City Council Meeting

I would like to call the regular meeting of April 28, 2026 to order. And before we begin our meeting, I would like to take a few moments to talk about Mr. Herberth Alfaro Flores, an employee with our city's public works department. He was on our asphalt crew for five years. And like many of you, I probably drove past or walked past Mr. Alfaro Flores many times in the years that he worked here. He very tragically died recently. And so I would like to begin our meeting with a moment of silence, keeping in mind Mr. Alfaro Flores' family, his wife, his children, and his extended family as they mourn his very unexpected loss. If you are able and so choose, please rise as we follow up with the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And now the fun begins with our proclamations, one of the most uplifting parts of my day. I'm going to start by asking Chloe Ritter, our multimodal transportation planner, to come down for the proclamation, acknowledging May as bike month. The green light is on. Yeah, it's on. It's on? Yeah. All right, all right. All right then. Whereas. Bicycling is an effective way to encourage health and fitness, reduce traffic congestion, and support the city's sustainability goals such as air quality improvements and energy conservation.

And whereas the city is investing in bicycling infrastructure to expand transportation option and improve connections between neighborhoods, activity centers, transit, and the region. And whereas the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, through its Commuter Connections Program, promotes bicycling as a sustainable commuting option and is celebrating Bike to Work Day on Friday, May 15th, with events throughout the region. And whereas the month of May is National Bike Month established to increase awareness of bicycle safety and the benefits of bicycling. And whereas the city is proud to support the Old Town Fairfax Bike to Work Day pit stop and other Fairfax City Bike Month activities.

Now, therefore, I, Catherine S. Reed, Mayor of the City of Fairfax, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as Bike Month in the City of Fairfax and encourage the community to enjoy the benefits of bicycling and to practice bicycle safety. And without further ado, Ms. Chloe Ritter. Thank you, Mayor Reed. And thank you, Council, also, for supporting Bike to Work Day. Bike to Work Day and Bike Month are a great opportunity for people to practice bicycle safety and explore the city's bicycle network and just celebrate bicycling in the city. So, as mentioned, we will be celebrating our annual Bike to Work Day pit stop in Old Town Square on May 15th. And we hope that people will sign up and come. We'll have the free T-shirts.

This year's color is purple. So, if you need a purple T-shirt. And then we'll also have fun activities and snacks and prizes sponsored by local businesses and organizations, including the Environmental Sustainability Committee, Trek Bicycles, Innova, High Side, Ornery Brewing, Bonds Escape Room, Sunbury Bowls, and South Block. So, I just want to first take a moment and thank all of our sponsors for their support for Bike to Work Day. There's other fun activities posted on the city's website for Bike Month. We have a few different themed guided, self-guided bike rides. This year, in partnership with the urban forestry staff, we developed a bike route to go see special trees in the city. So, if you go online, you can find a map to follow that route and check out some of the cool trees.

And there's some other maps and some other activities on the city's website as well. So, we hope everybody will celebrate Bike Month. And, again, thank you, Mayor, Council, and enjoy Bike Month. Okay. And with that, a photo. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I'm going to ask our Village in the City board and also our senior sitter staff and everybody else here involved with our proclamation regarding Older Americans Month. In fact, anybody who considers themselves an older American, please come on down. Let's just celebrate us. Old people, I'm all about it. Yeah, old people. I got a driver's license. I can establish. I can establish my Bonafidees. All right. All right.

All right. What a good-looking crew. All right. Whereas, May is Older Americans Month, a time for us to recognize and honor the city of Fairfax's older adults and their immense influence on every facet of American society. And whereas, through their wealth of life experience and wisdom, older adults guide our younger generations and carry forward abundant cultural and historical knowledge. And whereas, older Americans improve our communities through intergenerational relationships, community service, civic engagement, and many other activities. And whereas, communities benefit when people of all ages, abilities, and backgrounds have the opportunity to participate and live independently. And whereas, the city of Fairfax ensures that older Americans have the resources and support needed to stay involved in their communities,

reflecting our commitment to inclusivity and connectedness. And whereas, the Fairfax City Young at Heart Senior Center at the Green Acres Center offers numerous and varied activities, such as pickleball, book club, bingo, knit and crochet, day trips, and other programs for all active older adults. And whereas, the Fairfax Village in the city supports the city of Fairfax older adults and adults with disabilities who wish to stay independent while remaining at home with sharing useful information, strengthening personal connections between neighbors, and providing opportunities for social interactions. And whereas, this year's theme, Champion Your Health, focuses on prevention, wellness, and personal responsibility

to encourage older adults to take an active role in managing their physical and mental well-being, accessing care, and fostering independence. Now, therefore, I, Catherine S. Reed, Mayor of the City of Fairfax, do hereby proclaim May 2026 is Older Americans Month in the City of Fairfax, and I call upon the community to join me in recognizing the contributions of our older residents and promoting programs and activities that foster connection, inclusion, and support for older adults. Hear, hear. Who's, is somebody speaking? Are you speaking? Are you speaking? Are you speaking? Are you speaking? Okay, there you go. Hello. On behalf of the Fairfax City Young at Heart Senior Center Advisory Council,

I want to thank the council, the city council, the mayor, Stacy Summerfield, the Parks and Rec Department, and especially Anne Chase and her staff at Green Acres for providing us seniors an opportunity to participate in fun and exciting activities and allowing us to champion our health. From Mahjong to Canasta to Cornhole to Bocce to Lunch and Learn to Senior Trips to Pickleball, our senior center has activities for everyone. I welcome those who are 55 and older to stop by this Friday, May 1st, between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. for our Older Americans Month Open House. We'll be conducting intros and demos on Bocce, Cornhole, and Pickleball. Bring your ID and you can join on the spot. Come by and get a tour of our facility and meet some great seniors.

Again, thank you for recognizing Older Americans Month. Fantastic. All right. Are we ready for a photo? Okay. Photo. Everybody might have to scrunch a little. Scrunch a little. Okay. Perfect. Great big smile. All right. Thank you. All right. I see that I already have Leslie Abashian up here from Human Services. I'm looking for our CRT team and Dr. Robin Mellenbeck. Because now we are going to proclaim about Mental Health Awareness Month, something we should all be focused on. Because mental health is part of our basic health. Whereas Mental Health Awareness Month, observed every year during the month of May, is an opportune time to fight stigma, provide support, increase awareness, and remind individuals the services and resources that exist to support the millions of people

impacted by mental health issues. And whereas good mental health is essential to a child's healthy development and Children's Mental Health Day provides the opportunity to focus on the important matter, this important matter, while celebrating the accomplishments of children and families affected by mental health concerns. And whereas, according to the National Alliance on Mental Health, NAMI, nearly one in five people experience a mental health concern each year, the health and safety of all our children and families is important to the happiness, prosperity, and well-being of our community. And it is important to recognize that mental health is a critical component of learning and well-being

for the approximately 250,000 children living in Fairfax County and City. And whereas, ongoing research has helped in developing therapies, protocols, and pharmaceutical interventions to aid in the treatment of mental illness with a greater understanding of how trauma and brain chemistry impact mental health. Research has also shown early identification and appropriate treatment of mental health disorders among children and adolescents provides them with better opportunities to lead full and productive lives. And whereas there has been a national movement to destigmatize issues of mental illness and to support the concept of mental wellness in our schools, homes, workplaces, and communities,

recognizing that mental health disorders can strike people at any age, background, race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic background. And whereas trauma caused by war, poverty, childhood abuse, domestic violence, crime, incarceration, homelessness, and substance abuse disorder can all contribute to mental illness, sometimes resulting in harm to self or harm to others. And whereas the community of the City of Fairfax, along with agencies and organizations interested in meeting the mental health needs of children, are encouraged to unite to bring awareness to the fundamental necessity of a system of care for children and youth with mental health needs and their families. And whereas an individual's mental health struggles may not be evident to others,

we must cultivate a culture of compassion in our businesses, schools, government agencies, among healthcare providers, in our civic organizations, neighborhoods, and in our community. It is incumbent upon us to advocate for a greater understanding and more resources for mental health awareness, prevention efforts, and treatment. Now, therefore, I, Catherine S. Reed, Mayor of the City of Fairfax, do hereby proclaim May 2026 as Mental Health Awareness Month in the City of Fairfax. And I call upon each of us to advocate appropriate and accessible mental health care services for people of all ages in our community. Mental health is an essential pillar of everyone's overall health and well-being.

And with that, I will turn it over to Ms. Leslie Abashian. All right. Hi, I'm Leslie Abashian. I'm the Director of Human Services for the City of Fairfax. And I know today, you know, we're talking about mental health awareness a month in May. But mental health is every day, right? And mental health conditions can hit anybody, either impact you or impact somebody you love. So it's really important that we're paying attention to one another. And when we need help, that we reach out and ask for help, either through 988 or reaching out to providers in the community. One of the things with the City of Fairfax, I can do this job by myself, right? So I have a lot of partners in the community that help us support people when they're having a mental health condition, impact them.

Sometimes they're having the worst day they've ever had, right? And so we rely on private practitioners. We have mental health organizations. We work really closely with the Fairfax Falls Church Community Service Board. And the city itself has a community response team that's made out of a community paramedic, a licensed clinician, and a police officer that is available to respond to behavioral health crisis. So with all that to say is that the help is here. If you need help, I mean, you need help, you know somebody that needs help, reach out to us, call 988, call the CSB. You know, don't hesitate because a lot of times if we know that somebody's struggling now, we may help them where they don't continue to really struggle and maybe need hospitalization or a higher level of care.

And we're very blessed in the city with all the supports we have. And I didn't know, Dr. I hate speaking. Okay, Dr. Mellenbeck, would you like to say something? George Mason is one of our really important partners, and I would like for her to talk a little bit about what she does. Yes, please. Okay. Yes, please. I'll be super quick, but thank you for having me here, too, to the council and to Mayor Reed and everybody. I'm Dr. Robin Mellenbeck. I'm the director for the George Mason Center for Community Mental Health. We're about a mile down the road. We're not on campus because we serve the community. We're the main training clinic for doctoral students in clinical psychology here at George Mason.

But we train social work students, counseling students, undergrads in behavioral health. But most importantly, we provide services on a very low sliding scale to the community. We see kids as young as age five all the way through the lifespan. We have free services for our veterans. We have a step care program. We run two emotional support lines that we are absolutely happy to make sure everybody, your CRT team now has those resources. And we also do three very low-cost virtual coping skills sessions. And I actually am very excited. I don't think I've even shared yet with Mayor Reed, but Healthy Minds Fairfax just provided some support to provide those three virtual coping skills sessions to any Fairfax County resident for free, ages 16 on up.

Okay. So this is a little bit the older adolescents through adults. So, again, the services are available. There's no wait list. If you know someone struggling, please reach out. Thank you. Thank you. We'll have a picture. Thank you for that. We will have a photo. Thank you. Thank you for that. We will have a photo. Thank you. Thank you. and all of our esteemed guests from the Mason Life Program to join us here in the well. So excited to have everyone come out for this particular proclamation. Wonderful. Good to see you all. Good to see you. Good to see you. Okay, you're good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, sure. Thank you, Mayor Reed. Thank you, Council. It is lovely to be honored, and thank you in celebrating alongside us for Inclusive Post-Secondary Education Day. Mason Life just recently celebrated its 20th year and one of the first in the nation, and we continue to serve as a model program for programs across all 50 states. And this really wouldn't happen without crucial partnerships on campus and off campus, working directly with faculty and community members and employer partners to provide rich academic and employment and independent living opportunities for a population who is eager and ready and thriving in these learning environments.

And I really would be remiss to take any more time on the microphone, but I would invite some current Mason Life students to share one word that they associate with Inclusive Post-Secondary Education. So anyone that wants to, when you think of Mason Life in college, one word that comes up, comes to mind. Mayu, one word about the Mason Life program is incredible. That's a good word, incredible. Anyone else? Anyone else? Anybody else? Anyone else? Yeah. Anyone else? Yeah. One word that I would describe the Mason Life program is inclusive. Okay. Okay. Mason Life has been wonderful, and I think for the, one of the admins did a lot of fun with Mason. It's been really wonderful. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So one word I really like about the Mason Life program is being independent. Independent. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. One word that I really like about the Mason Life program is leadership, because it really is about leadership and just kind of becoming like a better leader. Thank you. One word I think about it is being independent. Do you want to give a word? Just for the record, they didn't know I was going to suggest. Pressure, so much pressure. Go ahead. One thing I like about Mason Life, it's where I met my best friends. That's the perfect way to end. That's the perfect way to end. Now we're going to take a picture. We are going to take a picture. Everybody's going to squeeze in and our accountant's going to squeeze in behind it.

Okay. Here we go. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Okay. So the things you learn when you come to a city council meeting. We've had a 20-year program at George Mason University that probably very few people knew about. And it's so important. All right then. We can move to the adoption of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? I move. Council Member Hardy-Chandler. I move to adopt the agenda as presented. Second. The motion has been made and seconded. A roll call vote. Council Member Amos. Aye. Council Member Hall. Aye. Council Member Hardy-Chandler. Aye. Council Member Peterson. Aye. Council Member Bates. Aye. Council Member McQuillan. Aye. Motion passed unanimously.

We will now go to initial general public comment. I had 14 speakers sign up by 5 o'clock p.m. today. There will be another opportunity in the room if there's anybody that would like to speak. It will be under agenda item number 8, the second general public comment. So I'm going to go ahead and call the first speaker up, which is Barbara Smith. Thank you so much for the opportunity to address the mayor and the city council. My name is Barbara Smith and I represent the city of Fairfax Young at Heart Senior Center Advisory Council. Since February 28th, someone from the advisory council has provided public comment on the second and fourth Tuesdays in support of the proposed Willow Sherwood Health and Community Center project.

We have all expressed our appreciation for the program and support received from the Parks and Rec Department and especially from Anne Chase and her staff at Green Acres. To summarize, I spoke about the aging conditions of Green Acres in both the parking and public transportation issues we encounter. Chuck provided the extravagant cost it would take to renovate or replace the current Green Acres facility. Tony mentioned that the most required repairs to Green Acres have been delayed in anticipation of completion of the Willow Sherwood project. Deborah laid out the ADA inadequacies and also provided the petition signed by almost 200 seniors. Susan spoke of the seniors' quality of life and linked the Willow Sherwood project to the city's slogan of Live Life Connected.

And Kevin pointed out that Green Acres is not green and that the Willow Sherwood project would reduce our carbon footprint in the future. I'm not here to rehash what we've already talked about. I want to paint you a picture of who we are. Our members include the greatest generation, the baby boomers, and much to my chagrin, it looks like Generation X snuck in when we weren't looking. It looks, we fought for our country as far back as World War II up through Afghanistan. The other day in the pickleball line, a quick survey revealed that we spoke Korean, Chinese, Arabic, American English, British English, Russian, Ukrainian, Malayalam, Hindi, Vietnamese, Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese. We've held careers as embryologists, piano teachers, judges, accountants, federal employees, pharmacists, architects, government contractors, software quality engineers, special ed teachers, homeland security agents, domestic engineers, insurance brokers, financial services, human resources, military personnel, postal employees, telecom contract managers, nurses, doctors, law enforcement, city and county employees, retail salesmen, and electrical engineers.

Newer members recently took the fork in the road from the federal government and some joined while on temporary furlough from DHS. We volunteer a lot. We're poll workers at local elections. We mentor children and adults. We're officers in our HOAs and civic associations. We belong to the VFW, the American Legion, and many military and civic organizations. We donate blood. We work food banks and collect food and items for the needy. If you're familiar with Blue Zones, which are pockets in the world where there's a large population of those who live to 100, it's not about chasing the newest diet, supplement, or workout. Instead, these people live in environments that support long, healthy lives.

They move throughout the day. They stay connected to friends and family. And they wake up each morning with a sense of purpose. All we are asking is for more years feeling strong, connected, and useful to the people around us. The Willard Sherwood Project gives us hope to connect with people and children of all ages in a modern and safe environment. I urge you to vote yes for the Willard Sherwood Project, and I thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts. Our next speaker is Mike Fabio. Mike Fabio. I'm still a little choked up from that last presentation we had there. Mike Fabio, Chain Bridge Road, Mayor Reed and City Council. April 7th was noteworthy for the Willard Sherwood Project. First, you had a joint meeting with the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, during which you learned that they eagerly support the project,

that they want your approval right away to save money on construction costs, that they anticipate that the new health center will be the premier jewel of the county health locations. And it will not only continue to provide us with services, but will draw people from the entire county. And they were quick to point out that this would be a boon for business in Old Town. Then that same night, you had an update on city services and support for older adults. You were told that 34% of city residents are 50 or older and that that figure is expected to grow. That concerns for the availability of services for seniors rank high in the community survey. That older adults need a place to gather and socialize to participate in activities and remain engaged in the community.

And that loneliness and social isolation are public health concerns both physically and mentally. And that the demand for these services will increase in the coming years. The exercise and activities provided at Willard Sherwood will address these needs and contribute to better health and stem the rising cost of health care. Not only for individuals, but also for the community. And tonight you observe Older Americans Month and Mental Health Awareness Month. What better way to celebrate this than by voting for Willard Sherwood. Willard Sherwood will also provide meeting spaces for the community. Our Smarter Growth Group used to meet at the library, but booking ahead became impossible. Now we have our meeting at Green Acres, but it would be nice to be back in the center of town with nice indoor parking, especially during inclement weather.

And also navigating parking, entryway, and stairs at Green Acres is very challenging for our disabled members. But Willard Sherwood is not just for seniors and children. All ages will be allowed to participate in basketball, volleyball, pickleball, and run on indoor tracks. I grew up in a blue-collar town, but we had a community center. As a recent college grad, I relished the nights where I could go there for young adult activities. It was a great way to blow off steam, meet people, and make contacts. So will it be with Willard Sherwood. Please don't put money into the sinking Green Acres ship. We are a small town, but that does not mean that we must be small-minded. Vote yes to approve Willard Sherwood.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Taylor Geegan. Thank you. I'm Taylor Geegan. I live on Park Road. I went back and forth on what I was going to say today, but I've heard that honey attracts more than vinegar, so I'm going to keep this on a positive note. But I am here to speak on my support for the Willard Sherwood Center. I think it's really important that not just for the seniors in our community, but across the entire continuum of care in our community, and it shows that from childhood up until your senior years, that we have a place for the whole community to gather. There's been spoken a lot from several different people about the issues with Green Acres. I just want to reiterate that my husband and I have been there several times.

It's really just not in great shape. It's not a place where people want to go and want to hang out, especially when you think about just the parking, as well as there's also been talk about a lot of ADA issues as well. For the current Willard Sherwood Center, there has been a lot of parking issues just from the get-go. It's a continuing issue year after year that people don't have adequate parking to come to events at the Willard Sherwood Center. We want to be there. We want to enjoy these things, but we either have to park over at Van Dyke, or we have to park across the street at the church and then play hooky with all the cars that are racing by. So that's just not ideal either. And then I just think that it's really important that we think about not just the current moment,

but the legacy that the council wants to leave for our residents. There has been a lot of turmoil from the outside looking in, and I think this would be a great way to put a bow on your legacy to show that you actually do care about the residents and the future of those residents. Thank you so much for your time. Our next speaker, Stephen Kim. Thank you. Mayor Reed and members of the council, my name is Stephen Kim, and my address is 4031 Colonel Mendez Way. Today I'm here to ask the Fairfax Council to vote no to fund the new Willard Sherwood Health and Community Center project. I believe this is not the right time for this project based on the current financial condition of Fairfax City. According to the most recent Fairfax City annual financial report

for the fiscal year end, June 30, 2025, Fairfax City has a pension liability of $10.5 million from the city general plan and another pension liability of $22.5 million from the public safety pension plan. Both pension plans shows a total net pension liability of $33 million. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, liability means something for which one is liable, especially monetary obligation. Simply put, it is a debt. I'm not sure whether Fairfax City has some kind of magic wand to meet the unfunded pension liability of $33 million without issuing another bond or raising property taxes. In 2024, the city passed $220 million school bond referendum, and the city also has faced several other financial obligations.

