CANDIDATE Q&A: John Lawrence

April 27, 2012 by Falls Church Times Staff · 3 Comments

April 27, 2012

The Falls Church Times recently invited each candidate running in the May 1 election for Falls Church City Council to respond to a seven-part questionnaire. Today we publish the responses of 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.

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.

Filed Under: Candidates, City Council, City Hall, Elections, P.1
Tagged:

CANDIDATE Q&A: Paul Handly

April 26, 2012 by Falls Church Times Staff · 6 Comments

April 26, 2012

Background Information

Handly is Chief Technology Officer of Three Wire Systems, a local company focused on providing proactive preventative care to military veterans. Prior to joining Three Wire Systems, Handly held senior management positions in two local technology companies and served as a federal civil servant for 10 years in the US National Park Service.

He is a graduate of Hamilton College (NY) and the University of Virginia. He is a member of several local civic organizations including the Village Preservation and Improvement Society, Falls Church Arts, First Lego League (MEH Robotics Team), and the Cub Scouts Pack 657 sponsored by Falls Church Presbyterian Church.

Handly and his wife Jackie have lived in the area since 1989 and their two children attend city schools. His campaign website is http://handly4council.org. Read more

Filed Under: Candidates, City Council, City Hall, Elections, P.1
Tagged:

CANDIDATE Q&A: Lawrence Webb

April 25, 2012 by Falls Church Times Staff · 1 Comment

April 25, 2012

The Falls Church Times recently invited each candidate running in the May 1 election for Falls Church City Council to respond to a seven-part questionnaire. Today we publish the responses of Lawrence Webb, who is an incumbent member of the City Council.

Background Information

Webb was elected to the Council in 2008. He is Assistant Dean of Admissions at the University of Mary Washington, and he serves as Chairman of the Board of the Virginia Department of Correctional Education.

Webb is originally from Kenbridge, a small town in southern Virginia. He holds a BA in Mass Communication from Shenandoah University, as well as a Graduate Certificate in Public Management from the same institution. He is a member of the Village Preservation and Improvement Society and a member and supporter of the Falls Church League of Women Voters. He formerly served as a member of the Falls Church Democratic Committee and the Falls Church Recreation and Parks Board. His campaign website is www.webbforfallschurch.com.

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

I would like to return for a second term to council because I bring a voice of independence to the council. I listen to the issues from every prospective giving citizen an opportunity to be heard. After hearing from them I then go to our staff/experts and listen to their prospective and then I do my own research and make a decision that I believe is best for the city. Because of my work over the last eight years serving on a state board under three governors. I have the opportunity to work with members of both parties and want to take advantage of that access. This type of interaction allowed me to share our contributions with the leaders in Richmond and could help determine the revenue that should come back to help us achieve our goals. As a result of some of these efforts I had opportunities to meet with members across the Commonwealth and limit some of the bad things that Richmond has a tendency to pass on. During this last four year I have been a part of a council that had to make tough decisions to make sure that we would weather the storm of a down economy. Because of those decisions we are beginning to turn the corner and I want to be a part of the recovery and reinvestment in our little city.

I fully support the current area planning process. The current plan presented to the public looks at the North Washington street area and I believe that is a great area to begin this process. It is a gate way to the city that is underdeveloped currently with a lot of automotive uses. This area is the one of the closest to a metro station in the city. I believe that with the right type of mixed use development and an increase in the density in this area it would give us a unique opportunity to bring in new business and also bringing in the critical mass that they will need to support them. One challenge we have is working with the property owners in that area to find out what it will take for them to consolidate their properties to allow development to move forward. Also the city must look into what type of incentives we can bring to the table to encourage this. But I can’t stress enough that whatever happens this will take time to happen. I would also focus on the area of West Broad Street area near the Giant. It is near our other Metro Station and already has strong retail. Again land consolidation is a major challenge with dozens of land owner. We will need to work on plans to facilitate consolidation.

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

The city has begun to address transportation needs such as traffic calming neighborhoods and the installation of speed signs in locations across the city and we need to continue to do these types of things to make getting around safe for pedestrians and drivers.

With that being said, I believe a study needs to be conducted to add a fully functional traffic light at Gresham Place and North Washington Street. Commuting on Route 29 regularly I have seen near misses of folks coming out of that neighborhood. Also Pennsylvania and Broad Street has seen a number of accidents happen there and warrant a study for a traffic signal. I also fully support traffic studies being conducted as part of any new development that happens to ensure that the flow of traffic does not interrupt the daily lives of citizens.

