May 22, 2012

Sharon Bulova, chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, has proposed that the City of Falls Church merge its water system with the County’s. 

Writing in response to recent comments by Vice Mayor Dave Snyder, Ms. Bulova states she believes such a merger would lower rates for residents of both jurisdictions.  However, she adds that if the City were to sell to its system to the “highest bidder,” rates for all its customers very well may increase substantially, as an investor-owned utility would have to charge higher rates to recover not only its purchase cost, but also the profit margin and tax obligattions that governmental utilities do not have.

Ms. Bulova also calls attention to a recent opinion by the Chief Counsel for the Army Corp of Engineers that the Washington Aqueduct, the provider of Falls Church’s water, is not permitted to sell water to a non-governmental entity.  The chairman adds that Virginia law does not permit the State Corporation Commission to authorize the operation of an investor-owned utility in the County without the approval of the Board of Supervisors.

The full text of the chairman’s letter is available here.

May 14, 2012

During this evening’s Council meeting Falls Church Vice Mayor Dave Snyder commented on the proposed sale of the City’s water system.

“The City is taking the necessary steps to sell its public water distribution system after a long and concerted effort by Fairfax County to drive the City out of providing water service in the County.  The sale is not driven by financial stress in the City.  The City of Falls Church is financially sound, maintaining high bond ratings and high quality public services.”

“The City is taking responsible steps to divest its water utility assets with appropriate protections for our customers and utility employees embedded in the Agreement for Sale. The proceeds from the sale will be deployed to meet other core public needs.  Those who are concerned about private ownership of water utility systems should encourage Fairfax Water to participate in the bidding process.”

Concerning water quality:  “The City water system is a distribution system only.  Whichever entity purchases and operates the City water system in the future will continue to receive treated drinking water from the Washington Aqueduct, operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.  The Army Corps has a long track record of meeting or exceeding regulatory requirements for the water that we deliver to our customers.”

Rate structure:  “Rates will be frozen for one year after the sale.  If a private entity were to purchase and operate the water system, rates in the future would be regulated by the State Corporation Commission.”

Service level:  “Water service is one of the most highly regulated industries in the United States.  The State Corporation Commission regulates the level of service for private water providers in Virginia.”

Following the statement the Council voted, 5-0, to give preliminary approval for the sale, with Mayor Baroukh and Ms. Gardner absent.  A second reading and vote is scheduled for next month.  Final approval of the sale would be via a referendum.

Thank you to my supporters and to the many citizens of this fine City for sharing their time, ideas and efforts during the recent City Council campaign. I am honored and humbled to have had the opportunity to have met and learned from so many people that make our community great.

I applaud the choice our City has made; Dave Tarter, Nader Baroukh and Phil Duncan are all fine men and each will bring their unique strengths to bare as our representatives on City Council.  Congratulations to our four top notch representatives elected to School Board: Kieran Sharpe, Joan Wodiska, Justin Castillo and Charlotte Hyland.  I tip my hat to all of those who ran in yesterday’s election.  And, I salute the many citizens whose questions and concerns have helped strengthen our city and educate me.  Because of them I am better informed and better able to serve the community I love in the years to come.

Sincerely,

Paul Handly

A few weeks ago, an opinion was expressed in the Falls Church Times to the effect that it would not be proper for the Falls Church City Republican Committee to sponsor a non-partisan open forum for candidates for the City Council.   But members of the FCCRC including me argued that there was no inherent taint involved in the choice of an otherwise state partisan-affiliated group to sponsor a non-partisan forum open to all candidates and all citizens of any party who wanted to come to meet candidates in a public forum.

