<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Mr. Holmes –<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The point you bring up is well worth exploring. I remember a similar question was asked when I ran for office almost two years ago. I believe the Gazette and others phrased it to ask something on the lines of “given the number of foreclosures and declining property values what services would I propose cutting in town?” When one watches the news and looks at macroeconomic data such as property tax assessments, unemployment rates, foreclosure rates etc., there is a natural tendency to make conclusions that are not necessarily factually based.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>The premise of the question concerning declining property assessments potentiating future increases in property tax rates assumes in economics what is called ‘ceteris paribus’ (a Latin phrase which roughly translates to mean ‘all things held equal or constant’). That is, if the towns services in 2009 cost X and this was roughly offset by revenues that were equal in the same year and cost Y, then the same logical extension could be applied in following years. So in 2013, town services still cost X but the revenues collected are only .55*Y (i.e. a 45% reduction). To have a balanced budget services would either have to be reduced 45% as well or else the taxes (revenue) that people pay would have to be increased to balance the cost of services (or some mix of the two policy choices). <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>So in this case, contemplating future expenditures such as a Community Wing (although the town has an existing state grant for a portion of it and on Monday will be requesting additional monies), real estate acquisition etc. would all seem to be incredibly foolhardy. Fortunately for the town of Riverdale Park economies are not constant throughout time and ‘ceteris paribus’ does not apply. To understand our town you have to look at the economy from a micro, not macro, level. For example, take the adopted revenues over the last three years:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-2009/2010: $3,097,415<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-2010/2011: $3,426,207<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-2012/2013: $3,666,560 <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In the Riverdale Park example the revenues actually increased ~18.4% over the last three years.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Last year, Riverdale Park experienced the largest year-to-year increases in sales prices on real estate (something in the neighborhood of 27%) in the state of Maryland. The foreclosure rate in Riverdale Park proper (over 50% of the residents in 20737 are in unincorporated Prince George’s County) is significantly lower than national, state, county, and other local levels. The other more significant part of this is that the town in residential real estate, office, and commercial retail establishments is growing, not contracting, and certainly not staying at identical levels. <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>To understand why Riverdale Park is expanding and not contracting you have to look at the town itself and its experience and characteristics, not just apply national or state-level economic factors:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-expanding tax base residentially in all time horizons (Madison Street townhomes from the EYA project, small subdivision off Lafayette, and of course the Cafritz development)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-expanding office base (Cafritz, M-Square on River Road including the newly opened up NOAA building)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>-expanding commercial base (Town Center Market, Douglas Development holdings at town center, Route 1 Corridor, Kenilworth, and of course Cafritz)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>In terms of lawsuits, I will only say that we live in a country where anyone with a few dollars can file a complaint and ask for any amount of money. That does not mean municipal leadership should ignore the risks, but a town cannot be held hostage by the real or imagined grievances filed in the legal system. Please keep in mind that the town actually faced two lawsuits on speed cameras, the Town received judgment on one of them less than two months ago. These cases are filed all the time but the case law has been consistently upheld to date.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I firmly believe that town leadership has an obligation to the citizens to ensure good governance, but part of that governance is taking in all the nuances and making informed and rational choices to potentiate a firm financial foundation for the town today, next year, and in the future. I hope this answers the questions you had.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Respectfully,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Jonathan<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Jonathan W. Ebbeler<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>4711 Oliver Street<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Councilman – Ward 1<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Chairman – Economic Development Committee<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>