The city has taken the lead in the region on getting a grant to begin a study on the feasibility of street cars running through the Route 7 corridor. This would allow folks to move up and down the corridor and bring folks into the city to take advantage of the unique businesses, restaurants, and festivals that we have to offer in the city.

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

Both the city and schools should work collaboratively to look for ways to set aside funds to plan for what has become a very volatile VRS situation that leaders in Richmond continue to pass on to local governments. A proposal by one of my colleagues regarding using proceeds from a possible sale of the water system is one consideration in handling the mandate. This suggestion offers a way which I would be open to using these proceeds. I believe this type of shared responsibility would exhibit a step toward a much better relationship with the schools.

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

There has been extensive work done on storm water management by a group of citizens and staff working for nearly two years. This group presented a plan to the council that would address some of the major issues that have caused some of the problems. After seeing the damage that happened last fall it is imperative for the city to begin helping to alleviate theses issues. Many citizens came forward with their concerns about the plan and I believe they had good points but there is no magic bullet. Yet this does help address a problem and as other problems arise we need to be flexible in moving forward to address those issues as well.

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

I am in full support of the action that council took to open invitation for bids for the water system. Litigation has ruled the day since I joined the council with regards to our water system. Even though I totally disagree with Judge Ney’s ruling on the system it has now become an underperforming asset that we should seriously consider reviewing all the options presented to us. This includes currently taking bids, the creation of a water authority, or staying in business in the current state.

Regardless of the outcome I want to stress that the final decision to sale the system will be made by our citizens because our charter mandates this decision be taken to referendum in November for approval. I encourage citizens to come to the town hall meeting on April 21st in the council chambers to voice their opinions. This is still a very open discussion regarding the sale of the system and how we plan to distribute the revenue.

While one member of council suggested using it to help with the ever raising VRS obligations which is a good option I am also open to other possibilities such as acceleration of the storm water management plan or the development of a municipal parking garage in the downtown Falls Church area. Before any of these options are implemented they must be vetted by citizens.

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?

A nearby practice in Arlington that has worked and I think we should consider in Falls Church is the revenue sharing agreement between the city and schools. I am a firm believer that if both sides are working from the same balance sheet we can avoid many of the challenges that we have faced over the last four years. I would press the city manager and school superintendent to begin meeting immediately after the budget process to negotiate an agreement that can be ready for the schools and council to review in the fall.

I would also look at ways to increase funding for the Economic Development Office to allow for a more broad campaign to bring business into the city. This increase would allow for opportunities to help the EDA go after more grants that would allow them to become a true partner in the marketing of the city in the way that Fairfax County’s EDA has worked to bring in top tier companies into their jurisdiction.

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

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

Filed Under: Candidates, City Council, City Hall, Elections, P.1
Tagged:

CANDIDATE Q&A: Dave Tarter

April 24, 2012 by Falls Church Times Staff · 1 Comment

April 24, 2012

The Falls Church Times recently invited each candidate running in the May 1 election for Falls Church City Council to respond to a seven-part questionnaire. Today we publish the responses of David Tarter, who currently serves as Chair of the Falls Church Economic Development Authority.

Background Information

Tarter is the current Chair of the Falls Church Economic Development Authority and former Interim City Attorney. He is a commercial real estate lawyer in Arlington. Tarter was born and raised in Northern Virginia. He obtained his Bachelor and Law degrees from the University of Virginia. He is married, with three children. His wife, Karen is the Clinic Aide at Mt. Daniel and a Brownie Leader for Troop 6644. Their oldest son, David, is a 5th grader at Mary Ellen Henderson School, and their twins, Cole and Anna, are 3rd graders at Thomas Jefferson. His candidacy was recently endorsed by the Sierra Club, which praised his understanding of smart growth, pedestrian, biking, and other transportation options, and LEED (green buildings). Read more

Filed Under: Candidates, City Council, City Hall, Elections, P.1
Tagged:

Council Keeps City Tax Rates Steady

April 23, 2012 by George Bromley · 20 Comments

By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff

April 23, 2012

The Falls Church City Council voted this evening to hold tax rates at their current levels. The real estate tax will remain at $1.27, the personal property tax will stay at $4.84, each rate for every $100.00 of assessed value.

Prior to the vote Vice Mayor Dave Snyder introduced a motion to reduce the tax rate to $1.26, calling the higher rate a tax increase. Snyder advocated reducing reserves and removing all proposed non public safety related positions from the budget, achieving a net estimated savings of $560,000. ”I don’t believe in holding the tax rate today artificially high to make it easier for politicians in the future to pass on taxes,” he said.