On a rainy Sunday afternoon, April 22, about 73 citizens of Falls Church City affiliated with both state parties or no state party, attended a very lively FCCRC open forum in the Seniors Room at the Community Center to hear all the candidates for City Council including incumbent Mayor Nader Baroukh and candidates Phil Duncan, John Lawrence, David Tarter, William Henneberg, and Paul Handly .   Incumbent Mr. Lawrence Webb could not attend due to a trip to New York but he did speak to the FCCRC meeting on April 19 at the American Legion Hall.   I attended both the FCCRC open forum and the candidate forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters at the City Hall on April 18.   The LWV forum was well organized and timed and all candidates had a good amount of time to speak for about two hours and questions were submitted in writing from the audience.   The LWV event was also televised on local community access TV.

At the FCCRC open forum on Sunday, most questions from the floor were about the newly-announced city plan to ban on-street parking on several streets including Hillwood, Lincoln, and West Street.  The parking lanes would be replaced by bicycle lanes and funded mostly by federal grant money.

When asked for a show of hands on whether they would vote “no” on the plan if they were Council members, only David Tarter did not raise his hand.  When asked whether they would vote to kill the plan and later bring back aspects of the plan that would not inconvenience neighborhoods, only William Henneberg indicated that he would.  Mayor Nader Baroukh protested that such a vote was unfair to him, as a current Council member. He indicated that the bill should be preserved, with approval deferred until problematic issues could be removed and there was more consultation with residents.

John Lawrence said that although he participated in the plan’s development, it was with the Council’s direction and City staff’s guidance on vetting the plan with residents of Falls Church City.  In response to a question about how much development of the plan cost, no estimate of staff time was available but the City may have paid a consulting firm up to $300,000.00 for work done so far.

No candidate responded to a question about whether the plan would require sidewalks in neighborhoods without them, such as Broadmont.

The proposal may already be dividing neighbors.  Apparently, some residents of cul-du-sacs off Lincoln Street say they will ask the City for signs prohibiting parking in their cul-du-sac by anyone who has a Lincoln Avenue address.  It was also reported that some Fairfax Country residents near Hillwood have already warned that they will seek to ban cars with Falls Church City stickers from parking in the area South of Hillwood and north of Arlington Boulevard.

GOP Committee Chair Ken Feltman, who is a resident on Hillwood, observed that regardless of the merits of the plan, the timing of its release and the failure by City staff to actively seek the views of citizens in affected neighborhoods has led to a contentious situation that could have been avoided.   Other questions for candidates from the floor were about the full or part-time safety inspection duties of the fire marshal, recycling rules for apartment buildings, and why only one taxi cab company appears to have a monopoly on radio calls in the city. More than 100 questions from the community were submitted by email to the FCCRC and there was not enough time to ask all of them during two and a half hours so preference was given to calling on citizens in attendance who had their hands up.

While the formats were different and the topic areas very different, I could see no hint of partisanship in either the LWV candidate forum or the FCCRC open forum. The Republican forum even included a short presentation by a candidate for Congress in the upcoming June Democratic primary for the 8th District, Mr. Bruce Shuttleworth, who spoke about how his petitions were able to withstand scrutiny to qualify his name for the ballot.   A Republican candidate for Congress in the same district, retired Army Col. Patrick Murray, had previously spoken to FCCRC members at their February public meeting at the Oakwood Apartments.  Incumbent Congressman Jim Moran (D) is also invited to attend a future FCCRC event at a time of his convenience.

So I believe that fears that the FCCRC could not sponsor a non-partisan forum open to all candidates and all citizens of all parties and independents were not well grounded and that for the local Republican committee, where there is no harm there is no foul.

Mark Rhoads is a member of the Falls Church City Republican Committee

David Tarter and Phil Duncan won election to the Falls Church City Council while Mayor Nader Baroukh was re-elected on Tuesday following a competitive race that featured a crowded field of seven candidates. Incumbent City Councilor Lawrence Webb was defeated in his bid for another term. Robin Gardner did not seek re-election.

