COMMUNITY COMMENT: Budget Harms City, Undermines Schools
By NADER BAROUKH
March 24, 2010
Editor’s Note: Published below is Falls Church City Councilman Nader Baroukh’s statement from Monday’s City Council meeting, submitted to the Falls Church Times as a Community Comment.
I fully support the School Board’s recommended budget for FY11 and I believe that the school budget should be fully funded. However, I believe the budget proposed by the City Manager for municipal operations not only does harm to the City, but also undermines the ultimate viability of our school system.
Fiscally, the proposed budget for City operations does not meet the reality of our current financial situation. That is, it pretends that there has not been an economic sea change in the region and that the good times of ever escalating real estate values and resulting tax revenues may just be around the corner. In reality, we have entered a new fiscal age of flat to modest growth in real estate values and marginal growth in our City’s major source of revenues. The proposed budget continues to send us down an unsustainable path of ever growing tax rate increases and pulls us further and further out of alignment with our neighboring jurisdictions. The City Manager’s proposed budget is likely to lead us to a downward spiral, with more and more breath-taking tax rate increases, leading to further pressure on housing values.
Additionally, the City Manager inadequately addresses the critical need to replenish the fund balance—and the need to develop a true contingency fund for emergencies (i.e., stabilization fund). The City fund balance has been dramatically drawn down to almost insignificant levels. Going forward, this is one of the most important elements of our fiscal health that bond rating agencies will review, and it will in turn have a significant impact on the cost of borrowing. We must replenish the fund balance and bring it up to our policy goals more quickly than proposed in the City Manager’s budget.
The Council leadership and City management must address in the budget process how we will meet the needs of our Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). That is, how will we fund core maintenance and building needs for the community over the next several years? We must return to the basics of municipal government – schools, public safety, and roads. At this point, there is no apparent way forward to pay for school building and maintenance requirements. Last year, in order to close the budget gap, the City Manager raided the CIP. This was an incorrect approach in my view. And now, the City Manager has not developed a plan for meeting the CIP needs of the City.
What must be done is to further reduce personnel costs in City Hall, which is the most significant percentage of the total budget on the City side. Every position on the City side of the budget must be justified by the City Manager in light of the new fiscal reality the City faces. Furloughs and other personnel cost reductions must be examined. Additionally, other City operational expenses must be carefully reviewed and justified in light of the current fiscal realities.
At present, we are on a slippery fiscal slope of living each year from hand to mouth with no fiscal strategy to sustain the City. Accordingly, I voted against the initial reading of the Manager’s proposal and will continue to press with all means available to me for a fiscal plan that will support our schools and the City for the long term.
COMMUNITY COMMENTS are welcome on any subject relevant to the City of Falls Church. They may be submitted to contact@fallschurchtimes.com. Shorter submissions may be published as a Letter to the Editor.
By (see byline)
March 24, 2010
I couldn’t agree more!
So no further cuts to the school budget — and direct all the cuts to the City budget in sufficient amounts to do all the things you describe (refill the fund balance, prepare for the future, etc.)? Ok — where should the cuts be made? As you know, the City budget has been declining in real terms for years now. Also, people want City services — in fact, they want good City services.
You have been on the Council for two years now. I don’t think you can get away with a non-statement like: “What must be done is to further reduce personnel costs in City Hall, which is the most significant percentage of the total budget on the City side. Every position on the City side of the budget must be justified by the City Manager in light of the new fiscal reality the City faces. Furloughs and other personnel cost reductions must be examined. Additionally, other City operational expenses must be carefully reviewed and justified in light of the current fiscal realities.”
No one is going to disagree with the sentiment — but talking is the easy part. Where do we cut?
I would like some clarification as well. Does this mean further tax increases or does it mean keeping the tax rate but cutting more from the government side?
I do not believe for one second the government spends the money effectively or wisely. They can do more with less if they trim out dead wood and pork type programs. A larger dollar number does not automatically equate to better, and a smaller number does not automatically mean less. The government, on all levels, County,City, State, federal, act like fiefdoms who seek to separate their supposed share of OUR taxes and then they HAVE to spend it or they lose the dollars in next years budget. I am aware of this trickery of accounting and it means no agency returns unspent money or they will have less next year.
Have you Beloved Chairman Obama wave the magic Pen at it, maybe heaping piles of freshly printed monopoly money will appear and answer all the worlds problems. Thats clearly your demorcats plan for economic recovery. make more money out of thin air and spend it as fast as you can at dubious non job creating programs as fast as it is printed. Maybe we can just switch over to the Yen since its all borrowed from china.
Since Mr. Baroukh is calling for personnel reductions, I wonder if he and the rest of Council would forgo or cut their salary and benefits from the City? They all have high-paying day jobs and most likely wouldn’t be as impacted as a low-paid City worker who’s living paycheck to paycheck. Furlough days are a cut in pay that is not spread out through the year. It would mean a noticeable cut in a single (or however many) paycheck, that could result in a missed rent, mortgage or car payment. GIVE UP YOUR SALARY BAROUKH AND SAVE A CITY JOB!!!