Councilman Ira Kaylin, who had seconded the motion, then spoke in opposition. ”The only thing I agree with is that the tax assessment increases are tax rate increases,” he said. Earlier Kaylin warned that the City’s finances are still fragile and projected a $1.9 million budget shortfall next year, which could result in a tax rate of $1.33.

Mayor Nader Baroukh said that to get the rate down would impact critical initiatives such as storm water management and could have consequences on the City’s borrowing capacity. “As much as I’d like to do a one time reduction in the tax rate I don’t think it would be prudent or in the long term interests of the City,” said Baroukh.

Snyder’s motion was voted down, 6-1. The Council then approved the tax rates and the FY 2013 budget, with the vice mayor dissenting. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 2013-17 was approved, 7-0.

In a statement to the Times the mayor said that the budget and the CIP are the product of a great deal of discussion and work and meet the critical needs of the City in these
difficult financial times. “This budget and CIP strikes a healthy balance between the City’s fund balance and the needs of City employees, schools, and services. And it meets the Council’s policy objectives including strengthening economic development, providing greater resources for infrastructure improvements to address items such as school facilities and stormwater managemen,” the mayor said.

Earlier the Council voted unanimously to withdraw the controversial “Ped Plan”, deferring further action until at least June 25. Many residents spoke against the plan, particularly its proposal to eliminate street parking on Hillwood Avenue, Lincoln Avenue, and West Street.

In his report to Council, City Manager Wyatt Shields advised that representatives of six prospective bidders for the City’s water system attended an informational meeting today that included a tour of the system.

Filed Under: Budget, City Council, City Hall, P.1
Tagged:

Candidate Voting Records Become Campaign Issue

April 23, 2012 by Stephen Siegel · 28 Comments

By STEPHEN SIEGEL
Falls Church Times Staff

April 23, 2012

A surprising issue has joined taxes, schools, and stormwater management in the race for the Falls Church City Council: past decisions by candidates to vote, or not vote, in local elections.

The issue arose in a comment on the Falls Church Times last week by a man named Elliot Mitchell, who identified himself as being from Arlington. Despite his ostensible Arlington location, he said he was working with a candidate for Council whom he did not identify, and noticed that some of the candidates had not always voted in local elections.

He cited Lawrence Webb and Paul Handly for having inconsistent attendance records at the polls in previous elections. Mr. Webb disputed the assertion, while Mr. Handly appears to have ignored it.

Mr. Mitchell then suggested that failing to vote in local elections is a serious shortcoming that should cause residents to avoid supporting Messrs. Webb and Handly in this year’s Council race.

“Sure, everyone misses a vote here and there,” Mr. Mitchell wrote. “We’re all busy. But it looks like Handly and Webb have chosen, for whatever reason, to NOT (sic) vote in local elections. For someone running for a local office, that’s unconscionable.”

Subsequent opinion on the comment thread was mixed. Some thought it was valuable information that the media should be digging up. Others thought it was slimy or a dirty trick, and wanted to know for whom Mr. Mitchell was working.

But no further information was posted by Mr. Mitchell. So the Times decided to investigate. We quickly learned that the computer he used to write his comment was either the very same computer, or one on the same network, as one of the candidates, because they had the exact same Internet Protocol (IP) address, which is like a street address for computers connected to the Web.

Further research showed that a man named Elliot Mitchell also works at the same organization as one of the candidates. The Times left a message on Mr. Mitchell’s office voicemail Thursday that was not returned, and tried again Friday afternoon, only to get voicemail again.

In both cases, the candidate was the same individual: John Lawrence.

After being unsuccessful reaching Mr. Mitchell, the Times called Mr. Lawrence Friday afternoon while he was out canvassing for votes door to door. Asked what he knew about Mr. Mitchell and his assertion, Mr. Lawrence said only: “I have no comment.”

He promised to speak further about it with a reporter this weekend, but failed to return the call.

That the voting data is available at all may seem somewhat surprising. But it is legally available for a fee from the Virginia State Board of Elections in certain specific circumstances.

Those eligible to buy it must fall into one of three categories: candidates for election, political party committees, and incumbent politicians. People not fitting those categories are not eligible.

The use of the information is restricted to candidates to “further their candidacy”; parties “for political purposes only”; and politicians “to report to their constituents.”

Additional information about obtaining voter histories is available through the Virginia State Board of Elections, www.sbe.virginia.gov.