Mr. Tarter, chair of the city’s Economic Development Authority (EDA) and a former interim city attorney, earned the largest number of votes with 1293.  He is a commercial real estate lawyer in Arlington. Mr. Baroukh, an attorney for the Department of Homeland Security, finished a strong second with 1189. Mr. Duncan, also a member of the EDA and the owner of a city-based business called Civicatalyst Communications, gained third place with 1047 votes. Mr. Webb finished fifth with 672 votes.

John Lawrence, who was the leading vote-getter among those who lost during the last Council election in 2010, was the bridesmaid again, finishing fourth with 732 votes. A newcomer and the youngest candidate in the race, William Henneberg, was next with 652 votes, followed by Paul Handly with 514.

Although it’s not known how and why residents made their decisions, it may be instructive that two of the three winners are members of the EDA in a campaign season in which additional commercial development for the city emerged as a key priority for voters and candidates alike.

Mr. Duncan agreed. “The success of two people on the EDA does indicate that voters have a seriousness of purpose about economic revitalization,” he said.

He also congratulated all the candidates for a hard-fought and clean campaign, and said he felt badly for those who lost. “My heart goes out to those who didn’t win. The community was very well served by this campaign.”

Mr. Tarter, the runaway top vote-getter, said he was grateful for the support of so many City residents. “I am humbled and honored by the support of the voters of Falls Church. I appreciate the confidence they have shown in me. I look forward to tackling the many challenges the city faces and helping Falls Church realize its full potential.”

Mr. Baroukh said he is eagerly anticipating serving with the newly elected candidates.

“I thank all the citizens of Falls Church City who came out to vote today. I look forward to working with the new Council on continuing to make our City a great place to live.”

Sitting city councilors Ira Kaylin and Johannah Barry told the Times they were excited for the next Council term to start. Mr. Kaylin, who was elected in 2010, said: “I am truly looking forward to working with the new Council. I believe the upcoming years will be vital for the city.”

Ms. Barry, also elected in 2010, added: “This is a great opportunity to bring new ideas together. This time will be so important to addressing critical issues facing Falls Church.”

Four candidates for School Board were elected unopposed.  Kieran Sharpe, Joan Wodiska, and Justin Castillo were elected to four year terms, and Charlotte Hyland was elected to complete two years of the unexpired term of Patrick Riccards, who resigned to take a job in Connecticut.

The city registrar reports that 26 percent of the 8,758 registered voters in the city went to the polls, besting the 24 percent figure from 2010. Ward 3 had the highest turnout at 26 percent. Wards 1 and 2 reported turnout of 22 and 23 percent, respectively. The rest, 171 votes, were absentee ballots.

This was the last May election in Falls Church City, following a referendum decision by the voters last year to move City Council and School Board elections to November beginning in 2013.

The newly-elected members of both the City Council and School Board will begin their terms in July.

The polls are open from 6am-7pm today in Falls Church City for voters to select three members of the City Council from a packed field of seven.  Four unopposed candidates for School Board also will be selected.

Incumbents Nader Baroukh and Lawrence Webb are on the ballot for Council, along with challengers Phil Duncan, Paul Handly, William Henneberg, John Lawrence and David Tarter.

For School Board, incumbents Kieran Sharpe and Joan Wodiska are seeking reelection to their current seats, while newcomer Justin Castillo is running for an open seat and incumbent Charlotte Hyland is running to fill the final two years of an unexpired term.

The City has reduced its voting wards from five to three. The map below shows the three wards and their polling places. 

The Falls Church Times recently posted City Council candidate responses to its questionnaire.  Links to those responses appear below.

Nader Baroukh

Phil  Duncan

Paul Handly

William Henneberg

John Lawrence

David Tarter

Lawrence Webb

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.

Additional information on voting is available from the Office of Voter Registration and Elections at City Hall, 300 Park Street, (703) 248-5085.  The office’s email address is vote@fallschurchva.gov.

Falls Church City residents go to the polls Tuesday May 1 to elect members of the City Council and School Board.  Seven candidates are competing for three positions on the City Council, while four School Board candidates are running unopposed.

