SBA does not Fund Charles Pointe School

Back to the drawing boards. Will the property still be donated for Board of Education?

http://www.wvs.state.wv.us/wvsba/

They Forgot to tell you … B’Port Home Rule Application

The City of Bridgeport forgot to tell the public this:

The West Virginia Home Rule Board has scheduled a meeting with Bridgeport’s City Council. It will be held Tuesday, April 15 at 9:00am at City Hall in Council Chambers. The City will present their application. The Home Rule Board will have the opportunity to ask questions of the City regarding its presentation and application. The meeting is open to the public and the public will have a chance to speak to the Home Rule Board regarding Bridgeport’s application.

Response to Bridgeport News Editorial

This was sent in as a comment.  I cut and pasted it here for deserved visibility. In a related matter, the Exponent-Telegram claims an informal survey of perhaps 50 people at Nutter Fort Elementary School and a couple of other schools indicate that parents do not want a new middle school at Hite Field.  When will they do the public an equal favor and survey parents about the proposed school at Charles Pointe?

Here is the response to the editorial   …lfr

By Lisa Furbee Ford

I am going to take advantage of the last throes of http://www.harrisoncounty.wordpress.com to write a letter to Jeff Toquinto that I am well aware that his editors may deep six (even though I will try). Here goes:

“Dear Jeff,

Re: your March 27, 2008 Editorial in the Bridgeport News: “Dissent is Fine, but Please Have an Option”.

You extol the benevolence of Charles Pointe’s “donation” of land for the ballfields and the schools, but not once have I seen a deed, an option agreement, or any legal document that supports your claim that these lands are “donated”. I am concerned about a reversionary interest, like the one for the “Bridgeport Convention Center”. Ring a bell?

The largesse of Charles Pointe is legendary. However, how many other landowners may have been willing to “donate” a portion of their land to enhance their development potential, given the opportunity? Was such an “opportunity” ever bid out? Was this budget line-item of 1.2 million ever the subject of public input? Can’t we do this for a half a million? We’ll never know.

No developer in their right mind would have passed up this “opportunity” to build it and they will come. How convenient that Bridgeport’s Mayor has a huge investment in the development that is going to benefit from Bridgeport’s tax dollars.

Your words: “What makes the whole thing unbelievably attractive…it’s free.” Free? Are you kidding me? Do you pay Bridgeport taxes? This is NOT free. Do you really believe that the majority of Bridgeporters who pay their taxes and expect a level playing field (pardon the analogy) buy into this? Not the Bridgeporters that I grew up with and know.

These ballfields are a tad more than “…just a few minutes off the beaten path”. No one lives out there. There are no kids for a school out there. The fact that Genesis partners set aside lands to be used as public lands from the beginning is indicative of nothing but a savvy development philosophy. Those leading the City of Bridgeport have gone through sad and contrived machinations to make sure this one certain development is prosperous. How many other developers have this chance?

And the infrastructure! Guess who paid for that? Jeff, this is not “free”. It is thirty (30) years of public indebtedness.

So there was the dissent. Here are the options: 1.) let the public know what’s going on. Cut these Bridgeport secret executive sessions out of the way you do business. It is likely illegal, and definitely immoral; 2.) advertise these “opportunities” out for bid. Maybe someone else can provide a better deal. If Charles Pointe happens to be the best game in town, then it’s fair and square; 3.) Have the Mayor refrain from voting on, and participating in executive session in matters in which he has a financial interest; 4.) Inform the public before you embark on boondoggles that rape the public treasury; 5.) Talk to property owners on Lodgeville Road or in the immediate vicinity who might just want to cut you a better deal for your “free” ballfields and schools. Bottom line: How can you ascertain “options”, when you have closed that avenue down?

Bridgeport’s boon to Charles Pointe has already cost Bridgeport taxpayers millions. There is no such thing as a free lunch.”

Again, the mantra: I am not against Charles Pointe. I am pro-Development. I don’t blame Charles Pointe. I blame those individuals who are manipulating my beautiful hometown of Bridgeport. “

Resident files writ to compel Bridgeport to withdraw its application for Home Rule

“My client, Diana Marra, has authorized me to announce that today I filed on her behalf with the Circuit Court of Harrison County, West Virginia a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to compel the City of Bridgeport to withdraw its application to the WV Municipal Home Rule Board to be part of the WV Municipal Home Rule Pilot Program. The Petition contends, among other things, that the City failed to provide the public with an opportunity to review the written plan in accordance with state law.”   William E Ford, Esq.

The writ alleges that the City of Bridgeport failed to comply with the application process of the WV Municipal Home Rule Pilot program in that the City failed to provide the public with a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to review the application and the attached proposals, documents, plans and feasibility documents as required by law and the application process.

A legal notice was published in the newspaper claiming that the application was available for public inspection.  It was not, according to the writ. What was later provided appeared to be no more than a draft with no available supporting documentation.

 At a City Council meeting on December 10, 2007, the petitioner brought this matter to the attention of the City Council. The Council chose not to act upon or investigate the information provided about the failure to comply with the public notice part of the application.  A first reading of an ordinance permitting the application was passed with a tie breaking vote by the Mayor. The writ cites the Bridgeport City Charter’s prohibition against a member voting upon an action in which he may have a financial interest. The writ alleges that a conflict of interest existed with the Mayor’s business interest and that his vote in breaking the tie should render the ordinance null and void. 

The deadline for the completed application was January 1, 2008.  The Petitioner states that the full application was not available until December 27, 2007.  Therefore neither the application process nor the law was followed in allowing the required public notice for comment.