Good job Mr. Baroukh! Ask the poor school and city employees about their FREE retirement benefits and how much it cost the city. Also, about the Reed building for the low paid teachers to live. How we must pay more or the good teachers will leave for Fairfax County schools (maybe go to Falls Church High School). Cut the mayors pay to pay for the new housing she must have or its a city she just does not want to live in.
Fund Balance. Without the proposed tax increase, @ 6/30/2010 the GF balance would be $1 million, but the entire increase in the current year (the bills which go out in May) of $3 million goes to fund balance. Further, the proposed FY11 budget dedicates 2¢ of the increase to restore GF balance. The affect of these proposals is to bring GF balance to the 8% level by 6/30/2011. Another 1¢ is for local match to federal grants for CIP projects. You voted against this, I guess because you would like to do more.
Operating Budget. Out of $64M in proposed spending, you rule out further school, public safety or parks & rec cuts, which there is little disagreement on. I called for “compensation expense reduction scenarios” and the CM has proposed a progressive cut to surviving employees of 2-5% (similar to what the SB adopted). There are 184 FTEs in the proposed budget, listed on page 38 of the proposed budget, down from 200 this year. http://www.fallschurchva.gov/Content/Government/Departments/AdminServ/FY2011ProposedBudget.pdf
You voted against this, because you want to cut more, and many of us would welcome some constructive discussion of how much and where.
Tax rate. A 20¢ increase is obviously the upper limit of what the CC members are willing to consider, and in order to decrease this we need to identify savings above what you would propose to add for the CIP. I asked the CM to quantify where the pennies are going, but I think it is 7¢ for the water transfer, 5¢ for the decline in assessments, 3¢ for the sales tax decline, 3¢ for the CIP and fund balance, and 2¢ “other.”
These are important but essentially simple questions that cry out for concrete ideas.
Mr. Baroukh is not painting the entire picture. It’s easy to say that you support the schools—that’s the PC choice to make, but what are you willing to do for the big picture of our City? As a veteran City teacher, a pro school advocate with many years of school budgets, I fully support the proposed budget because of knowledge gained by attending most of the work sessions—I know how far they dug this year. Now, where I totally disagree with him, is on what the City side has done and that’s where his statements are not fully informative. The City’s budget has been flat and sharply reduced over the last few years giving way to the needs of our schools. Every year the cooperation and communication has greatly improved, but the bottom line remains, the school budget is finished first in the process. Our manager has to, by law, accept the school’s budget and then work his budget on top of it–leaving little wiggle room. Mr. Baroukh by this statement (reread it again) has totally thrown Mr. Shields under the bust—that’s not fair. This is not just the manager’s budget, it is the Council’s and he is part of the process. He knows that the fund balance is a percentage rate set by Council and the rules guiding it. The budget does address the fund balance in a responsible way bringing it back to the acceptable level. If the effort was made to fully replace it in one year, an even greater tax rate would be levied. Yes, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is on hold with the exception of matched Federally funded project going forward. Mr. Baroukh can and did vote against the proposed budget, but he has been part of the process for two years now and making these generalized statements won’t CUT it—literally or figuratively. He knows that he can vote against the budget leaving the remainder of Council doing the heavy lifting making those difficult and unpopular decisions to move our City forward. That’s negative leadership–not positive.
I agree that the city council and school board members should give up their salaries – especially if they want to set an example for the rest of the city employees. City services have been suffering for years – try calling someone in the city with a question – 9 times out of 10 you will not get a live person. The only department that always answers their phones is the police department. Why is it that every time the budget is tight the city side of the equation has to lose jobs and services. Some of the teachers that have been there for a long time are making alot of money – maybe they should be forced out either by being laid off or forced into early retirement such as the city employees have. I will not be voting for anyone who takes such a stance as yours.
Hi Lindy and Former Fellow Colleague on the Council. I am afraid that you are seriously muddled in your comment with regard to process: It is the City Manager’s Budget “proposal”–his alone. It is then up to the Council to dispose of it–and Council Members to criticize it. I hope you are not telling us that you are merging the functions of the Executive and Legislative into an undivided whole, which are held separate entities by virtue of the Charter….or are telling us that you know certain Council members had direct input on the Manager’s budget function. Perhaps before this is all over Mr. Shields will prefer to be thrown under a “bust” as you put it. Best regards. Sam
P.S. Your comments also seem to suggest that you are willing to support near a 20% increase in the tax rate?
Ah, Sam, this why I hate to become part of this kind of stuff–you know me well enough to know that I’m laughing my head off right now about my stupid mistake “BUS” not “bust”–that’s a good one! I won’t live that one down. That’s the teacher in me not wanting to make a mistake and then I do. My point is, and you know it, that this will become the Council’s budget and that the comment that the fund balance is not being addressed is just not correct. The Council will have to work together to bring in the most responsible budget and this year will be extremely difficult. Starting to put into people’s minds that it is all the fault of the City Manager is not a good message. No, I’m not for such a high tax increase and know that more reductions will be made—that’s part of the process. As to salaries, the School Board members make $100/chair $200 a month. City Council was $200/$300 for a very long time until it was increased two years ago to $750/$850. There is an enormous amount of work and time for all elected positions. Also, the comment made was that all members have high paying jobs–not true and not something that would be a good thing. There are expenses for those elected to serve. Even my friend Sam Mabry supported that one.
