City Council candidates forum touches on taxes, budget

Partisanship, taxes, budget priorities and volunteerism were among the top issues raised Friday during the first candidates forum of the Lynchburg City Council race.

Only half of the field of candidates — James Coleman, Randy Nelson, Brent Robertson and J.P. Vaughan — participated in the event organized by the Lynchburg Voters League.

The Republican slate, Hunsdon Cary, Don Good and Ted Hannon, indicated they had a conflicting engagement but would be happy to speak with the league in the future. They did send a representative, Lynchburg Republican City Committee chairman Mark Peake, to field questions on their behalf.

Joan Foster was also absent, citing a family engagement, but sent Councilman Ceasor Johnson as her representative. Johnson read a letter on her behalf, but did not answer questions, noting instead that Foster was available by phone if the group wished to speak with her.

Once the forum began, the issue of partisanship came up almost immediately and remained a common theme throughout the nearly two-hour event.

In his opening statement, Vaughan said he felt partisanship made no sense in local government. Peake, in his own opening comments, asked why candidates should continue with the “deception” of running as independents rather than acknowledging their true political affiliations.

“These three folks (Coleman, Nelson, Vaughan) and Joan are Democrats. We all know that and there’s nothing wrong with that, but come out and say it,” Peake said, adding that the new political group Lynchburg First, which has identified nonpartisan City Council leadership as its top priority, was also led by Democrats.

Both Vaughan and Nelson, at different points, said they were true political independents and took issue with Peake’s assertions to the contrary. Coleman did not directly respond to Peake’s statements, but did say several times he was seeking to represent and unite the whole city.

During the question-and-answer portion of the forum, Heritage High School student Christina Phelps asked if the candidates would be willing to consider raising taxes this year in order to save the school system from funding cuts. No one on the panel said yes, although all acknowledged the importance of education.

Nelson said this was not the right economic environment for a tax increase. Vaughan agreed, adding he was encouraged, though, by the city manager’s recently released budget proposal, which calls for level local funding for the schools.

Coleman said the city had to look for “creative ways” to get people involved and meet the city’s essential needs without raising taxes. Peake said the Republicans would not support a tax increase, but felt more money could be made available for core services such as education if the city stopped wasting resources on “private hotels” and “roundabouts.”

Robertson said he felt the public schools ought to be the city’s No. 1 priority, but also advocated for finding more money for education within existing city funds. “I encourage everybody not to overthink it,” he said. “It’s as simple as how you run your household … You tighten your belt and you prioritize.”

Later on in the forum, Vaughan and Nelson both said the current council was being unfairly blamed for the fallout from the Bluffwalk Center, noting that it was the 2002 City Council, which included several Republicans, that voted to essentially co-sign a loan for that downtown development.

When Bluffwalk later defaulted repeatedly on its loan payments, the city had no choice but to meet its obligation under the contract and make the payments, Vaughan and Nelson said.

Several forum questions dealt with issues related to services for youth, seniors and people with low incomes. Many of the candidates repeatedly advocated for more volunteerism and stronger partnerships between government, neighborhoods, churches and community groups.

Robertson placed particular emphasis on the need for more community action and less reliance on the government.

The forum, held at Court Street Baptist Church, was open to the public and attended by about 75 people. The Lynchburg Voters League caucused immediately afterward to discuss which candidates it will be endorsing. The outcome of that meeting could not be included in this article due to deadline constraints.