 The application was designed to empower the City of Bridgeport to expend funds for the construction of facilities and for the purchase of properties to be used jointly by the City and the Board of Education. The application requested the power to establish a flat licensing fee structure for businesses. Enable Bridgeport to issue its own Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) without going through the county government. The last piece of the application requested more power in the area of annexation of land into the city.

Bridgeport

I happen to like Bridgeport. I like their parks, their walking trails, and the standardized test results from their schools. All in all it is a pretty good place to grow up and raise a family. Some people are concerned that this will or could change. We all wonder from time to time if our closest level of government is out of touch with our aspirations.

Some bloggers have requested this category. Here it is. Perhaps if this thread grows substantially in the comment section we’ll start a new section for the month of March and begin afresh.

City of Bridgeport needs your help in giving them a brand

Bridgeport has hired Maple Creative to Brand the City. Being consultants they are looking for residents to do the job for them. They are running a contest that will end February 29. It asks residents to come up with a Branding Slogan that fits the personality of the city. New Orleans is called the Big Easy; Paris the City of Lights; New York the Big Apple or the City that never sleeps.

Can you help out and think of a good slogan for Bridgeport? Just to warm you up, how about:

“We don’t listen to our Voters and you can’t make us!” or,

” Like it or not, you will be moving to Charles Pointe!” or,

” Get used to it, we’ll always be better than you.” or,

well, you fill in the blanks ….

Here is there real web address for those of you exhausted by the word puzzles in the newspaper.

http://www.brandbridgeport.com/

County EMS Director offers Bridgeport Fire Service Fee Relief

Letter from Richard B. Rock, Harrison County EMS Executive Director, to Mayor Jim Christie of Bridgeport, Mr Rock writes,

“It seems unnecessary for the City of Bridgeport to impose a fee upon its residents to offset the anticipated future expense of operating an emergency services operation when the Harrison County Emergency Squad is currently equipped, ready and willing to provide those services to the City of Bridgeport at no cost. As I have thought about it, there does not appear to be any need to create a duplication of services when doing so simply creates an additional tax burden upon the citizens of Bridgeport. By utilizing our resources currently available, the fire service fee (if the need for one still remains) can be used to support the current and future need for the development and growth of Bridgeport’s fire department personnel and equipment.”

Bridgeport City Council meets Monday evening.

Bridgeport and Home Rule

An erstwhile reader of this blog, as well as the Bridgeport News, suggests this medium as a forum to raise, discuss, and collect the ideas coming out of the last City Council meeting on the subject of the Home Rule Application proposal.

The questions before us are:

Do you think the Mayor and City Council should be able to handle the administration of the Charles Pointe and White Oaks TIFs? How about letting the city set up new TIFs with no over sight from the county commission?

What do you think the city will do with expanded annexation rights? Positive or negative effects.

Do you think the voters of Bridgeport would want the city to go into debt to build a new school at Charles Pointe?

How about building a new gym onto the high school? Fixing up Johnson & Simpson with city money? What if you had to pay a city income tax to pay for it? Do you think the city should be able to invest city funds in county property?

If you could vote on the issue of Bridgeport getting home rule, would your vote be yes or no and why?

You may add your comments by clicking below.

Bridgeport Fire Fee Proposals Raise Questions

The Mayor and Council appoint a committee of 15 to study and make recommendations to equitably charge the businesses and residents a fire fee Imagine the surprise of the Committee members when they show up at the council meeting to find that major modifications were made to their recommendations before hand and they were not alerted to the changes.

It should also raise questions as to where and how those changes were made since they seemed to have avoided the sun light of a public meeting. Some committee members are very disgruntled that their hard work was for naught and council did whatever they wanted to do without coordinating with their appointed committee. Was this group of 15 merely being placated for having issues with the original fire fee proposals and led to believe they could be players by spending time on a committee only to have their worked dismissed later on? Some may feel that way. Another reason to attend the next council meeting on Monday December 17.

Look forward to some comments to this post.

Bridgeport City Council hears objections on Home Rule application process

 

Last Monday’s Bridgeport Council meeting engaged some residents in the discussion of the city’s Home Rule application and the failure of the City to allow public participation in the process

An alert citizen rose to object to the application process that the City had been pursuing in their Home Rule application. She had read the enabling legislation that created the possibility of Home Rule for cities and pointed out that the city was in violation of the process and therefore in violation of the law.

She listed the defects as being:

Not compliant with the requirement to have a plan available for public comment 30 days before the Council hearing

The application requires a list of local problems that the City has and an explanation in the applicant of how Home Rule would solve the problems. This part of the application was described by some as short, vague, and non-explanatory.

The City must produce a plan available for public inspection and comment. The available plan continuously pointed the reader to exhibits and attachments for further information. The exhibits and attachments, however, were not available for public inspection and therefore the “plan” did not meet the requirements of the application for Home Rule.

Specifically these requirement of the law (Chapter 8, Article 1 Section 5a) was not met

Have a written plan stating in detail the following:

(A) The specific laws, policies, rules or regulations which prevent the municipality from carrying out its duties in the most cost efficient, effective and timely manner;

(B) The problems created by the laws, policies, rules or regulations; and

(C) The proposed solutions to the problems, including all proposed changes to ordinances, acts, resolutions, rules and regulations

The vigilant citizen argued that the City must follow the law and is now required to begin the application process again, this time following the law and allowing for involvement by the residents of Bridgeport.

The next Bridgeport Council meeting is Monday, December 17 at 7:00 PM. You owe Democracy a Christmas present. Plan on attending.

Be sure to click on the comments below for more of the story.