Filed Under: Candidates, City Council, City Hall, Elections, P.1
Tagged:

“Ped Plan” Proves Controversial, Shields Recommends Extending Review Period

April 22, 2012 by Falls Church Times Staff · 16 Comments

By FALLS CHURCH TIMES STAFF

April 22, 2012

In response to comments received at last Thursday’s town hall meeting, City Manager Wyatt Shields stated Friday afternoon that he would recommend the City Council extend the time for public review and comment on the Pedestrian, Bicycle and Traffic Calming Strategic Implementation Plan past May 29, the date originally scheduled for the plan’s adoption.

City Council members who attended Thursday’s session asked that a motion be prepared for their Monday night meeting to provide additional time for the plan to be modified to address the comments received. Shields said that the goal is to ensure the plan before the Council reflects residents’ priorities.

The city manager said that staff will address residents’ requests to preserve on-street parking on Lincoln Avenue and Hillwood Avenue , and other areas of Falls Church. He added that the purpose of the public-input process is to improve the plan, and help the City to move forward as a community with safe and attractive streets.

“The staff and volunteer committee members are to be commended for their important work on this plan,” Shields said. “Citizens provided critical input at many junctures during the plan’s development and we will take the time necessary to get this right.”

The current “Ped Plan” draft is available at www.fallschurchva.gov/pedplan. The website, which does not reflect the input received Thursday, will be updated by close of business Monday.

Filed Under: City Council, City Hall, P.1
Tagged:

CANDIDATE Q&A: Phil Duncan

April 19, 2012 by Falls Church Times Staff · 1 Comment

April 19, 2012

The Falls Church Times recently invited each candidate running in the May 1 election for Falls Church City Council to respond to a seven-part questionnaire. Today we publish the responses of Phil Duncan, who currently serves on the Falls Church Economic Development Authority.

Background Information

During my years in Falls Church, I’ve worked with hundreds of dedicated volunteers on a wide array of efforts to improve our community, support our schools, and help businesses thrive, playing a leading role in groups focused on meeting transportation challenges, boosting private-sector funding for education, advancing economic revitalization, and drawing more people into the City’s political life.

I am chairman of the City Schools’ Business in Education Partnership, and serve on the City’s Economic Development Authority. Previously I chaired the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Transportation, served on the City Center Task Force, and was a founding Board member of the Falls Church Education Foundation.

I served on the Falls Church Chamber of Commerce Board, including a term as vice chairman, and in 2001 I was honored to receive the Chamber’s “Pillar of the Community” award. Also, I was a Board member and publicity chairman for the Falls Church Kiwanis Little League, and for four years I coordinated the George Mason HS Athletic Boosters’ mulch sale, which raised more than $25,000 for equipment benefiting GMHS student-athletes.

My City-based business, Civicatalyst Communications, provides editorial, public relations and event-planning services to educational and civic organizations. Journalism was my first career; I worked for 20 years at Congressional Quarterly. I am a native of Knoxville, Tenn., and a graduate of Davidson College, where I was a political science major and editor of the weekly newspaper.

I met my future wife, Leslie DeLong, while we both were at Congressional Quarterly and playing on the company softball team. We were married at the Falls Church Presbyterian Church in 1985, and have lived since then on S. West St. Our children attended City schools K-12 and are now in college — Meredyth a senior at Swarthmore, and Tyler a freshman at West Virginia University.

Leslie is the firstborn of the three DeLong sisters — the daughters of Chet and Carol DeLong, a couple whose record of involvement in the City goes back more than 50 years. Carol served on Council and as Mayor; Chet’s volunteer work includes service on the Board of the Mary Riley Styles Public Library. Leslie and her sisters grew up in the City and graduated from GMHS; Leslie is a Swarthmore alum, worked in journalism and on Capitol Hill, and now is with the Pew Charitable Trusts.

[Duncan's campaign website is www.duncan4fc.com.]

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

I’m making my first-ever bid for public office because I want carry our community’s terrific volunteer spirit and civic energy into government, helping it become more responsive, creative and dynamic. Falls Church is facing some big challenges — economic revitalization, school facilities, water and transportation infrastructure, fiscal management, and environmental stewardship, just to name a few. Council’s choices on these matters need to reflect the will of an informed and engaged citizenry. In my various volunteer endeavors, I’ve always tried to work in a positive, collaborative manner, bringing people together to identify and achieve shared goals. I’m asking voters to give me a chance to do that on Council.

