU has never honored that pledged and has never given anything for the construction project of Bridgeforth field in 1978.
Most of the site work for Bridgeforth Field came through the efforts of Jim Barnett who got most of the work done through volunteerism and donations. A $50k donation from a prominent family in Winchester went for the installation of the lights at Bridgeforth field and it was not from SU as some individuals in the area have stated.
According to the VAMAT system, SU has the following real-estate within their portfolio:
Another thing folks forget about, “LIVING TRUSTS”, how many of those are active where SU will be the beneficiary of someone’s trust? We have no idea.
According to a Winchester Star article back on Friday, January 30, 2009:
Snippet from an article in WincStar back on September 15, 2009:
Another clip from WincStar's Editorial October 8, 2009:
A snippet of the article and to continue to support that the City has fully embraced Shenandoah University into our community …
As for the OLD Armory ... another outstanding deal for Shenandoah University. This place has a tax assessment of $1.918 million. Breakdown as follows: $718,600 (Building), $22,000 (other buildings, shed and pavement) and $1,177,200 (land 2.252 acres)
Snippet from WincStar, July 13, 2009:
Actually Shenandoah University was 50/50 owner of this building already with the Commonwealth Of VA-Dept Military Affairs. So SU bought out VA-Dept Military Affairs half for $750,000.
Were you aware that the City of Winchester owned 50% of this building up until June of 2006 at which time the City of Winchester SOLD their 50% stake to Shenandoah University for just one-dollar, $1.00 ... to clarify, it was donated to SU. The $1.00 transaction fee freed the City of Winchester of any future liability.
Just another prime example how the red carpet has been rolled by the City of Winchester for Shenandoah University … As it's been stated previously, give and take, it's a 2-way street but the perception is that it's been 1-way for SU's entire stay in Winchester.
Many local residents express their concern that their taxes have nearly tripled over the last 10-12yrs along with rising water rates as the perception is that the previous council’s did not have a DENIED stamp when tax-exempt requests came through the door.
Now the present City Council members have locked down the doors for tax-exempt waivers request at the present time and thrown the key into the ocean for the time being. WHY, because they know the City of Winchester has lost control of the tax base, not much $$$$$$$$ coming in and folks wonder why their taxes keep increasing. A lot of citizens want to criticize the present council on the denial of non-profit tax-exempt requests BUT they are not aware of the entire story. Those critics need to do some research!
I have had conversations with various folks within Winchester and several have stated, they want the prime-time real-estate back into the City tax-base revenue stream and trade with SU more Park-n-Rec land to grow their campus which is NOT tax-able.
More tax-base lessens the tax burden on you, the citizen!
It makes a lot of sense and in my own opinion; it will come eventually when Shenandoah University takes control of the majority of Jim Barnett Park. Have you every seen a college campus grounds not properly maintained? Just go down the road to Bridgewater, what a beautiful campus that is.
The perception is that WPRD is not properly funded. You always hear they are over budget, cannot spend anymore money before their fiscal year end is up. WPRD struggles in maintaining what they have. If WPRD is going to survive, they need more blue collar workers vs. more folks pushing paper in the office(s).
Former Park-n-Rec director, Jim Barnett, nobody will have a passion for the Park as he did. It was NOT just a job to him, it was his love and he got things done! I heard the stories where he would attend meetings just after coming off a mower or ball diamond basically filthy dirty. Did he care, no because Jim Barnett loved the Park and took much pride in it.
Folks need to just drive/walk the park’s property and pay attention to the detail. Look at the buildings around the ball diamonds. They only way things have gotten done with WPRD over the years have been through Winchester Baseball and other outside contributors. One could easily see SU starting a Park and Rec major somewhere down the road.
Look over the years as a former Park-n-Rec board member from the late 70’s-early 80’s stated,
Has SU tried to negotiate better deals on their behalf? Yes they have! Here’s one for you after I had a conversation with a former Park-n-Rec member who was on board during 1994-1995 time-frame. In regards to the OLD Rouss Park, now the home Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater, the Park-n-Rec board went out and got that property appraised which I assume was in the neighborhood of $1.5million. Obviously, SU officials did not like that based on this quote:
Larry T. Omps, November 30, 1994:
As it was told to me from this board member that SU hired their own outside appraiser and you know what happened? The appraiser that SU hired came back and tried to low-ball the Park-n-Rec’s figure. This person shared that when Park-n-Rec voted for the sale of Rouss Park which basically did not matter because City Council voted in favor of the sale the previous week. Some say that was behind closed doors, in an "executive session". It was told that Larry Omps sat right beside Dr. Davis at the head of the table during the Park-n-Rec board meeting and left many members wondering whose side is Omps on? How ‘bout that.
