Five of the six candidates vying for three seats on the Falls Church City Council in next Tuesday’s election participated in a round table at the offices of the Falls Church News-Press Saturday. They responded to questions from News-Press owner-editor Nicholas F. Benton on three subjects – Falls Church City assessments, the tax rate and fiscal policy, and economic development policy. A complete transcript of the event is attached to this article.
Incumbents candidates Robin Gardner and Lindy Hockenberry were joined by their colleague backed by the Citizens for a Better City David Chavern and independents Joseph Bodmer and Lou Mauro in the give-and-take. Independent candidate Greg Brown did not attend. He e-mailed a letter to the News-Press expressing his regrets for being unable to appear. That letter is printed in full in the Letters to the Editor section of this edition.
The following is the transcript, which has been reviewed for accuracy prior to publication by the participants:
Benton: There will be six questions and one concluding statement. You can respond any way you wish. The questions are based on my point of view having covered the City Council as much as I have, and the way I see things. The first question has to do with assessments. Do you think there is something systematically biased or untoward about the assessments that have been completed by the independent contractor firm that just did a reassessment of every real property in the city?
Gardner: I do not think there’s anything systematically incorrect with how the assessments were done. I can tell you that everyone in the city is affected by tax assessments, not one area of the city as opposed to another area of the city. I know that my house doubled in its assessment because I have a new development, but I did go on-line and check my neighborhood houses to find out what the assessments were and across the board they were fair and equitable considering that the area that they were in the city and the marketplace value of the homes. I’m interested to see the appeals process in place and what comes forward, along with seeing how many folks appeal. The appeal process is open to everyone. And that is why you have a board of equalization. As we’ve stated before we have never had a blanket assessment in the city of Falls Church like other areas have had them in Northern Virginia and through Virginia. And I believe that this is a fair and equitable assessment.
Bodmer: No, I don’t think as a whole that these assessments were biased or done wrong. I think as I said at the Chamber of Commerce we’ve got to let the Board of Equalization do its job. We’ve had that board now expanded and we’ve allowed people more time to file. So let’s see what happens. I think there will be technical corrections. There’s no way that these guys entered every house and checked every wall and square foot, so I think there will be some technical corrections, but as a whole, no. I mean I have to believe they were hired under a contract, they did their jobs and they were professionals about it. So until that’s shown otherwise to the Board of Equalization, no, I don’t think that.
Mauro: First of all, we just had a citizen in here before the meeting started who pointed out that nothing was done about assessments for five years. And that was the responsibility of the city. He was absolutely right that if they had done something sooner, then the burden wouldn’t have been nearly so great at this time. Whether or not there was a systematic bias, I have no way of knowing. But as I said twice earlier this week I believe that we should establish a blue ribbon commission to look into how the independent contractors went about their job. They should be unbiased, they should be independent and they should be experts in their field. And they should report relatively quickly to the City Council on what they find, after that if corrections need to be made and mitigation measures need to be taken, such as stretching out payments over three years as I believe some other jurisdictions do, then that should be done.
Chavern: I have absolutely no reason to think that there’s a systematic bias in the new assessment system. I think there appeared to be a good process in selecting the outside assessors and I agree that now is the time to let the Board of Equalization do its job and evaluate those assessments that people think are incorrect. Also you have to make the point that fundamentally assessing taxes on home values is a difficult undertaking. There isn’t a community in the United States where the assessor is a popular guy in town. So you have to understand that this is a difficult task. Assessing the value is hard. But at the end of the day the board of equalization has to do its job and respond to concerns and complaints.
Hockenberry: There was definitely no bias with this firm. They were hired to do a job and I think it was one of the best things we could have done because otherwise if there was just one assessor then questions could be raised about it. But this is a problem that was on going in the city under different city managers and when Dan McKeever came on board, he took the time to do something about it. They are experts, unbiased and they did give a report to the city council explaining that they did not need to go into everybody’s house, as a matter of fact they didn’t even request to do so. It was done totally outside, some people asked them to come in. We now have a new assessor in (Mel Peterson?) who is going to be talking with people. As a matter of fact, they did have a meeting that people could go to with the assessor group. I don’t know how many people showed up at that, but there have only been 28 replies to the city manager and to Mel Peterson about their assessments.
