Town Council did not vote on raising the meals tax last night.
They’ll revisit in January.
I have only bits and pieces of observations to report.
Observation 1: If they’d have voted, the meals tax increase would have lost.
Virginia law is reasonably clear about what it takes for a Town to impose a tax. Virginia Code § 15.2-1427(g): “ In towns, no tax shall be imposed except by a two-thirds vote of the council members.”
Which means, with the seven-member Town Council, in the Town of Vienna, it takes five “aye” votes from Town Council members to impose a tax.
As noted in the picture above, there were only six Town Council members present last night. And based on their remarks, it’s a fair guess that at least two of them would not have voted for the meals tax increase at this time.
Leaving just four potential “yes” votes. Insufficient for imposing a tax.
If it had come to a vote last night, it would almost surely have failed.
In any case, there was no vote.
Observation 2: An anecdote about the Town trying to renege on its promise to sunset the meals tax increase, the last time.
As it turns out, this five-votes-are-needed for tax increases mattered quite a bit the last time the Town increased the meals tax.
You may recall that the Town temporarily increased the meals tax by one cent, to pay for the land that is now the Town Green. As with the current proposal, that included a sunset clause. I recall it being on-order-of seven years.
But when it actually came time to sunset that meals tax increase the last time, the then-Mayor and Town Council balked. They attempted to renege on that sunset promise. And in fact, the motion to go back on their word, and make the increase permanent, got four yes votes, and three no votes.
Which meant that the Town Attorney had to inform the then-Mayor that the motion had failed. Because, as it was a motion to impose a tax, it needed five yes votes to pass.
Back to the present, while this may seem like legal trivia, the law is written this way for a reason. And given that it’s the same Town, and I think the same Town Attorney, I sure don’t see any wiggle room here. If they want to impose an additional cent of tax, it should require five “yes” votes. Not four.
Observation 3: If you don’t want people to think this pool thing is wired …
… then start by removing the disinformation from the Town website.
Above is the finance portion of Town’s public-facing write-up of the proposed pool/gym, accessible at:
https://www.viennava.gov/engagement-central/annex-reimagined
I leave to the reader to count the number of times that the Town mentions the $1000/year family membership fee, or the ongoing operating losses to be covered by property or other taxes.
Zero. Neither of those is mentioned.
And that’s in case you didn’t get the same incorrect message from the Town’s mass mailing postcard. Which also made it seem as if one cent on the meals tax for ten years would pay for everything.
The description of the financing, above, is both misleading and materially incorrect. It gives the impression that the pool will be free, when in fact, it will cost as much to use as the Fairfax Rec Centers, and will come with an ongoing property tax burden to boot.
Town staff know this. Town Council knows it. The Mayor knows it.
And yet, the Town’s official description of the proposal goes out of its way to give the impression that the entire source of funding is a penny on the meals tax. And yet, never quite crosses that line into saying something potentially actionable.
It merely omits any mention of unpleasant things such as user fees and property taxes.
With this kind of stuff — disinformation? propaganda? — with a description that makes it seem like this pool is free, why would any sane person think that the Town is interested in an even-handed discussion and decision?
Anyway, the Mayor seemed peeved that on-line chit-chat assumes this is a done deal.
All I have to say in response is, look at the what’s posted on the Town of Vienna website, and come to any other conclusion. If you don’t want it to look like it’s wired, then start by not putting propaganda in our mailboxes or on the website.
I realize the Mayor has no direct control over the running of the website. But, in theory at least, you’re all part of the Town of Vienna government.
Town Staff may have tipped their hand as to strategy moving forward.
Source: TOV Granicus page, .pdf The consulting firm who worked up the numbers for what it’ll cost Vienna to run this building (Ballard King) was, in fact, the chosen partner of the architectural firm that wants to sell Vienna the building in the first place (Kimmel Bogrette, KB above). We, as the buyer, are literally looking at the seller’s estimate for what it’ll cost us to run our building, once we buy it.
The Town Manager went way out of his way to disparage the estimates that Town Staff had just provided, for operating losses for the proposed facility. He described them as some sort of extreme worst-case scenario. It was, as far as I could tell, a completely gratuitous comment. Didn’t need to be made. It just came out of nowhere. And, it contradicts what the staff writeup actually said, listing 35% to 50% cost recovery as the norm, making a mere 50% loss the best you could hope for, not the worst.
This in some sense matches the verbiage of the Town Staff’s materials (see prior post), but in that reading I attributed their use of “conservative”, to describe their loss estimate, as being due to the “extra revenue sources” not included (in CAPS in slide above). But all extra-ordinary revenues aside, unless I misread that 35%-50% line, 50% cost recovery is about as good as it gets, in this industry, for a facility like the proposed one.
The other shoe to drop in this area is that they’re going to invite the consultants to present their operating cost numbers, in January. Again, inviting somebody to show you the seller’s estimate of what it’ll cost to run the building they’re trying to sell you.
