July 29, 2010

This comment is my personal view as a taxpayer and a voter, not as Chairman of the Long-Range Financial Planning Working Group.

I was more than taken aback by the request from the Falls Church Housing Corporation (FCHC) for the City of Falls Church to bail it out of its current financial predicament.  In no way is this a “minor modification” of the terms set forth by the City Council for the Wilden Project.  It is a major change to the terms and to the project risks.  Anybody who understands real estate development would understand that fact and Mr. Young confirmed it in his interview with the FCT.  What we now have here is an admission by the FCHC that it is financially insolvent because it cannot make payment of its $2.7 million note due on August 7.  To be clear, the definition of financial insolvency is when a borrower cannot meet its financial obligations as and when they come due.  It also admitted that it may have to sell assets at a loss to make good on the note.

The FCHC also admits that it is attempting to help the Sawner estate settle its debt to the City.  It goes on to admit that whoever the other “partners” are who invested $750,000 in pre-development work will lose their funds.  The FCHC, for reasons that defy logic, spent $1.2 million on pre-development work when it had neither complied with the very soft terms set forth by the City Council nor had it lined up all of its equity and bank financing.  By way of clarification, a loan from the City does not qualify as equity by normal accounting principles, even for a non-profit.  Now, the FCHC has the audacity to ask the taxpayers of Falls Church for a bailout caused by financial mismanagement and overly optimistic forecasting for the entire Project.  The City would not just be bailing out the FCHC, but all of the parties associated with this project, according to the FCHC memo.

Any assertion that this project ever made financial sense for the City is distinctly contrary to a thorough and well-reasoned analysis prepared by Mr. Mike Novotny of the EDA and comments made by Mr. John Lawrence, Chairman of the Planning Commission, who voted against the project.  It would cost the City at least $100,000 in lost tax revenue–when every penny counts.  If this project made that much sense, perhaps Mr. Young should advance the FCHC $1 million, inasmuch as he would be a benefactor of the total project.

To put the $1 million request into the context of the Schools’ budget, that would be the equivalent of 12 teaching positions plus 2 or 3 support staff.  Down the road, the subsidized cost of at least $100,000 per annum would be the annual equivalent of 1.5 teaching positions.  If we go through the math of the project, it is expected by the FCHC that in 15 or 16 years the City would essentially forgive the $2 million loan.  How many teachers or policemen or firemen does that equate to?

In terms of the financial gimmickry of the FCHC request, if I understand Mr. Rogers’ memo to the City Manager, taxpayer funds will flow from the City to the FCHC and then back and forth between the FCHC and the Sawner estate, with a some portion of the funding maybe returning to the City in some guise to make it appear this is nothing more than a usual and customary fiscal arrangement.  It would also allow Mr. Young to proceed with his development and then recoup $25,000 per parking space from the City.

I think that the City Council would be making a huge mistake taking taxpayer funds that were meant to restore the depleted fund balance and finance operations such as public safety and the schools and redirect funds for 66 subsidized housing units.  The City Manager even stripped the CIP of all but $385,000 of capital expenditure to fund the operating budget.  We just heard from the City Manager that he had approached Davenport & Co., the City’s investment bankers, about going to the debt markets to fund the depleted CIP.  The Assistant Director of Finance has confirmed that tax collections are running $3.5 million behind last year.

After we listened to City employees pleading for their jobs in the Council Chambers (and on the City’s TV station) just 3 months ago, this is a major insult to them and their families.  At the end of the day, the real issue is not whether the City Council would be voting on 66 subsidized housing units in the middle of the commercial district to be funded by depleting the fund balance again, but whether this Council wants to bail out the financial mismanagement of the FCHC and place further strain on the City’s operating budget.

Even if the City borrows the money from a bank, it would be sending the wrong signal to every household in the City that had to accept a 16% hike in real estate taxes to support the City’s operating budget, not bail out an entity that is admitting insolvency.  It is an audacious argument on the part of Ms. Jackson and Mr. Rogers to say that the Virginia Development Housing Authority would turn its back on Falls Church for not funding this $1 million request for an admittedly insolvent FCHC.  The Council needs to call in an independent auditor to examine the finances of the FCHA and its financial controls and not bail out the FCHC.  The City should not the “bailout banker” of last resort for a non-profit that speculates in land development.

Mr. Sommerfeld is a businessman who lives in Falls Church City

Editors’ Note:  The Falls Church Times has invited the Falls Church Housing Corporation to submit a Community Comment making the case for its request in this matter, and we invite others to share their views on this topic or others of importance to the City.  Our comment policy appears in our “About” section.  Please send your submissions to contact@fallschurchtimes.com.

July 28, 2010 

On Thursday night, the Falls Church City Council will meet in a rare special session to consider an emergency request from the Falls Church Housing Corporation (FCHC) for early release of $1 million of a $2 million loan the City Council approved in March for support of the proposed affordable housing project, “The Wilden,” at 350 S. Washington Street.  The request has been made because The Wilden’s sister project, “The McKeever” office building planned for the adjacent property at 360 S. Washington Street, has been unable to obtain the funding necessary to proceed.  In order to continue with the project, the FCHC would like to assist in the funding of the McKeever project by purchasing the underlying property at 360 S. Washington Street, thereby relieving the McKeever developer, Bob Young of Jefferson One LLC, of that obligation and allowing him to continue with other aspects of the project. 

In response to a request from the Falls Church Times, representatives of the FCHC and Jefferson One LLC have supplied comments regarding FCHC’s emergency request for early release of $1 million of City loan funding.  Members of the Falls Church City Council have also provided brief comments of their position on the matter.  All comments appear below.  

Questions to Carol Jackson, Executive Director, Falls Church Housing Corporation  

Jackson:  I understand the City Manager is complying with your request to receive documents Steve Rogers used as his talking points in a closed door session with Mayor and Vice Mayor and City Manager laying out our partnership reasons for the request to release one half of the City’s Loan to The Wilden upon Loan Agreement settlement.   We will be happy to answer clarifying questions once you have reviewed all materials.  

FCT:  How will the  $1 million that would be diverted from the Wilden be made up?  

Jackson:  It’s not being diverted from The Wilden, it is part of The Wilden pro forma as the price for parking. It was always to go to 360 construction control, in exchange for a condominium deed for part ownership of The Wilden % of the 360 garage (39 spaces) on the 2 lower levels. That’s why we think this a reasonable request. We truly just need the funds a few months earlier than we would have requested them within the current set of 12A Loan Terms approved on March 22. What we are asking for now is just the first rung in the necessary 360 construction plan ladder. You can’t begin construction until the land changes hands, so The Wilden parking purchase budget item is to be used for that part of the garage construction instead of a slightly later part of the construction work plan. It’s a timing to the City’s funds to solidify the 360 property to begin building the necessary garage that will support the office development to follow.

