The Smithfield Times will be taking a different approach to Smithfield Town Council candidate questionnaires this year. Rather than sending a list of questions and publishing all questions and responses in the same print edition and online, the Times will send the candidates a single question once per week.

There will be 12 questions in total, with two weeks and up to 250 words to respond to each, through Oct. 23. For the seventh week, we asked, “Should the Town Council accept and match Joseph Luter III’s $6 million gift to the town and agree to meet its conditions? Why or why not?“

• Sixth week, Sept. 11: How big of a priority should the town make completing its 1-mile share of the Park-to-Park bicycle and pedestrian trail proposed to extend from Nike Park to Windsor Castle Park?
• Fifth week, Sept. 4: What criteria will you use when deciding whether to approve future residential development?
• Fourth week, Aug. 28: What, if anything, can the Town Council do to be more transparent with citizens?
• Third week, Aug. 21: Should Smithfield move its farmers market to the Grange at 10Main? Why or why not?
• Second week, Aug. 14: What is one challenge or opportunity for the town that has not received enough attention? Why is it important?
• First week, Aug. 7: What will be your top priority if elected?

 

---

Mary Ellen Bebermeyer

No, the Town Council should not accept the $6 million from Mr. Luter if we have to match the funds. Although the donation from Mr. Luter was a very generous one, and we appreciate his previous donations to Smithfield, it is not a gift if we are required to match it.

Furthermore, if any of the $6 million is going to the Grange project, a for-profit residential development, the developer should be paying costs associated with the development, not taxpayers.

I have heard some say that when a donation is received the recipient should have some “skin in the game” and that’s why we should be required to match these funds.  I disagree, our “skin in the game” are the maintenance costs that continue after these projects are completed.

How can we as a Town Council use taxpayer money when we have parents trying to provide for their families who are living paycheck to paycheck? We have moms working extra jobs to put food on the table for their kids, and we have seniors who live on a fixed income, how can we ask them to pay taxes to fund this?  That is not right.

If there are some that would like to accept this money they should solicit donations from other individuals for the matching funds.  Crowd funding would be a voluntary donation to the town instead of using hard-earned taxpayer funds.

Taxpayer money should NOT be used to match this donation.

 

---

Jim Collins

This is an important question and would want nothing more than to provide a clear and complete response.  However, the Town Council has not been given any written details about the requirements to accept this offer.  I do believe there could be potential for opportunities for the entire town as long as acceptance does not include unacceptable terms.  I am always one to do conclusive research and once I can review the facts behind the details without insinuations, a factual position can be developed.  Any definitive position at this time as an active member of Town Council would be irresponsible on my part.

 

 

 

---

Darren Cutler

Joe Luter III and the Luter family have been wonderful to the residents of Smithfield.  From the Smithfield Center to Windsor Castle Park, the Luter Sports Complex, and numerous other generosities, he truly enriched our town.  Thank you.

However, in its current form I cannot endorse this “gift.”  It is not the type of philanthropic donation as previous endeavors, which brought enhancements directly to Smithfield, its businesses, and citizens.  This “gift” has strings attached that in its current form and uncertainty I do not find worthwhile for this Town Council to invest such a large sum of taxpayer dollars.  We are not just talking about $6M, there is also an additional $1.4M of Smithfield taxpayer dollars and $1.4M of county taxpayer dollars committed to the Farmers Market, the disposition of which is unknown and is a heavy string attached to the $6M donation.  If it were truly a “gift” in which Mr. Luter desired the town to have “a little skin in the game,” he would not be asking taxpayers to give so much, in fact more than he is offering, or for them to accept strings tied directly to the benefit of his development and profits.

For these reasons I don’t view this as a benevolent gift as in the past, but a developer money grab for hard-earned taxpayer dollars to shore up cost and infrastructure of The Grange, with no clarity on the long-term cost and no clear return to the town of $8.4 million.

 

---

Raynard Gibbs

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have become a prominent approach for executing major infrastructure projects, blending the strengths of both sectors to improve outcomes. They can enhance efficiency and effectiveness through innovative solutions, advanced technology, and management expertise from the private sector, leading to faster project delivery. PPPs also allow for the financial burden to be spread out, easing immediate fiscal pressures on public budgets and enabling the allocation of resources to other areas. They share risks between sectors, with private partners often taking on construction, maintenance, and operational risks, encouraging higher standards. However, PPPs are not a one-size-fits-all solution for public budget issues and should not be seen as a remedy for financial shortfalls. They involve complex contracts and necessitate robust management and oversight to ensure both parties meet their obligations. Long-term commitments from both sectors are common, requiring meticulous planning and negotiation to sustain benefits over time. In conclusion, while PPPs can effectively deliver high-quality projects, their ultimate success hinges on careful planning, risk management, and aligning interests between public and private entities.

 

---

William Harris

Recently, Mr. Joe Luter III offered Smithfield $6 million with the stipulation that the town agree to match that amount dollar for dollar, and agree to other conditions. Because Mr. Luter’s proposal was presented in very general terms, we know little about the conditions he might place on spending the money or about how he might prioritize projects. Any consideration of such a proposal must be based on a complete understanding of the specifics, and at this point, we understand too little.

We know this offer arrives with strings attached. In order to receive the money, the town must move the Farmer’s Market to the Grange; the town must agree to a beautification project at the corner of Main and Route 10, and along the right-of-way that fronts Luter IV’s development at The Grange; and the town must consider other Luter projects before deciding what town projects to pursue.

Financing the match is also a concern. Would the town use funds from treasury reserves to cover the match or negotiate a loan on behalf of the taxpayer to secure necessary funds? The first option would diminish the town’s ability to address existing needs and make it difficult to deal with any unexpected financial crisis. The second would commit the taxpayers to shouldering a long-term debt. Neither approach would serve the taxpayers well. It seems unwise to weaken our financial safety net or go into debt to finance this particular gift. For these reasons and others, I oppose accepting the gift.

 

---

Michael G. Smith

The proposed gift from Mr. Luter has already been received into the Town’s account. Town Council is unaware of the terms and conditions of the acceptance of the donation. It is impossible for me to accept or reject the funds without understanding the conditions attached to it.

First, we need to understand the conditions and assess the benefit to ALL citizens. We also need to evaluate the taxpayer burden. Would the match impose new taxes or divert funds from other important services? The terms of the donation must be transparent, with clear accountability for how the funds will be used. The community should be informed about where the money will go and what they can expect to receive in return for this tax burden.

It is the developer’s responsibility to fund the cost of infrastructure related to the development. If the matching funds are restricted to the improvement of the Grange at 10Main, I cannot support using taxpayers funds for that.

Ultimately, the decision should involve public input and a thorough cost-benefit analysis to ensure it aligns with the town’s goals and the interest of our residents.