I don’t really understand why a buyer would ask the seller for any estimate of this sort. It’s the seller’s number. We’re the buyers.
But, on top of that, once the seller has given you a set of numbers that were so rosy as to be useless, you’d think you’d be done with it. You’d say, OK, we were told about what we should have expected the seller to tell us.
Instead … we’re asking them back? Giving them another bite at the apple?
Edit 12/11/2024:
Why?
It’s not clear to me.
On the one hand, they may have Ballard*King present a full-throated defense of their 15% operating loss projection.
I’m going to hazard that this would be inadvisable, if for no other reason than that projected 85% cost recovery (15% operating loss) is well outside the range listed by Town Staff as some sort of industry norm of 35% to 50% cost recovery. Red arrow in graphic just above. (Part of materials posted for the 12/9/2024 Town Council meeting. See Post #2067).
Then my thought becomes, good heavens. Town Staff cannot be asking Town Council to see important new material regarding likely operating losses, and then vote the tax up or down in the same session. Are they?
That also seems inadvisable, for the hurry. Although, it does convey the “decisions just wander around until they stop” vibe that Vienna puts out. So why not, I guess, have a presentation of new information from the seller’s side, and then have Town Council vote on the tax, immediately, all in one session.
Funny anecdote. I had a boss like that once. He worked with a big committee of industry hotshots. They, in turn, needed to settle on proposed changes to Medicare’s payment policies. My boss’s job, was, in part, to shepherd them to a decision. There was a lot of discussion around the table. Likening “the decision” to a ball, if the ball stopped rolling at some point my boss didn’t particularly like, he’d kick that ball back into play with some sort of pointed question. And when the ball stopped where he wanted it, he remained silent.
I could see this as a face-saving, peace-keeping maneuver, prior to a vote. If the consultants were willing to repeat what they said already, in their written materials, which is that they assumed Vienna would be the only “REC-Center-like” facility in the market area. And work from there. Toward market conditions as stated by 2014 Town Council member Polychrones. I think the consultants might reasonably suggest that our actual, observed operating losses might be more than they projected. How much more, they can wing it if they want to, but I’d say that would require additional work to answer. It’s out-of-scope.
Done with grace, that would serve to provide “white coat” cover to those who wish to ignore the operating cost issue. You’d be free to interpret that as the experts saying they had it spot-on, and they might consider tweaking their estimate in response to local market conditions. But no more than that. So it’s pocket change.
That would also provide an out for those who have focused on Kelleher quantified, and other “benchmarks”, or just feel it isn’t worth it, to burden the restaurant industry in the first place, let alone the operating cost burden. Those folks can say, fine, the Vienna facility would have one-third the size, but two-thirds the operating cost, of a typical Fairfax County REC Center. We’re going to pay for that, forever. That, so that some people won’t have to drive as far to use a gym/pool. That suggests poor value, e.g., if there’s money to spare, I’d rather lower the water bills first.
Then have Town Council bat it back and forth one last time, and vote. As previously noted, I’m pretty sure this takes five yes votes to pass, as it is the imposition of a tax.
As an afterthought, I hope we have all gotten our minds around a study that we paid for, using the (presumed respected) firm hand-picked by the seller. As the buyer in this transaction, it’s that last phrase that should trigger your sense of caveat emptor. If it does not, you are presumably part of their target audience. But as someone who made a living consulting, I can tell you, that definitely triggers mine. I doubt that the architectural firm for this proposed facility has a habit of shooting itself in the foot.
Still turning a blind eye to 2014.
I still haven’t heard either Kelleher or Polychrones mentioned in any Town Council discussion.
Both of those ex-Town Council members are still around, though neither lives in Vienna any more.
In any case, I think at least a couple of Town Council members get it. That Kelleher was right about economies-of-scale, that Polychrones was right about the stiff competition for this type of facility, from the three local Fairfax County REC Centers.
But officially, as far as the current deliberations go, the rationales for the operating costs concerns that contributed to the 2014 “no” vote — those have simply gone down the memory hole.
Conclusion
So here’s my prediction.
The consultant’s original rosy scenario for operating costs was too rosy. It was obviously wrong, when benchmarked against data for this area. In hindsight, that was a strategic mistake.
So, Town Staff is going to have the same consultants come back and present … just guessing here … a somewhat less rosy scenario. Edit: Or maybe a YMMV from the consultants, as a way to reconcile all this.
Which Town Council members who wish to do so may then accept as being adequate for use in sweeping the operating loss issue — the ongoing taxpayer subsidy — under the rug. Edit: And, in fairness, if done well, will also provide support to those who, for a variety of reasons, expect to see less demand and higher operating losses than the original operating loss projections suggested.
There is also a work session prior to that. I don’t even want to think about that, as my best guess is, that’ll be where Town staff will soften up Town Council members who resist accepting the seller’s new numbers.
And if five Town Council members vote “yes”, at the end of January, then it’s a go on the meals tax, and for the Vienna pool/gym.
