CANDIDATE Q&A: William Henneberg
April 17, 2012
The Falls Church Times recently invited each candidate running in the May 1 election for Falls Church City Council to respond to a seven-part questionnaire. Today we publish the responses of William Henneberg, a staff member of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.
Background Information
Henneberg works for the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, where he handles issues relating to Fish and Wildlife, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and General Services Administration oversight.
Henneberg currently serves as Secretary of the Falls Church Tree Commission and President of the Trammell’s Gate Condominium Homeowners Association. He attended Falls Church City Public Schools K-12 and graduated from George Mason High School in 2003. He also participated in the Parks and Recreation Department in Falls Church both as a player and coach.
Henneberg holds a Bachelor’s Degree in environmental science from the University of Mary Washington and a Masters degree in environmental science from American University. His campaign website is www.hennebergforcouncil.com.
1. Why do you want to be on City Council?
I grew up in Falls Church, attended Falls Church Public Schools K-12, graduated from George Mason in 2003, participated in the Parks and Recreation Department as a player and coach, and held my first job at a Veterinary clinic in the City. Falls Church has given me so much and I want to make sure that future generations have the same opportunities I had. So, having returned to FC after college, it is very important that I stay involved and help ensure the future success of the City. With the schools bursting at the seams, an aging high school built in the 1950s, and residential taxes accounting for the majority of revenue in the city, we are still in a precarious financial situation. Further, the litigation over the water system and our approach to commercial development over the past decade shows a lack of vision and leadership by Council. It is time to learn from the past and move forward with a new vision for the future of Falls Church.
2. Do you support the City’s current “area planning” effort and redevelopment of our commercial corridors? If not, why not? If so, what areas of the City would you focus on, and what kinds of development would you like to see there?
I support the City’s current area planning. However, it is important that we move this process forward quickly and begin to pursue developers who will be able to make it happen. Given the location of the East Falls Church Metro station, silver/orange lines, possible western entrance to the EFC Metro station, and current development occurring on the Arlington side of the border, it is imperative that we begin with the North Washington Street area. This is the most logical area of the City to develop and one that we can easily market to developers. Any development that occurs must include office and retail with limited residential (studios and 1 bed room condos). It is also crucial that we stop neglecting green space and parking that is required for successful commercial development. We need a positive development story in just one part of the City for the same to happen in other parts. The development of the North Washington Street area must be the first domino to fall to bring healthy economic growth to other parts of the City.
3. What transportation improvements should the City make and why?
As mentioned above, if we are serious about increasing retail revenue in the City, we must confront the issue of parking. This will help City businesses and ease some of the street traffic around retail corridors. We also must be cognizant of how the addition of residential units to commercial development can impact traffic. Past mixed-use commercial development has included a lot of residential units while neglecting to include transportation improvements. New commercial development, especially around North Washington Street where traffic is already an issue during rush hour, must include traffic reduction measures.
4. What should the City do regarding the unfunded liability of teacher pensions?
I support current City Council member Ira Kaylin’s proposal to invest the proceeds of the sale of the water system in a “yet-to-be-created Falls Church City Teacher Pension Plan.” Over the long term, pension plans can be expected to give annual returns of 6-8%. So, for every $10 million in sale proceeds, the plan can earn $600 to $800 thousand per year. This is 2 to 3 cents on the tax rate. The current minimum bid recently set by the City Council, $44 million, while too low, may generate up to $3.52 million per year or almost 12 cents off the tax rate. This gives you an idea of how much may be generated by a more realistic sale price.
5. How do you propose to address recurring flooding issues experienced by some residents and improve storm water management throughout the City?
Every new commercial development in the City must incorporate green space and include storm water management infrastructure. I am surprised that, for such an environmentally conscious community, almost no green space has been included in the commercial development over the past decade. Further, according to the recently released Watershed Management Plan, the City is facing at least $33 million in water infrastructure needs over the next 15 years. It is vital for the City to create an independent revenue stream to pay for these infrastructure improvements.
6. Should the City sell its water system? How should any proceeds be used?
See answer to #4. Any sale of the water system, though, must be conditional to ensure that Falls Church customers are protected from rate increases. However, it is important to note that if the City keeps the water system, there will be a rate increase of 8% for each of the next two years and a 3% rate increase for each of the following 3 years in order to comply with new EPA regulations and for general upkeep of the system. So, we will see rate increases even if we don’t sell the system but, if we do, we will have a new revenue stream to help fund some of the City’s financial obligations.