(Side note, before the summer of 1994, the Park-n-Rec board was separate from City Council, they were NOT an advisory board, they had their own power to make decisions, the Park-n-Rec director reported the Park-n-Rec board chairman, NOT the City Mgr)
SU is going to continue to grow and nobody will be able to stop it, which is a good thing for Winchester BUT where they grow needs to be controlled and their growth should not be allowed to happen with prime-time real-estate venues. If otherwise then SU needs to pay “true market value” not “wholesale value".
As we continue on each day, more of the story is being shared with the local community. How can that be a negative thing? Does our local community have a right to be informed?
Inside Tip: Look for a report to be shared by Shenandoah University in the near future on their economic impact on the local community. … I sure hope this report is not conducted by anyone associated with that appraiser that Shenandoah University obtained the services of back in 1995.
To close, for anyone who states Shenandoah University is not being embraced by the local community, then they have no idea what they are talking about.
I want to make it clear that I am a supporter of SU, but I am concerned as well as a plethora of local citizens with SU's growth at the local taxpayer’s expense. SU has purchased up some very, very prime-time real-estate from the City at basically “wholesale value” vs. “true market value”.
Did you know that OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE expressed interested in purchasing the Old Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squad Building? It was shared with me that a local realtor approached the Park-n-Rec board that OUTBACK wanted to offer $2million for the property.
Could you imagine how much tax base that would have added to our City Budget?
Also, it was shared with me that Rite Aid expressed interest to purchase that land for $1million and was going to proffer up to $3million for a new Rescue Squad building up on Rt. 522 beside COSTCO.
Wonder why the OUTBACK or RITE AID interest were never pursued of why that property was not offered out on the open market?
Another somewhat controversial issue on the old Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squad building and which is the NEW home of the SU business school. There were (2) leases on that property. A prominent family in Winchester gave WPRD a 50-year lease on that property because it contained so much rock in the ground as it was not much use to them. During the late 70’s-early80’s the WPRD leased that property to the WVRS for 99yrs according to a former Park-n-Rec board member during that time-frame
This is how this deal was broken down in February of 2004, as a council member shared with me, there was a quit-claim deed in which SU paid the City $325k and $872k went to Winchester Volunteer Rescue Squad. It was shared with me from a former SU employee that an SU official stated there was some small called loop-hole and they hope nobody called them out on it.
SU got the deal of the century when they purchased Rouss Park (7.2446 acres) for $1.5million @ 0% interest on a 3yr note. $600k was paid at closing and $900k was due by July 1, 1996. (Three separate payments of $300k were made by 7/1/96)
A statement from WincStar back on November 30, 1994:
The price of $1.5million was too high for one council member; however Councilman Larry T. Omps, also a Shenandoah University Trustee, said a price of $1million or $1.2million was more reasonable. The $1.5million price tag is “an undue burden on the university”. Omps abstained from voting on the motion.
Review the real estate deals that took place between 1993 and 1996 to support what easily be called the deal of the century. Pay attention to the variance in the price per acre average and please note, 3 of the 4 real-estate transactions were less than an actual acre and as I recall, these 4 properties were vacant land with no buildings residing on them when they were purchased by Shenandoah University.
$8.09 per sq. ft or $327,956 per acre avg – 710 Millwood Ave, 5/14/93 (0.93 acres) SU paid $305k
(Old Exxon Station lot which is now a SU parking lot beside Bob Evans)
$5.80 per sq. ft or $252,772 per acre avg – 1680 Apple Blossom Drive, 7/29/93 (0.3877 acres)
SU paid $98k (piece of land behind TV3 bldg beside Jubal Early Drive)
$4.75 per sq. ft or $207,050 per acre avg – 620 Millwood Ave, 8/17/95 Rouss Park (7.2446 acres)
SU paid $1.5million (The home of Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater)
$9.71 per sq. ft or $423,370 per acre avg – 647 Millwood Ave, 4/1/96 (0.5905 acres)
SU paid $250k
(piece of land beside TV3 bldg, at one time, there was a service station located there)
633 Millwood Ave, 12/2/93 ( 0.9182 acres + old C&P Telco bldg) SU paid $1 buck
(the old C&P Telco building where the NEW home of TV3 was built)
How can anyone dispute that SU did not get the deal of the century when they purchased Rouss Park (7.2446 acres) for $1.5million @ 0% interest on a 3yr note.