In the City Council race, incumbents Nader Baroukh and Lawrence Webb are campaigning for reelection and are joined in the race by challengers Phil Duncan, Paul Handly, William Henneberg, John Lawrence and David Tarter.

For School Board, incumbents Kieran Sharpe and Joan Wodiska are seeking reelection to their current seats, while newcomer Justin Castillo is running for an open seat and incumbent Charlotte Hyland is running to fill the final two years of an unexpired term.

The City has reduced its voting wards from five to three. The map below shows the three wards and their polling places. 

The Falls Church Times recently posted City Council candidate responses to its questionnaire.  Links to those responses appear below.

Nader Baroukh

Phil  Duncan

Paul Handly

William Henneberg

John Lawrence

David Tarter

Lawrence Webb

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.

Additional information on voting is available from the Office of Voter Registration and Elections at City Hall, 300 Park Street, (703) 248-5085.  The office’s email address is vote@fallschurchva.gov.

Polls will be open Tuesday from 6am-7pm.

For the first time in at least 50 years a Falls Church City municipal election will not feature a ticket or slate of candidates.  The venerable Citizens for a Better City (CBC) has stepped aside and no alternative organization has stepped forward to offer a list of their own.  Every candidate for City Council now is a true independent, free to run his campaign as he sees fit and take positions without consulting his running mates.

However, many unofficial slates of candidates have emerged via the signs sprouting on many local lawns.  Tickets of two, three, or even four contenders have been spotted, the last perhaps reflecting some discord in the residences, as voters may chose only three of the seven candidates.

Excluding unrealistic quartets, 56 different Council ticket combinations are possible:  21 duos and 35 trios.  Each candidate has 15 potential matches with his six opponents, either as a pairing or as one-third of a trio.

Yard signs may not be an accurate reflection of wider voter preferences, but in the absence of any formal poll data they provide the only indication of popular sentiments in the City.  Over the past week the Times has surveyed the signs while driving or more often walking through most streets and every neighborhood.

Some blocks are bereft of signs, but on others there are more signs in bloom than azaleas.  As a general rule, the closer one comes to a candidate’s home the more likely one will see more of his signs.  City-wide, signs endorsing Mayor Nader Baroukh, Phil Duncan, and Dave Tarter appear to be the most common, though not necessarily in that order.

The majority of lawns host single signs, but at least 20 full or partial Council tickets also are on display.  While Baroukh, Duncan, and Tarter are more frequently found on these tickets, all seven candidates appear to have at least one running mate.

On Tollgate Way, going for Henneberg, Baroukh and Tarter

The multiple signs on many lawns reflect that voters no longer have the ”straight ticket” option, which CBC always provided in the past and, given CBC’s historic success, proved very tempting.  Now every voter, like every candidate, is an independent.

On Lincoln, the "Lawrence Ticket" - Lawrence Webb and John Lawrence.

How will the voters respond?  The field is an unusually strong one, leaving them with difficult choices.  Will they create full slates of their own or be more discriminating and vote for only one or two candidates?   The choices they make and the City’s future are in their hands next Tuesday.

On Columbia, neighbors crowding in signs for Duncan, Baroukh, Handly, Tarter, and Webb.

April certainly graced us with showers last Sunday during the Falls Church Elementary PTA Home and Garden Tour. But as the saying goes, “April showers bring May flowers,” and showers in April were neither unexpected — nor did they deter people from seeing the wonderful homes and gardens.

Based on ticket sales, the eight homes and the gardens were enjoyed by as many as 430 home, design and history enthusiasts.  Started in 2006, the tour has been a biannual tradition in Falls Church City and it’s certainly a wonderful addition to our community. Our family has been fortunate to go every year except 2010 when we out of the country for six months.  Each year we’ve attended, the houses have been a delight, each one inspiring in its own way.

