Norfolk Daily News

Tuesday – March 18, 2008

One of Norfolk’s mayoral candidates was critical Monday of his opponent’s stance on shared office space for the city and other groups.

“I am both surprised and disappointed that a mayoral candidate whom I have a great deal of respect for would choose to politicize such an important issue,’’ Tom Schommer said in reference to Sue Fuchtman.

Last week, Fuchtman said she doesn’t think the city offices should be part of a shared facility. She questioned the cost and cited other community needs, including parks and infrastructure, as having higher priority.

Both candidates are part of an ad hoc group that has been exploring the possibility of several entities sharing office space with the city.

Saying he wasn’t speaking Monday on behalf of that group, Schommer said he invited Fuchtman to become involved in the group’s discussions and met with her privately to explain that its purpose was developing choices, not a specific plan.

“I am surprised that she would, without all the facts, take this position during the same time as the very group she is involved with is developing other choices, including a campus concept that would have the city in a separate building other than the shared facility housing the other partners.’’

Several city council members have been cooperative in exploring the issue, he said.

“However, we were hopeful that the city administration would be a much more willing participant in these discussions than it has been up to this point,’’ Schommer said. “I am both surprised and disappointed that another mayoral candidate has taken the same position as the administration has on this issue. I was hoping for something a little different, not more of the same.’’

City staff have looked at some of the numbers presented by the working group and said the cost of a shared building would be higher than the group’s projections. The mayor and city staff also have said a tax increase would be likely.

Schommer disagrees and reiterated his position that no tax increase would be needed.

He said that funding options discussed so far include having a private investment group enter into a separate lease or lease-purchase agreement with the city and with each of the potential partners, thus keeping funding separate between the city and partners; having the city issue municipal bonds, enter into a lease and, in turn, sub-lease with the entities; or having the city and groups go it alone and make an effort to be located near each other.

“None of the funding options currently being discussed will raise taxes,’’ he said.

While improvements are needed in the city’s recreational facilities and infrastructure, he said, the concept of a shared facility or campus is just one of the projects to be prioritized by elected officials.

All reasonable options should remain on the table until a space needs study is done, he said.