Fredericksburg Mayoral Candidate Questions City Study

Fredericksburg mayoral candidate Matt Paxson questioned city staff's request to spend $35,000 on a study of future retail market potential.

The city spends hundreds of thousands a year on studies and consultants to help the City Council make decisions on matters ranging from public utility infrastructure to economic development.

Paxson, a local pastor who is running for city mayor against councilman Fred Howe and councilwoman Mary Katherine Greenlaw, has made it a pillar of his campaign to slow the city's spending on studies and consultants. During Tuesday night's City Council meeting, Paxson said the study was an unecessary expenditure of tax money.

The staff report states that the city generated a high of $12.8 million in sales tax in fiscal year 2006, but over the past three fiscal years that amount has dropped to $10 million because of retail competition in Stafford and Spotsylvania counties. The study would give the city a fresh look at the future retail market potential and opportunities. The Economic Development Authority would fund $10,000 of the study.

"Commercial brokers, developers, investors and management companies regularly conduct these kind of studies, most often in-house, and this $35,000 expenditure would not represent a prudent subsidy from city taxpayers," Paxson said. "Has anyone asked Silver Companies if they want the city to complete a retail development and attraction strategy for Celebrate VA? Do the Rappaport Companies need this for Central Park? Is it even appropriate? These big developers can afford to do this themselves."

By the end of the meeting, Paxson's two opponents ended up supporting a motion to table the request after they each questioned if this study would be worth the money. Neither Howe nor Greenlaw specifically mentioned Paxson's remarks though.

Howe said the money might be better spent to help the Main Street program.

"They will be coming to us for funding," he said, for as much as $225,000.

Greenlaw said she wasn't crazy about the study either, although she believed it would have encompassed a much wider area than the Main Street program is reviewing right now. She said the EDA staff is lean, but this might not be the best time to commission this study.

"I don’t work in retail commercial real estate as much as I do in office, but it is true that companies that actively do this for a living have their targets and they are going to go after them. We are not going to change that or effect that much," she said.

Council voted 6-1 to table the request, with Councilman George Solley voting "no."

The following is Paxson's complete speech:

Good evening. My name is Matt Paxson. I live at 1003 Black Oak Ct. with my wife, Julianne.   

I’d like to begin tonight by thanking City Council for the zoning amendments you are considering tonight.  While the process of informing property owners began somewhat awkwardly, promoting cultural expansion and making investment in Fredericksburg easier lays important groundwork for subsequent follow through.

Having said that, I must take issue with tonight’s consideration of yet another study; specifically, the $35,000 dollar RETAIL ATTRACTION AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY.

The associated memorandum says a fresh look is needed at future retail market potential and opportunities, and that a new strategy will enhance city efforts to strengthen and diversify this sector over the next five to ten years.

A $35,000 study is not needed to accomplish this, especially when it is highly unlikely it will still be relevant in five to ten years.

The memorandum suggests this study would be a “value tool” for retailers, commercial brokers, developers, investors and management companies. Small retailers could benefit from this, but commercial brokers, developers, investors and management companies? They are most likely already on top of this.

Commercial brokers, developers, investors and management companies regularly conduct these kind of studies, most often in-house, and this $35,000 expenditure would not represent a prudent subsidy from city taxpayers.

Has anyone asked Silver Companies if they want the city to complete a retail development and attraction strategy for Celebrate VA? Do the Rappaport Companies need this for Central Park? Is it even appropriate? These big developers can afford to do this themselves.

I’m guessing the Silver and Rappaport Companies have already identified their target audiences, categories and retailers; and I’m willing to bet they’d be open to sharing some of this information with you, for free.

Why don’t we focus these kinds of efforts to benefit smaller businesses that don’t have the time or money to invest in this research, like the retail businesses downtown?

I respectfully suggest the proposed scope of work can be completed without paying another consultant. Why do we need to pay anyone to identify refinements needed in the Tourism Zones incentive program? Can’t we cross reference what the city offers now with what state law currently allows, and then make our own educated conclusions and revisions?

How many strategic marketing plans does the city need to commission anyway? Didn’t we just pay another consultant a year or two ago to develop another strategic marketing plan for the Department of Economic Development and Tourism?

Perhaps we should focus more on following through on recommendations from previous studies, or investing this money directly into the kind of advertising that will attract customers to our city’s retail businesses.

If more study really is needed, why don’t we roll up our sleeves and take the initiative ourselves? Fredericksburg is surrounded by localities that have seen increases in retail sales. Can’t we reach out to them for some free advice and public information?

There is a lot of retail development and market information out there for the taking, for free. It only takes time and effort.

As just one example: Ohio State University and the Universities of Minnesota and Wisconsin all partnered together with the National Trust’s Main Street program to publish a market analysis toolbox designed specifically for small cities to use to conduct downtown and business district market analyses on their own. 

This self-help, how-to guide, which was updated less than 9 months ago, is tailored to traditional downtown and neighborhood business districts that have experienced the same kind of economic “leakage” Fredericksburg has experienced in recent years.

It also points out that a downtown market analysis should differ from a retail and shopping center market analysis; and that it is something that should be an ongoing community effort.

With the ability to access city-owned data and availability of GIS software, this free information can be used without the expense of another consultant. I was able to download the whole thing online, for free.

The Economic Development Authority has done some great work on behalf of the city, and even though they are offering to contribute $10,000 toward this study, it’s money that can be better invested elsewhere. Think about how much advertising could be purchased for $35,000 promoting our local retail businesses, for example.

Do you know the average Fredericksburg family makes roughly what you are proposing to spend on this study? In these economic times, is this a prudent expense, especially when the return on investment is merely academic?

Let’s reserve study and consultant spending for work that can’t possibly be done in-house, and focus more on taking action and implementing recommendations from previous studies. I respectfully urge you to vote against this study tonight. Thank you.