Gardner: Just as a point of clarification, I agree that assessments were not done in a systematic way in the past five years, in fact it was much longer than that. It’s been the history of the city. So to pin it on the past five years is a misnomer, it’s actually been the history of the city it was not systematically done.
Bodmer: Let me only say that I think that we’ve got to find ways to relieve the burden on some of the tax payers with the jump in these assessments. That is, not to follow what Montgomery county’s methods where they basically limit any increase in a year to ten-percent. Because what it does is it back ends all of the rest of the increase, and you never stop having 10-percent increases and you have 10-percent increases every year. And that’s not a solution.
Mauro: There is a major problem. People are complaining about how high their taxes are, the city itself has recognized there’s a problem by saying call the assessor first, don’t appeal. They’ve extended the time for the deadline, the deadline for appealing. And there’s a need for somebody to look into what happened.
Benton: As a follow-on question about the assessments, I would ask how is it that you either feel that the city council does have a role in assessments, doesn’t have a role in assessments, that the assessments either are or are not a political issue during this campaign or in terms of the policies for which the council would be responsible.
Bodmer: First of all, I don’t think that the process of assessments for the purposes of tax revenue should ever be a political process. It should be the most unbiased, unprejudiced, completely above board process so that everybody can have faith and confidence in their tax assessments. The only time there should be any politics involved is when we’re going to decide what the effective rate is going to be. Is it going to be a $1.09 or is it going to be $1.13, and justifying that. And lastly the only time it should be political is whether we’re going to be 100% or an 80% type of assessment rate. So, from that standpoint that’s just how the city decides how much revenue it’s got to raise and that’s a political decision, yes. But deciding whether or not we’re going to conduct assessments in this neighborhood or that neighborhood or how we’re going to conduct our assessments, that’s got to be above board, straight forward.
Mauro: I agree with what Mr. Bodmer is saying that the process of assessments should not be a political one. The way the City Council works is in the tax rate area. But, in that area I would note that it might be more than just a coincidence that the tax rate has already been lowered by four cents. And I think it’s due to the fact that this is a contested election.
Chavern: I certainly agree with the general point which is the assessment is supposed to be an objective evaluation of value and the political decisions come after that and on top of that, so no there should be absolutely no political involvement or political component to the assessment process. The Council’s role should be about how to react or how to balance the needs of the city and the city’s necessary services compared to the tax base indicated by the assessments. I’m certainly not ready to ascribe any political motivation about the assessments in this election race. I think the fact that the assessments occurred now is for the most part a coincidence. So I’m not ready to ascribe any political involvement.
Hockenberry: Absolutely the assessments are not a political issue. That should not be something that the Council does. We are not responsible for the assessments. We get blamed for the assessments, ‘Why would you put my assessment up so high?’ but this is not anything that we have control over, it’s a market drive situation. We have no choice between 80 and 100% the state says you have to assess 100% of the value. And there’s a problem here. We’ve lost a lot of money over the years that we could have had and supporting programs, supporting schools, but the whole situation is that we lowered the tax rate immediately, we knew that people were really being hit by the assessments and we knew we needed to give immediate tax relief to our citizens. And we were first thinking we were going to have to raise the tax rate with the new school. We are able to pay for all services and the new school and we are able to lower that tax rate. That’s really a very, very good thing.
Gardner: I agree with everyone in regard to the fact that assessments shouldn’t be a political issue. I disagree strongly with the analogy that the tax rates have only been lowered to $1.09 from $1.13 due to the political climate in the city because of the elections. We have been trying for the past four years to lower the tax rate. That is the goal of City Council, that is the role of City Council, to make sure that citizens do not have to pay more taxes then needed for the city to sustain itself and to meet its budget. That is why we lowered to $1.09 at this point with hopes that it might go even further down if we can find the dollars to do that. It is not brought on by the fact that it’s a campaign. We would have done it last year, the year before, the year before that, if it was possible to do so.
Bodmer: I have to agree with Lou Mauro that there’s a political intent in lowering the tax rate since we’ve lowered the tax rate, but we haven’t told the tax payers where we’re going to get the money from. We haven’t identified the tax cuts for the tax payers. We haven’t been willing to tell which special interest is going to lose money in the budget process. We’ve just told them there’s a four cent tax cut coming and we’ll let you know just before the election.