[Additional comments from Jackson appear in the comments section of City Releases Documents on Housing Corp $1 Million Request.]

Question to Bob Young, Jefferson One LLC

FCT:  Can you tell us what has changed from your perspective to make this request necessary?  Originally you had planned to purchase the 360 S. Washington Street property, but now FCHC is planning to purchase that property.  What has changed, and what will be your role going forward if the City Council grants the FCHC’s request? 

Young:   Much has changed since March when the Council approved the loan.  We have considered and worked on many possible ways to get this building done, from the City occupying a large portion to obtaining a long term lease on over one-half the building to selling the entire building to one user to selling medical condominiums to starting up a Community Development Authority (CDA).  One or more of those approaches will yet work, or more likely a combination.  We always knew that obtaining a commercial loan in this economic environment would be difficult at best, but that now is our only choice.  Under those circumstances, the Wilden Partners need to help us come up with the cash to buy the land so we can borrow the money to build the entire garage.  Jefferson Investment Group [Young's company] still will be purchasing the property and building the commercial office structure on a non-profit basis.  Nothing has changed in that regard.

Question to Members of the Falls Church City Council

FCT:  Do you know what your position will be on the FCHC’s request?  Do you have any other comment?

Mayor Nader Baroukh:  What is being proposed is not a minor change.  This is not an advance of the money already promised but rather it is effectively a new request for funds.   FCHC is now proposing to purchase the 360 property.  FCHC has not fully explained how they are going to cover other project costs if the City advances the $1 million now.   The proposed change will place greater risk on the City and will increase the City’s financial exposure given the likelihood that the McKeever building will not be constructed or will be substantially delayed.  When the Council originally approved the FCHC project, we linked the Wilden and the McKeever buildings.  These linkages were critical to protect the City’s investments, ensure that there was parking for the buildings, and to reduce the overall costs to the City.  The Council and City staff spent countless hours negotiating these linkages and now we are being asked to substantially change and effectively sever these linkages.  The City has given FCHC every opportunity to succeed.  It is now the responsibility of FCHC and The Community Builders to make the project work within the context of the original agreement.

Vice Mayor David Snyder:   The FCHC project as it has evolved to include senior affordable housing, an office building and parking that is adequate for both buildings while providing additional spaces for surrounding commercial activity, is in the public interest.  It also makes sense financially, in that we get all of this benefit and value with a City financial participation that leverages the investment of non-City funds that are many times greater than the City’s participation. The timing and substance of this latest request, however, raises questions that need to be answered.  Most importantly, while the proposed earlier payment slightly increases the City’s risk, my main concern is whether the project as now proposed, can and will be built.  I will need adequate assurances on that most fundamental issue.  I will be interested in seeing the relevant financial documents, questioning the representatives of the interested parties, and determining whether there are new measures that could be put in place, if the requested change is made.  

Councilwoman Johannah Barry:  My deep concern is the position the City is being compelled to accept. We are first in line with risk and last in line with benefit to our citizens.  It is unfortunate that the FCHC has developed a large financial shortfall, but I am concerned that for the City to bail out the organization in this way would result in much greater risk going forward.  Our efforts to stabilize the City fund balance will be completely undercut, and the taxpayers could see a significant tax increase in the future.  I am concerned about stepping in to resolve the FCHC’s financial problems while the City has other large budget pressures.

Councilwoman Robin Gardner:  I have been working with our community for the past 10 years to bring affordable housing to our City.  We are now at the point where we can realize this opportunity and increase our commercial base through the Wilden and the McKeever projects.  The Housing Corporation, due to a change in the market, is asking for half of the the funding we approved in March now so they can meet the financial obligations they committed to, and we as a City committed to, as well.  If we cannot work with the Housing Corporation to realize this opportunity, I believe that we will not see affordable housing in Falls Church, and that will truly be a shame for this community and the senior citizens who deserve this new affordable living space.
 
Councilman Ira Kaylin:  I am concerned that the Falls Church Housing Corporation is no longer a “going concern”.  The Wilden project has a $1 million funding shortfall.  In addition the FCHC has a $2.7 million short term note due next week.  According to the FCHC it cannot not meet that debt obligation and requires that the City’s accelerate payment of $1 million in order to continue with the project and prevent the financial collapse of the FCHC.  Given the FCHC’s self-created financial stress, it is almost certain that future financial support above and beyond the $2 million originally authorized will be requested.  Any future funding requests can only be covered through further budget cuts or tax increases. 

Councilman Ron Peppe:   I do not have a position yet.  I am waiting to hear the discussion at the meeting.

Councilman Lawrence Webb:  I have not made a final decision yet.  I am trying my best to gather the information that I need between now and Thursday.  I will say that I do have some concerns that have not been addressed fully, and I will be trying to get that information.

July 27, 2010

Today the City of Falls Church released a number of documents relating to the Falls Church Housing Corporation’s emergency request for release of $1 million of the $2 million loan the City Council agreed to in March.

Among the documents released is a draft resolution prepared by City staff for approval of the Falls Church Housing Corporation’s (FCHC) request.  The resolution will be considered Thursday night when the City Council meets in special session for the sole purpose of considering the request.  The draft resolution provides confirmation that the FCHC and its partner plan to use the $1 million “as a part of the funding necessary to acquire 360 S. Washington Street (360) from Mr. [Thomas] Sawner’s estate.”

The FCHC’s purchase of the property at 360 S. Washington Street would represent a significant change in its earlier plan.  Under the earlier plan, “Flower Building” owner Bob Young would acquire the 360 S. Washington property and construct the “McKeever” office building and parking garage there, while FCHC and its partner would develop “The Wilden” affordable housing project at the adjacent property at 350 S. Washington Street.  Young and the Wilden partners would build the two projects under a unified site plan, according to the proposal approved in March.

Another document released by the City is a letter from FCHC partner, Boston-based The Community Builders, asking the City Council “to very modestly amend City Loan Terms of Agreement . . . modifying the timing of the release of one half of the City funds, $1 million, to facilitate construction start for The Wilden, specifically related to acquisition/construction start for the project’s structured parking at the attached McKeever 360 site.”

A third document consists of talking points used by FCHC President Steve Rogers in conversations with City officials last week.  Rogers’ document states that FCHC is using $2 million in existing cash to purchase the 360 S. Washington property, thereby creating a need for an additional $1 million to purchase parking spaces for The Wilden in the adjacent “McKeever” parking garage.  Rogers goes on to say that FCHC will recoup its investment in the 360 S. Washington property” when the McKeever office building is fully developed and sold out.

Rogers also provides a long list of “Consequences of Saying No,” including that the 350 and 360 S. Washington properties will revert to existing use, that $8.2 million in federal monies will be returned, that FCHC likely will have to sell 350 S. Washington at a loss, and that FCHC will have to merge with a larger entity “If yet attractive enough after huge assets loss.”