Methinks Lindy and Dan doth protest too much. It is not Mr. Baroukh’s responsibility, nor is it the responsibility of any Councilmember, to propose itemized budget cuts, though they can if they wish I suppose. If they did, however, the City Manager should (rightfully) object that the Council is overstepping its boundaries and encroaching on his responsibilities. It is the Council’s job to provide direction to the City Manager in administering the City’s budget and personnel. That is all that Mr. Baroukh has done. He has properly and appropriately directed the City Manager to look harder for ways and means to save money and has suggested the areas in which to look. He should be supported, not criticized.
As for Lindy’s typo, well, depending on the circumstances, there could be worse fates! Or [apology in advance to all little people out there] maybe she could sponsor a new sporting event—- you know, a doubleheader of dwarf-tossing and bust-tossing!
Anybody who claims the City is spending too much money ought to be able to identify what we are spending too much money for. Please somebody, anybody, identify from the list of 184 FTEs on page 38 of the City Manager’s proposed budget what specific positions you would suggest eliminating to save money to fund the CIP or reduce the proposed tax rate.
Alternatively, we can look at benefit costs and reduce the City’s contributions to health, pension or other benefits. I would support, as I suggested last year, reducing the City contribution for health insurance, and the proposed budget does increase the employee share to 23.5%, except for the single person plan which remains at 20%. My issues with this are that we have a lower cost and a higher cost coverage, and we should just be setting a City contribution amount. I still plan to pursue this discussion, but we should not pretend it is anything but a further compensation cut. The entire City compensation budget is less than $20 million, of which less than $2 million is health insurance. How much of this do you want to cut?
Damien, If you’re calling City Hall I recommend the City Clerk, 703-248-5014. Her office is there to serve the citizens as well as the Council. Every time I call some one answers and provides the information I am after. Our budget problems will not be solved by a single budget cycle. It is going to take several more cycles before we are under control again. We need to spend the time now to understand staffing needs and make adjustments when appropriate, like retirements and resignations. Throwing people out the door today if not a wise strategy, it must be a controlled environment after we have studied what our staffing levels, by department, need to be to provide for the excellent services we receive. We can bring taxes down. Then we must regulate and maintain so when our economy tanks again we will not be hurt as badly.
There is only two comments on this thread that offer any value to the discussion and those are Mr. Maller’s. The rest is just bluster (cut the pork), delusion (free retirement program), and political grandstanding (Hockenberry, Mabry, Mauro).
Look at what Mr. Maller said:
7 cents for the water transfer – can’t be avoided given the judicial decision
5 cents for the decline in assessments – read as commercial and especially condominiums – the single family homeowners are carrying that burden
3 cents on the sales tax decline – blame the economy – can’t be avoided
3 cents on the CIP – must be paid
2 cents on “other” – which is the only wiggle room left.
Then Maller explains the compensation budget – $20 M of which $2M is health insurance. Sure, its 1/3 of the budget, but which employees need to be cut? What services? I am waiting to hear something constructive rather than a generality. And please save us the “elected officials should take no salary” crap – this is probably the smallest line item in the entire budget.
Too bad Maller is the politician not running for office again – everyone else should have as good a grasp as he does on this budget stuff.
You are entitled to your opinion, Charlie, inaccurate and unfriendly as it is, just as the rest of us are to ours. So how would you characterize your own comment?
Mr. Bushow, That would be your wife’s office correct?
If Councilman Baroukh, or anyone else, doesn’t want to offer specific ideas for cutting the budget that is fine. That’s his (and their) right. It is also pointless and a waste of everyone’s time. We have real problems to solve — and elected representatives are either focused on rolling up their sleeves and solving them or they aren’t. Political posturing in a town of 2.2 square miles is silly and boring.
I would also suggest that people re-read and ponder Councilman Maller’s comments.
Lou: I would agree that the first paragraph is unfriendly. Assuming Mr. Maller’s figures are correct, the rest I would say is accurate.
Living across the street from the Little City, my wife, kids and I have become attached to FCC’s charms. We’ll be moving soon into either Falls Church City, or into the Woodson High School pyramid (motivated by the schools in both cases) and are paying attention to both the substance and tone of this budget crises conversation. I’m intrigued by a footnote in the FY2011 budget that reads “According to the 2000 U.S. census, Falls Church had the highest per capita income in Virginia and the third highest in the United States.” Perhaps part of the solution is for residents to pay more, expect less, and do more for themselves. Until brighter days, they should be happy with adequate services, instead of excellent ones, and make up the difference with their checkbooks and spirit of volunteerism. The price to send kids to this world-class school system might have to become steeper, in the form of huge user fees, etc. Eliminate things like free mulch programs and curbside trash pick-up. Have a drop-off day at a central location instead. For better service, go private and pay for it. Maybe cut one teacher and one boys’ and one girls’ sport at each school, or else pay for those salaries and costs with private donations. Cut one or two officers, and sell some of the police dept.’s vehicles, or else pay with private donations. Get down to the bone, ask residents to pull more weight, and then build back up from there when it becomes possible. Shouldn’t we be able to pull that off in this wealthy and civic-minded enclave?
