Five questions: Midlothian District supervisor candidates

Dan Gecker

The Chesterfield Observer believes it's important for voters to be informed when they go to the polls on Nov. 6. In the weeks leading up to the election, we are running Q & A's featuring the candidates for the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors from each district, so constituents can make a side-by-side comparison of where the candidates stand on some of the county's most important issues.

This week, we are focusing on the supervisor candidates in the Midlothian District, Independent Dan Gecker and incumbent Republican Don Sowder. We asked them each the same five questions. Here are their responses.

Do you support the rezonings for Branner Station (4,998 homes and 470,000 square feet of retail) and Roseland (5,140 homes and 1.5 million square feet of office/retail)?

Gecker: As planning commissioner for seven years and current chairman with bi-partisan support, I have had the opportunity to review both good and bad development proposals. I supported Branner Station. The issues were 1) whether the development [would] strain existing services; and 2) whether the development [would build] sufficient infrastructure to support it. Branner Station is well located and will provide infrastructure to mitigate its impact on existing development. The same acreage done piecemeal would not have a positive impact on the county. I support the neo-traditional design of Roseland. The case will be measured by the same standards as Branner Station.

Don Sowder

Sowder: Branner Station is the largest potential development to impact Chesterfield. Planning Commissioners Gecker, Wilson and Litton voted in favor of approval while Gulley and Bass opposed. County staff acknowledges significant road improvements are possible, but has questions about infrastructure issues including schools. I share these concerns. I am concerned about the impact on current residents. Many questions must be addressed by the applicant, staff and citizens prior to my being comfortable with this case. This is no time for rush to judgment. Staff and planning commission have not provided data on Roseland. No basis for an opinion at this time. [Editor's note: Sowder answered this question prior to the board's recent vote on Branner Station. At the rezoning hearing, Sowder abstained from voting, saying he needed more time to study the case.]

About $24 million in additional funding is necessary for a cloverleaf to provide direct access to I-295 for the Meadowville Technology Park. Should Chesterfield provide funding or financing for the cloverleaf?

Gecker: Yes, I am committed to reducing the real estate tax burden placed on our homeowners, and this is one of the ways to make it happen. Chesterfield needs to enhance its major industrial development sites, and providing interstate highway access is an investment that will yield a significant return. The current access to Meadowville through Rivers Bend is inadequate for a major industrial center. Providing transportation and utilities for our major economic development sites (Meadowville, Watkins Centre, south of Rt. 60 and Centerpointe) is essential to increasing economic development and thereby reducing the reliance on residential real estate taxes.

Sowder: Completion of the 295/Meadowville interchange would be a major energizer to our economic development opportunities. Along with Watkins Centre, the Meadowville Technology Park is a primary site for corporate enterprises that will bring new jobs and create tax revenues to take some of the tax burden off the backs of homeowners. We are seeking funding at the federal and state levels and to date have $3.3 million in federal funds. Upon receipt of substantial funding from the state and federal government, I would favor Chesterfield's support of this project. Completion of the interchange is in the best economic interest of all our citizens.

How would you provide funding for Chesterfield County's road needs?

Gecker: I served on Gov. Warner's Commission on Transit and became familiar with transportation funding. The primary responsibil- ity for roads lies with the commonwealth. The board's failure to adhere to the principle that "growth pays for growth" has left Chesterfield $1.3 billion behind in road needs. The solution will be incremental. We need to itemize needs and prioritize, and have standards that prohibit new development in areas where roads are inadequate or unsafe. We need to take advantage of situations where new development can be asked to fund offsite improvements and plan smarter to reduce demand on already crowded roads.

Sowder: First priority is to continue our focus on state legislators who have primary responsibility for roads. We arrived at several viable ways to supplement state funding at last year's transportation summit. We deferred these proposals as a result of the General Assembly approving a transportation funding plan. After review, the plan offers minimal benefit to Chesterfield. In the near term, we will revisit the summit proposals, which include potential set asides from real estate tax, BPOL tax, future bond issues and other alternatives. I support the concept of supplemental funding by the county to make our roads safer for citizens.

What property tax rate do you favor and why?

Gecker: I would advocate for a rate less than $.97 per $100 but make changes to both the operating budget and approved capital improvements plan. Despite three years of double digit growth in assessments, this board missed the opportunity to reduce the rate. The decision not to fund transportation improvements should have made $.96 per $100 the highest rate discussed. I would have dedicated at least $.01 per $100 to the schools for capital improvements to older facilities and not have allowed delays in maintenance and capacity increases at existing schools caused by the excess cost of the replacement high school.

Sowder: I proposed the $.97 tax rate as a compromise for board members supporting both higher and lower tax rates. The 7 cent reduction, the largest in Chesterfield history, is fair and alleviates some of the tax burden on homeowners and provides additional tax breaks for low-income and disabled seniors. Successful economic development will make further reductions possible. The reduced rate adequately funds our core services including a 9.1 percent increase for schools, plus $2.7 million for additional security in every school, an additional 10 needed patrolmen for our police department, and essential needs for fire and EMS personnel.

Should the board of supervisors be expanded to more than five members?

Gecker: Yes, our residents would be better served by adding two districts. Currently, each supervisor represents roughly 60,000 residents. In addition to the major concerns of growth management, funding for and size of schools, and the residential tax burden, the smaller districts created by the addition of two board members will allow for purely local concerns to be addressed more fully. Further, it is less likely that special interests will control the decisions of a larger board.

Sowder: I am an advocate of keeping government small, consistent with meeting citizen's needs. Increasing the number of supervisors leads to increased staff, bureaucracy and cost to taxpayers. Accessibility and the supervisor's responsiveness is the primary consideration. Candidates for supervisor must be willing and be in a job situation that accommodates the time demands of the office. As a recently retired businessman, accessibility, responsiveness and time constraints have not been an issue with me; however, individual circumstances may differ. In the final analysis, citizens should determine the need for increasing supervisors. I support the citizens' will.