Is it a good time to have a brand-new community center that has an initial price tag of $54 million, and we do not know how much more it will cost at the end? I understand that it's been more than 10 years since the concept of new Willard Shored Health and Community Center project, and the city sees a lot of need for the new community center. However, I'm wondering whether the city can afford it now without issuing another bond and raising property taxes. But I do know for sure the right time will come later for all city citizens may agree for the new community center project with a dedicated surplus city fund, but right time is not now. That's why I'm asking you to be more financially prudent

and vote no today. Thank you. Our next speaker is Judy Fisher. Good evening. Having lived in the city for over 50 years, I have witnessed many decisions by many city councils. As a small city geographically located at the center of Fairfax County, we have benefited from partnerships with the county. The most visible evidence of this cooperation is the best library in the area, which is located in our center. The Willard Sherwood Community Center would be another star in our midst. Fairfax County provides many services to the city, which we could not match without this partnership. Willard Sherwood Community Center is an investment in this continued cooperation, which the city could not duplicate.

To renege on the plans agreed to and in progress sends a negative message and may have repercussions beyond the loss of this important facility. I urge you to approve this project and to authorize the bonds necessary to complete the project. Please vote yes on both questions to move forward to build the Willard Sherwood Community Center. Thank you. Our next speaker is Tom Ross. Good evening, Mayor and Council, and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on two items on your agenda tonight. Item 9A is consideration of an award of construction contract to Fort Myer Construction Corporation to undertake the Blenheim Boulevard Multimodal Improvement Project. Item 9B is consideration of a resolution

to proceed with the Willard Sherwood Health and Community Center. I strongly urge you to support both items. As you know, the Blenheim Boulevard Multimodal Improvement Project has been supported by previous city councils and by the community over the years and has undergone extensive planning and public input. It will substantially upgrade a key transportation corridor that has served this community for years, increasing public safety and promoting alternatives to automobile use. In addition, the corridor will be an attractive asset to the city, serving residents for years to come. It is an investment that will pay significant dividends to our residents in the region. When completed, it will serve much more

than just a simple roadway transportation project, but as a gathering place for people and residents in the community and in the city. In a similar fashion, the Willard Sherwood Center, Willard Sherwood Health and Community Center will address a long-term need that is strongly supported by this community, serving all ages and backgrounds with excellent health and leisure services. As the chair of the subcommittee on Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Activities of the 2020 Commission, which recommended this almost 40 years ago, we are now on the verge of meeting the community's desire for such a facility. These two projects represent an investment in the future as a community and in future generations.

I strongly believe that even in times of fiscal challenges, we cannot ignore the need for these kind of investments. When I moved to the city of Fairfax 46 years ago, we struggled to maintain our services and infrastructure. In short, we were a second-rate community with poor schools, a lackluster community, limited economic growth, and a lack of community vitality. Today, we see a very different city, proud of its past, but excited about a vibrant future full of opportunity for the future. Your votes tonight in support of these items will help make that a reality. I will leave you with a quote from the great poet and writer Maya Angelou about your role as leaders. Quote, Your life is every life

you've touched. You, as our elected leaders, have that opportunity tonight to touch the lives of everyone in this community in the present and in the future. Thank you. Our next speaker is Megan James. Good evening, Mayor. Members of City Council, my name is Megan James. The clerk has my address. I'm here tonight to urge you to move forward with the Willard Sherwood Health and Community Center. This project is not just a building. It's an investment in how Fairfax City supports people at every stage of life. For our children, this means access to expanded child care, early intervention services, and safe enriching spaces to learn and grow. Right now, families are already struggling to find affordable child care.

This project doesn't just maintain what we have, it expands it in a meaningful way. For our seniors, it means a modern, accessible space to stay active. The current Green Acres facility cannot continue to meet those needs. It's outdated, difficult to navigate, and increasingly expensive to keep operational. Continuing to pass it is not a long-term solution. It's another delay. For the broader community, this center creates a one-stop hub, bringing together the services, recreation, and community programming under one roof. Without it, residents will continue to travel across the county for basic services. That's not only not efficient, it's not equitable, especially for those who rely on that public transportation.

The inclusion of a gym and wellness space isn't a luxury. It's about preventative care. It's about giving our residents the tools to stay healthy, reducing long-term strain on our health care system. And more importantly, this is a walkable center located in the facility that aligns with the city's vision for smart growth. It strengthens our community fabric by making services accessible without relying on a car. The Willard Sherwood Health and Community Center also represents a critical partnership with Fairfax County. Walking away now doesn't just halt construction. It risks long-term damage to the relationship and undermines future opportunities to collaborate on projects that benefit our residents.

Financially, we've already invested significant time and resources into planning. If we stop now, we lose that investment and are left with fewer services and aging infrastructure. And that's the worst of all worlds. Finally, there's an opportunity to lead. A green, high-performance building designed to meet a net zero and lead standards positions Fairfax as a forward-thinking, responsible, and committed to sustainability. Tonight, the choice isn't whether to build a center. It's whether or not to move forward or to fall behind. I urge you to support this project for our children, for our seniors, and for the future of Fairfax City. Thank you. Our next speaker is John Russell. Madam Mayor, members of the City Council, my name is Cappy Russell.

I live in the Daniels-Run Woods neighborhood. The clerk has my exact address. I came tonight to reiterate my support for the Willard Sherwood Center and encourage you all to vote in favor of its funding and construction. If I'm being honest, it's a little confusing and a little disheartening that a project with so many obvious benefits and so many years of support from city residents and officials would feel so tenuous. But this council's equivocations have given me the opportunity to reflect on why I chose to move to Fairfax City 11 years ago and what I'd like to see in the years going forward. So I chose Fairfax City in rough priority order because I found a house the right size and place and price, because of the excellent schools which I wanted for my children,

because I grew up in a city and I liked a place that felt walkable and neighbors who'd be knowable, because the commute to work for my wife and I would be manageable and public transportation options were available, and because the city's parks and restaurants and shops and library and all the other amenities that made Fairfax seem less like a subdivision and more like a community. At no point in my deliberations did I stop to consider the relative property tax rates between the city and surrounding jurisdictions. And in fact it wasn't until the budget presentation a few weeks ago that I became aware of how low our rates are compared to some of our neighbors. But even if I had known of the city's lower tax burden, I'm not sure that would have been a major factor in my decision to move here,

especially if I thought that keeping taxes down could only be had by missing out on opportunities for enhanced services and smart growth. So I take seriously the issue of affordability, but I'm also a big believer in the principle that you get what you pay for. The proposed Wheelock Sherwood Center gets us a whole lot. Health care, daycare, meeting spaces, a gym, all wrapped in an environmentally sustainable package. And because the project is shared with the county, we gain all those benefits at a much reduced cost. It's true that funding, construction, and paying for upkeep of the center lays additional costs on the city and its residents, but a no vote tonight is to be penny wise and pound foolish.

It would be less saving money and more wasting opportunity. It would elevate the cost of living today over and above a building, building a city that people would want to live in in the future. So I hope you'll take a moment to reflect, and I hope you'll vote yes. Thank you. Our next speaker is Leslie Cullen. Okay, our next speaker is Maureen Barsotti. Good evening, members of council. My name is Maureen Barsotti. The clerk has my address. I have been a proud member, I'm sorry, proud resident of the city of Fairfax for over 20 years. I am here tonight to express my wholehearted support for the Willard Sherwood project. This is more than an investment in a building, it is an investment in the people of our city and the future of our community.

This project is essential community infrastructure. It will serve as a multi-generational hub for all residents, children receiving therapy, parents attending programs, or seniors participating in a friendly game of pickleball. This center will serve the diverse needs of our city, creating a welcoming and accessible space for everyone, both now and for decades to come. On a personal note, this project truly hits home for me. I grew up in Falls Church and received speech therapy at the Willard Health Center. I am forever grateful to the city and county leaders who back in 1954 made the decision to invest in a facility that would help so many. Their vision made a real difference in my life, and I believe we have an opportunity to ensure this facility continues to change lives for generations.

There is a quote often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, The best way to predict the future is to create it. This council has a unique opportunity to create a clear, long-term vision for the city of Fairfax. By investing in this much-needed infrastructure, your vote in support of this project will provide a lasting, meaningful legacy for every resident in the city. I respectfully urge you to vote yes. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Lauren Hillman. Hello. My name is Lauren Hillman. The clerk has my address. A few months ago, Mayor Reed spoke with my son's Boy Scout troop about local issues, and when she mentioned the Willard Sherwood Center, it's a mouthful, isn't it?

The scouts all perked up, and they wanted to know all about it. They're very excited to have something like that here in the city that they can walk to, that they can bike to, a gym, a running track. They were just really excited about it. Those kids, those scouts, those future leaders, are the future of Fairfax City. Those kids will be damaged if this center does not get funded. Those kids and countless members of our community who rely on public services. Canceling this project would be an appalling decision. This city council has already cost our citizens almost $4 million in a canceled project. This is a council who has run on platforms of charm and small-town feel, but what does that small-town feel except taking care of our own?

Council members say they want educational resources and facilities for every child. This center will provide those resources for many underserved kids. Council members proclaim to be highly responsive to community vision and citizen needs, but they've ignored the overwhelming citizen support for one major project and are considering denying our citizens of those very services that will meet their needs and ignoring all of the overwhelming support for this project as well. Is that what you want as your legacy? To be the city council that made Fairfax a laughingstock? To be the council that ruined our decades or century-long partnership and collaboration with the largest county in the state. Fairfax City, or I'm sorry, Fairfax County will build this center whether the city council funds it or not.

If the city council backs out of this project, what kind of backlash will our citizens suffer? We still need health services. We still need family support. Where will we get it? The closest public health center is a 40-minute bus ride away. Building this center in Fairfax City will provide care for lower-income residents and all of our residents. Canceling the center would be yet another tax on people who already struggle to make ends meet. Growth is an opportunity, not a threat. Staying stagnant is not an option. Any delays will increase the cost of this project. Real dollars bled from our budget as construction costs increase. Real harm to the people who live here by continuing to reduce access to needed services.

Real damage to our city's reputation because who wants to open a business or work in a city where the government reneges on its word and wastes money and costs them time and money? It's time to stop making excuses for why we can't change and start creating a city that works for all of us. Thank you. Our next speaker is Judy Frazier. Judy Frazier. Hi. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm here tonight because I understand that VDOT has required us to repay $3.5 million on the GST. I would request respectfully that we have greater transparency in how that came about. We know there was a lot of room for negotiation on that amount and the terms of repayment, but there has been no transparency to the public on how that was determined.

My basic question is, did the city try to lower that repayment amount? Maybe it was a hale and hearty attempt that VDOT just closed the door on. We don't know. And I think it is incumbent upon the mayor of the city to lead that work to get to a better outcome on that amount. I know you did not agree with the outcome, but it is still your duty to represent the best interests of the city, especially to counter VDOT's heavy-handed position. And, frankly, it is a benefit to you because otherwise you are vulnerable to accusations of accepting a poor outcome to score political points, and that is not good for anyone. So, is it also too obvious to state that Fairfax County would not accept this outcome lying down?

So, why are we? Secondly, on the community center, I think it is a great idea. I think this community really does need a nice recreation center. We have a couple through the county. We use the county, Oakmont and Providence, which are great, and this will be an excellent facility that the county is building in our city. I just think it is a terrible deal for the city. I do not know why we are paying for a county facility. If they built it, we would be able to use it just like any other of their facilities because we have that good relationship. But I do not know why we are spending $54 million to help them build their building, which we will rent from them. I think it is a great location for a recreation center, but nobody has explained to me to understand why we are spending all that money for them to build a building that we will then rent space in.

This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Again, it kind of goes back to that transparency in government that we seem to be lacking. As my good friend Susan Kyler said, often says, follow your conscience, vote your conscience. Don't cave to political pressures. Ask the hard questions. Be willing to take the stand. It serves the community well. And you expect no less of us when we go to vote in November. You expect us to vote our conscience when electing the leaders who will serve us for the next two years. Thank you. Our next speaker is William Penny. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I wanted to address the proposed Willard and Hulling Community Center, which I do support, but wanted to address it from a financial risk standpoint.

The city of Fairfax right now is funding multiple projects, the proposed community center among them. But you have to ask, what is the estimated cost here? About, we already discussed that, about $56 million. For perspective, how much has the city spent on existing municipal buildings and improvements? About $77 million. This project would dramatically increase the city's buildings and improvements like the summer is between 50% to 70%. Which raises the question, can the city fund this project with existing revenue? Current city property tax revenue is about $100 million in the city. And the answer to the question, of course, is no, because there is little or no revenue left over after the total expenses.

Historically, over the last five years, the city has increased property taxes by about 25% because expenses have also increased by about that same amount. Therefore, the city plans to largely finance this project with debt and issuance of new bonds. Today, the city has about $50 million in general obligation bonds. This $56 million project more than doubles that. With this debt, there is now going to be interest to pay, about $32 million worth over the life of the loans. This means a cash payout for this project is actually about $88 million, including the interest. The debt adds about $3.5 million a year to the city's cash payout to cover this. We are also looking at staffing costs being significantly higher to run the community center.

But, of course, this might be offset by some of the fees that are generated. The question remains what percentage of the public is actually going to use the facility and help us generate that cash. So the risk of this project, to me, is looking at the general economy. We are at great risk in this country for a recession coming up and inflation. Currently, the national debt is sitting at $39 trillion. The federal government will not be in a position to be able to bail us out and invent expensive projects that we can't afford. If there is a recession with associated job layoffs, city revenue will go down. More people will not be able to pay their property taxes. People will eat out less at restaurants and so on in the city where sales taxes are high.

With inflation, there could be significant cost overruns of the $66 million project. The city might also have to pay higher interest rates on our current AAA-rated bonds, which was estimated by the city finance officer about 4%. And what about emergencies, say, funding, water, infrastructure, emergencies, road emergencies, and so on? So as I see it right now, the city is maxed out in its spending using debt to pay for this project. Why are we putting the city's finances at potential risk? So I think it has to be, unfortunately, a no vote. Thank you. Our last speaker under this agenda item is Katie Johnson. I'm Katie Johnson, Spring Lake Terrace. I'm here to thank Councilmembers Hall, Peterson, and McQuillan for asking the tough questions.

And I ask you to please continue to ask those tough questions until you are absolutely sure that we have the best possible outcome for the citizens of the city of Fairfax, financially and in the fairness of the percentage. I have concerns, especially with regard to our annual operating budget. Thank you for carefully crunching the numbers on the residents' behalf. A few thoughts are 60% of the seniors in our senior center are county residents. Construction of high-tech medical offices with separate air systems are much higher than a basketball court and a rooftop pickleball court. This year, our city managers asked us not to hire any full-time employees, and the Wood Sherwood Health Center will add at least two managers and many, many more employees.

There may be a desire, but I agree with the previous speaker. Our pension liability is scary. I love listening to our residents here. They're experts on everything, and I always learn. The general public comments are my favorite out of the meetings, no offense. But that's really – our risk is high, and I have to agree with that some of this is – the debt is just entirely too much. We talk about our children. We want to leave them with a financially healthy city as well. So I'll have to agree with the previous speaker that now is not the right time. Yes, a worthy, awesome project, but it's a nice-to-have, not a need-to-have, and it's incredibly expensive. And the burden will be on the citizens and the businesses, and we need to keep that in mind.

Thank you. We can move on to the consent agenda. Are there any questions on any of the items on the consent agenda? Are there any items council would like pulled from the consent agenda? Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda, Council Member Hardy-Chandler? I move to approve the consent agenda, Item 6A through C, as presented, and the accompanying motions in the staff reports. Second. A motion has been made by Council Member Hardy-Chandler and seconded by Council Member Peterson. A roll call vote. Council Member McQuillan? Aye. Council Member Bates? Aye. Council Member Peterson? Aye. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? Aye. Council Member Hall? Aye. Council Member Amos? Aye. Motion passed unanimously.

We will now go to public hearings. We have a lot of budget public hearings tonight. So our first one is going to be a public hearing on the real estate tax rate of $1.095 per $100 of assessed value based upon an assessment ratio of 100% of fair market value and a personal property and machinery and tool tax rate of $4.13 per $100 of assessed value based upon an assessment ratio of 100% trade-in value. In parenthesis, no Council action and the tax rate will be set on May 5, 2026. I'm going to recognize JC Martinez, our Assistant City Manager slash Chief Financial Officer, to provide a staff presentation. Thank you. Mayor, Council Member Martin, City Manager, to be aware of the City Manager of $1.08 per $100 of assessed value.

That's a two and a half cent rate increase effective January 1, 2026. on March 10th, 2026, the city council advertised a real estate tax rate of $1.09.5 or $1.09.5 per hundred of assessed value, which is an additional one and a half cents more than the city manager's fiscal year 2027 proposed budget real estate tax rate. The real estate tax rate necessary to provide combined, this is residential and commercial properties, equalization whereby the average property owner would pay no more in taxes than in the prior year equates to $1.0221. As noted, the personal property and machinery and tools tax rate is recommended at 413 per 100 of assessed valuation based on the assessment ratio of 100% of fair market value.

The recommended personal property tax rate for qualifying members of the volunteer fire department or volunteer rescue quad is $0.01 per 100 of assessed valuation. The proposed personal property tax rate of 413 remains unchanged from the current year's rate. The city of Fairfax City Council adopted a personal property assessment ratio for vehicles of 100% for fiscal year 2024, and the proposed budget maintains that level. Of note, one cent on the real estate tax rate is equivalent to $883,928 of revenue, and as stated, no council action tonight, and the tax rate will be set on May 5, 2026. Happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Mr. Martinez at this time? All right. I will open the public hearing.

Ms. Shinaberry, has this public hearing been advertised? Yes, it has. No one has signed up prior to the meeting to speak, so is there anybody in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item? I will now close the public hearing. No council action will be taken tonight, and the tax rate will be set on May 5, 2026. Our next public hearing is a public hearing on an ordinance amending and readopting Chapter 90, Article 2, Division 1, Section 90-33 of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, pertaining to classification and taxation of certain real property in the City of Fairfax used for or zoned for commercial and industrial purposes and to establish a separate tax rate on such real property effective as January 1, 2026,

revenue from which would be used exclusively for transportation purposes that benefit the City of Fairfax. In print, there is no council action, and the tax rate will be set on May 5, 2026. I will recognize JC Martinez, Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, to provide the staff presentation. Thank you. Mayor and Council, Section 558.1-3221.3 of the Code of Virginia was adopted as part of the transportation bill enacted during the 2007 session of the General Assembly. The enacted legislation granted local authority to the City and other eligible jurisdictions to impose a separate real estate tax rate on commercial and industrial property, revenue from which shall be used exclusively for transportation purposes that benefit the City.

City Council can adopt a rate between 0 to 12.5 cents. However, no formal action on the item would result in the rate reverting to 0. The attached ordinance on the staff report would set the 2026 tax year's rate at 12.5 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. This is no change from the 2025 tax year and would be applicable to all affected real property as of January 1, 2026. The proposed 2026 rate of 12.5 cents per 100 of assessed value is the maximum rate allowed by the Code of Virginia. Similarly, as before, there will be no action tonight and the rate will be set on May 5, 2026. Happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Mr. Martinez at this time? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing.

Ms. Shinaberry, has this public hearing been advertised? Yes, it has. No one has signed up prior to the meeting. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item? I will close the public hearing. No council action will be taken tonight. Council consideration will be on May 5, 2026. Our next public hearing is on an ordinance amending Chapter 102, Article 2, Section 102-31, and Prince B of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, to increase the rates for wastewater service furnished by the city by 6%. There is no council action, and council will take consideration on May 5, 2026. I'll recognize J.C. Martinez, our Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, to provide the staff presentation.

Thank you, Mayor, council. In conjunction with the city's financial advisors and consulting engineers, a wastewater utility multi-year financial and capital planning analysis had been developed and was presented to council during a previous work session. Primary goal of the analysis was to create a comprehensive cash flow planning model taking into account existing and projected operating and capital needs while minimizing rate increasing for existing customers. Based on the analysis, staff recommends a user rate increase of 6% in the city's wastewater utility. The city's raised rates from 10% in 2014 through 2020, 8% in FY21, 6% in FY22 through 26. Increased residential and commercial wastewater user rates are required

to fund the city's increasing costs associated with the aging infrastructure within the city and to cover its share of expenditures associated with the operation of the capital improvements at the Nolan coal wastewater treatment plant. The city has contracted 6.27% capacity in the plant, which is owned and operated by Fairfax County. Major plant upgrades are necessitated by stringent federal regulations designed to improve wastewater treatment and quality and critical plant construction and renovation projects needed to replace and improve aging infrastructure. Again, as stated, no council action tonight. The formal rate will be set on May 5, 2026. Happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Mr. Martinez at this time?

Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Ms. Shinneberry, has this public hearing been advertised? Yes, it has. No one has signed up prior to the meeting. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. No council action will be taken tonight. Council consideration will be on May 5, 2026. Our next public hearing is on an ordinance amending Chapter 102, Article 5, Section 102-203, in parance B, of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, to set the rate for the stormwater utility service furnished by the city at $36.02 per BU, in parance billing unit, a 5% increase. There is no council action. Council will take consideration on May 5, 2026.

I'll recognize JC Martinez, our Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, to provide the staff presentation. Mayor, council, again, the city's stormwater utility fund's initial rate of $28.80 per billable unit was set at a time when stormwater was created on December 14, 2021. Since its establishment, the annual rate increase has averaged about 6%. However, the proposed adjustment for calendar year 2026 reflects a modest increase of 5%. This action is to set the rate at $36.02 per billable unit for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2026. User fees are expected to generate stormwater utility revenue of approximately $3.4 million, and the anticipated increase for FY26 is $161,897.

Happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Mr. Martinez at this time? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Ms. Shinneberry, has this public hearing been advertised? Yes, it has. No one has signed up prior to the meeting. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. No council action will be taken tonight. Council consideration will be on May 5, 2026. Our next public hearing item is on an ordinance amending Chapter 90, in-parens taxation, Article 6, in-parens tax on meals, Section 90-262 of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, pertaining to a proposed increase in the levy and the amount of tax on meals.

No council action will be taken tonight, and council consideration will be on May 5, 2026. I recognize J.C. Martinez, our Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, to provide the staff presentation. Thank you, Mayor. Council, Section 90-262 of the City Code currently provides for a 4% meals tax. The proposed ordinance would increase the amount of meals tax to 4.5%, 4.5, as set forth in the City Manager's recommended FY27 budget. The effective date of this change would be July 1, 2026. The previous meals tax change was from 2% to 4% in 2004, roughly 22 years ago. An increase to the meals tax reduces the financial burden on residents, as the meals tax can offset the need for higher real estate taxes

due to visitors and non-residents paying the tax. The half percent proposed increase would generate approximately an additional $1.3 million in meals tax revenues. This change would result in a tax increase of approximately a quarter, a quarter of a dollar, to a $50 meal. Happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Mr. Martinez from the Dice? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Ms. Shinaberry, has this public hearing been advertised? Yes, it has. No one has signed up prior to the meeting. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. No council action will be taken tonight. Council consideration will be on May 5, 2026.

Our next public hearing item is on an ordinance to amend Chapter 90, imprints taxation, Article 7, imprints transient occupancy tax, Section 90-302 of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, pertaining to a proposed increase in the levy and rate of the transient occupancy tax. There is no council action tonight, and council will take consideration on May 5, 2026. I will recognize JC Martinez, our Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, to provide the staff presentation. Thank you. Again, Mayor, council, Section 90-302 of the City Code currently establishes a transit occupancy tax, also known as the TOT, rate of 4%. The proposed ordinance would increase the TOT rate to 12%, effective July 1, 2026.

An increase in the TOT shifts a portion of the tax burden from the residents to visitors and other non-residents, thereby helping to mitigate the need for higher real estate taxes. The 8% proposed increase would generate approximately an additional $1 million in TOT revenues. Each 1% increase equals $125,000. As the clerk noted, no action by council tonight. Council will take consideration of this item and set the rate on May 5, 2026. Happy to answer any questions. Are there questions? Council Member Peterson. Just a quick clarifying question. It says, subject to enactment of enabling legislation by the Commonwealth scheduled for April 13. Can you clarify that? I can, and that might have been left over.

We did receive confirmation from the legislation down in Richmond that they did pass our request. That was submitted earlier this month, so that we received confirmation on that. Any other questions for Mr. Martinez from the dais? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Ms. Shinabury, has this public hearing been advertised? Yes, it has. No one has signed up prior to the meeting. Is there anybody in the room? Okay. We have a speaker. Good evening. Many of you already know me, but for anyone that doesn't, my name is Kristen Feenstra, and I am the general manager at the Residence Inn here in Fairfax City. And while I do serve as a commissioner on the city's economic development authority,

I want to be clear that I am speaking tonight in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the ADA. I want to share my concerns about the proposed increase to the city's hotel tax and explain why both the size and structure of that increase matter, not just to hotels, but to the long-term economic health of Fairfax City. Today, the city's hotel tax rate in aggregate, in total, is 7%. So I know that the TOT tax is one portion of that, and there's a portion of what we charge to the guest that does go toward transportation and other amenities that you guys have once it reaches you. But today, the city's hotel tax rate is 7%. Earlier this year, I publicly supported a modest 2% increase that brings the city more in line with Fairfax County,

provided that those additional dollars were invested in tourism and destination marketing through FXVA, which is Fairfax County's destination marketing organization. FXVA, for anyone that doesn't know, promotes region. The region attracts visitors, helps fill hotel rooms, and that approach still makes sense. County hotels pay a similar tax rate, but they also receive organized marketing support that directly drives demand, and city hotels do not receive this. I do support a balanced budget, and I understand that the city is facing a budget deficit. However, increasing the hotel tax from 7% to a potential 15% goes far beyond alignment. And when combined with the required 6% state tax, the total effective tax rate on every hotel stay would be 21%.

Like all other businesses in Fairfax City, hotels also pay BPOL taxes on gross receipts. And to my knowledge, there is no other business in the city that pays 21% tax on every customer transaction and also pays BPOL. This places a unique and heavy burden on just our one industry and hospitality. Hotels outside the city limits, sometimes even less than a quarter of a mile away, would immediately become far more competitive, simply because their total price is lower. Guests do not make decisions on where to stay based on city or county boundaries. They compare final prices. When taxes rise sharply, hotels cannot simply pass that cost along. To stay competitive, I would be forced to lower my room rates to absorb the tax increase and operate with less revenue.

And that leads to fewer bookings, reduced hours for my employees, less reinvestment in the property, and ultimately less taxed revenue returned to the city. And in some cases, this level of pressure could threaten a hotel's ability to remain in business. I do support a balanced budget, but a balanced budget means shared responsibility. And if Fairfax City expects hotels to contribute more, there must be a clear and dedicated commitment to destination marketing. A measured increase paired with reinvestment protects competitiveness, supports workers, and strengthens city revenues over the long term. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item? Okay.

Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. No council action will be taken tonight. Council consideration will be on May 5th, 2026. All right. Our last public hearing item is on an ordinance amending Chapter 14, M-Parens, Businesses, Article 2, M-Parens, Licenses, Division 2, M-Parens, Classification of Certain Businesses, of the Code of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, pertaining to a proposed increase to the levy of annual license taxes on certain business classifications. There is no council action on this item, and council consideration will be on May 5th, 2026. I'll recognize JC Martinez, our Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, to provide the staff presentation. Thank you, Mayor, Council.

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Section 14-73 of the City Code currently provides for a rate of .40, 40 cents per hundred, of gross receipts related to annual license taxes for every person engaged in financial services, real estate services, or professional services. The proposed ordinance would increase the amount of the annual license tax to .48 or 48 cents per 100 of gross receipts, matching the average of Northern Virginia localities. The state maximum allowed rate is .58 or 58 cents per $100 of gross receipts. Section 14-74 of the City Code currently provides for a rate of .27 or .27 cents per $100 of gross receipts related to annual license taxes for every person engaged in repair service, personal service, business service, or any other business, trade, profession, occupation, or calling not specifically listed or exerted from license taxation,

according to the provision of the proposed ordinance would increase the amount of the annual license tax to .30 or 30 cents per 100 of the gross receipts, matching the average Northern Virginia localities. The state maximum allowed rate is .36 or 36 cents per 100 of gross receipts. The effective date of this change would be .27. The city's businesses and professional license B-POL tax rates have remained unchanged for more than 30 years. The proposed B-POL rate increases are projected to generate approximately $1,078,908 in additional annual revenue. The $0.08 increase to the professional real estate and financial rate would generate about $719,000, approximately $89,900 per one cent. And the $0.03 increase to the services, business, personal repair rate, would generate about $360,000, or approximately $120,000 per one cent.

As noted by the clerk, no council action tonight. Council would take consideration of this rate during budget adoption on May 5, 2026. Happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions for Mr. Martinez from the dais? Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Ms. Shinaberry, has this public hearing been advertised? Yes, it has. No one has signed up prior to the meeting. Is there anybody in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. No council action will be taken tonight. Council consideration will be on May 5, 2026. Okay. We can move on to the second general public comment period. So if there's anybody in the room that would like to speak that did not get to speak during the initial general public comment period, may come forward.

Okay. All right. We will go to items not requiring a public hearing. So we will go to 9A, which is a consideration of an award of construction contract to Fort Meyer Construction Corporation in the amount of $21,770,570 for the Blenheim Boulevard multimodal improvement project. I'll recognize Patty Anasenti, our procurement director, to provide the staff report. Thank you. We're here tonight to request council approval of a contract for the Blenheim Boulevard multimodal improvements. The contract will be awarded to Fort Meyer Construction Company in the amount of $21.7 million. The contract award is conditional on final approval by the Virginia Department of Transportation. And the transportation director, Wendy Sanford-Block, is here to provide information about the project.

Thank you. Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. I am pleased to be up here this evening to kick off the construction phase of this project. As you know, the city has been working on this version of the project since 2014, but this project dates back to the early 2000s. So this project has been a long time in the making. Once the award is approved this evening, hopefully we will begin working with the contractor in earnest. Starting tomorrow, we will begin coordination with the contractor to set up the pre-construction meetings. I'd like to introduce Sonny Sarna, who is here this evening. He will be the city's project manager. He is our transportation capital project manager. And he will be managing this project going forward.

He will be the point of contact in the field. We will also have a construction manager that will be identified after we get the ball rolling. And as soon as we have more information, we will be sharing that information far and wide. We plan to hold a community meeting. As soon as we know more information about the phasing, the schedule, the timing of the project, we will reach out to all parties on the corridor and invite them to this meeting. The meeting will inform residents about the planned projects, not only this project, but other projects that will be occurring on Blenheim Boulevard during that two-year period of Blenheim improvements themselves, manage expectations, and share how they can stay connected.

We have already begun internal coordination about this project and about the construction phase. We know there is going to be a lot going on. We have been working with the city's communications director, Matthew Kaiser. We've already created a text-to-subscribe option for the multimodal improvements in GovDelivery, and that option is now available on the project page. We plan to use this list to communicate updates about this project and others occurring throughout the corridor. There are already almost 4,500 subscribers to that list. We also plan to explain that there is that text-to-subscribe option in the June city scene, and there will be tremendous communication throughout. And again, I just don't have that information yet because we will just be kicking off tonight, hopefully.

And again, as soon as we have more information, we will be sharing that. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. Are there questions for Councilmember Peterson? Well, thank you, and I think you may have answered one of the questions that I had, which was about the continued involvement of the community as you go through construction. It sounds like not only is a lot going to be going on, but it's already started, so I think folks are just starting to get used to the fact that this is going to be a work in progress now for a couple of years. And so I appreciate very much you identifying some mechanisms that have been put in place for people to stay tuned in to what's going on.

I'm just wondering whether you might also consider as a part of that some more personal interactive touch bases, and maybe play this by ear, I don't know, but whether there's a chance to have periodic meetings with the community. And then in addition to that, for some people it makes a big difference if they know they can call somebody, if they have a very special question. Can you say anything about arrangements that might be made for those more personal communications? Sure. As soon as we have our construction manager who will be in the field and that person is known, and we have that first community meeting, we will have phone numbers, points of contact for people who have questions, and they will have somebody to reach out to.

Very much appreciated because, again, I think the personal touch side of this will, as always, be important. Two other quick questions. First, since we've last talked, we're now 11 seconds to midnight here in terms of project startup. Have there been any new developments that affect this in any material way at this stage? No. Okay. I say that because I'm thinking, am I missing something? No. Okay. And so there are no barriers to the startup of this, as far as we know right now. We're ready to roll. Correct. We are waiting for VDOT's final sign-off on this. We think that is any day now. But, yes, we are ready to roll. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Other questions? Council Member Amos.

Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you for your work on this. It's nice to see a project come below the estimate from the engineer. So happy to see that. Looking forward to this project going underway. Thank you for especially emphasizing the community piece, especially when it gets to road projects, it can get dicey, especially something as impactful as Blenheim Boulevard. Thank you for staying on top of it. And look forward to see what's next. Council Member Hall. Just a quick question. I probably should have emailed this in advance so you could have been prepared. But at the end of the fiscal impact there, it indicates that there are remaining funds in the city's fiscal year 2026 concrete budget that can be used to cover qualifying project expenses if necessary.

Do you know roughly what that remaining balance is that could be pulled from if needed? I will look to our public works director for that number. Thank you. Because of this project, there will be some funds in the concrete account that will be available if necessary. We're estimating at a maximum of maybe $200,000 of available concrete funds. Are there other questions for staff? Okay. Then I'll ask, is there a motion, Council Member Hardy-Chandler? I move to authorize the purchasing agent to award construction contract in the amount of $21,770,570 to the Fort Myers Construction Corporation for construction of the Blenheim Boulevard multimodal improvements project. Second. The motion has been made by Council Member Hardy-Chandler and seconded by Council Member Peterson.

Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, a roll call vote. Council Member McQuillan? Aye. Council Member Bates? Aye. Council Member Peterson? Aye. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? Aye. Council Member Hall? Aye. Council Member Amos? Aye. Motion passed unanimously. We will go to the next agenda item, which is a consideration of a resolution to proceed with the Willard Sherwood Health and Community Center project, including an addition or improvements to the existing Sherwood Community Center, and any amendments to the joint development agreement that may be necessary. I'm going to recognize Brooke Hardin, our community development and planning director, to provide the staff presentation.

Good evening, Mayor. Members of the Council, pleased to be before you this evening on the Willard Sherwood Health and Community Center project. As noted on the agenda, for Council's consideration this evening is a resolution to proceed with the project. With me tonight and available for questions are members of the project team, including Stacy Summerfield, Parks and Recreation, David Summers with Public Works, Dr. Jabari with the County Health Department, the City's Project Management Consultants with Blue Heron, Fairfax County Project Managers, and representatives from the design and construction team, including Grimm and Parker Architects and the Christman Company General Contractor. This is a joint development project between the city and Fairfax County located at 3750 Blenheim Boulevard.

Willard Health Center will be demolished and replaced with a new approximately 100,000 square foot facility connected to the existing Sherwood Center. The facility will house the existing county-operated programs and services that have been provided at the Willard Health Center, and the city-operated programs at the Green Acres Center will move to this location. Stakeholder events were held throughout project development, first at the pre-design phase to solicit input before concepts were prepared, and then at each stage of design allowing feedback to be incorporated as the project progressed. The project team reached out to the community through e-newsletters, email, social media, and other digital means,

but also through flyers posted on buses and at locations around the city using English and Spanish versions. Open houses and community meetings were held, both virtually and in person, and there were online opportunities for input in between meetings. In terms of its status, special use permits and special exceptions for the project were approved last fall. Building permits and the site plan are currently under review and are being finalized. Negotiations on the guaranteed maximum price have been completed, and that price is included in the total project cost that we will cover on an upcoming slide. In terms of the schedule, we anticipate beginning construction this summer and continuing for approximately three years through the summer of 2029.

With respect to programming for the new facility, as noted previously, the county's current programming and health and human services, shown here on the left of the slide, will continue with the addition of a child care facility. The city-operated recreation and senior programs at Green Acres, shown on the right, will move to the new facility, expanding opportunities with coordinated operations, providing spaces not currently available, such as a rooftop terrace and a full-size gym. Current programming at Green Acres will continue through construction of Willard-Sherwood. Those would not be paused. All programs within the facility will serve city and county residents, providing needed services and affordable programs that are accessible to those of all ages in the community.

Project costs have been finalized and are reflected of the negotiated guaranteed maximum price of the contractor. Costs between the city and the county are split based on the pro rata share of the building, which is 42% city, 58% county, and the usage requirements for parking, which is 36% city and 64% county. An additional $3 million contribution by the city to the underground parking is included in the costs. A detailed breakdown of the project costs are shown in the revised final budget attached to the amendment to the joint agreement that's in your agenda packet. City share of the total project cost at $53.7 million is $2.2 million under the adopted CIP. With respect to project costs, effort has been made throughout to control costs and reduce them wherever possible

while maintaining the desired physical components of the project. These costs have fluctuated through design as more detailed estimates could be prepared. But since this city council's first work session on the project a year ago, and with this council's guidance, the city's share of the total project cost is down $1.1 million, and the city's share has been reduced over $2.1 million from the highest estimate calculated during the design process. These savings have been found through value engineering, the competitive bidding process for subcontractors, and negotiating the guaranteed maximum price with the construction manager at risk. Similar attention has been paid to the operating costs associated with the project after it's occupied in 2029.

Operating costs have been refined and reduced by closely evaluating staffing needs and reconciling facility maintenance costs. At the February work session, cost recovery options were presented that would generate revenues covering the anticipated operating costs for the facility, netting out the annual maintenance and staffing costs. Operating costs will be shared between the city and the county and memorialized in an operations and maintenance agreement between the jurisdictions. In addition to the underlying costs associated with basic facility operations, such as custodial services, utilities, and maintenance, the city and county will partner on staffing costs for front desks and security.

Managing costs is also applied to the financing, with debt for the project anticipated to be issued in three tranches, the first being the next item on the agenda tonight for council's consideration. The next two tranches would occur on an annual basis, time to align with construction expenditures. This approach spreads the debt issuance over a three-year period, allowing the city to gradually absorb those impacts, as opposed to doing that all up front. As shown on the bottom of the slide, the project costs for a potential addition to the existing Sherwood Center to provide backstage spaces and renovations to the existing performance area have been finalized as well. This design occurred in parallel with Willard Sherwood.

The total project costs for that option is held steady at $4 million. This cost, though, has not been included in the city's CIP, nor is staff recommending to include it and proceed. But of note, not proceeding at this time does not preclude the option completely. It has been fully designed. So should city council desire to allocate funds in the future, that option is available. Nothing in the Willard Sherwood project would preclude the option from being implemented in the future. The resolution included in the agenda packet would reaffirm the city's commitment to the phase two design and construction agreement that the city and county have been operating under since December of 2022 and authorize advancing the project to construction.

The agreement would continue through construction, but as the project moves from closing out design and permitting and moving into construction, some amendments to the agreement are necessary, as shown in the first amendment to the joint agreement in tonight's package, which includes referencing the final design. As noted previously, the construction drawings are complete. Permitting is wrapping up. As outlined on the last slide, project costs have been finalized, which include the negotiated guaranteed maximum price, so the final revised budget has been included as part of that amendment. The amendment would signify the city's concurrence to award the construction contract to the Christman Company,

which is the construction manager at risk that has been working with the team on the project. The construction schedule would be updated. It is indicated earlier. Construction is now projected to begin this summer and proceed for approximately three years to summer 2029. Finally, the amendment would include reference to the quarterly construction payment schedule. Fairfax County is acting as a procurement agent for the project. The city would make payments to the county, and the county would pay the contractor as the construction proceeds. The resolution also directs the city manager to finalize and execute documents necessary to implement the project, first proceeding through construction and then through occupancy.

Finally, the resolution states that the city elects not to proceed and the city council does not authorize the optional renovation in addition to the performing arts space at the existing Sherwood Community Center. In accordance with the Phase 2 agreement, the county provided notice to the city on April 21st of its intent to award the construction contract to the construction manager at risk. There is a letter from the county in the packet to that effect. Action on the resolution before council tonight would provide response to Fairfax County regarding the city's determination on advancing the project. On May 5th, the Board of Supervisors would consider the same amendment to the development agreement along with consideration of the county's FY27 budget.

The construction contract award anticipated in June is an administrative item that would be handled by county staff, again, which are acting as the project's procurement agent. Looking out beyond the award of the construction contract, the contractor would mobilize on-site in early July, and initial phases of construction that would begin over the following six months are shown under the final bullet on the slide. That concludes presentation this evening. Happy to take any questions. Okay. Are there questions of staff? Let me start with Council Member Hardy-Chandler. Thank you for your presentation. Certainly input from the community over the course of this time, that's a priority for the council.