Mauro: I couldn’t have followed up on the timing of the tax rate deduction any better than Mr. Bodmer did. As far as the responsibility for the assessments, we all agree that it should not be political. However, the assessor reports to the city manager and the city manager reports to the city council. The council is ultimately responsible for the conduct, in that sense, of the assessment process.
Chavern: I would not agree that there’s any kind of questionable intent with regard to the current budget process. I’ve been attending the Council meetings and the work sessions, reviewing the budget, I think the city manager has conducted a pretty transparent process about what the sources and uses of funds are going to be and what the choices are for the city. I don’t think there’s a secret budget discussion going on here in the city.
Hockenberry: There is definitely no secret budget situation here. This has been very transparent and both Lou and Joe would have been very welcome to come to the budget work sessions and learn and get all the information. We have made some cuts, one that I did not think of quickly the other night was the cut to the expenditure in GEORGE. But we would have been able to cut the tax rate even more if we had a clue as to what Richmond is doing. We have no idea what the money is we’ll be getting from Richmond. We’re going to be able to fill out our budget and cut as much as possible, then we’ll see if we can cut it further when Richmond does its job.
Gardner: The meetings have been transparent. The tax assessment has allowed us to cut the tax rate. The council’s job is to cut the tax rate whenever possible, as much as possible and still be able to fully service its citizens through services that are offered. And that is what has happened.
Benton: When the school bond was voted on last November, citizens were told that if they approved the bond then taxes would have to increase from $1.13 to $1.26 to pay for it. Does it surprise you that instead of the tax rate going to $1.26, (as the voters were told it would, and they still approved it by 75%) that in fact it’s not $1.26 but it’s been lowered to $1.09 and perhaps could go lower still before it’s over?
Mauro: Does it surprise me? No, in light of what happened I don’t think it surprises me. But I’ll say this about the bond rating, I think that it may be good now, but there’s a new school coming on and there’s another new school down the line, I believe. And we’re going to have two or three thousand new residents in this city with big costs attached to them. So I might not be so optimistic about the future.
Chavern: Obviously, there are two moving variables there. The assessments are a variable and so is the tax rate. I think it was not anticipated that the assessments would be going up as high as they were. I think projections had assessments going up 5-10% out three or four years. An unanticipated jump in assessments, but yet you look at the new base and you look at what kind of tax rates you need to support the services. I think that in addition to new school expenses there are other unanticipated expenses, most particularly the teacher retirement fund. I think the new school that’s being built currently is going to fulfill the city’s needs for a number of years. I’m not looking for a huge influx of new population. We’re going to have turnover and that turnover is going to create more school population. But these figures about how the city is going to expand 30-40% — I think is completely off base.
Hockenberry: Just a couple minutes ago we were talking about a political ploy to lower the tax rate right now, and I would hate to be in the political process if we were having to increase the taxes to $1.26. That would really be something. But we were expecting to have an increase and with the assessments and with our fiscal responsibility, our bond rating, we were able to get a good interest rate on the bond. And we are able to pay for all the services, including the increased Virginia Retirement Fund payment, which the city side did and did not apply it to the school side. So, we’re doing really well. And if I do remember some statements of Mr. Mauro, he said that it would have been alright for the tax payers to pay for the new school, no matter what the tax rate was. And he said that both at the City Council meeting and he said that to me personally a couple of times. So I’m happy that we’re able to lower the tax rate and do the things that we need to do.
Gardner: Up until the budget came in about a week before when we heard that the assessments would bring in more revenue to the city than had been anticipated, I was very surprised. But going through the numbers and being fiscally responsible in regards to what our obligations are in the city, what we need to pay for I think that the process has gone farther, I think areas to cut, for instance GEORGE, in the budget have allowed us to lower the tax rate. And I’m hoping that in the next year or two, we’ll be able to continue doing that, based on additional revenue coming into the city. I do think that the numbers that are being tossed about as far as the numbers of condos and people coming into the city, are skewed because that’s based on current buildings going up and buildings that haven’t even come before us. I know that Greg Brown and Lou Mauro anticipate bringing in a lot more residents and I don’t know where they’re getting these condo figures from because nothing’s been presented to council yet, so I think it’s a misnomer.
