FAIRHOPE, Ala. — The candidates took the gloves off at Thursday’s forum for the mayoral and Place 2 City Council jobs in next Tuesday’s runoff election.

“Clearly, interest in this election is high, and the interaction during the debate was intense,” said Harvey Joanning, president of Citizens for Responsible Government, the Fairhope-based nonpartisan group that sponsored the event. ”I thought the forum did what it was designed to do. It gave the audience an opportunity to hear directly from the candidates on a variety of important issues.”

Incumbent Mayor Tim Kant swapped blows with challenger Dean Mosher in an hour-long slugfest over city finances and whether the mayor’s job should be separated from the superintendent of utilities position, among other issues.

The warm-up bout between incumbent Councilman Dan Stankoski and challenger Danny Corte also saw punches fly over questions of open government, traffic design and financial matters.

A crowed estimated by CRG at close to 700 people attended the Sept. 25 event, which cheered and booed loudly throughout the evening. The Thursday-night event was moderated by Joanning and broadcast live from the Fairhope Civic Center on WABF Radio-1220 AM. The group also sponsored two days of candidate forums prior to the Aug. 26 general election.

“Citizens want to make an informed decision,” Joanning said. “I hope the forum provided voters with useful information.”

A final forum between the candidates is scheduled for tomorrow night at the New Era Missionary Baptist Church in Fairhope (See notice at left).

The candidates in both races were asked questions posted prior to the forum on CRG’s Web site. The questions addressed issues of city finances, revenue, growth management, the role of mayor and council in local government, open and accountable government, water pollution, and annexation of areas outside current city limits.

The questions were asked this way:

(1) What is the city’s financial condition? Please be specific.

(2) If additional revenue is needed to fund the city, which do you prefer and why: sales tax, property tax increase, raising utility rates, raising fees, or borrowing the money?

(3) What kind of growth would you encourage? How would you use planning and zoning ordinances to deal with population density? What would you do to implement the Fairhope Comprehensive Plan?

(4) What do you see as the roles of council and mayor?

(5) What would you do to facilitate the public’s participation in city governance? How would you keep the public aware of city activities and finances? Are you willing to identify and separate yourself from conflicts of interest with your business and personal relationships?

(6) What would you do to ensure that water is properly managed within the city’s jurisdiction. By water, we mean stormwater, sewage and general runoff.

(7) How would you deal with areas around the city that are not zoned but require police and fire protection? Would you consider annexing or attempting to zone area around Fairhope and what are the issues involved?

Some of the biggest blows in the mayoral debate came over city finances and financial reporting.

“How can you double your debt and say you are in the black,” said Mosher, after stating that the city’s debt had increased from $22 million in 2004 to $48 million this year. “Your bookkeeping is very creative. I (will) call for a full fiscal audit going back three years. We’re going to change how we do accounting in this city.”

Mosher’s calculations included a loan in the amount of $8.8 million for airport construction, and drawing on two lines of credit totaling $2.3 million this year, added to the $37 million in debt reported in city records, he said, to arrive at the $48 million amount.

The airport finances are reported as a “component unit” and not included in the calculation toward the overall debt limit of the city, according to the financial audit for the last fiscal year.

Kant said the city’s current debt included $18 million for the general fund and $18 million for the utility funds, putting the overall amount under the city’s $44 million debt limit. He also pointed to major capital projects approved by the council, which added to that debt including construction of the library, museum, pier and airport.

He also referred to Mosher’s claims, as “this nonsense about not being in the black.”

In the Place 2 City Council race, Corte was on the attack throughout the night, accusing Stankoski of supporting a sales tax, open meetings violations, bad street design decisions and growth management issues that supported “connectivity” between neighborhoods.

At the same time, Corte also said there had been too much rancor between the council and mayor, and that the public is tired of it.

“We have to get along, whether we disagree or not,” he said.

Stankoski said his past behavior on the council was the best predictor of his future behavior.

At one point, Corte challenged him on the issue of whether he supported a sales tax in a question about which policies the candidate would support to raise revenue in the city.

“Are you for or against?” Corte said. “I didn’t hear your answer.”

“I thought you were the candidate who listened,” said Stankoski, referring to Corte’s campaign signs.

Stankoski said he would pass a sales tax as a last resort and before adding to what he said was a city with high debt levels.

Corte did not state what measures he would use to raise revenue. He did state, as all candidates did that night, that cutting expenses would be the first thing to do in controlling the city’s budget.

Stankoski did not address Corte’s allegations about sunshine law violations reported in the Fairhope Courier last week involving the entire council, but he did address his accusations over growth management issues. Corte had questioned traffic design plans at the so-called Dyas Triangle and involving the Greeno Road median project.

“We had a lot of public input with a total of 12 public meetings,” Stankoski said. “I didn’t see (Corte) at any of them.”