7. Are there any practices or programs you have seen in other communities – nearby or far away – that should be adopted by the City of Falls Church?
I recently visited Roswell, GA, just outside of Atlanta. They have one of the most extensive and well run park systems in the country. It was very impressive and it was clear that their park system encouraged a sense of community while giving residents all sorts of opportunities for outdoor recreation. I hope that Falls Church continues to support and improve our park system and I am glad there is an increase for the parks in this year’s budget.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
This is the first of seven candidate questionnaire responses published by the Falls Church Times, and we would like to thank Mr. Henneberg and all the candidates for their participation. Below are links to the responses of each candidate.
The candidates also have provided responses for the Voters Guide of the League of Women Voters and the Candidate Q&A of the Falls Church Village Preservation and Improvement Society. We encourage all registered voters to review these materials and vote on Tuesday May 1.
By Falls Church Times Staff
April 17, 2012
I like what Mr. Henneberg has to say. I also like the fact that he is a graduate of the school system, is young, seems energized, and would add some diversity to the Council. And he is trying to make it in the City just starting out and will be coping with the residential tax rate. I thought he exhibited himself well at the Wednesday forum. I think he draws a good contrast with some of the other candidates.
What I like about Mr. Henneberg is that he knows the Falls Church community, he has lived through the various “pie in the sky” proposals that seem to crop up every 5 years to “save our city,” and has a fresh look at what is important and what is realistic for Falls Church. As a graduate of the school system he knows why it remains one of, if not the, primary priority of Falls Church. While he sees the need for better parking, he avoids the desire to add more traffic with tax-payer funded transport that has failed once already. He seems to have a more realistic view of where the City should go and what its real needs are. After 25 years in the City, seeing the same ideas fail or never show fruition, Mr. Henneberg brings a fresh outlook to where the City should focus its resources.
Mr. Baker – I do not see how better parking is congruous with less traffic. Also, how does tax-payer funding transportion (George?) add more traffic? How do you “reduce” traffic on N. Washington where it is already congested?
As I read Mr. Henneberg’s answers I had these questions – Get a revenue stream for watershed management – taxes? No green space on recent commercial developments – has he toured the green roofs, outdoor community areas and gardens in recent mixed use buildings? What is his plan for the schools that are “bursting at the seams?”
Thanks to everyone for their comments. I feel that I bring fresh eyes to old problems and, having grown up in the city, bring a unique view to issues that the city is facing.
In regards to Mr. Anderson’s questions: first, better parking can reduce traffice by removing street parking and allowing cars to move more freely through an area. This is an issue in many commercial/retail areas in the city. For N. Washington Street, I would like FC to work with Arlington and VDOT to try to improve the timing of the traffic signals. More importantly, we need to be cognizant of any new development in that area and how entrance and exits lanes will work with existing traffic. This is one of my biggest concerns with the new Northgate project currently being built on N. Washington Street.
For the revenue stream for watershed management, I think it is a shame that we are currently unable to fund water infrastructure within our current budget. This should be one of the primary uses of taxes, city infrastructure, yet we have ignored this issue for decades. Due to the failure of past councils, and the current tax rate, I DO NOT recommend raising taxes for watershed management. We need to look at our priorities within the budget or we will have to find an independent revenue source, possibly some sort of fee based on the amount of pervious surface or something similar to that.
I am aware of some of the green space on recent commercial development but some are better than others. I have spoken with residents who were flooded this past September and they have told me about “sheets of water” coming down from the recent Byron development. I think it is great that we are including some green space in the developments but I dont think it is nearly enough and it would be nice if they could include more at the street level to improve aesthetics.
For the schools, the new additions and reshuffling of the grades will help but we will need a new high school very soon. We need to finalize a plan of how we will get that done. Further, with every new mixed-use development that goes up, we need to understand how the addition of more residential units will impact school population. Even if the development is revenue positive, we cant ignore our space and resource limited school system. I am not saying we cant have residential units in new development, but we have to wisely choose the number and size of the units.
Thanks for your questions, keep them coming. I can clarify if I did not adequately answer any of your questions.
-William
Sorry, I meant impervious, not pervious.
Question #2 is most interesting to me. I like Mr. Henneberg’s response but I have some follow-up questions.
The area plan itself is getting closeR to completion and once it is adopted what do you suggest we (the City) do to begin pursuing developers? Would you support increasing the funding to the Economic Development Office so they have more resources to do this promotion?