Thank you Mr. Baroukh for taking a stand and saying the City Manager needs to look harder at ways to cut the budget. A tax increase from $1.07 to $1.27 this year with no end in sight is a huge pill to swallow. Proposing staff and benefit cuts is not an easy or popular message, but folks we are in very bad shape economically and someone needs to raise it.
Just how bad is our budget? Consider this:
- Fairfax County is currently proposing a 5% tax increase to $1.09,
- Arlington is proposing an 8% tax increase to $0.94,
- Alexandria is proposing an 8% tax increase to $0.97,
- Fairfax City is proposing a 10% tax increase to $0.97, and
- Falls Church is proposing a whopping 19% tax increase to $1.27.
The difference between FC and our neighbors is pretty staggering. Some Council Members and candidates have suggested everyone is dealing with the same budget issues, but that’s misleading. We will feel up to four times the pain as our neighbors in increased taxes.
And by the way, approving the Wilden just added almost another penny to our tax rate starting in 2013. I’m not sure this is sound financial planning, maybe we need to change our approach.
The most important parts that I think Mr. Baroukh was saying is that we’re not considering all of the options, and we’re not looking at this on a longer term basis (I thought the Council passed a resolution in 2009 requiring the Manager to provide five year budgets?). So in effect we’re kicking the can on some potentially tough decisions on operating expenses this year, keeping our annual costs higher than we can afford, and setting ourselves up for additional future tax increases. Is it possible that one day we will miss the good ole days of a $1.27 tax rate? I certainly hope not but I think it’s possible.
Mr. Baroukh please continue to beat the drum on this, someone needs to. At the end of the day, we need to arrive at a budget that we can afford and will hold up longer term.
Mr. Damien, yes Sir, the city clerk, she is there to help citizens and direct questions, and Always returns a call if one happens to be missed.
Mr. Anderson, yes Mr. Maller has been an excellent Civil Servant who grasps the details and prints them in an understandable form as he has done for the past 4 years, I think he makes $200 a month working probably 12 hours a week or so on top of his day job. We have all learned from him but please don’t believe he is the only one who knows what is going on.
Mr. Marcus makes some very good points and as I mentioned above it is going to take several budget cycles to get our house in order. Throwing the baby out with the bath water as some suggest is not good business and we must be rational in our approach to this budget.
Mike, you forgot to look at all the additional fees those other juristictions have added. Fees are generally not tax deductable where RE taxes generally are, that helps many tax payers.
While we’re all thinking about the tough economic situation the City is in I’d like to beat my favorite drum: additional commercial development. I realize that it’s not a quick fix but there’s a reason why I’m bringing this up now.
When I talk about trying to do things to encourage more commercial development in the City I’m often told that it won’t happen – and the reason I’m given is that it has never happened before. When I try to chip away at that response the closest thing I can find to a real reason is that historically the citizens of Falls Church have ultimately not wanted more commercial development. The suggestion being that we can do all the planning and enticing we want but when commercial developers show up and try to get things approved they’ll get shot down.
If the City had a larger commercial tax base the burden on residential property taxes would be reduced. Ultimately, when we talk about services and tax rates and how the City is going to do in the coming years I think increasing commercial tax revenue is a critical component.
So, I just hope that when we are able to entice some commercial developers to come into the City the citizens will remember the debates we’re having now and realize the huge benefits commercial development would bring.
Andy, for my campain I search back to the 1960′s and found evidence that people wanted a city center, perhaps not envisioned as we would today but the thinking was there, 30 years ago it was discussed as being necessary for the future, so the thought has been around we just never followed through. I am most interested to work with the EDA to get it going, to start the planning, to build the relationships with developers and make sure the city has the tools to negotiate eye to eye. I have heard the same comments you have heard, but the time to ACT is NOW…..
Barry, perhaps you can elaborate more on what those fees are in our neighbor jurisdictions and how they factor in? My sense is it’s a drop in the bucket and we will still be taxed much higher than folks in Arlington, Alexandria, Fairfax, etc. I would be more than happy to be proven wrong on this point.
The biggest problem as Andy points out is we don’t have enough of a commercial office and retail base in Falls Church. Our current real estate tax base is 76% residential/24% commercial, we are not diversified and our commercial base is simply too small. With limited revenue sources (small city) and most of it from residential (eggs in one basket), we have a higher risk of budget issues and tax increases that residents bear the brunt of.