None of the documents appear to answer the question of how FCHC will fully fund The Wilden project after $1 million currently dedicated for that projected is diverted for another use.  [Ed.  See comment below from Carol Jackson, FCHC Executive Director, on this point, stating that the use of  the initial $1 million would not be a diversion of funds away from The Wilden.]

In total, the following documents have been released regarding the FCHC request.

1)      Draft resolution to approve the FCHC request, to be considered by the Falls Church City Council on Thursday, July 29 – Thursday July 29 agenda, TR 10-30

2)      Letter from The Community Builders to Falls Church City Council dated July 26, 2010 – Thursday July 29 agenda, TR 10-30 attachment 1

3)      Previous City Council resolution from March 2010, approving $2 million City loan for The Wilden affordable housing project – Thursday July 29 agenda, TR 10-30 attachment 2

4)      March 2010 pro-forma financial showing projected financial impact and community benefit of The Wilden affordable housing and The McKeever office building projects – Thursday July 29 agenda, TR 10-30 attachment 2a

5)      FCHC President Steve Rogers talking points presented to City officials last week – document appears below.

6)      An undated FCHC financial statement presented to public officials last week showing The Wilden TW Total Development Sources and Assets: Wilden Assets

——–

FCHC Chairman Steve Rogers talking points presented to Falls Church City Officials July 21-23, 2010

7-21-10: Critical Path Background and Issues for 350-360 Deals:

1. All Sources for The Wilden (TW) and McKeever (360) groundbreaking are at the ready; including financing for constructing the McKeever garage

2. Cash flow timing for both projects is critical to accomplish 350-360 intertwined demolition and construction phases

3. Mr. Sawner’s widow has made it clear from her accountant and attorney that she is interested and will do all possible to complete the sale of 360 property on timetable suitable for TW settlement on all sources of funding

4. The McKeever garage has commitment for commercial bank construction loan.  Subsequently the bank requires that 360 land be free and clear to be used as collateral for the construction financing the City requires as a condition of its $2 mil Loan Signing Settlement

5. FCHC cash has been used for costly Wilden pre-development, @$1.2 mil

6. the remainder of all FCHC cash assets now must be used to invest, @$2 mil, in 360 land purchase.  There is no other way to get 360 garage financed.

7.  The other source of cash for 360 property purchase is TW Parking Spaces purchase, $1 mil

8. The only eligible Sources (according to federal govt regs) for TW Parking Purchase are FCHC and City Loan $$.

9. Since FCHC’s cash is NOW going to 360 property purchase instead of TW parking, City must release one half of the City’s loan at closing, $1 mil

10. If release occurs all will proceed as planned to break ground on both 350 and 360 properties in early September.

11. FCHC will recoup its investment in 360 property when McKeever Office is fully developed and sold out

Needed from Council Leadership by July 23

1. Agree $1 million of Council-approved Loan funds can be used for TW Parking purchase available at settlement August 2010 to get 360 garage construction underway

2. Stated and demonstrated support to City Manager and Staff to finish all legal and permitting work timely to meet The Wilden Settlement and construction deadlines.

Consequences of Saying No

• Contract Developers of both properties will stop and let go their land purchase deals; 350 and 360 will revert to existing use (both now vacant office needing investment to attract tenants). Existing Site Plans and boundaries in conflict with denser redevelopment by any single owner of each property.
• Wilden partners will return to VHDA $4 mil Federal Tax Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) “Stimulus” funding and $4.2 tax credit investments
• Partners will lose unrecoverable fees, $750,000 pre-development expenses currently advanced 100% by FCHC + addt’l $400,000 in 350 carrying costs/legal fees which will be permanently written off on FCHC balance sheet
• VHDA will write off City of Falls Church for all future deals and potentially for soft funds for homeowner programs
• 350 Short Term Note Payoff, $2.7 mil, is due August 5.  FCHC will need to sell 350, very likely at a loss, to pay off debt 
• Tom Sawner’s estate will probably do the same
• City’s reputation will be harmed, making it politically more difficult to get favorable hearings for City issues. Congressman Moran will be incensed by our failure to perform. Regardless of who is responsible the City will face the consequences
• Opportunities for the addition and possibly preservation of affordable housing units will be lost for foreseeable future
• If yet attractive enough after huge assets loss, FCHC will merge with a larger entity
• After 10 years of failure to provide additional affordable housing, and faced with the loss of existing affordable housing stock, the City’s Vision will need to be truthfully amended to remove diversity as a stated priority

July 27, 2010

An item not on the published agenda became the highlight of last night’s meeting of the Falls Church City Council – the Falls Church Housing Corporation’s  request for immediate access to $1 million to save the “McKeever” office building and parking garage, which in turn is necessary for “The Wilden” affordable housing project.  

According to those in attendance at last night’s meeting, financing is still lacking for the McKeever project four days before a crucial July 31 deadline.   

The McKeever and Wilden projects were approved in March by the previous City Council as a joint package.  Because of their close ties, if one project fails, the other likely also will fail.  The Falls Church Housing Corporation (FCHC) has told the City Council that unless financing for both projects is secured by the end of this month, the housing organization will miss out on essential federal and state affordable housing monies intended for the Wilden.     

Originally, the Wilden was to be built by the FCHC and its partner The Community Builders, and the McKeever was to be built by “Flower Building” owner Bob Young.  According to discussions last night, however, Young’s  project appears to lack necessary funding, putting both projects at risk.  To avoid missing its July 31 deadline, FCHC has proposed that it buy the property upon which Young’s building would stand, relieving Young of that obligation and allowing the  McKeever project – and hence the Wilden project – to go forward.  To allow it to buy the property underlying the McKeever project, FCHC is asking the City Council to let it use $1 million of a $2 million loan intended for the Wilden, and to provide the $1 million immediately. 

The FCHC currently owns the site of the Wilden project at 350 S. Washington Street.  The McKeever project is planned for the adjacent property at 360 S. Washington, currently owned by the estate of local businessman Thomas Sawner, who died last week.  Young signed documents earlier this year indicating his intent to purchase the Sawner property, but the sale has not been finalized.

Last night Mayor Nader Baroukh began the discussion of the FCHC’s request for early payment of  $1 million with a number of questions to City staff.  Included among Baroukh’s questions was why there now is a shortage of $1 million, where funds to cover the gap would come from, why the FCHC was facing a July 31 deadline, and what would be the potential financial impact on the City if it approves the FCHC’s request but the McKeever project is not built concurrently with The Wilden.  He also inquired regarding the status of $2 million in Capital Improvements Program funds set aside for affordable housing and asked for a report on the potential risk to the City, given revised financing arrangements.  