I believe that in a prior meeting you talked about actual integration of community input into the design and planning. Could you highlight a couple of those? And then my second question is about the commitment from the county to contribute to operations, some of the operations. Sure. There was considerable public input in the project on a wide range of topics. Some of those that come to mind were things like natural light, that the building be light-filled and airy and open. And so things like the wall of windows that's located along the rooftop terrace, the large windows that are in the gymnasium, and the fitness rooms were incorporated to respond to those comments. Areas for meeting spaces, both informal throughout the building

and then more formal spaces in classrooms are something that were touched upon that the project provides. Separate space for seniors. So there's a third floor in the facility and a rooftop space that would be dedicated for the senior activities and the senior center. And we heard about public art and opportunities for public art to be incorporated at various locations throughout the building, kind of expanding the reach of the existing Sherwood Center. So those are some of the comments that we heard. In terms of the county's commitment, the county has agreed to, as I noted, participate in staffing the front desk and any security personnel that would be at the facility while the facility is jointly being used.

So during operating hours of both the city and the county, I believe that comes to perhaps a total of up to $180,000 annually, looking at the CFO for confirmation on that. And that would be moving forward after the property is occupied. Council Member Amos. Thank you. No questions at this time. I just wanted to say thanks to staff for the extensive research. I also wanted to thank the public for those in support and those who have concerns about the financial side of things. I think it's really a reflection of some of the conversations that we've been having. Obviously, I used to live next to this project over at Layton Hall, and I've said many, many a joke about the basketball court, but you try playing basketball in the wind and tell me how much you enjoy that.

And a number of the kids who live at Layton would be right next to that facility and could access those services versus playing at Van Dyke Park, and then you're essentially dependent on the weather, whether you want to hang out with your friends or not. So I think that's critically important, but also fiscal stewardship and how we've gone about this. To your point, I can't believe it's been a year already. What a jump. But we've talked about the operations side of things. How can we make that more manageable? And so we came together and asked staff to come up with a cost recovery plan. And a special thank you to Director Summerfield hiding in the back over there. You did an excellent job. And not only getting that to net zero, but even potential revenue generating.

And so I think we're in a lot more comfortable place now, and I'm just grateful for all the work that's come from not just our own city staff, but on the county side as well. Obviously, we just found out about the operation side of things not too long ago. So I appreciate that this is an evolving process. I look forward to supporting this project. I do think it's a reflection of everything we want to accomplish in the city, from services, affordable child care, and also net zero environmental capability, being accessible in a centralized location that's on bus access. I think that it really encapsulates what the vision for this city should be. Councilmember Peterson. A quick follow-up question that I think is probably going to be directed either

to our chief financial officer or city manager or both. Just to go back to the cost side of this, we've heard a pretty good recap of the total dollar bills that are involved in the project. But what I'd also like to just kind of confirm is my understanding of the tax implications of this just to use some of what I call neighborhood math. People are concerned about what does this mean annually to them in terms of an effect on their tax rate and what does it mean when you translate that into literally the cash payment they make every year. So the first time we heard about this project and had a financial review of it, I think was February of 2025. And then the last time we heard an update about it was February 2026.

So there was a year. And the snapshot in that year, the difference between the two is I think what I'd like to just confirm. My understanding is that when we first heard a year ago, plus the tax impact of this, the combined tax impact, which included the construction and then the maintenance and operations was 9.7 cents. And the most recent number has fallen to 4.33 cents. That's a 55% reduction. Do I have those numbers correct? Absolutely correct. Okay. So you translate that into a homeowner impact. So we started at $710 a year, and that has dropped now to $316 a year. That's almost a $394 drop. Again, absolutely correct. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I do have some comments I want to offer here just in reflection of this

because I think these cost numbers are important. A lot in the project has changed, and there has been understandable confusion about where this started and where it is today, as we've just noted. As you've just told us, a year ago, the project carried a projected impact of 9.7 cents on the tax rate and about $710 per year for the average homeowner. That's a significant number, and it raised real concerns in the community. Early last year, I expressed concerns about these costs, along with other council members. Last October, three of us, myself, Council Member Hall and Council Member McQuillen, voted against the land-use application and made clear public statements about those costs. That vote didn't stop the project, but it sent a clear signal.

We needed to do better on affordability. And to the credit of the staff, they redoubled their focus on cost controls. And what followed was not a redesign of the building, but a redesign of the financial approach. Staff worked through numbers in detail, refined operating assumptions, improved cost recovery, and tightened financing. And the result is a very different project. Today, the tax impact, again, has dropped from 9.7 cents to 4.33 cents. It's a 55% drop over half. The average homeowner cost has dropped from $710 to $316 per year. Nearly 400 in annual savings per household, and, again, about a 55% overall reduction. Just as importantly, operating costs are now projected to break even.

And that's based on conservative assumptions. So, to be clear, this is not about cutting corners. It's about doing the work to make the project stronger and financially responsible. And I want to be clear, these improvements didn't happen by accident. They happened because concerns were raised, questions were asked, and expectations were set. And residents should understand this clearly. The project before you today is not the same project that was originally presented. It is more affordable, more efficient, and less burdensome on taxpayers while still maintaining quality. So, yes, there were legitimate concerns about cost. And, yes, those concerns led to meaningful improvements. For those reasons, I will be voting in favor of this project tonight.

With the clear understanding that this outcome reflects the importance of listening to residents, exercising strong council leadership, and insisting on good governance that delivers better results. And this experience points to something even broader. As a council, we are looking at more than $1 billion in capital investments over the next decade, including over $520 million in the next five years alone. We cannot approach that passively. We must review projects proactively, responsibly, and objectively to determine which should move forward, which need improvement, and which may not make sense any longer. Because, ultimately, we do not simply inherit the decisions before us. We have a responsibility to shape them, to refine them, and, when necessary, rethink them in a way that reflects the priorities and needs of our community.

And that's how we ensure that our investments reflect the needs, priorities, and values of our community, both today and in years ahead. That's how we ensure that we are making the right investments, not just for today, but for the future. Thank you again. Any additional questions of the staff? Councilmember Hall. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to circle back on parking for a minute. I know we talked about this previously, but I put up an email that was sent on April 14th. It said that service parking was not considered as an option because on a roughly 2.4-acre site, accommodating the required 241 parking spaces at grade would have consumed nearly the entire parcel once circulation setbacks and access were accounted for.

That is true. What is roughly the cost of the parking structure? I understand we have an extra $3 million to pay, but what is the total cost to essentially protect what would have otherwise been potentially 2.4 acres of parking at Van Dyke Park? The total cost of the parking structure is $19,141,539. Okay, so $19 million for 2.4 acres. Okay, that's a very helpful figure. Thank you very much. I do have a statement I would like to read. Over the past year, I've spent a great deal of time evaluating this project, asking questions, and pushing for a more responsible financial plan. When this first came before this council in April, I'm sorry, in 2025, the numbers were difficult to support. We were looking at nearly $4.8 million in annual operating and staffing costs,

plus an additional $3.3 million in debt service, with only about $600,000 in projected revenue. That translated to a significant potential tax impact, and at that time, I could not support moving forward without a clearer path to sustainability. My concerns were never about the value of a community health center. They were about ensuring we could deliver it in a way that was financially responsible for our residents. Since then, Councilmembers McQuillan, Peterson, and I have worked closely with our great staff to bring those costs down and create a more sustainable model, and I'm encouraged by the progress that's been made. We now have a cost recovery approach that significantly reduces the projected shortfall

and even has the potential for positive revenue under a market rate scenario. Just as importantly, we received confirmation this week that the county is willing to share in key operating costs like front desk staffing and security when programs overlap. That partnership, combined with the cost reductions and ongoing focus on efficiency, gives me confidence that this project is now on a much stronger financial footing. Because of that work, I am now able to support moving forward, and I am excited that this long-awaited community health center can become a reality for our residents. As a resident said to me earlier today, we're still getting our project, and now it's more affordable. What a great outcome.

Thank you. Councilmember McQuillan. I do feel that I need to make a statement now to provide some transparency and some clarity regarding my past votes. I want to start by acknowledging the residents who took the time to engage on this process, especially around affordability. Those concerns were real, consistent, and they mattered. When this project previously came before us, I did not take a blanket position. I evaluated each of the land use exceptions individually. Ultimately, I voted against three of the four requests and supported one. That was intentional. I supported the exception that I believed was necessary to allow the project to move forward from a design and land use standpoint.

I've consistently supported the vision of the project and the services it will provide to our community, but I could not support the others at that time because we did not yet have sufficient clarity and long-term operating costs or a defined financial strategy to sustain them. We were looking at an estimated additional $1.2 million in annual operating costs with a clear cost recovery model or detailed options without clear cost recovery model or detailed options to offset that burden. For me, that raised a very real concern about long-term sustainability, not just whether we would build this project, but whether we could afford to operate it responsibly over time. My vote was meant to signal that concern clearly.

It was not about stopping the project. It was about making sure we fully understood the financial commitment we were making on behalf of our residents before moving forward. I also want to recognize my colleagues, including Council Members Holland-Peterson. It's the tough questions that were raised by this council and by our residents that led to a stronger financial outcome. That's exactly how this process should work. What we have before us now reflects that work. The financial structure has been improved, the burden on residents has been reduced, and we have a clearer understanding of how this project will operate over time. Importantly, that was not achieved by reducing the services this facility will provide.

This project still supports families, provides space for child care and community programming, and ensures that residents of all ages have access to safe, modern facilities. As someone who has served on the city school board, I look at every major decision through the lens of how it supports families and the long-term health of our community. But this is also how we make decisions going forward. We need earlier financial clarity, clear funding strategies, and a stronger understanding of long-term operating costs from the beginning. We should also be bringing our economic development team into these conversations earlier to help evaluate return on investment and long-term risk, so we're making the strongest decisions possible for our city.

Asking questions early is not an obstacle. It's how we identify risk, improve outcomes, and make sure we are being responsible with taxpayer dollars. I could not support this project when those questions were unresolved. I can support it now because those concerns have been addressed, and the outcome is more responsible, and it's responsible for our residents. That's the standard we should continue to apply. Invest in our community, but do it in a way that our families can afford and sustain over time. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Council Member Bates? I just want to thank staff for their hard work on this project. I know it's been a long time in the making. I remember when those of us who were elected in 2022 were invited to a meeting at a retreat pertaining to this project in December,

just before taking office. And so it's really thrilling to see this come to fruition. I want to thank our staff, again, for taking resident feedback into consideration and going above and beyond in defining cost efficiencies and thoroughly considering the construction operating cost impact as they always have. Thank you. Any other questions? Is there a motion? Council Member Hardy-Chandler. I move that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Willard-Shirward Health and Community Center project to proceed to construction with the exception of the optional renovation and addition to the performing arts space at the existing Stacy C. Sherwood Community Center, which would not proceed at this time,

and adopting amendments to the joint development agreement with the Fairfax County for the redevelopment of the Sherwood Community Center and Willard Health Center complex. Second. A motion has been made by Council Member Hardy-Chandler and seconded by Council Member Peterson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, a roll call vote. Council Member Amos? Aye. Council Member Hall? Aye. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? Aye. Council Member Peterson? Aye. Council Member Bates? Aye. Council Member McQuillan? Aye. Motion passed unanimously. We will now go on to our next item, which is a consideration of a resolution requesting the City of Fairfax Economic Development Authority to issue revenue bonds and the maximum aggregate principal amount of $22 million

for the benefit of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, to finance costs for general government capital projects, including without limitation Willard Sherwood. I'm going to recognize JC Martinez, our Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer for the staff report. Thank you. Mayor, Council, as presented during the March 24, 2026 City Council work session, review of the City's capital funding plan confirmed the necessity to finance a portion of its capital improvement projects by issuing bonds. City staff, in collaboration with Davenport & Company, LLC, in its capacity as the City's financial advisor, proposes that the City requests the EDA issue the 2026 bonds via a sell in the public markets.

Issuance of these types of bonds requires the City's economic development authority serve as the conduit issuer. This option was determined to be the most efficient, cost-effective, and provides flexibility regarding the use of bond proceeds, allowing the City to utilize funds as necessary for various City capital improvement projects. Anticipated capital expenditures include the following without limitations, parks and recreation with cultural and cultural Willard Sherwood Community Center. This proposed financing was incorporated in the manager's proposed FY27 budget. Given the City's very strong credit ratings, the 2026 bonds are not expected to require any collateral, and the revenues of the City's general operation,

subject to annual appropriation, shall be pledged as backing for the proposed revenue bond issuant. In the audience, and if need be, I have bond counsel, Chris Culp, and then also Kyle from Davenport to answer any questions that counsel may have. Are there questions for staff at this time from the dais? Okay. Is there a motion, Council Member Hardy-Chandler? I move the City Council adopt the resolution in the form presented, requesting the City of Fairfax Economic Development Authority to issue revenue bonds for the benefit of the City of Fairfax, Virginia, in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $22 million to finance general government capital project costs? Second. The motion's been made by Council Member Hardy-Chandler

and seconded by Council Member Peterson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, a roll call vote. Council Member McQuillan? Aye. Council Member Bates? Aye. Council Member Peterson? Aye. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? Aye. Council Member Hall? Aye. Council Member Amos? Aye. Motion passed unanimously. We'll go to the next item, which is, sorry. It's consideration of a bond resolution providing for the issuance of the general obligation school bonds in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $22 million, which were previously authorized by action of the council and approved at a voter referendum to finance capital projects for school purposes, including without limitation, renovations of two elementary schools

and replacement of the roof at the high school. I'm going to recognize JC Martinez, our assistant city manager and chief financial officer, to provide the staff report. Thank you, Mayor, Mayor, Council. Again, as presented during the March 24th, 2026 City Council work session, review of the city's capital funding plan confirmed the necessity to finance capital projects for school purposes by including general obligation bonds, or I'm sorry, by issuing general obligation bonds. City staff, in collaboration with Davenport and Company LLC, in its capacity as the city's financial advisor, proposes that the city issue the general obligation school bonds series 2026, either via a cell in a competitive cell

or negotiated cell, or a combination thereof. Anticipated capital expenditures include, without limitation, renovations of the two elementary schools and replacement of the roof at the high school. This proposed financing was incorporated in the manager's proposed FY 2027 budget. Again, given the city's very strong credit ratings and the type of bonds, the city's general obligation school bonds, series 2026, will not require any additional collateral other than a pledge of the city's full faith and credit and general taxing power. The revenues of the city's general fund operations will be the source of repayment for the proposed bond issuance. Again, I have bond council for the city along with Davenport here

to answer any questions if council has any. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Is there a motion? Council Member Hardy-Chandler. I move the city council adopt the resolution in the form presented requesting the issuance sale and award by the city of Fairfax, Virginia of general obligation school bonds in one or more series in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $22 million to finance capital projects for school purposes. Second. A motion has been made by Council Member Hardy-Chandler and seconded by Council Member Peterson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, a roll call vote. Council Member Amos. Aye. Council Member Hall. Aye. Council Member Hardy-Chandler.

Aye. Council Member Peterson. Aye. Council Member Bates. Aye. Council Member McClellan. Aye. Motion passed unanimously. Okay. I will now recess the regular meeting to go into a work session. We will take a five minute recess to go into the work session room. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And on the expenses. Some of the road, Thank you. We're not increasing.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. No specific questions. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to do so, you know, design of the way of the way of the way of the way of design of the way of design of the of the way we look at the personnel side of things. So again, under that scenario, we would recognize some additional savings.

The positions we talked about earlier would be included on the public safety cola that what changes here with the reduced revenue impact is moving that to a January one as opposed to July one time frame. Under the scenario, the LSP comes out and then you see the reduced funding here, both on economic economic development and Renaissance as a result of the decreased revenue. Overall, and I didn't mention it on the other slide, and I should have earlier on scenario one, we're looking at a difference of 15,908 in terms of positive on that. I will go back really quickly to say on scenario one, your difference is 135,802 net positive on scenario one. So I want to make sure that we covered that. Thank you, JC.

All right. So let's go to scenario three. Again, you're going to see because this is a cent below 107 on the real estate. You're going to see reductions both in real estate revenue and assigned fund balance as a result of that. The revised personal property revenue stays the same. B poll doesn't change in this scenario. Neither does the 9% to 12% increase on TOT. We have the old town transfer in here and also the loss revenue on old town hall. So your total revenue impact as a result of this is 213,000 in the positive. And so as you compare from a revenue perspective, the scenario, because it's below what we proposed is pretty significant in terms of revenue impact. Now on the expense side, we've talked to you before a little bit about the school bond

and school bond payment. Under your previous scenarios, you have the general fund supporting the full bond amount at about 1.6 or so million dollars. As we've talked to you before, we have proposed an option whereby we would pay close to 600,000, a little less than 600,000 for this year. The overall project timeline would remain the same. We would move forward with renovations as we have planned. We would, in essence, under the scenario, be paying the interest on that payment. And then in future years, we pick up principal and interest. So one of the things, frankly, that we don't know about from Richmond is what help we're going to get or not around schools and what options we may have to present to the public

as it relates to the 1%. Not assuming that would happen because it's ultimately up to council and our residents. But it is something that sits out there right now that is an unknown. Many things are kind of an unknown right now with Richmond. So that's part of the context of this option. It gives us a little bit of time to understand what that potential revenue picture will look like later. Under this scenario, as presented, the energy programs manager stays in. The community safety analyst comes out. So that becomes a positive expense piece. The COLA is still in at 1% for public safety on January 1. You see the reductions overall, both in economic development funding and in the Renaissance housing funding.

So that is scenario two with a $71 net positive difference in that scenario. In scenario four, we introduce a rate of 1.065. You see the reductions both in real estate revenue and assigned fund balance. In this scenario, what changes is we have the full 9 to 12% TOT to make up for the lost revenue in real estate. Everything else remains the same. The total revenue impact in this scenario was a negative $74,000. As you look at the expense side, our approach to school bond payment is the same as scenario three. B dots in. In this scenario, beacon landing is out. The increase to health care is there. There are no additional reallocation of those positions in this. The 1% for public safety stays in.

We have significant reductions to both economic development and Renaissance under this. And the total expense impact is in the negative $88,457 with a net difference of $13,524. Our last scenario. And scenario five has the current real estate rate. Uh, everything else remaining the same, I think from the previous scenario to include the reintroduction of, uh, TOT in there, um, for a total, uh, revenue impact of about $1.4 million. And the negative compared to what was proposed to you, everything on the other side side stays the same, uh, with the exception of all of the. Physicians cola economic development, Renaissance housing removed from that with a total expense impact of $3 million. Total difference between revenue expenses of over $1 million in this scenario.

So we covered a lot very quickly. I know in discussions that we've had with you, that we've looked at some variations. We've heard concerns and have listened to concerns around some of the revenue impacts and potential expense impacts from these various scenarios, but are certainly happy to go through some of them. I will tell you generally not speaking for anyone in particular that I think our middle scenarios seem to resonate more so than the rep the, the extremes just generally. And so appreciate your feedback, appreciate all the work of staff. That's gone into, um, trying to both engage public and engage council around building this for you. So happy to answer any questions, happy to make any revisions.

And I think knowing JC, he's probably got a couple of other scenarios that might be helpful as we have discussions. Council member Hardy Chandler. No more scenarios. So there is, um, the quantitative of the budget numbers. Uh, and then it always goes back to what we prioritize and what we value. Uh, I think that for me, the starting point is actually scenario two. And if you could go back to that for just a second, I'll, I'll tell you why. Um, number one, for me, uh, the investment in the colas to be competitive in our region, uh, for public safety is very important. Um, as I understand it, the energy programs manager and the community safety analysts were repurposed, uh, positions, correct.