Bodmer: Well, thank goodness that the tax rate didn’t go up to $1.26. One of my concerns has always been with our ability to do financial projections in this city. I think we should have realized that there was going to be some additional, over normal, price increases and assessments. I think we should have realized that there were a lot of houses that had not been updated until the assessments, where they had razed it and built a brand new home. There was a hue and cry throughout the entire city because of this. So I think that if we’d have done a little bit of math we might have seen that we were not going to get to $1.26. But overall, I’m just pleased that we are able to sit there and return back some of the money. A month ago I called for a million dollar cut in the budget, and was scoffed at in the newspaper, and all the sudden here we go with a million dollar budget cut by the city council. They haven’t identified what they’re cutting, but at least they cut it.
Mauro: I’m not going to be drawn into throwing mud. Ms. Hockenberry just referred to an attack ad that the CBC ran against me, quoting me out of context, and misquoting, and stating half-truths and in some cases out-right lies. Those ads are despicable. The people of this city are too intelligent to fall for such negative tactics. I am confident that they will recognize that my campaign has focused entirely on the issues and will continue to do so.
Hockenberry: Lou, this is not an attack. We can look at the video tape of May 12, and see yourself saying the exact same thing. But I think a couple of other things that have added into the budget. The city side was kept to a 3.5% increase which is phenomenal given the medical costs and pay raises. The school side met their promise to do no more than a million dollar increase or 5% growth. And then they got hit with the VRS and we took care of that. So I think things are great.
Gardner: I just want to be clear: our original budget projections were based on conservative 5% tax assessment increase in revenues. We needed to have a baseline, I think that we were being very fiscally responsible in that. And then additional revenues came in, and we were able to cut areas such as GEORGE. And I think it benefits the city.
Benton: Given that the city has saved its tax payers millions of dollars by being able to sell its bonds at an interest rate significantly below that which was expected, due in part to an improvement in the city’s bond rating, which can be at least partly attributed to a sound fiscal policy including debt management and fund balance policies, do you think it’s wise to propose undermining these existing policies by raiding the city’s rainy day fund in order to improve the budget numbers this year?
Chavern: I’ve been very opposed to taking money out of the fund balance for a one-time payout. A one-time payout could be nice, but at the end of the day, what’s more important is the long term fiscal health of the city and the community. The fact of the matter is that the current bond rating reflects not only the budget policies but an assumption that the city and the city council are going to prudently employ those policies. It saves the city money every day. A higher bond rating not only saves us money on the bond for the new school, but we’re able to refinance some old maturities. The money in that rainy day fund helps the tax payers every day of the week. And I would be very against taking money out of the fund balance for a one time payout.
Hockenberry: I think our fiscal polices are very strong and we’re following them. As to the fund balance we say that we have to have between 8 and 12 percent and we really need to keep 12% of the budget and the fund balance. You go below that, and we have to pay it back. Borrowing from the rainy day fund is not a good situation at all. And as a matter of fact, the other thing that we’re trying to do is to pay as we go. Now there are a couple of people on the council right now who feel that we should be bonding everything. Bonding small items. Well, that’s like charging and charging and not paying for things up front. So if you’ve got a one time only costs that will not occur in the budget such as buying a new fire truck, which was also something that should have been expected, since it was 30 years old and ‘oh, my. We have to buy a new fire truck.’ But we bought that out of the fund balance and did not have to be bonded. And these are the type of things that you really do not need to bond.
Gardner: I have to give the credit to the Council prior to me entering the current City Council, because they are the ones that approved the current policy of the fund between 8 and 12 percent for emergencies only. Any money that’s been above that has been used for pay-as-you-go. There have been some things bought through that that have been a benefit to the city, such as the fire engine that Lindy mentioned, the ability to pay for property that we otherwise wouldn’t have been able to get. And now with our bonding up to its limit, I believe, we do not have the ability to bond as have been proposed. I believe we need to be fiscally responsible in how we are going to use the additional revenues so that our citizens get the best bang for the buck.