Answers to the mayor’s questions weren’t immediately available, but other Council members were not hesitant to express their opinions on the topic.

Former mayor Robin Gardner, who advised that she had learned of FCHC’s concerns only last Wednesday night, viewed the proposed change in the loan agreement as essentially an amendment to the previously approved resolution; i.e., that instead of funding the $2 million at a later point the City would fund half of the money sooner. 

New members Ira Kaylin and Johannah Barry saw things differently.  Mr. Kaylin called the change ”a new proposal, in terms of its financial complexity.”  Ms. Barry concurred, stating “This lack of financial planning is not our crisis.  Though it looks as if we’re shifting distribution dates, in fact this puts the City at a much higher financial risk, instead of the third or fourth contributor to this process we’ve become capital investors, the first in line.” 

Vice Mayor Dave Snyder referenced a statement from The Community Builders, the FCHC’s partner in the project, which claimed that the risk to the City had not increased.  He observed that although there are risks to the City in proceeding, there are also risks in not doing so.  Councilman Ron Peppe agreed with Mr. Snyder and pointed out that the Council had previously endorsed the project by a 6-1 vote.  

Mayor Baroukh, who cast the lone negative vote in the Council’s March 6-1 approval of the Wilden, stated that he did not know why the matter was being raised ”at the 11th hour” and said the change was not what he would call a minor amendment.  “This has some significant implications on some text that took hours upon hours to work through, but now we’re only going to have a few days to fully assess this.”  

One key question will be how the diversion of $1 million from the Wilden to the McKeever project would affect construction of the Wilden, and whether FCHC has identified a source for replacement of the $1 million. 

At press time only the agenda for Thursday’s meeting had been posted on the City’s website.  The primary documents regarding the FCHC’s request were not available.  A link will be added to this story when the documents are posted.  

Late Monday night Councilmen Lawrence Webb and Ron Peppe each told the Falls Church Times by email that they were awaiting more information before forming a position on FCHC’s request.  Councilwoman Gardner said she did know her position, but due to the lateness of the hour, would provide that information along with a comment on the matter on Tuesday.   

Inquiries to FCHC and Young regarding the matter were sent late Monday night after the City Council meeting concluded.  Information received will be made available when received.  

At the request of Gardner and Pepper, the Council has schedule a special meeting Thursday night for consideration of the FCHC request.  The Council is expected to vote at that time on whether to grant the FCHC’s request for early receipt of $1 million. 

On a separate matter, the GEORGE bus service, which was the primary item on last night’s Council agenda, did not receive a lengthy discussion.  Two residents spoke in support of the system and one in favor of its termination.  Mayor Baroukh asked the public to offer their views via email before the Council’s work session next Monday. 

Five options for GEORGE have been under consideration.  Mr. Snyder suggested adding an option of reducing service hours on 26E, while still retaining some rush hour trips on 26W.  The vice mayor also encouraged Gary LaPorta of the Chamber of Commerce, who spoke in favor of the service, to offer recommendations as to how the bus could be used as an economic development tool.  

The Council unanimously approved second reading of a change in the City code to allow the use of photo monitoring systems to enforce traffic light signals.  Police Chief Harry Reitze stated that the department was still pushing for installation of two enforcement systems by early fall but could not offer a specific date. 

Ms. Gardner reported that she and City Manager Wyatt Shields had attended Monday’s memorial service for local developer Thomas Sawner.  She expressed regret that Falls Church had only known him for a short time and praised “the amount of giving he gave to his community.”

In his report to the Council Mr. Shields stated that 130 people dropped off hazardous materials during last Saturday’s collection event.

July 20, 2010

On a recent Sunday morning, a tree crew appeared on Forest Drive and removed two mature trees from a lot upon which a new house will soon be built. Given a context where protecting trees appears to be of utmost importance to the City, it is surprising and disconcerting to residents when developers clear-cut lots. While the tree removal on Forest came as a surprise to neighbors, it was perfectly legal, approved and permitted by the City’s arborist.

Here’s a thumbnail version of the City’s tree policy as it relates to construction:

For smaller projects – or those that disturb less than 2,500 square feet of land — the arborist may require that property owners have tree protection fencing installed around City trees and perhaps specimen trees.  Projects of all sizes situated in the resource protection area (RPA) receive additional scrutiny from the arborist. (Per the City code, RPAs consist of sensitive lands that have an intrinsic water quality value due to the ecological and biological processes they perform or are sensitive to impacts, which may result in significant degradation to the quality of state waters.  A list of properties in the RPA can be found here.)

Projects where 2,500 square feet or more of land is disturbed require an erosion and sediment plan, a grading plan, and a landscape conservation plan.  For these projects, in addition to tree protection fencing for existing trees on the owner’s property and for City trees in the right-of-way, measures may also be required to protect trees on adjacent properties.  If tree protection is violated during construction, a fine or a stop work order may be imposed. At the end of the construction project, the property owner may be required to cover the purchase and installation of new trees and shrubs to meet the tree canopy requirements set forth in the City’s Tree Protection and Preservation Guide.

Why does clear-cutting happen? In many cases, it’s easier for developers to remove trees than to try and protect them during the construction process. The pre-permit work of tree protection can be time consuming, not to mention money consuming, if it takes too long.  Then there is the possibility that the owner or contractor complies with the tree protection measures only to have a subcontractor violate the ordinance.  The Tree Protection and Preservation Guide suggests that property owners write their contracts so that a fine is imposed on contractors who violate the tree protection measures.  (Speaking of tree ordinance violations, according to Washington Post archives, a City resident was arrested in 1999 for removing two oak trees on his property during renovation. The City ordinance was changed as a result and the City agreed to pay $6,000 to the resident and expunge his arrest record.  Today, violators of the tree ordinance face fines rather than criminal charges.)

Clear-cutting also happens when trees are simply in the way. With a permit, trees on undeveloped property, trees on property that is undergoing redevelopment (sites with a building permit application on file), and City trees on the right-of-way may be removed.  Imagine a lot where trees are growing where the dining room is planned.  Or, a City tree is blocking the proposed driveway.  As with other trees, a property owner may request that a City tree be removed if it interferes with the intended use of the property. Permits are not required to remove a tree on residential private property if the property is not under development, unless the tree is a specimen or historic tree.

Here’s the code showing what the arborist considers when evaluating tree removal permit applications:

Sec. 44-110.  Permit review and issuance.