So, um, the maintenance of those positions again, for long-term in terms of long-term, uh, impact, I think are also, uh, very important for Renaissance housing. I think some of the conversations we've had about the guardrails that are needed for that to have, uh, more return on that investment is valuable. That would be sort of the contingency. But again, going back to the people and the fact that we are not adding a significant number of positions or whatever, I do think that as we think about those things regionally and maintaining the people that we have, we have to prioritize, um, those, um, the, if you go to scenario three, let's see here. The one concerning part for scenario three, which puts two ahead for me,

could you speak to only paying the interest for the school bond, right? And not that's, that's the concerning part in terms of scenario three for me. So maybe you can speak to that. Yeah. I kind of spoke to it a little bit earlier. Yeah. I'm not going to ever be able to make a great case for paying only interest on something that you owe, you know, whether it's your credit card debt or, or other debt. So there, there's certainly some potential argument against that. I think the different situation that we're in is that there is some uncertainty about what might be available to us in the future around, you know, um, the 1%. And so that's the only thing that I think, um, makes us a different discussion as it relates to what our options might be.

So we're, we wouldn't bring you something that we're not comfortable with, you know, around that. Um, but this is a little, we're in, in definitely a much different, you know, scenario, uh, around what's happening in Richmond and correct, you know, hoping that we have options to present to not only the council, but to the community on how we're going to, to, um, manage that. So, um, you know, that's a significant, um, you know, nut that's ahead of us, right. Right. The crack, um, as it relates to that project. So I'm, I'm assuming probably over 200 million or so, um, you know, dollars in, in capital that we hope we have some options in the future. So that's, that's why it's presented the way it is.

And there are pluses and minuses to, to both scenarios. Well, I, I would see scenario two as a starting point. The other thing that I just want to highlight is, uh, really starting that cola, uh, as soon as possible. Okay. Um, so it, you know, the, the January 1st start date and those are my comments. Okay. Council member Hall and then council member Peterson. Thank you. Um, so scenario three is my starting point. Um, and I will tell you why and ask a couple of questions as well. So when we met, I had asked if we could consider an option for the B poll, instead of going from 0.4, 0.4 to 0.48, if we could go in the middle and consider 0.44, uh, I believe that was about a $350,000 change or so,

which would reduce the revenue there. But then we had said that we could increase the TOT from nine to 12%, which would adjust roughly 350 in the other direction and make up for that. So that's something that I'm interested in, um, having for consideration. Um, I also recall when we met that the community safety analyst position of 152,000, you had said could likely be made up in other finances available through some contracting and some other things that the police had available to them. So that 152 could be included in the 1.07 scenario. Is that still correct? That's correct. I think as we've, again, I'll credit, uh, the departments, both fire and police have, uh, both talked about, um, you know, some of the potential cost savings, uh,

that won't impact operations that they can undertake, um, to get to where we would like to be on, on that personnel expense for that position, specifically to your question on community safety analysts, looking at existing, existing contract dollars. There's certainly a potential to reallocate some of that without, again, not impacting the bottom line of personnel expenses and make that position happen. Okay. I would definitely like to see that. Um, I would be also perfectly okay with taking the economic development, a hundred thousand and moving it to the Renaissance program. Um, I did, I'm having trouble finding the email, but I believe there was information, maybe Ms. Riddle, you can confirm this, but we have invested roughly $4.8 million

into the Renaissance program and in increased taxes that have been received by the city. We're anticipating about 7.1 million. Is that correct? Or 7.8, 4.1, something. Yeah. Roughly. Yeah. Yeah. That's huge though. I mean, if someone, yeah, someone said to me, okay, take $4 million and in 23 years, you'll have 7.1 million or whatever, 7.8. I mean, I think about your 401k, right? Like that's, that's a really great return on investment. Um, as far as parameters go for discussion purposes for the Renaissance, um, some of the more recent ways the program has been utilized, it sounded like was for gutters and roofing and things like that. I'm actually really surprised that those things fell under the Renaissance criteria simply because

it's not in keeping up with the intention of the, the, the, the, the Renaissance program itself. I mean, it's supposed to be bringing value and adding value. Um, I do wonder if maybe there is a way that we could somehow work with Main Street Bank or another local bank to maybe work with our homeowners on options for things like roof and gutter. Um, and maybe there could be like a, um, mechanics lien or something taken out in the event of nonpayment that wouldn't put the city at risk, but would also maybe provide favorable options for people to be able to do what I would really consider more operating and maintenance items on their house as opposed to, uh, true, um, investment in improvements.

Um, I would like to see the program continue and I know we did talk about, um, some of the other neighborhoods and, um, Mayor Reed, to your point, you had asked about Ardmore. Um, there actually is a house that has been under consideration for about 18 months at this point. Um, they were having some trouble with getting things to the final steps. Um, but the hope is that that will be resolved and that that will be a completed project in Ardmore. Um, but I, I do think there is some opportunity for improvement in the program itself. Um, but I also recognize that that's not directly managed by the city, but we could certainly have conversations about that. Um, so again, taking ED money away simply based upon what the new ED actor, ED, EDA director

has mentioned and putting it to the Renaissance program. Um, with regard to the school bond payment, I understand that we'd be essentially running a risk or a chance on that 1.1. But on the other side, we're also really running a chance that we will or will not get that 1% sales tax. And that's going to be a much bigger hit, either yay or nay than $1.1 million in the grand scheme of things for all of our school renovations that are going to need to be done, which are not just the elementary schools right now. But, um, as Councilmember Peterson alluded to earlier, also the middle school and the high school that will be in the next five or 10 years. Um, so I do think it's well worth waiting to see where Richmond shakes out on that.

And for those that are watching at home, I would highly encourage you to reach out to your new governor and strongly, strongly suggest that they pass this, um, addition to the budget for the 1.1 million, I'm sorry, the 1.1% sales tax. Too many 1.1s in my head. Um, yeah. So I think those are kind of my things on the budget. So, thank you. Okay. Councilmember Peterson. Well, I'm also, uh, centered on scenario three. And let me just ask a couple of clarifying questions and then offer a thought or two. First, uh, thank you for confirming that the community safety analyst would functionally, uh, be retained by, um, finding capacity within the program. I think it's the best description I understand for that.

So, um, that's very good to know. It's very good to know also that the energy programs manager will stay. Um, I think that speaks to, um, what I would call, uh, a hidden savings issue in the agenda here, in the budget here. We haven't scored out the, uh, financial savings to the city that potentially result from the energy programs manager to my knowledge. And is that correct? It would be, um, arguably premature, uh, to do that. On the other hand, if I'm understanding correctly, um, the scope of work for that person is going to be very much focused on energy cost reduction, not only for the city operations itself, but for the citizens. And so there is some potential there for a payoff being reduced energy expenses for the city.

That has certainly been the experience of these positions and other places, but it's too early to count on. Nonetheless, that would be good news as it materializes. Um, I, I actually think there's potential for the crime safety analyst to have a productive effect in terms of efficiency as well. I'm not sure that translates back into cost savings because I'm going to guess that the efficiencies from that will find their way into some boost, um, in capacity that's needed within the department. But just to note that that's a helpful thing. But I also want to point out that we have not yet, uh, conducted the finance and efficiency audit, which I am hoping will happen sooner rather than later. And there is, I think, a fair expectation that that is going to identify efficiency, financial

efficiency opportunities in the course of this year that we could tap into. It is, again, too early to count on that. We haven't begun that process, but that was the entire point of it. And the benchmarking around those kinds of activities under these kinds of circumstances would indicate, uh, reasonable optimism that we're going to find some efficiency and savings out of that. So I would just note that's not here. But, um, we'll get into that and it, it, it may well have a payoff that isn't showing up here. Uh, a couple things on the, um, economic development budget. Yes, I, I saw the memo that is completely consistent, uh, also with the conversation that I had with our new director. And my clear understanding from that was that the request this year is a zero number.

The request next year will be, uh, a larger number, but that's going to be based on a fair amount of planning and analysis that's underway, uh, as we speak. So that would mean that that's a number that could go to zero and that could free up reinvestment in Renaissance housing, for instance, which I would be supportive of. But I am, uh, also, uh, in agreement if I understand your comments correctly that within that program there are opportunities for it to become more targeted. And as a consequence of it being more targeted that if we were to, uh, uh, peg that number at $200,000, that is likely to be a high impact number with targeting. Um, so I would be entirely comfortable if that's, uh, where that goes and if we zero out, um, economic

development. On the school budget, I am not going to attempt to crystal ball things except to say my understanding is that the 1% proposal is tied up in the budget. And I think I won't say a whole lot, you know, please everybody be in touch with the governor, be in touch with our representatives to get a favorable resolution of the budget. But I think the, uh, incentives and the pressure pressure towards a budget, a favorable budget resolution are very high. And so, you know, too early to say, but I think that is more likely than not that that happens. So I, I understand what you're doing here is a prudent and sober approach, uh, but it's not a pessimistic approach. And I think that's the right posture, uh, to have here.

Appreciate, uh, beacon landing being retained in here. So that's a critical thing that is protected in here. And then maybe by way of clarification, my understanding is that the stabilization approach we're taking here, which as you say is consistent with our neighbors throughout the region is we're holding staff steady. We're taking care of staff in terms of the increases. But we're not expanding staff with the exception of two supercritical positions here, an energy programs manager and then a crime safety analyst. And those from my standpoint are supercritical and are justified. And I appreciate you finding a way to make the community safety analyst happen within this context. But I, am I correct in the understanding that this scenario three does in fact, um, take

care of our existing, uh, level of staff. Yeah, it, it does in terms of numbers does not add head count, um, or different allocation there. I think it's important to go back within the context of this conversation to the fact that we're, we're looking at, um, what amounts to salary increases at 3% in terms of scale for all of our employees. Right. And the 1% COLA adjustment that is going to occur as part of the manager's proposed budget. So to that extent, there's a recognition, you know, we didn't do it last year, this year, we're making that investment, pretty considerable investment in our staff. So, um, from that standpoint, I know it doesn't directly address your question, but it does speak to the fact that we're making investments in staff.

We're not reducing, uh, well, we're not increasing head count as it relates to FTEs and the budget. These positions that are included here are reallocations of existing positions that we currently have that are vacant. So if I understand that correctly, we're not cutting staff. We're not cutting. We are, we will be reducing existing FTEs or reallocating existing FTEs. Reallocating. But in terms of the total pool, this is, it's not a cut for that total pool and we're not cutting salary increases. We are awarding them under this scenario. So we're, um, taking care of staff through this scenario in that manner. Yeah. I, I think that I want to be fair and accurate and how, how we're characterizing it.

But under the current scenario, we're not adding to our current FTE count. Um, at what we're, we are simply reallocating existing positions, reclassifying them into other positions. Okay. And then in terms of the salary, uh, increase. And salary increases, a separate allocation in terms of the personnel costs associated with that, that's, that's already baked into the proposed budget. All right. And then cost of living, the cost of living adjustment at 1% and then, and then the salary increase of 3% for all employees. Okay. And that I'm guessing based on your initial remarks is going to let Melanie correct me if I'm wrong on that. What do you, yeah, the steps are for public safety and those are, those are allocated a

little bit differently, but for general employees, it'll be the 3% and 1%. The actual increases for steps are a little bit different in public safety than they are for general employees. Okay. And then I would, uh, expect based on your initial comments that this is pretty much the same as our neighbors are doing too in terms of an approach to managing this. Some, somewhat. And I think, um, you know, frankly, we, we've held onto and understandably a low real estate rate for, for some time. And that's, um, you know, we, we are lower than most of our, our neighbors and, uh, understandably so. But, um, yeah, I think in terms of overall approach, we're doing what's consistent with what we're seeing in the region.

And I was specifically referring to how the budgeting for staff is being handled. Yeah. In some cases you're seeing, you know, reductions in FTE count overall in, in other areas. And I think that's a kind of recognition that times are, times are tough. Okay. And then big picture, if I understand this scenario correctly, in terms of, uh, basic services that the city provides, uh, there is no discontinuation or reduction in them, uh, that is caused by this scenario. No, this, this, uh, assumes we continue to provide the frankly great service we provide, um, you know, day in and day out. I think these strategic reallocations, uh, represent investments. Um, and so, you know, I, I think in that respect, um, we're looking to improve, you know, not only in terms

of efficiency, but outcome, frankly, without the energy programs manager, we're not doing the sustainability plan the way we should. We're not doing green building the way we should, frankly. And so that investment means that we're not only maybe achieving efficiencies, but moving these important programs forward. And it's same with the investment in the community safety analysts in terms of dealing with repeat calls, creating efficiencies in terms of how we allocate resources using a data driven approach to the way we, we do community safety. Um, okay. So, uh, no cuts. The other area, just to be clear and confirm with the scenario, we're maintaining our investment in critical infrastructure.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. And I think that that's largely seen through our approach to, um, all of our projects, many of which are public works related. Uh, some of the increases, strategic increases that you've seen in stormwater and wastewater, uh, that, that are all again, data informed. Um, and so we're going to continue, you know, making those investments as we should. It's a great point in that. We don't talk about it a lot, but, um, yeah, we're going to continue to work on those projects, uh, for all of its infrastructure. Okay. Well, very helpful. So, I would say again, this is the scenario that I am really, uh, seeing as the best, the best way forward for us. Thank you. Council member Amos and then council member Hardy Chandler.

Uh, thank you. Uh, so between scenario two and scenario three, I see the total revenues, total expenditures and the net difference. You know, one was 15,000, this one's $71. I mean, in terms of our capacity, when you're comparing the two, uh, frankly, is it, uh, it's concerning to have it this close? I mean, sub $100, not, not really. And the, and then when you're comparing both scenarios with our presentation that we just had regarding five year forecast, is that a concerning thing if we were to go at this rate? I know you assumed 1.055 for the third quarter, but I'm assuming that when we're building capacity forecasting, you favor one over the other. You're gonna make Gwen answer that question.

Let me pick that up first. Um, that's a great question, council member. And, um, a higher tax rate will always help us prepare for better for the future to be able to build up our reserves as we continue to see those big, um, variances in the out years. And does that also include, for example, like when we're trying to rebuild our unassigned fund balance, things like that? Correct. Okay. Um, regarding Renaissance housing, again, for while I, I have some hesitation towards the program, and I think that we received communications at the minimum they said they would need to operate is 200,000. Is that correct? What was it roughly 200,000? I've heard that number. Their ask was 450. The last I heard was 200,000 was the, you know, what they consider a sustainable amount.

I would only be willing to support that program with 200K if they make the necessary changes. I don't see this moving forward on MOU. They, they can't operate as they, they currently exist. So if they're amenable to that and focusing more on equitable distribution, then that might be up for consideration. So as long as that's been clear with them, at least for, from my perspective, I'm not going to support a program that only benefits 10 people. But if we get that distribution, like we highlighted in Ardmore and we see it improve over time, then I think we're getting bang for our buck and we're benefiting all strata, all categories of, of residents. Um, one of the things I wanted to flag between scenario two and scenario three is that, you know,

between scenario two and scenario three and granted, uh, I, both scenarios, uh, have some pros and cons. There's two things I wanted to highlight. One, the ALS pay that's gone from scenario three and scenario two. Is there a reason why it just, it just kind of just didn't work out? Yeah. I think it's just looking at overall capacities diminished, you know, quite a bit between, you know, one cent. Yeah. And that's a lot of capacity. You got to make, you have to make it up somewhere. Yeah. And so that's largely what you're seeing in terms of trade offs. And I know that we heard testimony tonight regarding the, uh, TOT and the change from 9% to 12%. It's, it's nice to see that in scenario three, the increases in proposed.

I want to look at those in context between B poll and TOT. I still think that B poll number is a little high considering that the county is already lower than we currently are. And then going from 0.40 to 0.48, I would prefer to see that reduced. Um, and I'd rather it not be offset by TOT to do it. I personally would lean more towards probably splitting scenario two and scenario three to accomplish that goal to just provide a little bit more distribution. Um, yeah, I mean, there, there are scenarios that we certainly could look at on the revenue side that, um, do just that. Um, it may frankly be, um, instead of a full nine to 12, you know, uh, nine to 10, um, you know, type of, of arrangement, you know, which would essentially, um, you know, give us about

$125,000 more in terms of revenue, um, you know, have some other offsets on the expense side, um, and then be able to adjust B poll down. We can, we can probably pull up a scenario. JC, I think you had like what amounts to a 3A if you all are interested in looking at, at that option. So under, under this option, and, you know, these are things that we're working as we go. So JC will correct me if I get it, get anything wrong under this scenario at a 107, Oh, real estate rate. Um, we have B poll, um, coming down, uh, to 0.44 as opposed to going up to 0.48. You see the revenue reflected there, um, which is reduced. Um, then you see the 1% increase in essence, uh, to give us 125,000 on TOT. So we're not going up to the full 12%.

Under this scenario on the expense side, we do introduce the ALS, but we do so in a, in a January 1 type of framework, which would be consistent with adding the, the January 1 cola for public safety. So you would essentially be applying both at the same time under that the, the 200,000 for Renaissance could, could be built in there. And then we're at a point, I think under the scenario, we're still, uh, at about a $286,000 deficit that we would have to look at from a contingency standpoint to see, you know, what's available in the current budget for contingency. Yeah, I was going to ask on what would make up for that difference. And I, I understand that that probably requires an additional review.

I would personally lean more towards this because it also reduces the burden on B poll TOT and we get the ALS pay. Um, but I do understand that we need to make sure the numbers work. Yeah, the two things that, that are at play with this scenario, you know, one would be, you know, getting money out of fire, um, and having that again, that we've talked to the chief about this and to, to, to be able to fund that position doing the same for the community safety analyst, right? Going back to that contract expense. So that's one potential chunk of revenue. And there's always contingency built into our, our budget that we've maintained that we certainly could apply to this to, to ultimately get to, to that number, um, and a balanced revenue expense equation.

So that is a viable scenario. Um, it, it doesn't, um, you know, ultimately put us in as healthy, uh, revenue, you know, situation. Um, but under the scenario, um, the B poll impact is, is reduced and professional, which we, which is where I think we had more of a concern overall. And it has just a marginal. I know it's not, it's, it, I'll say increase, a 1% increase in TOT in this. I mean, it still needs some adjustments because you're right. We can't go into the red. So I, I do appreciate you showing this. I haven't seen this yet. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Council member Hardy Chandler. So I think, uh, we have to address the elephant in the room and that's the VDOT payment. And I, I think it's important to talk about why that none of it's not changing on any of the scenarios that we're talking about.

Um, but I want to, uh, give you an opportunity to talk about why that 3.5 million, um, that we are going to have to pay, um, why you've selected to divide it out in the way that you have. Sure. So it's essentially almost a third and two thirds on July 1 of 2027. Um, so that would extend that into another, another fiscal year in terms of payment. I think philosophically is certainly, you know, credit to, to VDOT. Um, they're not, they're not charging interest on that, on that money. So it's certainly, uh, there's an argument to be made for paying a portion, um, essentially holding onto the, the remainder of that, that, that in essence. Um, and that, that expense until we get to the July one and finished paying it, you're paying a little bit, showing good faith, putting some revenue back into, um, you know, in BTA.

Uh, and in the same token, um, not paying it all upfront, recognize the benefit of holding onto that revenue and completing the payment in the next fiscal year, uh, as an approach. So, uh, that's, that's the rationale behind it. That's the, the approach that we've taken, um, certainly subject to change. Uh, but that's, that's how we approach this. Council member Hall. Um, thank you for addressing that. And I did just want to correlate what I asked earlier about the parking garage at Willard Sherwood. So we are paying $19 million for a parking garage, underground parking garage to save 2.4 acres of land. That would otherwise have to be parking surface parking at Van Dyke park in order to make Willard Sherwood happen.

$19 million. We are paying $3.5 million back to VDOT to save a hundred acres. So again, 3.5 million for a hundred acres, 19 million for 2.4 acres. If you were looking to buy a forest or to buy some trees, I think you'd be hard pressed to decide that 19 million for 2.4 acres would be a better deal. Thank you. Well, I will address that because it is not just 2.4 acres and there's no function to a parking garage. That 2 level parking garage is going to provide parking for the Sherwood Center next door. Especially when the community center is not being used in the evening and we have evening events. So it's not just a land versus land, land versus trees. There's functionality to a 19 million dollar parking garage that serves the function of an existing community center that has inadequate parking.

So I think we're talking about apples and oranges here in my opinion. Council member Amos. Just to shift back to this real quick. So I'm wondering because I'm trying to do some mental math on how to make up for that difference. I'm curious and this might be a look at JC because I want to make sure that the numbers I'm calculating are correct offhand. If we did 1.0725 and did B poll change to 0.45, would that cover that difference? Let's look at a at least a 1.075 scenario. So JC, if you could pull up what I believe to be 2.5. Sorry, Councilman. She said no more scenarios. Yes. So I think, you know, under under this scenario, you know, as you look at it, the difference takes us into, you know, into positive territory.