The docents in the homes have always been friendly and knowledgeable, and this year did not disappoint. Duputron House, a home built in the 1890s, even had docents from the Victorian Society at Falls Church dressed in period costume, adding extra flair to the experience. And at the Henderson Home, actors portrayed E.B. and Mary Ellen Henderson, giving visitors an instant history lesson. From a home built in the nineteenth century to two green homes built in the twenty-first century, in each house we found architectural and decorating details that we thought were brilliant. The garden flowers glowed softly in the rain with plants ranging from native beauties to exotic lovelies.

Green house on Virginia Avenue owned by the Koch family. (Photo: Lisa Lacroix)

Among the people visiting homes, those showing perhaps the most dedication to the Earth Day spirit were Sarah Flanagan, Gina Caceci and Amy Titus, whose dripping but cheerful raincoats rivaled the brightest flowers.  Some years the weather has been better, but this year they were not daunted by Sunday’s rain and maintained their tradition of walking from house to house leaving their cars at home.

The Henderson House on South Maple. (Photo: Nancy Romps)

Flanagan said, “Last time there were more hills, and given the weather, we were very grateful all the houses were within several blocks of Broad Street.” She went on to say her, “Favorite experience was our last stop at the Henderson House, where the meaning of Home was more important than House. Those walls spoke to you about what family and home really mean.”

The three women walk together often in Falls Church. “A few times each year we do a bigger walk like to Ballston and back. The home and garden tour seemed like a natural one to do,” Caceci said. Clearly these Falls Church City residents could have been presented with a Most Environmentally Sensitive Transportation Award.

Gina Caceci, Sarah Flanagan and Amy Titus stopping in Cosi for warm drink as they walked the Home and Garden Tour. (Photo: Jackie Handly)

The Home & Garden Tour is organized and run by the Falls Church Elementary PTA, and supports programs at Mount Daniel and Thomas Jefferson elementary schools, located in Falls Church City, with proceeds funding teacher grants, technology improvements and Outdoor Classroom provisions. Looking forward to the next Falls Church Elementary PTA home and garden tour in 2014!

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 John Lawrence, who currently serves as Vice Chairman of the Falls Church Planning Commission.

Background Information

My wife, Mary Ann, and I moved to Falls Church almost 14 years ago shortly after getting married.  We wanted a place where we could raise a family and stay for a lifetime.  We found it.  The other part of the family took a few years, but our son Evan was born in 2002 and we couldn’t be happier here.

I have been very active in the City and community for many years.  I am currently the Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission (Chairman, 2009-2010), a Trustee of the Mary Riley Styles Public Library, a member of a joint School Board-Planning Commission-City Council school facilities working group (“LEAPFROG”), and former Vice Chairman of the School Board-appointed Day Care Task Force.  I’ve also done my best to coach Little League baseball as well as Community Center basketball and I apologize to all the kids who’ve had to suffer through this.

In 2007, I was appointed to the Planning Commission and, for those of you who have been around for a while, you know that I ran into a baptism by fire called “City Center.”  In the next year, I was certified as a Planning Commissioner in the Commonwealth of Virginia and my colleagues recognized my dedication to the Commission’s work by voting me Vice Chairman in 2008.  For 2009-2010, I served as Chairman and have since moved back to Vice Chair as the Commission has term limits.  My work has given me a comprehensive view of the City, as the Commission is tasked with making recommendations to the Council on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) each year, including school facilities as well as working on any significant commercial development in the City.

And related to school facilities, I serve as a Commission representative to the joint School Board-Planning Commission-City Council working group (“LEAPFROG”) looking at long-term facilities issues and needs.  As part of this work, I strongly supported the City’s application for interest-free bonds from the state and have pressed for quick action on the expansion of Thomas Jefferson Elementary School – a project that should break ground this summer.  I am acutely aware of the school facilities needs we face.