Bodmer: I believe that we should be using pay-as-you-go more often not less. It’s common sense that we should have been able to reduce our expenditures based on refinancing what essentially were bonds. I mean it’s like refinancing your house when the interest rates go down, you do the same thing, you constantly try to do that as a policy. But I believe that we have to use a correct balance. For example, the rainy day fund, no, we cannot be spending the rainy day fund unless it’s a rainy day. You don’t just use it, or just send it back to the tax payers because there is no rainy day fund and you don’t have the ability in an emergency to go out and buy a piece of property that might otherwise end up a very poorly used commercial development or to protect the environment. You need the option in your back pocket. But we should never allow that fund to grow too large either. We don’t need to be continually taxing.
Mauro: Well, Mr. Benton, when you said that these questions would be loaded and stacked, you weren’t kidding, were you. I’m not aware of anyone, unless it’s Mr. Brown, proposing a one time payback. Due to the enormous increases in tax assessments, there is some money, probably a good deal of it, I don’t know the exact amount, in excess taxes that’s going to be available to the city. I don’t think that I would propose a one time tax-rebate either. However, I agree with Robin, that within the bounds of being fiscally responsible we ought to find a way as quickly as possible to put that money to the benefit of the taxpayers. It’s their money.
Chavern: One thing I might add, is that on the Council I would push for more explanation and more description about the pay-as-you-go items. For example, there’s been a lot of discussion about the fire truck. When you look at your personal finances, all of us finance automobiles, so people say when you buy a vehicle, why not finance it? Fundamentally the city’s finances are different, you’re bonding capacity is limited. But I think there’s an obligation on the city to describe more regularly and more clearly why the pay-as-you-go items are being paid out of the fund balance and why other options aren’t right
Hockenberry: I think a couple of things need to be pointed out. The fact that the assessments came in much larger, we also had to point out that there were great reductions in the investments and those investments went way on down, 44% in some cases, and everybody’s was. So in a way it balanced it out. So money coming in, but also, not as much as expected not coming in. So that’s also important. I think the fund balance policy has got to be followed. And we do have about a million dollars right now that we’re looking at. There’s no legal way that we can return that to the citizens, because it can only be used in a one time only situation, so we’re looking at things such as buying land, buying open space and using it for things that are a value to all.
Bodmer: I would add that I would hope that the council wouldn’t just figure out how to spend a million dollars. Rather, hold onto it until we actually find a true need. And if we don’t have a true need, don’t spend it. Don’t just spend it because we’ve got it. That’s not fiscal conservancy.
Benton: The city’s own economic model shows that the three mixed-use projects approved so far for West Broad Street will yield more in net tax revenue to the city than virtually any other option for that land, including an all commercial use for that land. Do you have any problems with that finding?
Hockenberry: Absolutely not. We’ve run it for other projects just to see how it plays, and this comes from our own budget data and it’s put in and it includes all city costs directly from the budget. So everything is put through the same set of data. Now the situation with the former office building that was going to be built, that would have only brought in about $180,000 a year and compared to now the three projects, even if you’re going to compare the full spectrum, that’s going to bring in almost a million dollars a year by itself. And you compare that $180,000 versus a million, and that’s a huge difference. So yes, this is the best use, it also spreads taxes through different forms of taxes. It’s not just people, it’s not just property taxes. In mixed use you’ve got restaurant taxes, entertainment, you’ve got, hotel taxes, you’re going to bring in every type of taxes you can possibly get so you’re spreading your base of taxes.
Gardner: I agree with the model, I think the findings are correct. I also want to say that I think that numerous times, when we’re looking at economic development we are parcel by parcel, and we’re looking at the smartest type of development for each parcel. By putting in the type of mixed use developments on those three parcels, which were studied and negotiated and considered in various way shapes or forms, it will allow us increase the different types of mixes in areas such as the city center. I think that is the key to this discussion and it has been overlooked and that people need to know that City Council, I’ll mention myself since this is my election, that I am looking very carefully at how these parcels and we want to see that each development is the best that the city can possibly get. And again how it’s something the city can be proud of and can be very livable for them.
Bodmer: Just because we’re getting the biggest dollar bang for our buck, does not make the policy correct. Just because we can get the highest use, doesn’t make it the best use. I would suggest we have a very low vacancy rate in terms of office property here, but we don’t have a lot of office property to begin with. We need to build up an inventory. Just because we can get the most money for this particular development, does not make it good policy. I think that if we can increase the commercial space in this city, then we can increase reinvestment back into this city. Through tax incentives we can maintain this village, that we so love, because we’ll not only have people living here, but working here. And wouldn’t that be great.