(a)   Factors to consider.  In addition to reviewing for conformance to standards and guidelines contained in the public facilities manual, the following factors shall also be taken into consideration:

(1)   The extent to which tree clearing is shown to avoid excessive clearing and still permit the applicant to achieve the proposed development or land use.
(2)   The extent to which the actual or intended use of the property is in accordance with the regulations of the zoning district in which the property lies requires clearing of trees.
(3)   The hardship to the applicant which will result from a modification or rejection of the required permit.
(4)   The desirability of preserving any tree by reason of its size, age or some other outstanding quality, such as uniqueness, rarity or status as a landmark or species specimen.
(5)   The extent to which the area would be subject to environmental degradation due to removal of the trees.
(6)   The heightened desirability of preserving tree cover in densely developed or densely populated areas.
(7)   Whether the tree is diseased, injured beyond restoration, in danger of falling, interferes with utility services or creates unsafe visual clearance.

(b)   Replacement of trees.  When warranted in the judgment of the arborist, the applicant may be required to replace, in accordance with a tree replacement plan, any tree being removed with a suitable replacement tree elsewhere on the site. In determining whether the replacement of trees is reasonable and shall be required, the arborist shall consider the intended use of the property together with an evaluation of the following:

(1)   Existing tree coverage, size and type;
(2)   Number of trees to be removed;
(3)   Area to be covered with structures, parking and driveways;
(4)   Grading plan and drainage requirements; and
(5)   Character of the site and its environs.

(c)   Approval.  If the permit application conforms to standards and guidelines and there are no objections resulting from consideration of the factors listed in subsection (a) of this section, the permit application shall be approved.

(d)   Rejection.  If the permit application does not conform to standards and guidelines or there is an objection resulting from consideration of the factors listed in subsection (a) of this section, the permit application shall be rejected. The arborist may require that the application be modified to bring it into conformance with the standards and guidelines or to eliminate any objections to the application.

(Code 1982, § 35-13; Ord. No. 811)

The decision to remove trees in the way of construction rests with the City’s arborist.  The arborist or urban forester receives guidance from the Tree Commission. The Tree Commission consists of volunteers who are city residents, eligible to vote, and approved by the City Council. Currently, the Tree Commission has one member, a botanist, and four vacancies.

On Forest Drive, the arborist permitted tree removal with the condition that one existing tree is preserved and that nine replacement trees be planted on the property once construction is complete.  The existing tree plus the nine replacement trees will provide the requisite tree canopy coverage in 10 years’ time.  However, even in 10 years, the replacement trees will not take the place of what has been removed in terms of appearance, shade or watershed protection.  Yet, it was done according to the City’s code.

Looking beyond residential construction, the City recently launched the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Plan.  Part of this plan will focus on building sidewalks to make the City more pedestrian friendly. The City’s right-of-way is where sidewalks typically are built, and many trees are currently planted in the City’s right-of-way or very close to it.  Some of these trees may survive sidewalk construction.  Others will need to be removed.

Sidewalks vs. Trees — now that will create some interesting conversations in the Little City.

July 18, 2010

Finally. After waiting more than five months, my husband Alex and I received a building permit — the green light — for our green house project.

I got a voice mail a few days ago from a city official in Falls Church, Va., informing us that our January application had been approved. My builder Arjay West also e-mailed the good news, adding: “I can hardly believe it.”

“Woo-hoo!” cheered my architect Heather Daley.

Did I jump for joy? Did I hoot and holler, knowing I could finally tell folks we’re breaking ground? Did we celebrate with margaritas and shrimp jambalaya at our favorite Falls Church hangout, Clare and Don’s Beach Shack?

I continued straightening our rental townhouse, and when Alex got home from work, I casually mentioned, “Oh, we got the permit,” after recapping the day’s events.

We simply had waited too long. I was full of anticipation January 15th when I walked confidently into the red brick City Hall and dropped off our grading plan and, a week later, our construction set, but the subsequent process was so draining, frustrating and mystifying that I lost enthusiasm.

(Click here to read the full story on the USA Today website.)

By SUZANNE UPDIKE
Special to the Falls Church Times

July 15, 2010

On July 6, 2010, the City’s Zoning Administrator issued a permit to New Dimensions, Inc. to construct a new home on Forest Drive, and the developer went to work.  The clear-cut lot drew the attention of the neighborhood and when neighbors went to City Hall to look at the plans, they were upset to find the City had issued a permit allowing the proposed house to extend 16 to 19 feet past the surrounding homes. Despite neighboring lots with 47 and 50 ft front yards, NDI is only required to use a 30 ft setback.  Neighbors on Forest Drive are planning to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals later this month.  Suzanne Updike, a neighbor not party to the appeal, researched the City’s Zoning Code and has agreed to write a series of analyses for the Falls Church Times.

PART 1.  FRONT YARD SETBACKS

The City of Falls Church has been working with a consultant, Clarion Associates, and the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee to rewrite its zoning ordinance.    Public review (originally planned for fall of 2009) is set for fall 2010.    While much of the rewrite will focus on commercial zoning, residential portions of the code also need attention as Falls Church City wrestles with the effect of new infill houses in its neighborhoods.

One hot topic is front yard setback, or how close a new house can be built to the street.  The current zoning code requires that the minimum front yard for new construction, new buildings, and new additions to existing residential structures… shall be the average of the nearest front yards on either side (with some exceptions for homes with only one neighboring building, corner lots, etc.).

The required front yard setback distance for this new construction will vary depending on surroundings, but no front yard shall be less than 30 feet in an R-1A district and 25 feet in an R-1B district, and that no front yard need be more than 50 feet. (Sec 48 -1102 (c).  A tape measure is needed to find the setback:

Each yard shall be measured horizontally to the nearest point of the building or nearest line of the use area, except for allowable projections.  (Sec 48-11-02 (d)).

Historically, this is how the City enforced setbacks for new construction.  Despite the clear intent of the zoning ordinance to require averaging of setbacks (to determine a setback of no less than 25 or 30 ft and no more than 50 feet), recently the Zoning Administrator has only been requiring a 30 ft setback in R-1A and a 25 ft setback in R-1B.

The City Is Challenged

In the fall of 2005, neighbors challenged a City permit over problems with building setbacks for a new home at 807 Ridge Place (including the lack of averaging and the way that the Zoning Administrator measured the lines).  The Board of Zoning Appeals agreed with the neighbors, but later rescinded its appeal because of a technicality on when the BZA appeal can be filed.   The neighbors filed a lawsuit in Arlington County Court because the City did not follow due process for an action to rescind at the January 2006 meeting.

As part of the court settlement (Melissa Teates et al. v.  Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of Falls Church) on April 4, 2006, the City explicitly agreed that it would average the nearest front yards as set forth in the zoning ordinance in all future cases:

The substance of the December 15, 2005 BZA Decision, referred to in the Appeal and Petition for Writ of Certiorari as the “Final BZA Decision “ will be respected and followed by the City and the BZA in all future cases unless and until legislation is changed through the proper hearings according to law.  This shall mean, as reflected in the Minutes of the BZA from December 15, 2005 Decision, that setbacks will be measured from the right-of-way line wherever that line may go including arcs or irregularities, and that City Code Section 38-28(b)(4) shall be interpreted and enforced in this manner except with respect to exceptions set forth therein. This shall also mean the setbacks from the right-of way lines shall be determined by the average of the nearest front yards on either side of the lot in question except for the exceptions set forth in City Code Section 38-28(b)(3)

The City Still Doesn’t Follow the Code

Despite the City’s express agreement to use the averaging method, the city handout “Required Residential Lot and Yard Sizes” does not reference this requirement to average the nearest front yards, and the Zoning Administrator appears to not be requiring the averaging method to determine the setback.