Economic development is the key issue in this election, as it has been in City elections for most years I’ve lived here. That’s because we have very high expectations for our public schools and municipal services, and quality doesn’t come cheap. We must broaden the City’s revenue base.

Every candidate promises to do this, but of the seven Council aspirants, I have the longest, most proven record of advocating for our current businesses and welcoming proposals to revitalize unattractive and underperforming areas on our main corridors.

I am proud to have played a part in advocating successfully for redevelopment projects that bring in more than $2 million annually in new net revenue to the City, saving the average Falls Church homeowner about $350 each year in property taxes. An added bonus is that these projects include many popular community gathering places and other enterprises with loyal followings, including Panera, Mad Fox, Hoang’s, Vantage Fitness, Sfizi’s, Flippin’ Pizza, Cosi, Penzeys, Pizzeria Orso, and ArtSpace.

Meeting the challenge of economic revitalization requires City government to be highly competent in three areas: First, we must engage the public in a planning and zoning process that is transparent and cognizant of market realities. (The current “area planning” approach in one step in a good direction.) Second, we must conduct an ambitious, energetic and professional marketing effort to recruit private-sector investment. Third, we must commit to a development review process that is inclusive and focused on delivering results in a reasonable time frame.

If I am elected to City Council, my top priority will be prodding City staff to aggressively seek out new private-sector investments that will enhance the quality of life in our community and strengthen the City’s balance sheet, so we can keep our schools great, our services top-notch, and taxes on citizens and businesses reasonable.

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

OK, I know my answers are getting too long, so from here on, let me be more succinct. On transportation, I’d like to see the City make progress in three areas:

a) Parking. Maximize the capacity of our current on-street parking in the downtown area via the low-cost means of painting spaces; make sure that any significant new development downtown includes structured parking.

b) Encourage walking and cycling, to trim the number of cars looking for parking, and reduce air pollution.

c) As we revitalize along Broad and Washington, engage new and existing businesses in exploring a public-private partnership to run a “City Connector” shuttle that would link Broad and Washington streets with the East and West Falls Church metro stations, to bring more customers to our City businesses without bringing in more cars.

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

In all the work sessions and town hall meetings that I’ve attended on the FY 2013 budget, the information presented is that our City school system is keeping careful watch on the matter of pension liability, and that we are doing more thinking and realistic planning about meeting anticipated needs than is perhaps the case with the VRS overseers in Richmond. Obviously this is an area we must continue to monitor closely, and in consultation with officials in state government.

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

I support the funding included in the City’s Capital Improvements Program that in FY13 is targeted to priority projects for flood mitigation and watershed management. In talking with folks around town about this issue, one hears questions about whether the City’s efforts in mitigation and management should be more ambitious. This question was raised at one of the budget work sessions I attended, and the response from front-line City staff was that the $1 million-plus allocated for this work in FY13 is all that we have the capacity to spend in a prudent manner. I don’t have any reason to doubt that, so I’ll just say that we should get started with the priority projects that are funded, and in future years keep up a sustained pace of infrastructure improvements.

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

Since I’m not on City Council, I’m not privy to the secret information about the City’s legal case and negotiating strategy in regards to the water system. Thus, I don’t think it would be responsible for me to give a snap answer now to the “should we sell” question. In the past weeks I’ve talked with some citizens who favor a water system sale, and with some citizens who worry that we’re too focused on the potential for a short-term cash windfall and not concerned enough about the long-term impact of a sale on citizens. Mostly, though, I hear people say that they need a whole lot more information on the pros and cons of a water system sale before they’ll feel prepared to vote in a referendum on the matter. If elected, I promise to quickly steep myself in the secret information about the City’s legal position and negotiating strategy, and then do all I can to make sure that citizens can engage a full and fair debate on the issue before any referendum vote.

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?

Falls Church should always be open to learning more about “best practices” in other jurisdictions. The first resource we need to tap in this regard is our own citizenry, which is highly educated, and includes many folks who have traveled widely in America and around the world. If elected to Council, I will be eager and willing to listen to citizens’ suggestions about new approaches we might try here. At the same time, in all that we do in Falls Church, I want to preserve what I see as our premier “best practice,” which is that we put people first. The way our schools teach our kids, the way government delivers services, it’s highly personal. If you’ve got a problem, you can go to the school, or to City Hall, and talk to a real person about it. (Or to me, if I’m elected!) If we keep our focus on treating people well — engaging civilly in public dialogue, and being mindful of those less fortunate — then our City will become an even greater place to live, work, play and educate children.

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

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