No other candidate possesses my practical and conceptual depth of experience when it comes to planning and development in the City as well as support for the schools and knowledge of the major facilities needs we face.  We need to strongly press for new commercial development, with an eye toward not only being able to decrease the tax rate, but also start saving for a new high school which is in our future and we can’t keep ignoring this elephant in the room.  If we don’t start practical planning NOW, taxes will only continue to rise and our schools will continue to get patched up on an ad hoc basis, which is a recipe for a very expensive disaster down the road.  Please vote for me on May 1 and get us on the road to improvement, not the same old status quo.  [Lawrence's campaign website is www.jdlforfallschurch.com.]

1.  Why do you want to be on City Council?

I want to be on Council because I’m frustrated with having to watch what I see as good investment opportunities languish as we take a “sit back and see” approach to developers who come to us.  It may be a surprise to many, but we’ve received quite a few serious expressions of interest in development in the City.  Some have even indicated that they can self-finance their projects.  And yet the current Council still approaches such opportunities with too much caution and not enough aggressiveness.  We shouldn’t sit back and wait for a developer to tell us how a project can work for us because they’re in business to make it work for them.  We should actively work with them to show how we can BOTH make it work.

For the City, we have complicated issues related to development:  potential revenue, density, impact on residences, traffic issues, noise, additional burden on City facilities, etc.  But for a developer, it’s easier:  The numbers need to add up or they won’t do it.  For them, it’s simple math and if we can’t show them that 2+2 will equal 4 (or pretty damn close), we won’t be able to get them to invest.  Period.  I have the practical planning and development experience from many years on the Planning Commission to be able to work this process.  In addition, in my day job I handle Congressional Affairs for a non-profit and, just like working with developers; it’s all about building relationships backed up by practical expertise.  We need to develop relationships with builders so that we can achieve our complicated goals at the same time the developers achieve their simple ones.

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?

Seriously?  I’ll give $100 to any candidate who answers “no” to this question.  Really.  I will.

Area planning is key and I strongly support it.  The Planning Commission recognized this years ago and has incorporated this approach into our Comprehensive Plan for many years (previously known as “Opportunity Areas”).  Now the Commission, which I have chaired in the past and on which I am now vice chair, is going further with these area plans.  They are developed in conjunction with the citizens in extensive public discussion, amended and improved upon by the Planning Commission, and then sent to the Council for final consideration and passage.  We’ve done one and we have seven to go which is why I have fought for the past year to get more money devoted to the Planning Department.  I applaud the City Manager for adding two new planning positions in his proposed budget and strongly urge the Council to approve them.  Without the staff resources we can’t plan what we want for the City and if we can’t plan for what we want, we have no chance of ever getting it.

We need to focus on the 8 areas already in our Comp. Plan that represent the key areas where we can concentrate good commercial development, including: north and south Washington Street, the City Center area, and the east and west gateways.  Here we can have much more dense development than we have traditionally had while still sheltering our residential areas to the greatest extent possible and preserving the overwhelming residential nature of our City.  What should go there?  First priority would be commercial offices, followed by retail, and in select areas, residential.  This is not a chicken-and-egg proposition.  We need to press for a range of commercial/residential investment simultaneously and be willing to put our money where the City’s mouth is to help make this development happen.

3.  What transportation improvements should the City make and why?

First, we need to take full advantage of the grants we have in hand and move quickly on S. Washington Street improvements, including intermodal connections, safer crosswalks, etc.

We also need to decide where our priorities are for additional parking and get public spaces in any development that goes in.  In addition, we need to look for places to put small parking decks that can serve an entire area easily.  We don’t need huge decks.  We need decks that work.

All developments with a residential component (unless right next to another) should have a BikeShare station mandated.  I see how heavily these stations are used in DC and it’s just a matter of time before WMATA installs them at East and West Falls Church.  In the meantime, we should have developers put them in projects so that we are building an intra-city network that would allow people to ride easily between points throughout Falls Church.