Did you know in Fairfax City their tax base is 44%residential/56% commercial? Arlington and Alexandria have about a 50/50 split. They each have a sizeable commercial base that generates significant revenue, which helps to keep the tax burden down on residents. I think it’s this reason, not fees, that their proposed tax increases pale in comparison to FC.
Anyway, I think we agree on the idea of planning for/attracting high quality commercial uses and look forward to discussing further.
Andy, you’re getting closer. The reason commercial development hasn’t happened before and “wont happen” is not because the citizens don’t want it. It’s because the majority of their elected leaders have not been serious about taking the initiative to make it happen. People want stores, shops, offices, restaurants and the like. But the majority on the City Councils of the past 10 years have been passive approvers of “mixed use” projects on commercially-zoned land that are primarily high-density residential projects comprised of condos and apartments. We have been told that condos are “cash cows.” Well, where is all that cash now that we taxpayers need it?
Broadening the tax base has never been important to them. We have been told that developers don’t want to build commercial in Falls Church because it’s not financially rewarding. So, putting developer return on investment ahead of the public interest, our political leaders have just accepted what they’ve been given instead of actively pursuing what is in the best interests of the City.
There has been one exception— Bob Young. Mr. Young is a commercial developer and is not the kind of person who doesn’t care about making a profit. So it is worth asking our leaders: if Bob Young can be successful at commercial development in Falls Church, why haven’t they been able to find other Bob Youngs? Or haven’t they tried?
Just some thoughts here—We would love to have more “Bob Youngs”—he has built two properties, the Reed, a small mixed use, and the flower building a pre leased all commercial. His next won’t be built unless it is pre leased—there is NO money for spec building. These are all fairly small buildings and trust me Bob wants a profit.
When properties were being developed in the early part of this decade, we could not even get an all commercial building built. You can’t build what they won’t build. The Spectrum site as a commercial building was all set to go and they couldn’t get it built even with City money involved. That was during the biggest boon of all. But then, we really had a rotten reputation toward/with developers.
We have never turned down an all commercial project. We have turned down many other project that were brought forth. People seem to forget about those.
Look, all commercial is not cracked up as good either. Both Crystal City and Rosslyn are retro fitting housing into those two—the area dies at night. I think Mike N might be part of one of those projects. We need development and we now have a better reputation as open for business than we had before. I think we will do better this next upswing. Fairfax City has done a great job with their redevelopment, but they went into a HUGE City debt to do so. We want to do things in this City without any City money–only developer money. We aren’t Tyson’s or Arlington— all commercail buildings are hard to come be even in good times and not now. I’ve been there at the table working hard to get what we have. Also, Arlington started a long time ago with a lot of Federally leased
property and there’s going to be a glut on the market when those leases move south under BRACK. I hear you all–now is the time to set the stage for the next round–we have a good basis to build on and we will get good development–I’m sure of it. I absolutely agree we need a more diversified tax base!
A side line, all surrounding jusidictions have a lot of extra fees beginning with solid waste, storm water, community centers not just user fees and other special
uses–see their websites. Also, check out our budget documents.
Check out the pp slides presented at the town hall last Sat….there is a slide comparing some of the extra items just in the McLean district tax bill. It’s on the City web site under the budget section.
I’m not opposed to mixed-use development, although we have to be careful about it. I think condos do have a pretty good impact on the City’s bottom line – but apartments do not. When Pearson Square went from condos to apartments it drastically changed the impact on the City.
I’ve heard about this commercial building that was supposed to go up where the Spectrum is. Why did that project fail? Did the developer have trouble securing financing? Lindy mentions City money involved in the mix – in what way was the City putting in money?
I’m asking these questions because I don’t want to try the exact same things we’ve tried before so I’m trying to learn from the past. However, it has been hard to get many details about what’s been tried before. For example, folks on the EDA have been talking for a while about zone/sector plans that we could develop for different parts of the City. Sometimes people tell me that those plans have been done before – but I’ve never seen them. Arlington has some great examples and there is a recent Washington Post article talks about a detailed plan put together for the White Flint area in Maryland. These are the kinds of plans I’m talking about. It will take time and money to put together good plans but I think they could pay off.
I think we need to do three things:
1. Put together detailed sector plans for the commercial zones in the City.
2. Consider any incentives that will encourage commercial lot consolidation.
3. Evolve our project approval process to make it significantly more efficient than anywhere else in the DC area.
As we’re working on those things we need to get the citizens on board with allowing and encouraging this development to happen (or, if it’s just the politicians we need to get on board then let’s do that – anyone willing to run for City Council on this platform?).
Andy–Good Ideas—with my new experiences and training on Planning Commission we’ve looked at both sector and form base planning—both good with more space, but I’m very big on an eclectic approach. Both can cut out proffers or community benifits. Our new zoning needs to get done.
Talk more to Dave Snyder about that commercial building—that was under his watch as Mayor.