To give you a little history on Rouss Park, former Park-n-Rec Director, Jim Barnett raised the necessary funds to build a new baseball field in 1978 at Rouss Park (current home of Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater) and once the dirt started to move, the officials from SU came running and protesting that WPRD could not put a baseball field there that it would mar the beauty of the campus. SU officials pledged a couple of thousand of dollars for water and sewer lines if the field was moved into the Park which is current location of Bridgeforth Field beside the BMX track. Unfortunately, it was clearly stated that SU has never honored that pledged and has never given anything for the construction project of Bridgeforth field in 1978.
Most of the site work for Bridgeforth Field came through the efforts of Jim Barnett who got most of the work done through volunteerism and donations. A $50k donation from a prominent family in Winchester went for the installation of the lights at Bridgeforth field and it was not from SU as some individuals in the area have stated.
According to the VAMAT system, SU has the following real-estate within their portfolio:
City – nearly 66.357 acres/parcels with a tax exempt value of $72.156 million and on file showing they only paid $11.1million. Keep in mind, some property was donated and a transaction value of $1 or $10 had to be recorded to free the seller of any liability.
County – just over 71.9 acres/parcels with a tax exempt value of $5.792 million and paid just a little over $710k.
Another thing folks forget about, “LIVING TRUSTS”, how many of those are active where SU will be the beneficiary of someone’s trust? We have no idea.
According to a Winchester Star article back on Friday, January 30, 2009:
Shenandoah University has $66.8 million in assessed property that is exempt from taxes. That’s about $454,720 in tax revenue each year that the city doesn’t see.
Snippet from an article in WincStar back on September 15, 2009:
New SU President Tracy Fitzsimmons said she wants to make sure the university doesn’t allow debt to become a larger part of the 3,500-student university’s annual budget.
“I will not be sympathetic to further requests to significantly expand on facilities until we have achieved progress on [paying for] those items already being built,” said Fitzsimmons, who became SU’s president July 1 and will be inaugurated in a Sept. 26 ceremony.
Another clip from WincStar's Editorial October 8, 2009:
"Fitzsimmons at SU", Academics, debt her priorities
Mrs. Fitzsimmons will not grow the institution physically. Being anything but a "midsized university," she said, "would be a disservice to the community," But her 5-yr plan, to be initiated immediately, will focus on academic excellence.
A snippet of the article and to continue to support that the City has fully embraced Shenandoah University into our community …
City losing property tax revenue
Quad - State Business Journal
March 1, 2000 Peterson, Maggie Wolff
The acquisition of the ConAgra campus for Grafton School maybe good news for Grafton and the cadre of corporate lawyers who will make the deal, but for the City of Winchester it represents another in a recent trend of conversions of tax-producing business properties to non-profit status.
Just last year [1999], the city lost $75,000 in annual tax revenue, when the former Baymont Inn became dormitory for Shenandoah University.
On the opposite side of town, Valley Health System continues to develop the non-profit Winchester Medical Center with new parking decks, offices and outpatient facilities.
As for the OLD Armory ... another outstanding deal for Shenandoah University. This place has a tax assessment of $1.918 million. Breakdown as follows: $718,600 (Building), $22,000 (other buildings, shed and pavement) and $1,177,200 (land 2.252 acres)
Snippet from WincStar, July 13, 2009:
It’s still unclear how the facility will be used, she said. “What I pledge to you is that we will preserve the honor of those who have served here. What we do with this space and these grounds will reflect their duty and love of country.”
Though Shenandoah University recently bought the old armory for $750,000, school president Tracy Fitzsimmons said the memories of troops like Beasley and Cherry will be preserved.
Fitzsimmons didn’t mention any plans for a renovation, but 69 years after it was built, everyone acknowledges that the place could use some work.
Actually Shenandoah University was 50/50 owner of this building already with the Commonwealth Of VA-Dept Military Affairs. So SU bought out VA-Dept Military Affairs half for $750,000.
Were you aware that the City of Winchester owned 50% of this building up until June of 2006 at which time the City of Winchester SOLD their 50% stake to Shenandoah University for just one-dollar, $1.00 ... to clarify, it was donated to SU. The $1.00 transaction fee freed the City of Winchester of any future liability.