And as we get increased, successful commercial development, we’ll need to look again at a circulator bus.  Yes, I know.  I can hear some of you groan.  Not a well-intentioned, but flawed GEORGE system with giant buses, but something smaller and more practical.  As we get more dense, we need to find ways to decrease car use and encourage people to park/walk, bike/walk, etc.  A nimble circulator should be part of this.

We also have a very thorough Pedestrian and Bike plan on the table now and we should complete extensive public consultations and start implementing this vision.  Some of the proposals, such as eliminating on-street parking on both sides of heavily trafficked streets, need to, and no doubt will, be changed, but that’s what the public consultation process is all about.  We need a plan that will work in practical terms for the people of this City not something that is just theoretically perfect on paper.

As for proposals for a light rail/streetcar/trolley down Broad Street, all I can say is that no one has convinced me that this makes any sense.  I realize other jurisdictions are looking into it, but that just reminds me of my mother’s old saying: “If Fairfax County jumped off a roof, would you?”  I can’t say I would.

4.  What should the City do regarding the unfunded liability of teacher pensions?

Trying to get out ahead of this issue — rather than waiting for Richmond to hit us with it at some unspecified time in the future — is the right way to go and I applaud the Council and School Board for doing this.  But I do not agree that ALL proceeds from a possible sale of the water system should automatically go toward this pension fund (see Question 6).  We need to use some of this money for very practical immediate purposes (like encouraging economic development) not just automatically put it all in a lockbox.

5.  How do you propose to address recurring flooding issues experienced by some residents and improve storm water management throughout the City?

I think the Watershed/Stormwater Management Plan proposed by City staff is a great place to start.  It shows that the City wants to address this issue in a comprehensive, rather than piecemeal, way.  This plan also clearly recognizes that what we have to deal with is not only a question of water quantity, but also water quality as part of our contribution to helping the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

I like the idea of a pervious surface fee to go into an Enterprise Fund to help mitigate water issues, but given the massive amount of staff time needed to calculate residential pervious surfaces and monitor changes, I think this should be a flat fee.  For commercial projects, however, such a calculation of a fee based on percentage of surface covered could work.  But there needs to be a carrot, not just a stick and if a business (or residence) can show that they’ve decreased their pervious surface we need a system to recognize and reward that with a decreased fee.  Otherwise, this is just a penalty for “bad” practices rather than an incentive to encourage “good” practices.

6.  Should the City sell its water system?  How should any proceeds be used?

Given that almost all deliberations on the sale have been behind closed doors, I can’t address questions such as whether or not Fairfax County’s assertion that we need their permission to do anything is valid.  Assuming it is not and we can sell the system (as opposed to being hijacked into a “merger” with Fairfax) we should sell it.  We need to use an overwhelming majority of the proceeds for savings or for pensions as has been proposed by one Council member.  I do not think, however, that ALL the proceeds should go toward pensions unless the amount we receive ends up being very small and if that’s the case, I’d question whether or not a sale makes sense at this time.  We’ve put tens of millions of dollars into one of the best, most reliable systems in the DC area for more than half a century.  We need to be paid appropriately for that asset, our investment, our risks, and our forethought.

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?

Other jurisdictions have managed to implement revenue-sharing programs for their school budgets.  We need to study how they were able to do it and why it worked and decide – finally – whether or not to proceed.  We need to decide and stop talking, bitterly, around this issue every year.  If we can’t make it a win-win for the City AND the schools, it can’t work.  We need to stop talking around it.  We need to study it and vote.  Others have done it.  Can we?

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

This is the final of seven candidate questionnaire responses published by the Falls Church Times, and we would like to thank Mr. Lawrence and all the candidates for their participation.  Below are links to the responses of each candidate.

Nader Baroukh

Phil  Duncan

Paul Handly

William Henneberg

John Lawrence

David Tarter

Lawrence Webb

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.