Tax incentives are great–we need to use them more—lower taxes now /increasing in the future— hook- up rates–IT Incentives–we have this one now, but it is old and needs to be updated—lower BPOL taxes to start–a sliding scale for the size of your business–negotiate with developers form the start lower lease and build out rates—we need new tools in our box. Yes, we need to streamline our process—we talk things to death around here! I know that’s the “Falls Church Way”—it can be a killer. Some of you know me as that sweet loving teacher, but when it comes to these things, I want to get things done. We just need to do it. I’m very much on that platform.
To David Charvern…”Political posturing in a town of 2.2 square miles is silly and boring.” Then why do you do it? It’s easy to be condescending from the sidelines. Your rhetoric always challenges others for alternatives, but you never offer anything but status quo. Your, you can’t win a seat on the council if you don’t…blah blah blah is probably correct, but it is also political posturing, don’t ya think?
So let’s recap. Many of us have ideas on ADDITIONAL money to spend, including building up fund balance/rainy day fund, more capital spending, and business incentives. And I did not mention it here, but I have called for a program to allow seniors to defer their taxes under far more favorable terms, because we are tending to accelerate the natural cycle of turnover with new families attracted by our schools and idyllic neighborhoods. The business incentive idea in particular, or some kind of program to attract and support businesses, has pretty unanimous support on the council from our discussion the other night, where I cited the near unanimous feedback from the two town hall meetings.
Conversely, the ideas for REDUCING spending seem a little skimpy. Maybe a multiple choice format would be helpful. Would anybody support?
(a) Reduce some of the 184 FTEs (please name them);
(b) Reduce compensation, by increasing pay, health or other benefit contributions (how much);
(c) Take back part of the accumulated school fund balance (prior appropriated funds that were not spent);
(d) Just vote no on everything without proposing any specific idea.
Personally, I believe the long term outlook makes it more important to do some of the things that INCREASE spending targeted to the future health and viability of the City. The proposal to add to the fund balance is such a choice, and if your priority is to reduce the proposed tax increase this will require a choice. There will be further cuts to the proposed spending as we continue the budget process, so I do look forward to some help in doing this work.
Lindy, in response to your earlier comment, I develop commercial office buildings (not residential) for a very large real estate company. Not sure what project in Crystal City or Rosslyn you’re referring to, my company has been involved in some residential projects as well.
Regarding your comment that office areas die at night, this is not true if the right steps are taken. First of all, we already have the residential component, which was my earlier point. Second of all, to avoid dead zones the following is required:
- New office buildings be designed to come up to the street/sidewalk rather than setback or surrounded by surface parking,
- Appropriate sidewalk improvements and widths be provided for pedestrian use and seating,
- Retail uses are required on the first floor and buildings are designed with proper venting for restaurant uses, and
- Parking is required to be left open to the public during nights and weekends.
Are you suggesting if we created an office market in the South Washington area for example that provided first floor retail throughout, good sidewalk design that allowed for outdoor dining and interesting public space, and plentiful parking that the area would die at night?
At the end of the day, what the City needs most is new, high-quality commercial office and retail space. This is the kind of product that generates new real estate tax, sales tax and bpol tax, all without burdening the schools. I’m not opposed to mixed use residential, but I’m saying our primary focus needs to be on how to create more of an office and retail market.
Andy raised the concept of sector plans, this is an idea that Dave Tartar, Ira Kaylin, Andy and I have been championing on the EDA. I introduced a starting point for such a sector plan for South Washington at our Feb 2nd EDA meeting, you attended and sadly were a huge critic of this approach.
Your idea of an “eclectic approach” to new development is not a strategy, it is a “wait and see and hope a developer brings us something good” approach. It’s what we’ve been doing for years, and unfortunately it’s not going to help create a market for new office or retail. Unless you think converting commercial property to an affordable housing project is a good example. Deciding on how the commercial areas should redevelop on a project-by-project basis is simply a recipe for continued disappointment.
Sector planning on the other hand is a way of telling property owners and developers up-front and in great detail what we as a City are looking for, providing assurances that their project will be approved if they agree to build it, and gives a complete vision of an area so there is some assurance other developments and improvements will happen around it. Coupling sector plans with incentives and an efficient approval process as Andy suggested is our best chance to create a commercial market that currently does not exist in FC.
One last item, you stated sector plans would prevent proffers/community benefits…that is absolutely “not” true. If the zoning is set up appropriately, the sector plan conveys the message of what we want, and property owners re-zone to the appropriate overlay category and proffers are part of the discussion. With your experience on PC I’m surprised you would make such a statement.
Dan (and Nader), I completely digressed from the topic at hand, which is the budget. I do think this is related, as we need to invest in our future to ensure we don’t face another budget crises like the one we’re in now. But my apologies, I hope a more fruitful discussion of the budget can ensue.
Keeping it short here—I have no problem with all commercial buildings with all of the specifications noted above. It’s good to know that sector planning will also bring in proffers–always learning. My ONLY problem with Mike’s ideas as presented at the EDA was that it was brought in to stop the Wilden—the over all idea is just fine and these two newly approved buildings can be the beginning–great! The 500 and the 510 will come open in the future–even better. Now, do you think any of my other ideas for bringing in new development can be built on? What appeals to the developers? I want development and I don’t care if it’s only commercial—we need the broad tax base. All adult building can be built also. One was proposed at the Pearson Square site—not workable with that developer–ugly, huge with no changes in design.