How would you encourage the lot consolidation needed in order to support the types and sizes of development that would allow for more green space? Do you support incentives that would allow developers to increase density in exchange for consolidating lots?
I think it would be great to have a fresh set of eyes looking at City problems and offering a younger perspective on things. Falls Church is seeing a great influx of young professionals who are paying a real premium in terms of real estate values and property taxes to live in this City. Mr. Henneberg sounds like he’ll be a strong advocate for a balanced approach: infrastructure improvements and an expanded tax base, development and reasonable environmental considerations, etc.
My concerns are about the ambitious nature of the promises. I do not see how we can do all these *big* things (schools, storm water, facility improvements, transportation) without a significant tax increase. Even if we are aggressive in the commercial development sector….this can take several years before the tax benefits help the City coffers.
Could Mr. Henneberg explain how he would propose financing all these projects?
@TFC: To be fair, every candidate is offering some form of grand promises that, admittedly, won’t be accomplished overnight. And of course, they’ll have to go thru the legislative process, i.e. citizen input, committee review, Council approval, etc.
In my mind, Mr. Henneberg has made commercial development and a diversified tax base the centerpiece of his campaign, while other candidates have been more wishy-washy about the current property tax rates. I think it’s nice to see Mr. Henneberg at least thinking about alternate ways to fund things (e.g. proceeds from the sale of the water system, etc.) other than soaking property owners.
He’s also the only candidate, as far as I’ve seen, to recognize that his “promises” must be funded according to priority. This is in contrast to those who seem to think good schools and a trolley system are both equally important.
Mr. Henneberg seeks not to raise taxes for storm water, but rather from a fee charged based on perviousness – an interesting idea, but not really a concrete one. Not sure he really could be expected to have a funding source in mind as a challenger – he is not privy to internal discussions at City hall that might be developing these ideas. The Byron sheets of runoff issue is interesting as that development replaced a flat parking lot, there must have been similar sheets prior, and Byron should have a mechanism for holding water on the site. What people are probably seeing is the result of building in that water shed – Rees Place, Byron, and all of the tree removal during building of large houses and more houses upstream in the N. West St. area.
FC resident, the idea of having to prioritize things is an interesting one. Do you know where Mr. Henneberg lays out his priorities?
Also, I think all of the candidates are promoting commercial development – what is Mr. Henneberg saying that’s different from others? Other than promoting commercial development what other diversification in the tax base is he suggesting?
Since everyone’s talking about promoting commercial development I’m trying to figure out which (if any) of the candidates has ideas different from the others.
Thanks to all that chimed in….I would prefer to wait to see if Mr. Henneberg adds any info.
The storm water revenue stream is not exclusively Mr. Henneberg’s……this is under active examination by Mr. Hicks and Council and Boards. They will be discussing various methods that could be used…flat fee addition to tax, based on impervious coverage of each residence, incorporation into the RE tax rate….all are in play.
Andy, I’d defer to Mr. Henneberg on the exact order of the priorities, but I like the fact that he at least recognizes that not everything can get done (or at least it can’t all get done right away). The other candidates seem to be making a lot of promises without taking into account the economic and financial realities.
I agree that commercial development seems to be something every candidate is discussing. Mr. Henneberg has has offered some specifics , e.g. a public parking garage, traffic congestion and runoff easing measures, etc. Based on a brief discussion with him when he stopped by my house, he seems to recognize that, at some point, the high property taxes here will become prohibitive for some residents.
Yeah, hopefully he will chime in again. Without spelling out priorities it’s not particularly helpful to point out that not everything can be done. For example, if finding money for a public parking garage is at the bottom of his priority list then it probably wouldn’t happen – therefore it wouldn’t help with economic development.
I appreciate his concerns for traffic congestion and runoff – but again, I’m not sure what he has said that indicates he has any ideas for solutions. Just pointing out potential problems is of limited value.
Thanks to everyone for their comments and questions. Hopefully I can clarify a few things. First, Andy, I support increasing the budget for the EDO. As you point out, this is key to promote the city to businesses and developers. To be clear, commercial development is my top priority, commercial development that is right for Falls Church. If elected to council, I will consider these six points before approving any development:
• Is the financial revenue adequate for the amount of land that will be occupied, especially considering the limited amount of commercial land in the city?
• Is enough office and retail included so that we can effectively diversify the city tax base?
• Are there appropriate parking and traffic reducing measures?
• Will this negatively impact our resource and space-limited school system?