Overall, you're looking at a little bit of difference that half cent makes in terms of revenue. Under this scenario, we still introduce that 1% overall in the TOT change. Okay, so it doesn't show on here, but it is another 1% there. You still have that reduction from 4.8 to 4.4 in the B poll under this scenario. Everything else, I think, on the right remains the same. Under this scenario, you have the 1% for public safety taking effect on July 1. You have the ALS pay built into this, and then you have 250 built in for Renaissance housing. So, you know, this gives you a little bit more capacity under this. It elevates the Renaissance number. Get your ALS a full year. That's not on there, but that's a full year for that payment.

And really represents, you know, a compromise between the 107, 108 scenarios that we presented. So, food for thought. Council Member Hull. Thank you. I will comment only on budget at this point. I am curious what scenario 2.5 looks like. If you move the 1% COLA to January 1, 2027, I think that would free up another 118,000 or so. And then if you take out the Renaissance and, I'm sorry, reduce the Renaissance to 200, I think that still keeps us pretty close to 1.07. I am going to let Gwen and JC do math. They do much better than I do. Give or take maybe 100,000 that we could, I would trust you to find somewhere. Just remember, for every one cent, you are $880,000. So, you are about 400,000 for half a cent.

Right. So, I am asking you to potentially find 100 to 150. I think. Can you just go through exactly what you just said? I think I have your expense. I don't. Yeah. So, take out the 235. I am sorry, not take it out. Move the July 1, 26 date to 1, 1, 27. Got that. Drop Renaissance to 200. Got that. And then where are we now? Now we are favorable 172. Because we haven't touched the. No, you've got to touch. But we've got to touch the real estate to 1.07 again. Back up to 1.07. Okay. Back down to 1.07. Okay. Give me a second then. Not math in today. Sorry. All right. Okay. Give me a second then. Not math in today. Sorry. All right. 107. Leave that all the same. Leave that that. So delete the ALS or leave that in?

No, leave ALS. The full 100. You want to do a half year on that or? Can we see what half year looks like on the one, the public safety COLA as opposed to touching the ALS? Sure. Yeah. I know it's a little work. No, no, no. But you, to get it down to 1.07, I have to take out the community safety and the analyst and I'm still at 388 variance. Can we see what half year looks like on the one, the public safety COLA as opposed to touching the ALS? Sure. Yeah. I will remind you that you offered to do this, so thank you. I know it's a little work. No, no, no. I'm just, but to get it down to 107, I have to take out the community safety analyst and I'm still at 388 variance because at 107, we're already unfavorable,

like revenue to expenses. So can you bring up 3A again? It might be easier. Maybe an easier point of reference. So all this revenue stays the same on this one is what you're saying. But then on the expense side, you want to put the safety analyst back in? Well, it... And this one, it's not in 3A. But it was going to be made up in contracts, so it... So that's fine. Okay. I'm just... Yeah. Yeah. I'm just trying to be... Okay. Half here, 104, and then 250. You're at 388 negative. I think you need to take out the 152 entirely. It is. Okay. What we're seeing is... Right. So you're negative here, 286. So then wouldn't I be coming... You're more positive now, then? I'd be taking 286 minus 152, or negative 286 plus 152.

Right? So now we're looking for about 130,000? I don't see... I'm sorry. I'm just getting confused. I don't see the 152. The community safety analyst? It's already out of this number. So it's already out of what I'm working on. Yeah. On this scenario, it's already out. So that scenario, it's already out. Okay. Gotcha. Yeah. Okay. So... Okay. It's made it more unfavorable, because there's no change on the revenue side. Okay. And then if we increase the TOT to 12%, then we would make up, with the exception of like $30,000, give or take. Right. Because we'd be adding other... $138,000. We're short between revenue and expenses. Even if we went up... To 12. To 12%. Okay. Yes. And that's keeping BPO at 48 cents for the professional.

No, 44 cents. 44 cents. 44 cents. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So we're short 138. Yes. Okay. I feel like that's a challenge you can accept. Council Member Amos. Council Member Amos. So... I'm sorry. I hate to do this to you. Yeah. So what would it look like at 1.0725? And then if we did BPO at 0.45? Okay. Against... Starting with what scenario? So that way... I know all your puts and takes. Well, let's look at, I guess, the other one, because the other one was higher, I believe. Like, for example, the ALS pay was fuller. It wasn't 52K. Okay. So I guess scenario 2 point something. Two and a half? Two and a half. Well, because it was 0.5. Yeah. Yeah. So you're dropping. That was cute. I like that.

That's it. So if we took this and shifted it from... To 1.0725 and BPO to 0.45... Got it. Without the TOT change. Okay. So 0.725... You're taking... Make that at 5? Yeah. BPO to 0.45. And then we don't... We keep TOT at 9, not 12. And keep the expenses the same that's listed up there? Yes. We are short 340,000. 340? Yeah. Okay. And that is... The community safety analyst is still included. So I could back that out. But we would still be like around 150-ish. Yeah. Yeah. Well, a little under... 188. 188. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Council Member Hardy-Chandler, I think Council Member... Just quickly to add to that scenario, and you reduce Renaissance housing, 50,000... 200,000? Reduce it down to 200,000?

200,000, yeah. So it's 138. If you take it down to 200,000? Mm-hmm. Yeah. And the... Okay. Yep. And so if we did TOT change to 10%, that would put us margin... Right almost right there. Almost right there. Almost there, like 10,000, which I can find 10,000. Council Member Peterson. What's the sensitivity on the people? Like what do we get for each point? Because the question is what if it goes to 46, or it's 4.6. About 90,000 for each cent. It's about 90,000. Okay. Okay. Well, yeah. So there's a degree of freedom or two there, just to keep it in mind. And by the way, just in case it... so it doesn't get lost, the scenario, I think we were just playing with, would remove the community safety analyst

and replace it with a capacity find that would functionally enable the position to be formed, but with a reduction in $152,000. So if I'm understanding correctly, that was when in the scenario we just discussed. And then I certainly would support Renaissance housing going down to 200. And can you remind me again in this scenario what we do with public safety, COLA with the January one? We have it right now as... That actually... Could we have it right now as July one for the full year, for the full 1% in this scenario? But if that goes... Were you... Was there a scenario... Excuse me, I interrupted you. No, no, please. I believe, was there a scenario in which both of them would go to a January 1-27?

And if you do that, what impact does that have here? It's very hard to do math when everybody's watching you, so we appreciate that. That gets you right on. That's a... It's about $190,000? Yeah, you're about $9,800 favorable. Okay, and that is for $1.0725? $1.0725. Right. Taking B-Pool to $0.45 for professional, keeping TOT at 9%, yep, and then no other changes on the revenue, and then on the expense side... Crime analyst comes out. Taking out the crime analyst, public safety, 1% COLA on January 1, and additional ALS starting on January 1, and then $200,000 for run the songs. Right, and that gets us $9,800? Yes. Which is in the noise, right? Yes. That's helpful. Thank you. Absolutely. Council Member Pates.

Thank you. I'm still partial to the $107.5 rate personally, just with the understanding, of course, you know, certainly want to reduce the burden on homeowners, but, you know, this is also about building in debt capacity for the future, and I think that going forward, we're going to be looking at wanting to try to, you know, do that gradually and not sort of kick that down the road quite as much. So, you know, with that in mind, there's really a lot that we can do with that. the, you know, starting from here, we, looking at the rentals and housing funding, personally, you know, I think that it's important to consider that, yes, you know, while that is adding to the real estate tax base, that money is still

coming from the same pot. That's still coming from the homeowners. And so, you know, at the end of the day, on the other hand, the additional, you know, what the public safety increase does for recruitment, fully staffing our police and fire departments, that's something that you know, you really can't put a price tag on having that service available, you know, without, you know, being short-staffed. And thinking about what we can do with taking the crime community safety analyst out, and then we could perhaps look at reducing the, you know, the TOT change this time around a little bit so that we can kind of phase that in. And, you know, while keeping the energy programs manager, personally understand

the argument in favor of cost savings over the long term, but we want to make sure that we're taking care of our current staff as well. And, lastly, something else to consider, if we were to do, just putting this out there, the 2% COLA-PS increase, but in January, I think that's roughly, you know, in the ballpark of the 1% in July, but sort of builds in, you know, that momentum going into the next budget cycle. And, yeah, so at the end of the day, really would be partial 1075, but, you know, I'd be amenable to going down to 10725. And, yeah, but I think that we're heading in the right direction on this. Okay, so I'm just going to talk about the Renaissance Housing Program. So if a budget is a reflection

of a city's core values, then we can look at the things that we're funding and the things we're choosing not to fund and ask ourselves, does this look proportional? So the Renaissance Housing Program has been around for 25 years since 2000. I think that's correct. And I think that we have done interest-free loans for 290 homes or projects in that 25 years. And while they may be investments that result in paying an increased real estate property tax, it also adds value to the house that is realized to the owner entirely and solely when it's sold. So my residential property tax dollars are paying for an addition or a bathroom remodel for one of my neighbors. But when you consider there's over 4,000,

I believe, single-family homes in the city, 75% of which are over 50 years old. Exactly who's getting the loans? Because I don't believe we have data on exactly the age or anything else of the properties who are getting these loans. I don't believe that we have age information. I could be wrong on that. I could be wrong if we have information on the projects that get these loans. But the fact of the matter is we talk about over-reliance on real estate property tax revenue to fund the government and then we decide we're going to invest in however many, 20 projects, 10 projects, I don't know, to create more residential real estate property taxes instead of putting it in economic development where we are going

to use the money to recruit and retain and support businesses and commercial enterprises which is what I have heard this dais say we need to do more of in order to reduce our reliance on real estate property taxes. So I'm not sure just looking at this how this makes sense that we are protecting what is essentially a pet program of this city that is supported by a staff member. I mean it is not Renaissance housing is its own separate entity and yet I believe it is supported by someone on the city staff and I don't think that those staff hours are coming out of any allocation for Renaissance housing. So to me this does not make sense when you talk about $200,000 or $250,000 how that investment

in helping a few homeowners remodel a bathroom add an addition is really going to help us more than investing it in COLAs or economic development or some of these other programs. I'm just not understanding it. I'm not seeing it. As far as my tax dollars I don't think that they are well invested in a handful of projects to remodel somebody's house so that we can get increased tax revenue and they can walk away with a very nice piece of equity when their home is sold. So that's just my feedback on that. This council will make the decision on what gets funded. Council Member McQuillan. Thank you. I do want to point out that the Renaissance housing program does service residents that don't often

have the ability to get certain programs here that might might be the case if they're one of the things the reasons that I like the Renaissance housing program is because one of the things I'm noticing in my 1950s neighborhood is people coming in purchasing several homes either building giant massive warehouse style houses on these little tiny lots changing the entire character of the neighborhood or they're buying a ton of homes and then renting them out to college students and they're not keeping them up and they're using it as an investment vehicle and so this is one of the programs that I feel really helps those in my neighborhood that are living in their 1950s Cape Cod style houses that

do need to do some repairs or some updates that do actually help enhance the community the neighborhood it provides them the ability to stay in their home we talk about preventing programs that prevent homelessness that prevent these issues these are the type of programs that give those people just a little bit of especially right now in this economy and all the things so that's one of the things I do I hear you but I see the other side of it as well and I'm not saying it's the perfect solution but that's something that appeals to me and that's another side of it that I've seen or heard from residents thank you Councilmember Bates sort of along those same lines I do want to point out that while we have

heard feedback that some people you know the Renaissance Housing Program factoring their decision to remodel their homes or upgrade their homes we don't know for sure how many of those people would have ended up upgrading their homes anyway eventually you know finding their own way to make up that difference but I also want to again reemphasize that you know it's still that additional tax revenue is still coming from the same pot still coming from the homeowners and also that while we're looking at funding that program I certainly don't love the idea of completely zeroing it out you know we're funding that program while we're still not where I'd like to be in terms of salaries of our city staff

and so really I personally if it were up to me I'd want to take care of that first before looking at bringing that program back but again open to compromise open to you know some give and take there but you know that's kind of where I am on that council member Peterson well I would say generally speaking there is an argument I think that all of our housing programs need to be better targeted or we need to take a look at how to target everything we do in housing and we need to be sure we're on top of the analytics of that I think any time you approach housing in particular but any other segment through what I call a supply side or what is known as a supply strategy which is just putting extra

supply in one way or the other and then crossing your fingers that it will end up in a targeted solution that does not work and I'm not sure where we are in terms of having thought through and studied through how the housing programs that we have together can be updated to be much more targeted but this certainly should be a part of that and the question that this is asking what is the objective of this program what is the best way to achieve that objective is it to continue this program in its current and conventional format or does it need a redesign and rethinking and what have you I would think that under any circumstance even if we proceed with this at some level we need to be taking a hard look

at this program and the context of all of them and how these get targeted to specific objectives otherwise you can end up wasting a heck of a lot of money on housing and causing a lot of damage in the process so I you know I don't know enough at this stage to know whether it's absolutely critical that this be continued concurrent with that kind of review I just think that kind of review has to happen under any circumstance and I if I'm not mistaken I think there was an intention that we understood a ways back from the city manager about trying to have a look into this whole issue of how you integrate and target these programs so they're more efficient at accomplishing our objectives if you have

any thoughts on that it might be helpful absolutely I think there are things that we need to look at application point that we need to be understanding in terms of how they're evaluating what criteria they're using to evaluate and as we mentioned before we need to certainly understand the households being served the average loan amounts geographic distribution you know there's certainly some appetite to be doing some smaller loans for you know certain income levels right and so I think it's all part of a as you say a data informed approach to this program I would say that frankly and I'll use this opportunity to say that there are a number of relationships that we have whether it be third party

events that we support whether it be these other programs that we have staff spending time and money on whether it is revenue or what amounts to you know costs on operations where we have to frame these up in terms of agreements understandings data and there's a lot of opportunity I'll say there's a lot of opportunity in our operations to be doing that and so you know again it's whether we're giving money to an organization or non-profit whether we're essentially providing direct service that has a cost associated with it there should be some understanding frankly written understanding for these programs and in many cases that's not true and so you know I would apply it in this circumstance and I

certainly would say that in-kind costs anything that we're doing that relates to a relationship with another entity can be better defined with data on the front end and outputs and outcomes clearly understood on the back end I would just appreciate that a thought that I would add is thinking through where the highest level of cost exposure is for homeowners and they're different classes different segments and different types but kind of understanding what their exposure to cost is and what we do to be helpful and one form of exposure is remodeling but remodeling for what purpose or improvement for what purpose certainly there are programs that have decided to target either all or most of these

funds specifically towards energy efficiency improvements because it is one of the highest household expenses one of the best ways to enable people to stay in their homes it is disproportionately the case that lower income people have the biggest need they have the least efficient homes they have the biggest barriers to getting assistance it's what kills them with their monthly bills so there's a scenario here where you might take a second look at energy and environmental improvements as a way forward to helping people financially but also providing community benefit that certainly would tie back to the energy programs manager as a for instance and I think that's a configuration that has been

popularized by many jurisdictions so that would be an alternative perhaps that we could get into the mix in terms of how we might think about this issue area a couple other low hanging pieces of that would be accessibility certainly you know in terms of people having accessibility where they are and aging in place as we look at the demographics you know what what improvements impact both of those elements along with energy and energy sustainability so there are certain criteria we can certainly bake into this that would tell us that we're getting better inputs outputs and outcomes Councilmember Hardy Chandler and then Councilmember Amos so I think there's agreement around what else might be needed

and yet May 5th is looming so I'm just curious what the recommendation might be in terms of making a budget decision keeping these factors in mind because I think there is some agreement around different guardrails or exploring you know criteria and equity and those kinds of things but that will not happen by May 5th so is there a recommendation on you know kind of how to come closer for that particular decision in other words is there some mechanism to follow up with supplemental appropriations or some other administrative mechanism that we might have at our disposal for something that might require a little bit more deliberation it's a good question I think what we laid out to you in the budget

memo gives somewhat of a framework of some of the things that we think we ought to look at conceptually I would say that we certainly could budget and appropriate but not move forward with any allocation until the agreement the framework is in place right and that's certainly something we would want to bring back to council and ensure that you're comfortable with that framework and how we establish that agreement as we move forward and certainly allocation at that point would not occur until at council's pleasure that agreement is established council member Amos yeah that's a great idea I would be amenable to that while I've expressed frustration in the past with renaissance housing and I still

have my reservations for many reasons that you cited mayor at the same time I also see that I think there are avenues to reshape this program to make it more beneficial and have a lot of opportunities similar to FIG but related to homes and improvements particularly with accessibility I think one thing that I always wanted to think about was what if we could have some type of senior grant for accessibility improvements on homes adding ramps adding different features that can lead to aging and place-in-place making some type of incentives but if we can be at the forefront and help people make that transition to make their homes more accessible especially with consideration of when we start having a broader

discussion even starting May 12th on ADUs how that can work in congruency so I think the way the program's currently set up I do not support but I think the potential is there and I think that's worth exploring Councilmember Peterson to add to that a thought in terms of if we do have an allocation for renaissance what do we do with it one thought is that use it for pilot purposes to explore alternatives that would capture some of these concerns and some of these opportunities in terms of maybe a better way to be deploying the program but have enough support in there that you could pilot some things and test them out and go through some developmental work on them that could set the stage for something

that would scale or go in some future direction but give you enough money to work with to do a little bit of that so that you're paving the way for the future and so I think that would be a suggestion I would have in terms of how to try to deploy these funds and there could be a conversation about how to do that in the alternatives the question would be capacity how much do you need there in order to support some sort of piloting and I don't know the answer but it's going to be less than 100 I'm sure Councilmember Bates yeah I just want to reemphasize I completely agree that if we do go forward with the Renaissance Housing Program we do need to revamp the selection process as was mentioned before

also really want to emphasize that first off the issues that that program addresses aren't even really a question for a lot of our early career staff because a lot of our early career staff for all intents and purposes can't even afford to live and see early career first responders even and additionally something we haven't discussed yet is that we still don't have a dedicated funding source for affordable housing attainable housing etc but you know again give intake also I wanted to raise looking at the comparison between the pay schedules the current budget to the proposed budget the numbers in the back of the proposed budget those are including the 1% COLA for the full year but not the you know

general pay scale increase and public safety step increases let staff talk about timing because it's a little bit different between each element so on the public safety side it does include the 1% which would move the pay scale on general employees we included a 2% market rate adjustment for the move the scale that gives employees who are at the top 2% the 1% and then additional increase in January when the 3% comes in where they normally would not have gotten anything at the top of the scale it gives them a little bit at that time as well right so that so in January we get the 3% and then the additional public safety step increase is that right right there's no change to the pay plan for step increase

it just the employee just moves from say step one to step two all right all right okay that makes sense yeah okay that clears things up for me thanks yep miss shinaberry I just want to do a time check as we're approaching 11 o'clock thank you for that so it looks like we're making headway here it's a very productive discussion so the last as we move toward hopefully some kind of consensus the last thing I will say about the renaissance housing program is it's own entity and all of our suggestions about how they should retool is not up to us it's up to them and to set aside this amount of money on hold while we negotiate that to me is not the best use of funds when we have zeroed out or reduced other

things that will have an impact in this upcoming fiscal year if renaissance housing wants to look at reimagining their mission and maybe they will but the fact of the matter is if you allocate money to sit out there while you negotiate that I don't necessarily believe that that is the best and highest use of taxpayers dollars in FY27 just my opinion council member Mcquillan I agree with that I do think though that I like the idea of that council member Peterson brought forward about maybe a pilot something along that those lines but I do think that we need to put something there in order to show that we're actually trying to move in that direction that's why the pilot idea or something like that

you know that sounds good but I'm with you I understand what you're saying I hear that that perspective as well so I just wanted to echo that council member Peterson well in the interest of time and I'm looking at the city manager wondering what we can give you in terms of direction I'm hearing a lot of interest around two scenarios somewhere between seven and seven two five but I'm also hearing it's a little difficult for everybody to actually do the homework and the test the sensitivity testing and all that while we're live here that's a difficult process to go through it's piece of cake for you your old hat yeah so I think I think it's a really good point I think you know let me be bold to