As one would expect, the 20% tax hike has awaken the Little City masses. So now what? I think cutting the schools in suicide for our City. I think cutting services — and the staff that provides them, unfortunately — is reasonable in a tough period like this (everyone is doing more with less, and staff cuts are common). Alas, I don’t know enough about all 184 people / positions to be able to comment specifically.
Regardless of whether there is anyway to reduce costs further, it seems clear that we need to increase revenues, and future residential tax hikes which deepen the divide between our City and the surrounding areas would erode the value of living in the City, leading to a slower but still inevitable demise.
Significant commercial development is our only hope.
It doesn’t need to happen overnight, but a plan needs to form this year, and the City needs to be closer to the 50/50 balance Mike Novotny references above within 5-10 years. Mike seems to have a clear vision and a highly-relevant professional background (not to mention an inspiring passion for the topic) to help make it so. Mike, what can other residents and City officials do to support your vision? How can we push forward with the three initiatives Andy lists above?
The near-term tax hike is unfortunately unavoidable at this point. Let’s focus on what we can do to balance the residential and commercial revenue within the next decade. It’s not just a nice idea we should hope for, it’s life-or-death for our Little City.
The unavoidable, proposed near term tax hike includes 7 cents for the water fund (and 2 cents for unknown.) Isn’t the 7 cents for the water fund a one-year cost that’s not built into future bases, for this purpose at least?
Susan, the 7¢ would be permanent if we lose in the VA Supreme Court barring a legislative or other fix that we would need very urgently to pursue, but temporary if the Court accepts the appeal and we prevail. And I do apologize for the 2¢ “other” item; I was just trying to void getting into fractional cents.
Mike and others, I think there is widespread agreement on more commercial development (albeit with some opposition to truly dense development). The real key is: what should we do now to lay the groundwork? The mixed use policy was designed to bring the foot traffic to the level which would support more commercial, but this is only one leg of a proverbial stool. Should we be looking to the FY11 budget to make targeted investments? Should we be planning parking and other transportation infrastructure? (Arlington only succeeded because they committed to the Metro which we emphatically rejected, so now we are hoping to ride the TIGER to eventually bring light rail). Is zoning the answer (and thank you for joining the ZOAC)? It may be “off topic” but I could not agree more that these are the answers that the City should be expecting of its leaders, and this is the critical long-term issue that could break our total dependence on residential real estate taxes.
So, from the strategic back to the tactical; what to do now? As I said, we are going to continue to dig into the operating budget, but the town halls to date identified many community priorities represented by the “lines of service” in the budget, so there is certainly no indication of widespread support for the draconian cuts suggested in Nader’s piece. If proponents of these measures are not just posturing, now is the time for serious and specific ideas. On the capital side, there are options we have only begun to explore in the way of asset sales such as the Pendleton House and other assets owned by the City that ought to be exchanged for other capital assets that might be more advantageous for the City to meet its core objectives.
Please, Dan Maller….you are a lawyer. Do you think we are going to prevail on appeal? My guess is probably not. I’m so glad all you smart folks are on the job down their at City Hall. I read the Judges ruling, it seemed reasonable to me. Good luck to ya.
Brian, thanks for your comments. Dan, good questions on what we should do for FY11.
There is a lot to this process and I promise to put forward more specific ideas outside of this comment thread. In the meantime, we really need Council to: 1) understand and support sector planning, and 2) budget for additional outside planning expertise for this purpose in the FY11 budget.
I know the budgeting part will be difficult given the financial constraints, but this is an investment to better our future (much like a college education).
Dan, your question about zoning is important. The right zoning code is absolutely critical, which is why I volunteered for ZOAC. But zoning is a means to an end, wheras the planning piece is the end-game. The two must work together in lockstep — a sector plan tells the story of what we want built, and the zoning code enables it and ensures it happens that way. We can still do the zoning re-write now but will likely need to refine it later to address the plan.
As to publc parking garages, it really depends on what the final plan is. I’m not opposed to it, trying to kick-start development with a garage could be useful. But if located in the wrong place, it could prevent some otherwise great things from happening. And perhaps parking can be achieved without a public garage at all, look at how Arlington requires new office garages to stay open to the public during nights & weekends. All depends. But until you have a fully vetted future plan, it’s really throwing darts at a board.
Last thought, if there’s time-sensitive transportation money that needs to be spent in 2010-11, in my opinion we’ll get much more bang for our buck by creating a transit station somewhere in the City Center area (like they did in Shirlington). Public parking won’t enable new office development, but better public transportation will. But again locating it properly is really important and ideally would be driven by a more detailed plan for the area.