In the current case on Forest Drive, the City permit to NDI requires only a 30 ft. setback, despite neighboring lots with 47 and 50 ft front yards.  Neighbors are organizing an appeal to the BZA.  The essence of the appeal will be that the front yard setback is not in compliance with the regulations of the zoning code which requires that the minimum front yard be determined by averaging the nearest front yards on either side.  The neighboring yards are 47 and 50 feet back from the property line (57 and 60 feet from curb).  The proposed house is planned to be built 30.5 feet from the property line (40.5 ft from curb) – 18 feet out of compliance.

Must citizens file appeals to get the City to enforce its own ordinance, one which it explicitly agreed to follow in the 2006 court settlement?

The Zoning Ordinance Rewrite

With the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee rewriting the code, now is the chance to clarify setback allowances and other current practices so that it can be applied consistently. Falls Church City citizens will have a chance during the lengthy public comment period to suggest ways to strengthen the zoning ordinances.

1) It would be helpful to change the definition of front yard to explicitly define it as the distance to the residential structure, removing any ambiguity.

2) The zoning ordinance should also provide more detail on how to measure and average.  The Montgomery County, Md. ordinance provides multiple “methods” to cover different situations – diagrams with explicit directions clearly showing which neighboring lots should be included in the averaging (pipe stem lots are excluded, for example) and at which point to measure on irregular lots.

3) The definition for an average setback should be formalized.  Montgomery County, Md., calls the average the Established Building Line. The City of Annapolis calls it the Established Front Yard.

4) The City should also consider whether the averaging should look at just the two neighboring houses (as in current code), or provide flexibility to look at a larger area:  In Montgomery County, you may either average the two adjoining lots or the lots within 300 feet in each direction.  In Annapolis, the “established front yard” is computed using either the two neighboring structures or the average of the block (excluding the largest and smallest lots), depending on which would provide greater consistency.

5) The current approach sets a 25 or 30 ft minimum – does Falls Church have streets where the existing front yard setback pattern is less than that?  If so, perhaps the code should allow averaging to provide a smaller yard on those streets.  This is allowed in Arlington and Annapolis, where single family homes can be close to the street.

Citizens should be prepared to voice their opinions on the zoning ordinance rewrite when it is finally released for public comment.    What happens in the interim?  Watch the action this summer on Forest Drive.

July 1, 2010

Four Falls Church City Council Members and Members-Elect rolled out a “Blueprint for Action” document yesterday aimed at improving the City’s financial planning and responsibility processes.

Sitting Council Members Nader Baroukh and Lawrence Webb and Council Members-Elect Johannah Barry and Ira Kaylin describe the document as a “discussion draft” designed to set priority areas for the Council in the coming term.

The Baroukh-Webb-Barry-Kaylin draft proposes the following action items for the City:

1)      Develop a five-year projection of the City’s financial situation;

2)      Undertake a comprehensive review of the City’s operating structure and organization;

3)      Develop revenue enhancing measures in the form of cost savings and additional net revenue from appropriate application of user fees;

4)      Adopt a three-year rolling budget though the budget approval process will be undertaken on a yearly basis;

5)      Align City budget preparation process that coincides with that of the School System in order to identify possible long term funding gaps (starting with the 5-year financial projections);

6)      Receive monthly & quarterly financial reports;

7)      Develop a minimum effort policy for capital investment;

8)      Develop a policy for a “Rainy Day” or Reserve/Stabilization Fund Policy;

9)      Continue to proactively and creatively market the City, including additional resources for the Economic Development Office;

10)   Adopt an Area Planning Process.

In a press release, the four made the following statements regarding their proposal.

Baroukh

Baroukh:  “It has become clear that we must do a better job managing our budget and projecting the state of our finances for the future, including a focus on economic development.  What we are announcing today is a series of common-sense budgeting and financial practices to help us do that.  They’re not flashy, but they are very important.  I look forward to working with all members of Council as we develop priority areas and establish a Council work plan in the near future.”

Webb:  “The City’s financial situation is the most critical issue we face.  That’s why it’s important that we begin to improve our practices quickly.  I’m pleased to be able to work on this immediately upon the start of the new Council session.”

Webb

Kaylin:  “These are action items that Johannah [Barry] and I discussed during the campaign. Our primary objective is to establish a path toward economic sustainability in order to maintain an independent Falls Church City. We need to improve our fiscal management now and plan for the future expansion of our economic base.  The purpose of the document, therefore, is to begin these important discussions.  I hope the new Council puts these issues front-and-center.”

Barry

Barry:  “In business or government, surprises are something you want to avoid.  Sometimes they are inevitable, but if we can minimize the number of surprises we face, we will be better off.  That’s what we are attempting to do here.  We want a budgetary and financial system that is predictable.  Discussing and laying out the steps of how to accomplish this are critical.”

According to Baroukh, other Council Members are reviewing the draft in order to add their input.

Kaylin

The new Council session starts tonight, when Barry and Kaylin and Member-Elect Ron Peppe will be sworn in.  Current Council Members returning are Baroukh, Webb, Robin Gardner and David Snyder.

The discussion draft document appears below.

———–

Discussion Draft

Organizing Principles
Blueprint for Action

The purpose of the working document is to outline the priority areas of the City Council with a view to initiate specific actions.  These areas are:

—Budget: Expenditures and Revenue

—Economic Development

—Change Council review processes that permit more careful (not necessarily longer review) analysis of proposed projects/actions (i.e. not deadline driven).  Recommended changes will be described in a companion document.

The Blueprint for Action recognizes the impact of excellent schools on the City’s housing prices although difficult to quantify, and certainly positive and the City’s sense of community.  The overall impact is the inter relationship between overall revenue and cost generation.

The Blueprint for Action recognizes the need to expand and address such issues as green spaces, arts and community events, and library capital improvement needs.  Nonetheless, the City’s budget and economic development issues must be given priority in order to properly develop and implement such items.

Budget

Based on recommendations previously made to the City Council and enhanced and expanded by the Long-Range Financial Planning Working Group (“LRFPWG”) the following course of action is suggested:

Expenditures

—A five-year projection of the City’s financial situation.  Projections should be based on current financial data.  These projections are to be provided by the City and will serve as the basis of budget decisions.  The City can use an in house model or that of the LRFPWG, but the City must take ownership (i.e. they are to be considered official City projections).