say that we kind of get where we need to on revenue on on those scenarios if we're if we're coalescing around that which will largely drive what we decide to do with expenses but I think if we start with the revenue piece and get an understanding that you know there's consensus around a scenario on real estate and the other things that we've talked about I think the last scenario I'll suggest that we went through at the one oh seven two five you want to go down that list Gwen so everyone fully understands the implications on that revenue scenario absolutely so it's real estate at rate of one oh seven two five cents the personal property stays as is the B poll for professional goes to point four five B

poll for services stays as presented no change to the TOT goes to nine percent or projected nine percent staying with the third party transfer and the delay and then on the expense side removing the school bond principal payment V dot payment stays in beacon landing grant stays in the health insurance increase stays in personal personnel expense savings of comes out the energy programs manager is included the community safety analyst is approved but using funds that police already has additional one percent public safety COLA on January 1st additional ALS pay of fifty two thousand on W for January half the year no funding for economic development and two hundred for renaissance and that gets us very favorable

variance of nine point eight thousand how much nine point eight thousand so very ten thousand ten thousand yeah all right positive positive yeah okay so that's one scenario that I think we had we had talked about and have to get some either consensus or or not on council member McQuillan could you toggle back to scenario two please so I can compare would it be possible to get these scenarios as well so that we can play around with them at home thank you council member peterson well I would think that from my standpoint seven to five is a ceiling here there's plenty to work with there to have something there's so that scenario that we just went through gives us I think plenty of comfort particularly given

that I think there is something squishy here with the renaissance housing number but that said certainly that is high end from my standpoint I think I'm not ready to throw in the towel on seven what I think I would like to suggest there is if there's any additional thinking that you might be able to ride based on this conversation that helps us understand how that might work I wouldn't be comfortable again though going anything over seven to five here and I'd be very comfortable if we end up at seven with adjustments but you know I think there's a little bit more homework that needs to be done around that council member hall thank you I would really like to stay at 1.07 I'm not super flexible in my

opinion on that I think we could manage rather than going to 1.0725 I understand and I hear all of the concerns on the renaissance program again I don't think it's something that's going to be resolved tomorrow by next week personally I benefited from that program it was great and I do think that it encourages people to invest in their homes and to stay here and I think that a lot of our housing stock is changing over so I don't think it's something that we should do away with quite frankly and this probably rubbed people the wrong way but we also give a lot of money to other demographics and we also give money in a lot of other areas so to me this is something that people that are paying a lot of real

estate taxes on their single family homes or townhouses in some cases or duplexes can take a small advantage of and encourages them to stay here and to want to live here and to continue here so I think that's how it was originally intended and I think it's also worked great for 25 years so I don't know that it's a broken wheel that needs to be dealt with at this point. I also did ask JC he said that the staff person works about 50 to 60 percent of their time on this so while that number is not included in there it is also not a hundred percent dedicated role and especially if we've been doing less loans because we didn't fund it last year that person has been involved in CD&P probably for other areas of their time and so

that wouldn't be any sort of financial savings as far as salaries go because that person would just be repurposed elsewhere. I am on board I think with the rest of the things on here. Again I would really Mayor to your point about economic development I was all in in my one-on-one for a $200,000 contribution to this because I've been pushing to try to get them back up to that $337,000 number that they lost but when our brand new economic director comes in and says I don't need this right now I want to put a pause on it I don't you know I have these ideas I want to work through this stuff that to me speaks volumes over what we may think up here is a priority I would hope that if our economic director felt like that money was

crucial to her department doing her role to their doing their roles that she would have said something and you know Mr. Alexander maybe you could comment further on that and just reaffirm or yeah I think the only nuance to that would be that she needs time to get a real firm grasp one way or the other I think you know if you were to ask her she would say give us the money to to make the strategic investments however I think she you know and what I laid out to you she wants to take that time to really better understand you know where they are before there's an ask in the future you know I and frankly you know we've talked about this we we have to be better data informed about what we're doing overall

throughout the enterprise you know I think you know as we look at enhancements in the future as we look at performance management and we look at efficiency the expectation is going to be that when you have an ask it's got to be backed up with data yeah and I think if we just went ahead and gave that money right now it might be in the same scenario in which you presented in which it's just sitting out there waiting for the Renaissance program to figure out what they're going to do but now we're just waiting for the EDA director to figure out what she's going to do with it so I again she's she's new but I'm going to trust her at what she's saying so I would love to see us get to 1.07 with this slide

being whatever we can work out with the other variances that we've talked about so thank you councilmember Amos yeah just to chime in real quick I think we're starting to really centralize around around something which is really good and I think we should be probably in a good place for next week the only thing I'll say is I would really strongly prefer the 1.0725 over the 1.70 particularly for the LS for equalizing the distribution from B poll and TOT we heard commentary from one of our hotel owners tonight on that instead of changing from the 9 to 12 percent which I know isn't factored here in the scenario three but getting that B poll number down to 0.45 I think is is very good and building

capacity in general after our last work session item and our five-year forecast but I I like the conversation we've had tonight councilmember Peterson just to go back to the point on the economic development budget and director this is not the first incoming director who has pretty quickly said oops we have a deficit in analytical capacity here and it's it causes me to have my hands tied behind my back and I got to have that fixed so based on my conversation I think the capacity to fix that does not require a budget allocation here but just to underscore and this is really your your your venue and not so much ours except we want to be able to enable it I am concerned when I hear director level

people saying you know what one of the first things that becomes apparent is we had to do a better job on our capabilities here in terms of analysis so that we can measure in order to manage and I'm just I'm not hearing you say that anything we're contemplating in these scenarios impairs the improvements that we know we need to do in these areas but I want to just say you know based on what I'm hearing and seeing those are critical improvements yeah I think you know based on what we've heard tonight we certainly would love to land on a scenario that lays out specifically the revenue specifics and and expenses I think what I'm hearing now is some conversation around 1070 and 10725 not that you know we've given you a lot to

think about tonight I think and I'll turn to the team you know if we can essentially address those two scenarios give you something to think about you know moving into the fifth then you know JC wants the firm number but go ahead and get your feedback thank you manager so the manager's correct the preference would be from a fiscal standpoint to have a clear direction from council tonight so we can develop the staff reports correctly have them reviewed by legal also ensure that we can reconcile correctly know exactly where we're going to end up on the budget side of things and very similar to last year we would send out the final semi-approved scenario to council for last consideration and discussion

so when we come to the may fifth meeting it's more of an administrative function there can definitely still be discussion but no significant or any variations from what was hopefully agreed upon tonight would be the recommendation I think to the manager's point we're hearing a range of 107 to 107 in a quarter if I can really quickly bring up scenario 3a maybe with some minor modifications but what I'm hearing here is a dollar zero seven on the tax rate which I'm hearing a potential majority or at least half of council will be at also a b poll change from 0.40 to 0.44 so half I've heard and I'm making notes here while I was what you all were talking council member Hall and council member Amos really wanting that to be able to make that

amount there so not the full rate and then a potential increase which is a percent more willingness to be at also a b poll change from 0.40 to 0.44 so half I've heard and I'm making notes here while I was what you all were talking council member Hall and council member Amos really wanting that amount there so not the full rate and then a potential increase which is a percent more more than what has been advertised or what was factored into the budget not the full 12 percent but a potential an additional one percent to help offset on the expenditure side the manager said that we would work with police and police has identified that they do have funds within contract services to cover that so that would be covered there everything else has sort of already been discussed the potential downside here would be a half year sorry

a half year on the one one percent additional for cola on public safety starting January 1 versus July 1 but fire is still continuing to get an LAS LL ALS pay as of January 1 so instead of the full year just half and renaissance still getting two hundred thousand dollars and again as the manager stated it puts us in a deficit but he did have a conversation with the fire chief where they would be able to hopefully cover that fifty two thousand dollars so then that reduces it down a bit to about two hundred and thirty four thousand as the negative variance and I think the manager also mentioned a potential dip into our contingency fund to cover that so that would actually cover all the liabilities keep us at a dollar seven I think in my mind from the notes that I wrote sort of meet where everyone sort of had certain touch points

sort of meet where everyone sort of had certain touch points yeah and I think you know to add some other context on the personnel side is you know we are committed to a couple things next year that would in essence be considered enhancements but are much needed one is a look at solid waste and where we are on that largely from efficiency opportunities and also taking a very hard look at classification compensation and so you know that both you know make sure that makes sure that we're being competitive as it relates to salary make sure that we're data informed when we bring to you the request to make increases to both scale and and you know step increase so you know those are things that are still on the horizon that will impact the

and that will impact some of this as we move forward Councilmember Hardy Chandler I actually thought we were closer to the version that we did in real time tonight which was not 3a but what you worked up I thought that was a little bit closer to consensus well it's closer to what I would be very comfortable with I think the piece of it from that in real time version is that we are going to be very comfortable with the I think the piece of it from that in real time version would be reducing renaissance housing and having that cola start jany july 1st as well as the ALS starting july 1st but that would be the only variation from the and it's harder to follow it orally I think than to see it visually but I thought that last rundown was actually a little closer to the

so what I have on that council member at the 7.2 to 5 is the expenses exactly the same as you see here and only a change on the revenue side so that revenue change would be the professional from point 4 4 to point 4 5 and then we're removing the TOT so those three four lines would be adjusted and then we're moving the TOT T. So those three, um, four lines would be adjusted. For me, Renaissance to supporting the COLA more and they, and the, um, ALS more earlier. Okay. Council member Bates and then council member Peterson. Um, I do want to second that. Um, you know, and I want to keep in mind that, um, you know, we're coming down from a very significant, uh, tuition cost increase. Um, and what was proposed was 108, which is already,

I think, um, really, uh, really tight. And, uh, you know, 10725 as council member Hardy Chandler, uh, emphasized allows us to do a lot more for our public safety staff. And again, you know, we're putting money into Renaissance housing and, uh, you know, I think that we really need to make sure that we're taking care of our public safety staff as well, if we're going to do that. Council member Peterson. Council member Peterson. So I also heard .45 on people. And then I heard a lot of conversation about not 200, but maybe 100 on Renaissance, but even that's squishy. If I read this correctly, that's $190,000 with those two adjustments. If it goes to 4.5 on the people, that's a $90,000 increase.

It's $90,000 a point. And you added that $100,000 off Renaissance housing. That frees up $190,000 right there. If I'm reading that right, that's getting us pretty solid at $107,000. And I don't know whether that actually, and it may be, that's actually got a little bit of a surplus. But I'd be curious to know what that looks like. I'm doing it up right now, sir. Yeah, I guess the question is whether, frankly, you can go down on Renaissance and add it to your 1% that gets you to fully 1%. Well, I certainly would go down from 200 on Renaissance. And I know there's been a lot of conversation here. You know, I don't know where the requisite number is, but I heard a lot of conversation about 100 or less.

So I think there's some redeployment. So there's some cotton redeployment of that. But if you just take 100 out plus the 4.5 increase, it's $190,000 that you could either just take a straight savings or do a reallocation somehow or another to it. I think we're still under this. I think we're still under the scenario in the red. But, again, those are things that we can look at from a contingency standpoint. But how much in the red are we with those two things? If you bought it's $190 off of this, it's down to $200. Is that it? In terms of our deficit? So you're saying take Renaissance down to $100,000? Right. And add in the $90,000? Right. So we're at deficit of $96,000. $96,000, right. So that's $96,000 is how far away we are from doing a $107.

Under that scenario, though, we're not making any adjustment to the 1% on the COLA? The adjustment on that, as I understand it, that's being proposed is that we start that in July rather than January? If you added, yeah, if you started it in July, then you're needing an additional, essentially, $100,000. Correct? How much if we shifted the COLA to July? Yes. A little bit, yeah. It's essentially $100,000. Yeah. Councilmember Hull. I'm certainly not suggesting that we zero out the Renaissance program, but I don't think $100,000 is going to do anything for them. I think it was pretty clear that they needed $200,000 to continue or that they would just fold the program and it would no longer continue.

And I personally don't agree with that. It sounds like that is where a large portion of council is headed. I mean, it's a numbers game some days, but that's not my choice. But I understand that decision if that's what is being proposed here. But I think that's the only other way that you would find your extra $90,000. I personally would be fine with the TOT going up to $11,000 or $12,000. I mean, I feel like we do this to the meals tax. We target a specific thing. We say, oh, it doesn't impact our residents, and then we justify it. I don't know how many of us are frequently staying at hotels here, but to me, this is even more of a direct hit on people that don't technically likely live here and are not our residents.

So I understand there was one person that came in and spoke out against it. I also, quite frankly, think that that was more of a concern about not giving the money to the tourism group that is what they wanted. I would love to find a way for the economic development to invest in that if that's what they think is beneficial. But, again, that's an ED decision. But as far as I'm concerned, we purposely increase the TOT. I mean, might as well work with it. Council Member Amos. The only thing I'll note for TOT, and I do concur, that while we had one speaker who clearly had some type of interest of that money being allocated in a particular way, it's still increasing to 9%. It's not at 9% currently.

So I did want to make sure that we just reiterate that. It's already increasing, but we would be increasing the margin more, which is a similar conversation for what if we did the 1.080 to 1.95, at least from a hotel perspective, which is why I'm more amenable with trying to offset that impact on a particular industry, which I know is part of the reason why a lot of us get frustrated with the meals tax because it focuses on a particular industry. So it's really just trying to mitigate that, which is why I would rather not go beyond 10% for me personally. I do think that if we want to get to 1.070, then the first thing that would go would be Renaissance housing. And so if we want Renaissance housing, I think 1.0725 would make it work.

And if we want the 1.070, then probably reallocate Renaissance housing and get there. Council Member Bates. I agree completely. I may be a bit amenable to the TOT going up above 10% to 11 or 12. But again, you know, if we're looking at not doing the full year public safety COLA, not doing the full year ALS pay, then frankly I don't see doing Renaissance housing. And, you know, the real estate tax rate at 1.0725 or TUT going up to 11 or 12, I don't, you know, I think that we're kind of in the ballpark. So the 9% to 10%, that's 125, right? That's 1%. Okay, yeah. So we're kind of in the ballpark there. And I do think it's a good point that the TOT is something that mainly would probably apply to out-of-town residents.

But, you know, either way, I think that at the end of the day, you know, we're putting money into Renaissance housing. We need to make sure that we're taking care of our staff as well. Other thoughts? Are we getting there, Gwen? Okay, we're getting there. I mean, we're still, the fact of the matter is, we're still taking money out of the assigned fund balance one way or the other. Correct. Right. So we're taking money out of our savings account, basically. We're taking money out of our savings account to pay for things. And so we really do need to think about what value and what priorities these things have when we're spending money out of our savings account. That's serious to me. I mean, our general fund balance has an enormous impact

on our financial health as Wall Street sees it. Can we manage our money? Can we manage our priorities? Can we get to a budget or not? So I'm cognizant that taking money out of our savings account, not optimal, but if we're taking it out of our savings account, what are we spending it on? Yeah, I guess the question might be on real estate specifically. Is it a value to at least get a straw poll understanding of if we're at 107.25 or if we're at 107.0? Okay. Let's start there. Where are we? Council Member Amos, where are we? My preference is 1.0725. Council Member Hull? Preference 1.07, but understanding what's going to need to be cut. And I also do not want to take money out of a sign fund balance

unless we have to. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? 10725, and I'd like to work the numbers to get neutral. Council Member Peterson? Prefer 1.07, but open to exploring what would need to be done, possibly at 725, but don't want to throw in the towel on 107. Council Member Bates? 10725. Council Member McQuillan? 107, but open to making changes and adjustments because I, too, don't like having to use the assigned fund balance. That's good. I think that's good. All right. So let's work from there on some of the other things that you're interested in, assuming we're at 10725, right? So let's talk a little bit about the B-Poll and where we want to be with that. The scenario we had at 10725 before, you have it up probably?

They're thinking ahead for me. Yeah, we have not done a scenario for 10725. But I have it here, but... What did we talk about for B-Poll? We're working on it. Update. Glenn, where is it? At point... Excuse me? Can you email things? He can see what I'm doing, so he's doing it right now. Okay. Yeah. So it's at 0.45 cents. Under the 2-5 scenario we came up, it's at 0.45. Yep. Here's the numbers. Okay. We're missing someone for consensus. I don't know if we want to wait for that, depending on... 449, 547. 447. And then no TOT. And then TOT stays at 9%. And what I have been going... Can we... Would folks be interested in seeing at 10 and reducing the sign-up on balance? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. So are we... Are we taking B-Poll to 0.45? Is that... Do we want to talk about that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because I have some... I signed upon balance. I don't like it. I got it. Well, it's... And that's going to shift. That's going to shift based on your tax rate. You want to explain that? And that's coming down out of the revenue. So it would stay in... Well, if... The way these were done is because we get some of it this fiscal year, we're using that, so a half cent for next year. With the rate increase. If I can take it down, that would take it down to... It would actually reduce it to 4.56, 4.74. So it would take it down to 125. We just moved between line items. Yeah. There's new revenues.

Yeah. I think we... I want to make sure that we have consensus on that rate, too. So... It's 62.947. So... Council Member Bates? Just another point on the TOT. Certainly understand the concern, but just want to point out that, you know, I certainly don't do a whole lot of traveling. You know, don't have a lot of time for a lot of traveling, at least, you know, for personal reasons. But thinking about what you look at when you're picking out a hotel, you know, yes, you do look at the price. Do you necessarily look at the TOT in that locality? You know, you may be looking at the price probably before taxes, I would say, in most cases. But you're not necessarily looking at the total price after taxes.

You might possibly see large organizations that are getting rooms for their employees look at all that. But at least individual tenants, you know, I don't really think that that's something that I'd necessarily think of looking at if, you know, if I hadn't just had this conversation here. So, you know, Mayor, do you want to run on or take a look at the .45 scenario for B poll to do a poll to see where we're at? Okay. 4.5 for B poll. We'll start with... .45. We'll start with Council Member McQuillen. Are you down for the .45? Yeah. Okay. Council Member Bates, you good with .45? Yeah. Council Member Peterson? Yes. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? Council Member Hall? Yes. Side note, I would like to talk about the $10,000 exclusion and see if there's room to work there at some point in the future, not with this budget.

Okay. Noted. Council Member Amos? Yes. Okay. All right. So on services, I'm not going to... I'm getting consensus that we're okay at the .30. TOT, we want to talk really, I think, between 9 and 10. I'm concerned. I'm just going to express I'm a little bit concerned about that from the standpoint, again, of the overall impact. You know, a 12% would effectively be a 7% to 15% jump, as was indicated earlier. And so I'm just, you know, being candid that I have concerns about the impact of what is here. So just food for thought. So what you're saying is that you would have concerns about going over 10%. Is that the upper limit? Is that the upper limit you feel? Yeah. I just, I'm expressing what a little bit of what you've heard, a little bit of what we're hearing from economic development and their broader conversations about the potential impact on industry.

It is certainly just food for your thought. Okay. So, Council Member Amos, how do you feel about 10%? Yeah. My cap would be 10%. Yeah. Council Member Hall? I feel like I need to see the numbers shake out before I can totally say that right now. Okay. We can circle back. Yeah. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? 10. Council Member Peterson? 10, but I would like some analysis to clarify. Okay. Council Member Bates? Council Member Bates. I think that the question is, would there be more concern over going above 10% for that or more concern over dipping into our unassigned fund balance? I mean, that's, I guess, something we don't necessarily have to answer tonight. But that, I think, is perhaps a defining question.

But if we can make it work, you know, I think that I defer to the judgment of others on sticking at 10%. Okay. Okay. The computer doesn't work after 1130. Council Member McQuillen? Yes, I'm comfortable with 10. Okay. So, we've got four who are okay with 10 and two that are okay with 10 but would like to be open to further analysis. So, that gives us a revenue picture that we have to work from on the expense side. So, let's at least go down the expense side. I think where we're really going to start having the conversation on this list is going to be largely below the community safety analyst, correct? I think we're, again, we've talked about finding what we need to make that work. And so, at this point, we're talking about our capacity to do the COLAs, ALS, and Renaissance, in essence.