Regarding public parking, I posted this comment over on Blueweeds last night in response to concerns about the Chipotle parking situation (which will be bad):
It seems to me that a public parking garage (or a sizable commercial office building with ample parking & ground-floor retail) would be best fit on Little Falls between Broad & Park. It would provide parking to the Library, Broadale, Cherry Hill (critical for summer events), City Hall (including the Farmers Market), whatever replaces the old post office / 2 Sisters lot, and all the retail on Broad St. up to Washington.
How would such a project actually move forward, and is it at all realistic given the current financial situation? One data point: a single building on that block (140 Little Falls St.) is for sale for $4M, and that lot alone would probably only give you half the necessary space. Any kind of lot consolidation / construction projects seems like it would be expensive, but the benefits to our City would be significant.
Over the course of the next several weeks the FC Times, LWV and VPIS will be printing the Q&A’s that we Council candidates have spent the last week or two preparing. I have been an advocate for sector planning since David Tartar introduced it to the EDA when he first joined. He is a land attorney in Arlington and has much experience. Unfortunately the EDA did nothing and was doing nothing with this concept, so I got off and Mike and Andy joined. Bad timing for me as it looks like there is now Good Energy on the EDA to move sector planning forward. Anyway, you will see in all my responses that sector planning techniques is the heart of my platform. And my two articles in the News-Press have already stated this. We will need the help of consultants in FY 11; perhaps Jim Snyder can get us going. Jim was a planner for Arlington that implemented sector planning on the Wilson corridor. I’m tired of talking it, I will push to DO it….Sorry for the political speech, but we need action!
What he said (Barry). It certainly seems like this is the way to go. Why has it not happened so far if we all think it is a good idea? It really is time to position ourselves now, so that we can take advantage of opportunities as soon as they arise.
I do have to add that I saw first hand how frustrating the process of permits and approvals can be when I bought my house 6 years ago. We bought an existing house that could not get an occupancy permit, even though it was completed per the plans and had passed all inspections. I used my lawyer/mediator skills and worked it out (which is how we beat the competition for the house, back when things sold the same day they went on the market), but the builder vowed never to build anything in the city again. If getting one house approved took this much effort, it makes me wonder how anything bigger ever got done.
Ron
Barry,
It is rewarding to see that a number of candidates are coalescing around the need for a pro-active approach to long term development. I believe it is the best alternative available to promote fiscal sustainability in Falls Church. I spoke to this issue as part of my “Guest Commentary” in the News Press. The link is provided below.
http://www.fcnp.com/commentary/local/6172-guest-commentary-fiscal-constraints-opportunities-and-the-future-of-falls-church.html
Barry, just to set the record straight I joined the EDA at the same time as Mike and Andy. As Mike states in his March 27, comment regarding the importance of Sector Plans …”Dave Tartar, Ira Kaylin, Andy and I have been championing on the EDA. I introduced a starting point for such a sector plan for South Washington at our Feb 2nd EDA meeting,”
Timing is critical. At the moment, as we all know, the “market” is down. It will be very important that we have a viable plan(s) ready and in place when the market begins to revive. We have a lot to offer but need to be first in line.
The above having been said the long term solution, by definition, doesn’t address the short and medium term issues described in Nader’s accurate description of the City’s fiscal situation. The City is facing continued budget shortfalls that can only be funded by further expenditure cuts and/or undesirable tax increases. Some very difficult choices will have to be made soon. Those of us not on the City Council are at a disadvantage since we do not have the ability to require that the City provide answers to tough questions, especially regarding its fiscal management which remains opaque and which has not been optimally managed.
These issues of are the utmost importance now.
Ira
Sorry for overlooking your name Ira, Mike and Andy were active in this discussion so I just mentioned them. The EDA will be a focus for new development and it sounds like you guys have enough votes now to get something started. I plan to support increases in the EDA budget even though cuts are hard to make. My only desire is that we all Work Together and make development happen.
I am in support of raising the tax rate and I believe we must keep our schools fully funded. As mentioned by Barry, our tax rate cannot be compared directly to many other tax rates that does not include services such as trash pickup or special tax overlays that exist in communities like Vienna and McLean.
*see slide 4 of this PPT: http://www.fallschurchva.gov/Content/Docs/TownHallMeeting5_April23.pdf
However, as we move forward we need to get better at managing our budget and must improve our financial planning. In response to Mr. Maller’s request, the areas I would consider for personnel cuts are:
1) Management – The City Manager should review the organizational chart for the city side because it seems top heavy. In a city this small I believe a flatter structure may work better. An example would be the IT Director. Is that position needed when on-site contractors do much of the work? Couldn’t someone else manage that contract and the purchasing?
2) Police and Sheriffs Departments – It would be great to see the size of these departments benchmarked against cities our size with similar crime stats and court needs.
3)Even with the recent staff cuts, Housing and Human Services seems heavily staffed considering we contract out to Fairfax for many human services and we support FCHC for affordable housing. It also seems heavily staffed for a city with high per capita income. We may need them all, but I wonder.
I was happy to see some of the departments re-organized (Urban Forestry going to Env. Services, Building Inspections to Planning) and hope it creates better flow and synergy for those departments.