Mauro: I can’t say whether the economic model is accurate or not, I’m assuming that it is, but as I said the other night, it’s not just a question of money. It’s a very important quality of life issue: the traffic congestion, the air pollution, the parking congestion, and the question of the impact on schools. Again, if the developers are right and no school children move in or very few, then we’ve populated our pre-existing condos with people who probably won’t, the majority probably won’t, care that much about supporting the schools. If the developers are wrong, then we have many more children than we need to have in our schools. As a matter of public policy, this is commercial land. This is not residential land that will be producing children, this is commercial land. And it’s been approved for residential use by the device of a special exception, which as I’ve said before, is not that special and it’s not so much of an exception.
Chavern: I agree with the economic model. I think the three projects approved, are the highest and best use for those parcels. As important or more importantly, I think they support the right quality of life for this city. Not only the businesses that locate in there, but the ancillary businesses that will develop on either side of those projects and will help create a truly walkable downtown. Destination shops, restaurants, retail that people will want to get out of their cars and walk to. I also think that those three parcels are the right economic and lifestyle choices for the city. I also agree with Robin in that each parcel has to be taken on its own. Mixed use isn’t the only option for all parcels. Different parcels have different best uses. We have to take these one at a time, and just because mixed use is the best option for these three parcels doesn’t mean it’s going to make sense everywhere in the city.
Hockenberry: I agree completely with David that we really did look at each parcel and made the best use out of it. And the goal is to have people living and working here and being able to walk. And I’m really excited for some of the jobs that will be produced, whether people are looking for a part time job or a full time job some of the restaurants or stores.
Gardner: I said this the other day, and again Lou, I’m always offended when you think that people that don’t have kids in schools, don’t support the school systems. People like Burnettes and the Salsburys and others all are super committed to the schools. And I think saying that people moving in without children wouldn’t care about the schools does a disservice to those that do not have children.
Bodmer: Two comments. I’m not convinced other than for young people, high schoolers looking for summer jobs, etc., that a job at a Hollywood Video, or a restaurant job as a waiter, is the kind of employment we want to create in our city in terms of creating vibrancy. I think we need more commercial space and more commercial investment back in the city to create real jobs that support families, and children and not just jobs for high schoolers when the get out of school.
Mauro: I would suggest too, that we need to get past the three projects that are already built. They’re there. We need to get past the referendum. I’m past it. I don’t understand how the people who opposed it initially and defeated it can’t get past it. But we need to be concerned about the city center. The question is can you trust the same developers, the same people on city council that brought you 85-90% condominiums on the commercial redevelopments of our city center.
Chavern: One thing I’d note about the restaurants, retail and Hollywood video, those are providing services that people want for the city. You want to talk about a vital, vibrant city, you ought to talk about things that people want to walk to and the services they want to obtain. Office buildings that close down at 5 p.m. are, in my view, first not available in the market, and second not the right choice for a walkable, viable, vital Falls Church.
Benton: This is the last question. If you do not support continued mixed use development in Falls Church, does that mean you would support market driven alternatives, even if those would be “by right,” single pad retail.
Gardner: Well, being as how I support mixed-used development, smart mixed use development to be clear, I’m going to answer this question slightly differently. I agree that we do need more commercial opportunities in this city and we’re discussing more commercial opportunities in the city center. But I also don’t want to live in a community that has, I know we talk about condo canyons. I don’t want to live in a community that has a commercial canyon. I’ve been to those communities and those aren’t the communities that I want to live in and I don’t think those are the communities that our citizens want to live in. So we support the addition of additional commercial properties and additional commercial vitality into the city and that will be my focus on city council if re-elected, and focusing it specifically on city center and the technology triangle and other areas that we are looking to bring development to.
Bodmer: I’ve supported mixed use, smart growth, throughout this campaign. So let me be clear that when I talk about smart growth, I’m talking about appropriate use of the available space in terms of not only providing vitality for the city center, vitality for our village if you will, but also in terms of business reinvestment back into this community that has been chased out over the last twenty years through taxes and through just neglect of the business community. So for me, smart growth along 29 and Route 7 is important, mixed use development along those two corridors is important. But I do not support a concrete canyon as it’s described. I don’t believe that we should just allow exceptions to create building heights such that now we block the sun from our neighborhoods right behind Route 7 and 29.
