As Election Debate Rages, Tough Budget Decisions Await

By STAN FENDLEY
Falls Church Times Staff

For several weeks, the hot debate in Falls Church City has been the proposal by Councilmen Dan Sze and Lawrence Webb to move the City elections from May to November.

But another debate waiting in the wings may be even hotter:  what budget cuts and tax increases will the City Council choose to fill a very large money hole for fiscal year 2011.

City Chief Financial Office John Tuohy has projected a budget shortfall of $7.6 million for FY 2011 – over 10 per cent of the $67 million revenue previously anticipated for FY2011.  Closing that shortfall will be painful and will force the Council to make unpopular decisions.  The City’s capital improvements budget already has been raided to help close an unexpected $5.6 million shortfall last year.  Now the cuts will get closer to the bone, affecting virtually every budget category – schools, city staff, library, parks and recreation, and mundane but important issues like floodwater management.  The budget shortfall also will create a conundrum for employee pension funds, in that to keep the pensions fully funded would require a City contribution of approximately $1 million.  See Tuohy’s memo and a Nov. 16 memo by Gordon Daisley,  Chair of the City Retirement Board for details.  The City staff suggests that the pension fund contributions simply should not be made for FY2011.

The BJ’s wholesale store now under construction on Wilson Boulevard should generate $500,000 a year in City taxes, but that is one of the few bright spots and will offset only a small portion of the reduced revenues facing the City.

Consequently, a tax increase is a given — the only question is how large it will be.  In an October 29 memo, City Manager Wyatt Shields said a tax increase of 13 cents per hundred dollars of property value would be required just to generate the revenue previously anticipated for 2011 and 2012.  That may not be enough; a real estate tax increase of 20 cents or more may be more realistic.

A key issue affecting the City’s budget situation will be the outcome of water litigation with Fairfax County Water Authority.  Insurance will cover litigation costs of FCWA’s suit against the City, but an adverse ruling against the City could mean the loss of crucial revenue now collected from non-City customers.

So far, however, the question of how to balance the FY2011 budget has scarcely been broached in open Council meetings.  It was “teed up” last Monday night in a 30-minute presentation and Q&A session with City Manager Shields following a lengthier debate over the Sze-Webb proposal to delay the election from May to November.  Clearly, much difficult analysis and decision making awaits the Council in order to finalize and adopt a balanced  FY2011 budget by its March deadline.

——–

Before budget decisions assume center stage, however, the Council will continue its action on the Sze-Webb proposal with first reading of the draft ordinance Monday night  (Nov. 23).  The support of four Council members will pass the measure, sending it to second reading on Dec. 14.  Four aye votes then will make it law.

The ordinance now on the agenda has been modified slightly from the previous draft.  One change is the correction of an erroneous statement that moving the election date would save the City $18,000 per year.  In fact, as the corrected draft shows, the $18,000 savings would occur every two years.

Another change is the acknowledgement that state law allows for an alternative method of moving the election date through a voter referendum.  The new draft also recognizes that School Board elections also would be moved to November.

The draft makes an important point regarding timing.  By state law, neither an ordinance nor a referendum to move the election may occur “between January 1 and the May general election date of the year in which City elections regularly are scheduled to be held.”  As a result, if the May 2010 election is to be moved, the vote to move it must occur this year, and a Council-passed measure would be the only way to meet that goal.

Speculation is high as to whether four votes exist for the draft ordinance.

Presumably Sze, one of the initial proponents, will support it.  As of the time of posting this article, we had not received a response from Sze to our email requesting confirmation of his position.  (The email was sent Saturday afternoon.  We will update this story if a response is received.)

Webb, the other original proponent, said Saturday that he has not decided how he will vote on the ordinance.  Earlier, in a Nov. 2 comment to a Falls Church Times story, Webb said that he “would not push a change to the 2010 election.”  It is unclear if his more recent statement indicates a change in this position.

Mayor Robin Gardner confirmed by email that she is inclined to support moving the election from May to November, but is still considering whether moving the election in 2010 or 2012 is the best choice.

Vice Mayor Lippman responded that he prefers not to comment prior to Monday’s meeting.

Councilman Dan Maller has publicly discussed pros and cons of the matter, but has not taken a clear position.  In response to our inquiry, he stated that he was focusing on developing a plan to address the budget crisis, but that he intends to review historic election turnout data prior to Monday’s Council meeting.

Councilmen David Snyder and Nader Baroukh have both stated opposition to changing the election date by ordinance.

Four Council members — Lippman, Maller, Snyder and Sze — are up for reelection in 2010.   The other three — Baroukh, Gardner and Webb — face reelection in 2012.

———-

Responses of Baroukh, Gardner, Snyder and Webb to our inquiry regarding the election date issue.

Question:  The Falls Church Times will do an update regarding the election date ordinance, for posting tomorrow or Monday.  I was wondering if you have determined your position on the draft ordinance.  Do you know yet how you will vote?  Would you like to comment about the issue generally?

Councilman Nader Baroukh:   “Some members of the City Council claim that the purpose of the proposed change in the election date is to increase voter turnout.  An attempt to change the City’s election date in the last few weeks of the year and without a referendum does nothing more than disenfranchise voters and leads to increased cynicism.  The FY 2011 budget shortfall is staggering.  We must concentrate our time and resources on the budget.  The City Council needs to spend its time looking for solutions to our fiscal crisis, not debating an election date change.”  [Also see Baroukh's letter to the editor from last week.]

Mayor Robin Gardner:  “At this point I am inclined to vote in favor of the change to November.  I am talking to quite a few people about this change and the general sense is that voter turnout is the overriding issue in this debate.  I am still considering if moving the elections in 2010 is the best choice or if we should consider moving the election in 2012.  Either way, I believe that we will get the most citizen participation and representation in our City elections if we make it easier for our citizens to get to the polls.  My goal is to have more voters participate.  If that means moving the elections to November, then that is the course I think we should be pursuing.”

Councilman Dan Maller:  Maller stated that he is focusing on developing a plan to address the budget crisis, but that he will review historic election turnout data prior to Monday’s Council meeting.

Councilman David Snyder:   “The City’s Charter is our Constitution–it is the entire community’s Charter, not mine or even the whole City Council’s. There are ways to amend the Charter that assure full community participation. Having the City Council make a fundamental Charter change, such as the election date, denies our citizens their basic civic rights. I cannot and will not agree to that.  In the Charter, the citizens have provided for an independent-based May election. Also coming right on the heels of the City Council’s budget approval, May elections maximize accountability. Alternatives would move City Council elections to political party dominated election dates, which are also remote from the tough votes on the budget. Such a significant change in the City’s Charter and governance structure should only be made by our citizens.”

Councilman Lawrence Webb:  “No, I have not made a decision on how I will vote on the ordinance yet.  I have several things that I am trying to get a handle on between now and Monday.  I will be happy to have more of a general conversation about the topic if you would like, but at this point how I will vote has not been decided yet.”