Just another prime example how the red carpet has been rolled by the City of Winchester for Shenandoah University … As it's been stated previously, give and take, it's a 2-way street but the perception is that it's been 1-way for SU's entire stay in Winchester.
Many local residents express their concern that their taxes have nearly tripled over the last 10-12yrs along with rising water rates as the perception is that the previous council’s did not have a DENIED stamp when tax-exempt requests came through the door.
Now the present City Council members have locked down the doors for tax-exempt waivers request at the present time and thrown the key into the ocean for the time being. WHY, because they know the City of Winchester has lost control of the tax base, not much $$$$$$$$ coming in and folks wonder why their taxes keep increasing. A lot of citizens want to criticize the present council on the denial of non-profit tax-exempt requests BUT they are not aware of the entire story. Those critics need to do some research!
I have had conversations with various folks within Winchester and several have stated, they want the prime-time real-estate back into the City tax-base revenue stream and trade with SU more Park-n-Rec land to grow their campus which is NOT tax-able.
More tax-base lessens the tax burden on you, the citizen!
It makes a lot of sense and in my own opinion; it will come eventually when Shenandoah University takes control of the majority of Jim Barnett Park. Have you every seen a college campus grounds not properly maintained? Just go down the road to Bridgewater, what a beautiful campus that is.
The perception is that WPRD is not properly funded. You always hear they are over budget, cannot spend anymore money before their fiscal year end is up. WPRD struggles in maintaining what they have. If WPRD is going to survive, they need more blue collar workers vs. more folks pushing paper in the office(s).
Former Park-n-Rec director, Jim Barnett, nobody will have a passion for the Park as he did. It was NOT just a job to him, it was his love and he got things done! I heard the stories where he would attend meetings just after coming off a mower or ball diamond basically filthy dirty. Did he care, no because Jim Barnett loved the Park and took much pride in it.
Folks need to just drive/walk the park’s property and pay attention to the detail. Look at the buildings around the ball diamonds. They only way things have gotten done with WPRD over the years have been through Winchester Baseball and other outside contributors. One could easily see SU starting a Park and Rec major somewhere down the road.
Look over the years as a former Park-n-Rec board member from the late 70’s-early 80’s stated,
“SU is slowly surrounding and suffocating the park”.
Has SU tried to negotiate better deals on their behalf? Yes they have! Here’s one for you after I had a conversation with a former Park-n-Rec member who was on board during 1994-1995 time-frame. In regards to the OLD Rouss Park, now the home Ohrstrom-Bryant Theater, the Park-n-Rec board went out and got that property appraised which I assume was in the neighborhood of $1.5million. Obviously, SU officials did not like that based on this quote:
Larry T. Omps, November 30, 1994:
The price of $1.5million was too high for one council member; however Councilman Larry T. Omps, also a Shenandoah University Trustee, said a price of $1million or $1.2million was more reasonable. The $1.5million price tag is “an undue burden on the university”. Omps abstained from voting on the motion.
As it was told to me from this board member that SU hired their own outside appraiser and you know what happened? The appraiser that SU hired came back and tried to low-ball the Park-n-Rec’s figure. This person shared that when Park-n-Rec voted for the sale of Rouss Park which basically did not matter because City Council voted in favor of the sale the previous week. Some say that was behind closed doors, in an "executive session". It was told that Larry Omps sat right beside Dr. Davis at the head of the table during the Park-n-Rec board meeting and left many members wondering whose side is Omps on? How ‘bout that.
(Side note, before the summer of 1994, the Park-n-Rec board was separate from City Council, they were NOT an advisory board, they had their own power to make decisions, the Park-n-Rec director reported the Park-n-Rec board chairman, NOT the City Mgr)
SU is going to continue to grow and nobody will be able to stop it, which is a good thing for Winchester BUT where they grow needs to be controlled and their growth should not be allowed to happen with prime-time real-estate venues. If otherwise then SU needs to pay “true market value” not “wholesale value".
As we continue on each day, more of the story is being shared with the local community. How can that be a negative thing? Does our local community have a right to be informed?
Inside Tip: Look for a report to be shared by Shenandoah University in the near future on their economic impact on the local community. … I sure hope this report is not conducted by anyone associated with that appraiser that Shenandoah University obtained the services of back in 1995.
To close, for anyone who states Shenandoah University is not being embraced by the local community, then they have no idea what they are talking about.