—Once the “gaps” are identified the City and the School System should seek multi-year long term cost reductions to narrow or eliminate funding gaps.  Expenditure reductions to close these “gaps” should be distributed in an equitable and fair manner.

—No analytical model has been developed by economists that can measure the tradeoff between the School System’s benefit to housing values (and City revenue) and the dampening impact on housing values of increasing real estate taxes.  As such, these factors should be given equal weight.

—City side expenditure reductions should be based on a comprehensive review of the City’s operating structure and organization.  The City Council should prepare the scope for the work to be performed with inputs from the City side.  The review should be undertaken by a consulting firm specializing in organizational structure.

—The City’s Fund Balance needs further recapitalization especially for the large anticipated Capital Improvements Program (“CIP”).  Providing the School System with needed Capital Improvements is also a priority.

Revenue

—The City has less control over the revenue side than it does over expenditures.  Revenues that can be increased are those cost savings such as elimination of redundant functions between the City and School System, and further outsourcing with adjacent jurisdictions and/or private sector.  Some user fees can be increased, which may lead to a more equitable allocation of costs.

—Further efforts at greater utilization of existing retail and office space should be aggressively pursued as well.

While the above will assist in increasing revenues, none of the revenue enhancers will materially improve the City’s short or long-term fiscal situation.

For the City’s long-term financial viability to be assured; that is, our independence and our Schools, the City’s economic base must be prudently expanded.

Budget Process

—Adoption of a three-year rolling budget (within the parameters established in the longer term strategic plans).  This is essential.  A quote from the LRFWG is merited, “A multi-year rolling budget will provide financial discipline and show the effects of decisions made today.”

—City budgets would be approved on a yearly basis as is required.  Three-year rolling budget projections are to be used as a decision support tool and are not to be taken as binding.

—The City and School budgets should be considered at the same time; not sequentially.  In that regard, the School System budget process has been undertaken in a timely basis and should be used by the City to gauge the timing of its budget preparation.

As recommended by the Gerhart Report and the LRFPWG, the City should prepare and distribute to the City Council the following:

—Monthly & Quarterly financial reports.  Better financial management and forecasting should be possible if the City’s financial staff regularly generates timely financial reports.

—Minimum Effort Policy for Capital Investment.  The City Manager slashed the CIP and capital outlays in recent years in an attempt to balance the budget, thus putting aging infrastructure at risk for the City and the School System.  This will cause significant safety and financial problems for both the City and the Schools within 3 years.

—Adopt a “Rainy Day” Reserve/Stabilization Fund Policy:  The City currently has no dedicated “rainy day” fund to offset one time spikes in expenditure needs.

Economic Development

The long-term financial sustainability of the City depends on its ability to expand, diversify and sustain its economic base.  Specifically:

—While greater occupancy rates for existing commercial/retail space will generate additional revenue it will still be insufficient to close the expected budget gaps, even at 100% occupancy.

—An active City, which includes a vibrant night life, readily accessible restaurants, etc., would complement the City’s effort to attract larger commercial investors.  To expand the City’s presence within the region, additional resources should be provided to the EDO to proactively and creatively market the attributes of the City.

—The land available for commercial/office construction has been identified for years.  The City is fortunate that the three logical development zones (Metro stops and S. Maple) are already in commercial/business corridors; thus future development need not impact the residential core of the City.  It is recognized, however, that wherever the development is located it will border on some homeowner’s property and this must be taken into account.  The City must complete “revitalization plans” for key commercial areas (East End, EFC Metro, WFC Metro, and Downtown).

We are aware that Arlington County’s planned development for the East Falls Church Metro area is already underway and the subject of public hearings.  This planned, high density development, which is intended to optimize the area’s commercial and residential location, will impact the City’s landscape and development options and should be, to the extent possible, jointly conceived and executed.

—Given the projected size of the City’s budget shortfalls, future development will be, by necessity, of a higher density and should be better planned than is currently the norm.  Such development should retain a sense of proportion and harmony with existing residential neighborhoods and must be economically sustainable.

—The challenges of undertaking such an approach are well known and are not to be trivialized or dismissed.

Background

In the early to mid 2000’s, the financial consequences of inhibiting commercial/office development were obscured by the housing bubble.  The City is exposed to considerable revenue volatility since approximately 80% of the City’s real estate assessments are residential.  Expenditures, however, are not as volatile and tend upward even in poor economic environments, as is shown in the analyses of the LRFPWG.

With the good times rolling, fundamental structural imbalances between the growth in revenues and the growth in expenditures, though recognized in many quarters, were not effectively, if at all, addressed.  The City’s apparent financial well-being was not based on sound fundamentals of having a diversified revenue base.

The economic situation today is radically different from that of 2007. Continued reliance on residential real estate taxes that fueled the City’s revenue and expenditure growth is now an impediment to the improvement of the City’s financial well-being and a challenge to the discretionary household incomes of our citizens.  The City’s structural imbalances are now clear and evident.  The likelihood of a reemergence of the housing market as a growing revenue generator, in the near or medium term, is remote and cannot serve as the basis for the City’s long term financial sustainability.

There are claims that no commercial developers are interested in investing in the City and future efforts are likely to produce the same result.  However, there remains some question as to how energetically and creatively the City actually pursued commercial development, especially in light of the housing boom.

Conclusions

The long term choices confronting the City lie between the: 1) commitment to significantly expand the City’s economic base or, 2) eventually incurring significant reductions in the quality of services provided by the City and its School System.  In the worst case, but plausible, scenario the independence of the City would be at risk.

Significant reductions in the quality of City services will result if we continue along our current development path.  Underlying these choices is the assumption that while some increase in real estate taxes may need to be absorbed in the short-term, continued real estate tax increases is not an economically viable long term solution.

The best solution is to strategically expand the City’s economic base in a carefully planned, thoughtful manner that maintains and enhances the high quality of life that we currently enjoy.  The City’s current financial situation does present opportunities.  Falls Church has real and viable development opportunities.  We should begin a well-focused “Area Planning Process,” including City financial support, and with a clear City financial commitment to pursue such development (including other sources).  Once a Plan is developed the City must adhere to the Plan.  The City must also develop an implementation plan as part of this process.

The City has commissioned and ignored previous plans, including some that were well conceived.  There appears to be justifiable “Studies” fatigue.  However, if the planning process is to be correctly done we should seek the professional service of a recognized firm specializing in revitalization programs.  To accelerate the process and broaden our options the previous studies should be presented to the selected firm in order to take advantage of already completed work.

The above focuses on two salient issues (i.e., the Budget and Economic Development).  Of course, there are many other activities that are essential.  However, if future budget discussions produce results similar to that of FY 2011, the City’s sustainable future will be compromised because continued deterioration of City services will be the norm rather than the exception.