So, you know, I don't know, JC, I'm sure you're doing some math over there. But... Sorry, I'm here for... We missed what you said. They're doing math. Sorry, we missed what you said. No, that's fine. As long as you have a clear picture. You certainly want you to be solid on the revenue impact. No, we're good on the revenue. We have that. Okay. On the expense side, what we have right now is exactly what you see up on the screen. So, if you want... So, under that scenario, you'd be in 3A with what we've laid out of the COLA on January 1, ALS on January 1, and then funding for Renaissance there. Right. So, again, our suggestion, if we're sticking to the revenue picture, would be to be potentially rethinking your allocation on the Renaissance housing and...

Council Member Hall. The assigned fund balance before you made adjustments, was that 419, and now it's 456? No, it was 331. So, now it's... Oh, it's a lower reduction. It was a lower reduction. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, we're not dipping into it anymore? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Red is good for revenue. Right. Right. Yeah. So, there's a scenario on Renaissance, again, whereby we look at the structure. We come to an agreement on, at least in principle, bring that back to Council and consider funding in a future fiscal year. And so, I don't know what we've... I wasn't here for last year. I don't think we funded it. Did we funded it all last year? Okay. So, that isn't... I'm not... Again, that is a scenario that then shifts that capacity elsewhere in your expense categories.

Well, I think the central question here is because Renaissance Housing is its own separate entity that has its own charter bylaws, it is a program. That if you allocate money to that program, that is what we are funding. To say we want to make changes to it is not really up to us. If you fund a program, you're funding what it is right now. So, if there are reservations about the program the way it exists now, then funding something where we do not have agreement from this entity that they are interested in modifications does not seem to make a whole lot of sense. If we want to fund a program that is more in alignment with an overall housing strategy for the city, then they would have to agree to that because they are an entity doing a program.

So, to fund that in this budget, even if you withheld the funds, I don't see the point of having money allocated to a program we're not certain meets the overall goals of our housing strategy for the city. Council Member Amos. Assemblymember Assemblymember stom stom to Renaissance housing until we can get an MOU as a potential way to suspend it if you could without having to dedicate that money right off the gate right at the gate. So you're referring to our unfortunately named housing trust fund which is just a bucket with money in it? I mean we do have a bucket with money in it called housing trust fund. I mean I guess the question would be is there an issue with us allocating this to Renaissance housing without an MOU that

would mean that we're obligated to still provide these funds even if we don't reach an agreement. I don't think we're obligated to allocate money to a third party until we have an agreement in place if that's council's direction. Councilmember Hall. Thank you. But we are then still tying up taxpayer funds that we may or may not be spending so we're still having a higher tax rate because of it. I do not support putting the money into the housing trust fund as an aside. I don't think that has any clear cut rules on where it's supposed to go or how it's supposed to be used so I I would either I want to fund the Renaissance housing program. It sounds like many don't or are okay with not but again if we don't fund it this year it will likely

close and that that's a decision that's a choice right it's a I just want you all to be aware of that I don't think 100 is going to go anywhere and I think zero is going to cancel the program. What's the what's the total revenue impact assuming expenses I'm sorry what's the total difference between revenue and expenses under the scenario that we've we just devised? 9800. Okay that's accurate okay appreciate that on the fly okay. So I think it's again it's largely whether you want to make any other allocations within the context of that expense arrangement I don't know how much um if we just took Renaissance out and kept everything else the same it's a fraction it's a what is that on the if you take out Renaissance then you actually can

move both the cola and the ALS to July 1 and then 61,000 favorable. Okay for the 1.07 not quite I don't think okay council member Peterson I don't know if this helps but short of an MOU uh and I don't I'm not involved in the relationship so I can't say I I don't know whether we get any clarity by having an updated conversation with Renaissance to see what their flexibility is in terms of exploring alternative approaches it seems unclear to me now whether that conversation has happened and where that would leave us but you know this is the time you would have that and it might be helpful to know yeah it seems to be a thing to them we've not you know delved into this you know within any meaningful conversation so I think to the point that they they may not be amenable

to any of the potential framework that we laid out on accessibility aging in place uh resilience they may not may not even be interested in that it's possible to have a conversation well we certainly would anyway I think if if there's going to be a partnership moving forward I would just again uh reiterate that it's important for us to establish a formal understanding agreement in in any scenario so it would be good to know whether even at an informal level there's any possibility for a change in scope here that would tell us whether anything formal would be worth pursuing or not so I would suggest an informal would be helpful Council member Bates um also not sure if this helps but uh um we might want to wait until council member hall comes back you know before I go

okay we can do that so but I just want to reiterate to make sure I've got this clear if we take out the 200 000 then we basically fully fund all the colas starting july 1 is that correct and we're still in a positive variable so I just you know that's again I will go back to the fact that a budget is a reflection of our values and priorities so that's a good framework to think about that 200 000 council member Bates um so just want to uh put this out there um if we were to do the uh uh under this scenario the tot at 10.5 and then do 150 for remezance housing um maybe try to uh see if we can just make up that little bit of difference to then do the uh colon als on in july design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design design

I'm showing unfavorable by 26,000, which we could make work. Council Member Hall. Just a quick comment, and I don't mean to state the obvious, but COLA adjustments are kind of forever, right? I mean, you don't really take them away. So adding $100,000 or $200,000 this year, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't, but it's an ongoing expense that we will need to pick up in every budget moving forward. So different from the Renaissance program where it could be funded or it could not be. Again, not making an opinion, just making a statement. Okay. So I understand where you're coming from. And the Renaissance housing program, except for last year, has gotten funding every year. But to me, essentially, it comes down to are we going to spend tax dollars on our public

safety or a home improvement program? And if the city council wants to fund a home improvement program instead of COLA's for fire and safety, that is certainly a choice. But again, I go back to it's also a reflection of the values that our city holds. Council Member Bates? You know, and again, by that same logic as I mentioned earlier, we could, on the other hand, look at doing a 2% in July. I mean, I don't know which would be preferable, but I think that would be around the same amount. But just, you know, food for thought. And at any rate, I think that this at least gets us to a point where we have something that's workable here. And I think that, you know, I think this is maybe a good framework for moving forward.

Council Member Hall. I just don't, I understand what you're coming from. I just don't think that's a really fair characterization. We're talking about numbers and we're trying to allocate them in different ways. And we're theorizing different things. So I don't appreciate that characterization as it felt. Council Member Amos. So just reiterating, sorry, I just, I hate seeing the difference being read, but maybe I can get over it. But you're fully confident that you would be able to find that? Okay. Sorry, I just, I'm wired to really hate that, but I get it. But if we can make that work, this isn't bad. Yeah, we would take it out of the managers. Well, we were taking, no, this is a negative. You don't get pens.

But we would take it out of the managers contingency for the year. Yeah. To make a balance. And no touching the fund balance. No, this does take out that 125, yeah. And not putting it up. I could work with this. So I guess it's really, you know, well, I don't want to jump too far ahead because I'm sure you have some additional input. But this is a whole scenario that if we could get some consensus on, it gets us writing staff reports and moves us forward. But I know you may have some additional input. Okay. Council Member Bates, did you have something? Yeah. I'm just a little, you know, I mean, I literally did suggest exactly that earlier on in the night. So as a serious suggestion, I'm not sure, you know, where that came from.

But just, you know, moving past it, that was a serious suggestion. Okay. So do we feel this is workable? I mean, Council Member Peterson? Just so I understand the discussion, is the question mark a timing question? Whether to accelerate the date? We've got 7-1 and 1-1. Is this the accelerated time schedule? So this is it right here? This would essentially be a full year application. Okay. So is there something in addition to that that's being contemplated for COLA? Because it's already accelerated here, right? No. We made that adjustment. It was at a half. Yeah. This was already at a half. This was at a half. We adjusted it back to a full year. Okay. There was a scenario where... It was half.

Yeah. Yeah. So we've already done that. So what then is the conversation about taking money from somewhere like Renaissance and putting it into COLA? What is that? That's off. We have totally reworked. We kind of violated our previous vote and made a little adjustment to... The TOT. Which is fine. Right? 10.5 is where it came from. Right. And then we made adjustments to expenses based on a conversation that we just had. Yeah. I guess I... I don't think we really understand enough about what's going on with Renaissance housing to know whether it's... Whether 150 is a viable number and whether we need to go up to a 10.5 on TOT. Let me ask a question. You know, I think there's a concern about the commitment we're making there.

We certainly could budget that amount and come back to Council. We could budget that into contingency and come back to Council at some point. And I see heads nodding in the affirmative. Okay. And then make that commitment at the time. And it just stays in the contingency until such time as we feel comfortable that we either apply it there or we apply it somewhere else. It's certainly not going to hurt to have additional unassigned balance if that's where it falls to from a bottom line perspective. So we could, in essence, again, not, you know, not necessarily... I mean, allocate it within a contingency and not get hung up on, you know, essentially where it's going to go, if that makes sense.

Do we have to go to 10.5 on TOT to do that? Yes. Yes. And is that too much based on your feeling, Dan? I've expressed my concerns about it. It's concerns that I've heard. But, again, I've heard different perspectives on it. Okay. So let's just take the temperature. Let's start with Council Member McQuillan. Does this look like you could live with it? Yes. I'm warming up to this. Yes. Council Member Bates? Yes. Council Member Peterson? Potentially. Okay. Council Member Hardy Chandler? Yes. Council Member Hall? Yes. Oh. Council Member Amos? Yes. Wow. Okay. This is, wow, we are somewhere. We have arrived somewhere. The bus is pulled up, and here we are. Okay. This is so exciting. Okay. Now what do we do?

So now, now, before 12 a.m., I think we have the information that we need. And I'm going to look to the professionals in the corner. We have the information. Yeah, he looked around the other way. I think we have the information we need to construct the staff reports and supporting documents to bring to you for budget adoption next week. Okay. Okay. That is so great. That is just so great. Good work, team. Give yourselves a round of applause. Excellent. Excellent. Excellent. Really, really good. Ms. Shinneberry? we are moving to future meeting topics all right i think that's me yeah yes yes i believe it is may 5th budget adoption so there really in essence is anything else on here except for the consideration of the ordinances that

established the budget for fy 2027 so that is essentially may 5th in its entirety looking ahead to may 12th of note on here you will see the public hearing and council action on the solid waste management plan you see our revenue bonds for um sewer system included which we've talked about tonight already we will bring back and continue the public hearing and we'll see we'll hear more from our city attorney on noise and where we are on on that we do talk about accessory dwelling units in the work session and we'll revisit compensation for mayor council on that date i will also say that melissa sent you an email yesterday regarding appointments and what she specifically noted in there was the potential

of considering appointments for commission on the arts continuum of care board environmental sustainability and only those items and at your pleasure including those items on the consent agenda so we wanted to get concurrence or not for simply those specific appointments to occur on the may 12th agenda or maybe not hearing any objections we'll put it put it on the agenda i've already set my support council member peterson yeah i'm not so sure i think i'd be in favor of us resolving the ethics and code of and conflict of interest issues okay is there any other consensus on what council would would want to see council member amos i would prefer to move those forward on the 12th okay council member hall i i am okay with moving forward with the others but i

i personally think we need to like stop the bleeding somewhere on these others we can't just be a well past a year here on holdover so i don't know yeah i think that we were very specific on the boards that were included here um and again the idea behind it would be that if we can move forward on those we're not holding up those appointments any any longer so just you know not all the ones that we contemplated before some of the ones that were up for appointment we certainly could put it on a different place on the agenda or or not so i just want to get consensus for so if we were to move forward on the top of the list on the may 12th meeting i think miss shinneberry has been a bit reluctant to schedule any more interviews but if a night is set aside to do interviews for more

vacancies that would be an opportunity to revisit a discussion within that closed meeting on the two nova parks council member hall just to be really clear i have no desire to hold up any future interviews or filling of boards this is a very specific issue related to a very specific board and i don't think it needs to be dragged or drawn out in any other way other than that one board okay so it sounds like everybody is amenable to putting um the appointment portion for the appointments made are you amenable to putting it under the consent agenda or just for ease of administrative okay put that and then we will table the other appointment schedule more interviews with potential boards and commission candidates and in that arena more discussion can be had

i think does that sound okay to everybody all right that sounds like a plan all right thank you looking ahead to the 26th the consideration of award of construction contract for providence park and van dyke park outfall restoration is on that meeting um and the introduction of an ordinance enacting and authorizing a license agreement between the city and the era of eruv committee i apologize for butchering that um and so um we'll obviously get you more information on that as we go so the relationship with the arrow has been ongoing and um the city staff has been incredibly supportive of this um and i want to say it started i can't remember 2019 many years ago yeah yeah so this this this annual revision um the staff has i think the staff report will explain exactly what it is but we have just a wonderful relationship

um with the jewish community who wants this eruv and so this is something we supported for years yes um interestingly we have a public hearing on the keeping of up to four chickens for the 26th and then a work session on i can go right through this this late at night on wilcoxon trail extension briefing and then the discussion on uh code of ethics uh mayor reed council member hall it's not mentioned on here but i have on my calendar that we have a retreat hold for saturday june 27th is that definitive at this point or we're still potentially holding i think it's scheduled so we'll certainly okay that's fine i just want to make sure i it's on my calendar and i know to be here yes and i know council has been extremely busy i've provided um

um you all with kind of an outline of how we're suggesting to move forward at least in concept on efficiency strategic planning and performance management so what i'd like you all to think about too is the sequencing piece because as we get moving into the year and i've talked to some of you up to this point of how we kind of will lay that out frankly i think our priority addressing things in the immediate is to look at the efficiency piece certainly can get into to performance management strategic planning i think is the one where you know i want to follow up with you to see how you want to lay out that that process as we move towards the end of the year and looking into the next year so more to follow on that but i think as it relates to the schedule the end of june would be a

probably a good time for us to update you on on where we are with with those processes so more more to follow on that and more food for thought and i think unless you know council wants to to dive in any further i'm happy to answer any questions through the remainder of the year and address any other items that you all would like to address are we all good on future topics no council member peterson two things first uh presuming that we approve through the budget and energy programs manager at some point we can be discussing green buildings and other related issues i would leave it i think to you to determine the viable timing for that and whether and when that shows up but i think if we do that then that becomes an option yeah that's a great point it's something that um

we are contemplating even with within the context of bringing you back the matrices uh around sustainability and so there may be an opportunity to to work session that all together with green just throwing it out as a suggestion put it all together now that the scenarios change with the budget so as we look at the matrices around you know our overall plan um it's largely contingent on capacity and so you know if we have some more understanding of where we're going uh then it might change our discussion uh in a positive way around how we're approaching both sustainability plan and green building uh so we'll come back to you with some ideas on how to workshop that well that'd be real helpful the

other thing is that i think the plan with the board and commission uh handbook and uh the training sessions etc was to come back in six months or so with an update uh and a report back on how that's going and next steps etc if i'm remembering that correctly and if i am then probably that's not too far off i can work with the city attorney on scheduling that thanks council member amos only thing i'll add is the october 27th meeting i will be requesting that city council attend in halloween costumes okay okay that could be fun all right anything else on future meet future meeting topics anything else on that before or are you you good mr alexander special thanks to everyone for uh their work tonight to staff to council and that's all of my report out this evening that's all

of your report out okay so we'll go to the uh council member comments and report out council member mcquillen i just want to quickly um say thank you to everyone who came out and uh spoke for public comment i also want to acknowledge um our events this past weekend we kicked off spotlight on the arts on friday with a fantastic um event arbor day celebration was on saturday it was the seven um 70th season as well for the fairfax little league kicked that off and then on sunday i attended my first rugby game at the old glory dc rugby i'm sorry match thank you thank you match where i learned that it's referred to as a match not a game so i'm working on that um wanted to also uh remind everyone that this friday

our women's club of fairfax is having its 70th anniversary celebration and this sunday will be the spotlight on the arts um community day in old town thank you council member bates i want to acknowledge the ribbon cutting this morning for the new emergency communication center um and i want to thank our public work staff who helped make that possible um as well as and we did have a proclamation a couple weeks ago but i want to thank our hard-working dispatchers and the officers and leadership who oversee them um it's a really impressive operation thank you councilmember peterson uh the first thing is just maybe administratively i'd like to ask to have my comment on the willard sherwood center entered into the

record if there's no objection and then to follow that i would like to actually extend special thanks to everybody on staff who worked on the financing and the cost controls for that project which were really really crucial and frankly a game changer and so our chief financial officer our city manager others were involved in that i think the community really does appreciate knowing that the city staff has the ability and exercises it to do those kinds of things to make sure we're getting the absolute best value for everything we do and finding every last opportunity for efficiency and in this case it was largely through financing and cost controls and that is something that people don't see it's behind the scenes but they appreciate enormously so i want to thank you guys um for doing

that and in terms of the rugby match uh it is the first time in something close to 50 years that i actually fielded a punt because i was on the sidelines and the ball was kicked and i was chatting with some folks and i looked up and all of a sudden the ball was coming at me from way up there in the lights and that brought back a lot of memories i used to return kicks and so i had the pleasure of actually catching one i didn't run out on the field with it but if i go back next time i'll be kind of tempted to do that but it was an awful lot of fun and for everybody in the city if you haven't been to one of these games the fact that we have a pro league here in the city at mason and that field is a is just an amazing thing and it was not only a beautiful

night that is a beautiful field a beautiful facility and it's an incredibly entertaining game for everybody so to have a pro sport right here is something i think we should really appreciate and support i think you know some folks have gone out of their way to bring that uh bring that sport and bring that team here into the city and i think it's a great thing and and we should uh we should take advantage of it thanks councilmember hartie chandler so i'd just like to say congratulations to our city and the wonderful willard sherwood center that they will have in the future looking forward to visiting that with uh other neighbors i want to thank the vision of people who years ago thought about that project and who have stayed the course

consistently throughout this process the second thing i want to highlight is mental health month which we did the proclamation for that's super important we also acknowledged older adults so i want to highlight mental health particularly for older adults and doing whatever we can to reduce social isolation and some of the other factors that contribute to mental health issues particularly for older adults thank you councilmember hall i won't bore you all with the things that council member mcquillen already went through that we did this past weekend but i do just want to thank my colleagues and the community and especially our staff for all the work that went into specifically tonight i know budget wrap-up

is never easy and i know that all of the work that went into the willard sherwood conversations and working with the county and trying to get all these things wrapped up and tied up in a nice pretty bow so that we could move forward with this project for our community is something that's been very very exciting and i am looking forward to this being here i'm happy we were able to make it work and get it done and that you know we we are all happy with where we are with it um and i do want to thank all of you i know we we really thought we were getting out of here at like 9 45 9 50 tonight um but thank you for sticking with us through the budget um i think this certainly makes it an easier lift for next week um and it also

i think gives the community time to you know reflect on where we are so please send us your emails we expect them um but i was pleasantly surprised by the lack of public hearing people coming out tonight to actually talk about the budget so i'm hopeful that that means you've studied up on it you've looked into it you've asked your questions and you've been able to attend the various things that we've done um but if that's not the case and you still have questions obviously we are here our staff is here um but thank you for everything along the way council member amos just wanted to give a special thanks to christine vincent for all the work she's put into not just spotlight in the arts but poetry night on monday and

you know as a part of the spotlight in the arts program and as a part of national poetry month it was great turnout a lot of people performed including people who told me they weren't going to do anything but wine makes you do some interesting things so uh appreciate everyone who came and sang and read poetry it was a beautiful night thank you um i want to thank jennifer rose for putting together the first ever civics b that the city has ever done um it was a great success last night we had 12 contestants and three of the five finalists are going to williamsburg to compete to represent the state of virginia in the national civics b which will be in the fall in dc so thank you so much jennifer it was a tremendous amount of work but you did it and it was great um the spotlight on the arts

reception wonderful last weekend um i'm so glad that old glory dc has found a home in fairfax city i think they were elated at the turnout there were a lot of people from the city who were out at the match on sunday uh coming up uh the rotten tomatoes is at the high school i believe this is opening weekend and that is also part of our spotlight on the arts there's a lot of events going on to support spotlight on the arts and the art walk is this sunday um in the main street of downtown there's a lot of excitement i think there's gonna be 50 different artists down there so if you have an opportunity on sunday please go down and look at the art on the art walk and with that i am going oh and thank you

to everyone who helped with the willard sherwood project um congratulations to fairfax city and also congratulations to fairfax county this is this is this is a tremendous project they are a good partner and i hope we are going to be a good partner too so with that i'm now going to adjourn the meeting at 12 13 a.m on wednesday Thank you.