Mauro: I, too, support mixed use. The right kind of mixed use. I’ve said a couple of times this week, mixed use is not 90% residential and just one floor of commercial. That’s like filling your tumbler with scotch, taking an eye dropper, putting a drop of soda in it and calling it a scotch and soda. It’s not mixed. The city center is the key here. We need to encourage, to the best or our efforts, real commercial development with some residential too. There’s no doubt about that. The problem is, so far, that city center development seems to be going the wrong way. The original proposal was for 38% commercial, as I recall, which is probably too low to begin with, but now I understand that the Akridge company is proposing a lower percentage of 29%. And that’s the low hanging fruit.
Chavern: More low density pad development is not only not he highest and best use for our commercial corridor, it also kills walkability in this city. It mandates that you drive your car to every stop on a Saturday morning or a Friday night with your family. What we need and what I’ve been advocating are areas of more density in our commercial corridors. Part of that solution is the three mixed use projects, part of it will be a world class city center. But we need areas of greater density and we need destinations that people actually want to walk to from their homes. And as a corollary to that, we’re going to need to open up some green space, some open space, so that we have a true mix of density, destination and open and green space. But fundamentally, by-right pad development is the wrong kind of development for the city.
Hockenberry: Lou, I’m so glad you brought up the subject of your charter referendum, because if you had had your way, this city would have been brought to its knees. We would have only had the Broadway development, the other two developments would not have occurred because your charter amendment said that only 10% of city population growth could be proposed without going through referendum. Well referendums cost $10-12,000 for the city to run. We would have also not have gotten our new middle school because there would have been no way to pay for it. The bonding would have been a real problem because the bond people would not have paid attention to us. Developers would never come in here, so yeah we have to go back to that. And I think that since it’s part of your background, you need to realize that people are not going to trust you as much with your decisions, because that was a very, very wrong decision. You’re a nice person, but that was not a good decision to support that charter referendum.
Gardner: Smart growth involves additional customers for our local businesses so that we can remain fiscally viable. 38% percent commercial, starting at the city center, which was mentioned by Lou, is the starting point for negotiation. And again, this project is being phased in, and again we need to make sure that we have the right building mix, on the right parcel. We are in negotiations. Numbers that we’re talking about are negotiating points and can be changed.
Bodmer: Yeah, they are negotiation points, and apparently they do change quite significantly. Based on our comprehensive plan for 15% affordable housing in these projects, we’re getting 9%. So obviously we’re giving back to the developers quite a bit. It’s important that we not allow the city to become pad development, but we’re going to have to make some really stiff choices in the next year to two years, because developers have the right to do what they want, owners have the right to do what they want with their own property.
Mauro: Lindy, I’m sorry that you have chosen to get personal in this session, and I’m not going to address the referendum comments. They’re a gross misrepresentation of what happened. The issue, as I said before, is city center. The average proposed is 29%. That’s the low hanging fruit. We’ve got some undeveloped area in that phase. And this is the same group that we let out of a $2.8 million performance bond for failing to build an office building.
Chavern: I want to reiterate Robin’s point, but basically what’s happening in this political debate is people taking a lot of proposals and big ideas of which there are hundreds. Someone pulled out an economic development plan from 1965 the other day when I was knocking on doors. What you have to do is look forward. This is a negotiation. What I intend to do is to negotiate for the best and highest economic use for each parcel in the city and also the highest and best lifestyle use for each parcel in the city.
Hockenberry: I really think that the negotiation process is very important. With these three developments behind us now we’ve got more of a track record with the developers and we can dig our heels in and get exactly what we want in the down town city center. This is going to be one of the hottest markets in the area and we can work with Akridge and Waterford and get benefits that meet our needs commercially and get the percentages that we want.
Benton: You will now each get one minute for a final statement and then another thirty second response on top of that.
Bodmer: Let me just suggest, the election that we’re facing is one that will set the direction of this city for a generation to come. The next four years are critical for the future of our city. Thing’s going to happen in this city and decisions are going to be coming before this Council that you will be electing that will literally set the direction for our schools, for our government, for our smart growth, even whether we have smart growth in this city. I do not believe though, that the citizens of this city just want to sell our city to the highest bidder. I don’t think that dollars and cents alone should drive policy. I think we need to look at what creates truly the village character of this city and strive to make sure that we acquire and encourage the kind of development in this city to achieve that. That’s what’s called highest and best use. It’s not to the highest bidder and not to the highest price.