• What is the impact to city infrastructure and stormwater runoff and how will this affect the surrounding environment?
• How well do the aesthetics fit in with the city and unique feel of Falls Church?
So, related to this, parking is another top priority. I think this is key to successful economic development in the city. That may mean a new public parking garage (if financially feasible) or requiring that new development includes sufficient parking. A lot of the issues I raise can be addressed by new development so it is crucial that we only approve new development that addresses these issues and includes some city requirements.
My focus for development is for the North Washington Street area. This is a logical area given its location to East Falls Church metro, silver/orange lines, and hopefully a western entrance to the metro station. I am glad that the first small area plan focused on this area but we need to complete it quickly and start pursuing developers that can make it happen. We need to find developers with deep pockets that can include enough office (daytime foot traffic that retail wants), retail, appropriate residential, and green space. We seem to be using developers that only want to put up residential and if that occurs on North Washington Street, we will have missed a great opportunity to truly diversify our tax base and reduce the tax burden on residents. If we create a solid plan for that area (and considering the location) this area of the city should almost promote itself. Hopefully the budget increase to the EDO can also help us find the right developers. I think if we can make the development of North Washington a real success, other development in the city will follow.
In regards to funding some of the other issues (stormwater, etc.), council needs to be willing to go through the budget piece by piece and see if any changes need to be made. As a graduate of the school system, this is and will always be the top funding priority for the city. However, we do have future financial obligations, teachers’ pension plans, that are currently unfunded and hopefully the successful sale of the water system can ease some of the city’s financial obligations. Also, funding city infrastructure should be a top priority of any city government (unfortunately our city government has ignored this for decades). If that is not realistic for Falls Church (given its limited buget and the $33 million in needs predicted over the next 15 years), then some sort of stormwater fee is the only option I see going forward.
Like some have mentioned above, not everything I want to accomplish will get accomplished. However, if we move forward with the right development in the city, we can address some of these issues and make sure they dont snowball into bigger issues in the future. Im not sure If I answered everyone’s questions, so please ask again if I skipped over something. Or, you can always reach me at 571-205-2353 and I’d be happy to talk or come by your house to discuss. Again, thanks for all the concern and attention to these important issues.
Hey, thanks for the thorough response – I appreciate it.
As I look at the candidates and try to figure out how you guys are different (especially when it comes to promoting commercial development) I’m realizing that it boils down to a mysterious formula of what kind of new development is good enough. I don’t know the right answer, but I think there are two extremes.
On one end you have folks who think that any new development is better than some of the old, decaying stuff we have now. Replacing a single story, semi-vacant retail store with a small apartment building will look nicer and bring more revenue to the City so it’s progress.
On the other end you have folks who think it’s important to hold out for the maximum use – a large office building with extra parking, open green space, and top LEED certification.
I’m worried that Phil Duncan falls too far on one end and that William Henneberg falls too far on the other end. Phil’s approach might prevent us from getting really good commercial development because the limited space will be consumed by lesser uses. William’s approach might prevent us from getting any commercial development, because developers will be able to get similar results at a better price elsewhere.
I’m looking for candidates who recognize that we need to be aiming for something in the middle.
Andy, I have a great solution for you, vote for both Phil Duncan and myself…that will average out to be right in the middle! In all seriousness, though, I don’t think that my six points to consider for commercial development are extreme. Clearly not every development will be perfect but I will use those points, and how well they are addressed, to make any final decisions. For example, if one development plan is proposing very little green space but is accounting for stormwater runoff, is not LEED certified but is including adequate parking, then it still may be ok in my view. We need to be able to say “yes” even if it isn’t perfect but we also must be able to say “no” when we aren’t getting enough return for the city…this seems like a good middle point to me.
Are you familiar with the Gateway project (that seems to be dead – or at least on hold – since the developer has listed the property for sale)? The approve plan included residential and an office building with a requirement of retail on the ground floor. Some people (maybe even Phil) would have been okay with pushing the project forward without the office building. Other people would have been okay with not requiring the ground floor retail. Other people thought the approved plan was about right. And another set of people thought the plan shouldn’t have been approved because it included too much residential.
Do you know enough about the project to say which of those 4 camps you would have been in?
I dont think I have enough information to make a final decision, but from what I do know, I think the approved plan was about right. Do you know how many residential units were included and how many bedrooms were planned for the residential units? I also know that the approved plan greatly improved some of the environmental and infrastructure issues on the current site.