Lawn Signs Reflect Voters’ Wide Choice of “Tickets”

By GEORGE BROMLEY
Falls Church Times Staff
April 28, 2012

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.

Home and Garden Tour Benefits Falls Church City Elementary Schools

By JACKIE HANDLY
Special to the Falls Church Times
April 28, 2012

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. Read more

CANDIDATE Q&A: John Lawrence

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.

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.

CANDIDATE Q&A: Paul Handly

April 26, 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 Paul Handly, an entrepreneur and technologist.

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

CANDIDATE Q&A: Lawrence Webb

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.

2. Do you support the City’s current “area planning” effort and redevelopment of our commercial corridors? If not, why not? If so, what areas of the City would you focus on, and what kinds of development would you like to see there?

I 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.

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.

CANDIDATE Q&A: Dave Tarter

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

Council Keeps City Tax Rates Steady

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.

SATURDAY, 4/28: Recycling Extravaganza and Prescription Drug Take-Back Day

On Saturday, April 28 from 9am-2pm, the City of Falls Church will hold a Recycling Extravaganza and Prescription Drug Take-Back Day at the Recycling Center, 217 Gordon Rd.

City residents may recycle and properly dispose of many items, including electronics, cell phones, clothing, bicycles, printer cartridges, eyeglasses, medical supplies, and more.  The City of Falls Church Police Department will also hold its semi-annual Prescription Drug Take-Back Day, a no-questions-asked program to help with proper disposal of prescription and over-the-counter medication.

« Previous Page — Next Page »