Mauro: I want to emphasize how much of a community person that I feel I am and that if I get on council I will be representing the entire community. No groups, no special interests. I also want to emphasize that my work experience as a federal lawyer for many years qualifies me for the types of negotiations that we’ll be getting into with the builders and contractors in city center. I’ve been involved in contracts for many multi-million dollar federal projects. There were also a few issues that weren’t brought up today, such as the environment. I feel very strongly about protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment in this city. We should build up a fund for acquiring space for parks. We should require the city do environmental impact statements, disclosing the environmental effects of projects that they’re approving.
Chavern: I really want to make two points. I, too, want to note what I believe are my important professional qualifications for the position. I’m the deputy general of council of a federal agency. I’ve been in corporate and commercial legal practice for over 15 years and I have extensive experience in negotiating complex commercial transactions. And I do have a graduate business degree in addition to my legal degree, so I feel like I have the personal qualifications that make me right for a seat on city council. But secondly, more importantly, I want to reach out to all the voters in the city and say, “please do vote on May 4.” The turnout in May is historically lower than it is in November and there are some critical issues that have to be decided for the city. This is not one of those elections where everybody is saying the same things. You have very different, distinct views amongst the city council candidates and it’s critical that the voters get out and make their choice.
Hockenberry: The Council that began in 2000 has set the direction for the remaining years, I think, for this whole decade. We are the ones who did go and aggressively bring in some key projects and aggressively get a new middle school. So I think that direction is pretty well set. I think the voters need to choose carefully when they vote. They need to think about people who are dedicated and who have proven their ability to work. And I think basic [Inaudible] are filling up. I do not agree with people who come out and run for elections who want the brass ring and haven’t been willing to pay for the ride on the carousel. I think that people need to be involved at the governmental levels. They need to deal with budget assessments. They need to go to council meetings. And they need to be well informed when they run for office.
Gardner: The last four years have been very critical and yet the next four years are equally critical. I would again restate what my platform is. As an independent, I am supporting a walkable lifestyle, smart mixed use development, strong community, increased open space, ethics on council, and inclusiveness of all of our citizens. I don’t want to leave any of our citizens out of the decision making process. I like all citizens to feel that our government is transparent and they can come and find out information and participate in the process and be heard. We are a community of 10,000. We are a community that is going to grow both in residences and our commercial area and in retail areas. We also need to be inclusive of our businesses and all the people in our city. And that’s what I represent and that’s why I’d like to be re-elected on May 4th.
Bodmer: Let me just restate one more time that I believe that in the next four years, policy has been set, but it hasn’t been set in stone by the current council, because if you elect a new council, you will change that policy for the future. So don’t believe that you have no options here but to re-elect the current council. And let me also add that we can have smart growth and smart government together. And I hope you’ll elect me on May 4th.
Mauro: I want to emphasize again my community affairs over the years with the schools, the community groups and with church activities. I am a member of the community and I will be the voice of the community if they elect me to the city council. What I hope to bring during this very critical time is a strong dose of common sense. Legal experience, but a strong dose of common sense.
Chavern: I just want to amplify the point on the choice that voters have on May 4th. It’s really the choice to either continue with the economic revitalization of Falls Church or to turn into some other uncertain direction. Fundamentally we can’t afford to allow the city to drift economically. We must continue the great work that’s been done in re-energizing the city of Falls Church economically — and diversifying the tax base of the city.
Hockenberry: In addition I think we’ve begun with the economic stability of the city. So now I’d like to see some more done with affordable housing. Definitely open space is going to be crucial, and the environment. We really will be working, as we have for a year and a half, with all the impact of development on the environment and we will continue to do so.
Gardner: As a final note I do want to stress that this election is really based on fiscal responsibility. Do you feel that the citizens of Falls Church have been served well by its current Council bringing in additional revenue and building a new school, being fiscally responsible and making sure that the citizens are served, or do you want another? Hopefully you agree the former and I encourage everyone to please come out and vote on May 4th. And thank you very much Nick for having this forum that allowed us to discuss the issues.