Recommendations

The following is a summary of the recommendations contained above:

1) The City will develop a five-year projection of the City’s financial situation.

2) A comprehensive review of the City’s operating structure and organization will be undertaken.

3) Revenue enhancing measures in the form of cost savings and additional net revenue from appropriate application of user fees will be developed.

4) The City will adopt a three-year rolling budget though the budget approval process is undertaken on a yearly basis.

5) The City’s budget preparation will coincide with that of the School System in order to identify possible long term funding gaps (starting with the 5-year financial projections).  Budget reductions should be done on a fair and equitable basis.

6)  Monthly & quarterly financial reports will be provided to Council.

7)  A minimum effort policy for capital investment will be developed.

8)  A policy for a “Rainy Day” or Reserve/Stabilization Fund Policy will be developed.

9) The City should continue to proactively and creatively market the City, including additional resources for the EDO.

10) The City will adopt an Area Planning Process.  A Working Group, which would report directly to the City Council and include the Planning Commission, Planning Staff, EDO, and the EDA, will be tasked with developing the scope of work for developing the plan. The scope of work should include consideration of retaining a consultant with proven success in urban revitalization programs.

By MARY FRANCES SCHJONBERG

June 11, 2010

The Supreme Court of Virginia on June 10 ruled in favor of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church in a church property dispute.

The text of the 32-page ruling is here.

A lower court had ruled that the nine breakaway congregations involved in the cases were entitled to retain all the parishes’ real and personal property when they left the Episcopal Church and joined another denomination.

The Supreme Court held that although disagreements had caused “a division” within the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia, the breakaway congregations had affiliated with a church that was not a branch of either the Episcopal Church or the diocese. Such an affiliation is required, the court said, for Virginia’s one-of-a-kind “Division Statute” (Section 57-9(A)) to apply.

The Supreme Court had heard arguments April 13 in two cases concerning church property that involved nine Episcopal parishes of the diocese which the majority of members and clergy left to form congregations of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), which the Anglican Province of Nigeria began in 2005. The departing members of those congregations then filed claims to parish property under the Division Statute.

The appeal by the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia was based on a number of grounds, including the claim that the statute did not apply to these congregations. The appeal also challenged the constitutionality of the lower court’s application of the Division Statute, which dates to the U.S. Civil War and is triggered when there is a so-called “division” of a church or religious society. The trial court’s rulings would have allowed former Episcopalians to claim Episcopal Church parish property as their own.

The Virginia diocese and the Episcopal Church have opposed the congregations’ claims and asked the courts to declare that the property must be held and used for the mission of the Episcopal Church and the diocese.

The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality question in its June 10 decision because, it said, it had concluded that the CANA congregations had not satisfied the requirements for asking for relief under the statute.

To do so, the court said, the congregations would have to have first shown that there had been a division with the church or religious society to which they belonged. Then the congregations had to show that they sought to affiliate with a branch “derived from that same church or religious society” and not one with “merely a shared tradition of faith.”

While they proved there had been a division, Justice Lawrence L. Koontz Jr. wrote for a unanimous court that “CANA clearly is not a branch of either TEC or the diocese.”

The Supreme Court returned the cases to the lower court for further proceedings to resolve the property claims of the Episcopal Church and the diocese “under principles of real property and contract law.”

“This decision brings us one important step closer to returning loyal Episcopalians, who have been extraordinarily faithful in disheartening and difficult circumstances, to their church homes,” Virginia Bishop Shannon Johnston said shortly after the ruling. “We are extremely grateful for this opportunity to correct a grievous harm. The Episcopal Church has and will continue to stand by its people, its traditions and its legacy — past and future. We look forward to resolving this matter as quickly as possible and bringing our faithful brothers and sisters back to their home churches.”

Henry D.W. Burt, secretary of the diocese, added that he hoped the leaders of breakaway congregations that have continued to occupy and control diocesan property, “will now provide access for the continuing Episcopal congregations to worship as Episcopalians at their home churches during this interim period.”

Neva Rae Fox, Episcopal Church public affairs officer, said that “we and the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia are gratified by the decision announced today by the Virginia Supreme Court. As we move forward, we remain focused on the important mission and ministry work in the Diocese of Virginia and throughout the wider Episcopal Church.”

The Rev. Michael Pipkin, priest-in-charge of the Falls Church (Episcopal), said that the Virginia Supreme Court “has heard our cry for help and has responded justly.” He noted that the congregation has been blocked from worshiping in its historic home since 2007, and conducts services in the loft of Falls Church Presbyterian Church, located across the street.

Jim Oakes, chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia, which is the umbrella organization for the nine Anglican congregations, said that his organization is “disappointed” with the ruling and is considering its options.

“This is not the final chapter in this matter,” he said. “The court’s ruling simply involved one of our statutory defenses, and these properties are titled in the name of the congregations’ trustees, not in the name of the diocese or the Episcopal Church. So we continue to be confident in our legal position as we move forward and will remain steadfast in our effort to defend the historic Christian faith.”

Meanwhile, Johnston has invited members of the continuing congregations to join together on June 12 at St. George’s Episcopal Church in Fredericksburg for “a time of prayer, information sharing and a discussion of next steps,” according to an announcement on the diocesan website.

The case originally involved members of 11 congregations of the Virginia diocese, but the diocese and the Episcopal Church in September 2008 reached a legal settlement with two of the congregations, Potomac Falls Church in Potomac Falls and Christ the Redeemer Church in Chantilly, neither of which held any real property.

More information about the cases, including the Supreme Court filings, is available here.

The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is a national correspondent for Episcopal News Service and editor of Episcopal News Monthly and Episcopal News Quarterly. Reprinted by permission. The original report is here.

By Falls Church Times Staff

May 26, 2010

Barry Buschow passed us the above photo of the Woodlands house at 610 Fulton Avenue taken around 1970. He also shared some information he obtained from Kathleen Riley Sides Crocker. She writes:

“My grandfather had the house built (I believe) and my mother was there from the time of her birth until approximately the Depression.

“I never lived there, and was only in it once — and only the first floor. The subsequent owner, Mrs. Schaefer, had a luncheon for family members when Aunt Betty (Styles) asked to see the house. I was not allowed to go upstairs.

“The enclosed porch to the left of the front door was added later. I don’t know who lived there when it was originally sold — may have been the Schaefers. I believe the school was the Schaefer School for special needs children. Then it went to a relative of the Schaafers and fell into disrepair.

“The kitchen was an add-on at the back of the house. The stable and garage were off to the right behind the house.

“Mom used to play a balloon game in the dining room where there was a new electric fixture–fling them up in the air and have them land on the hot bulb and pop.”

Click here to see the Woodlands house as it appears today.