City Council Work Session and Regular Meeting

Welcome to our work session for April 22nd, 2025. This is the first of our work sessions this evening. Welcome everybody here to our work session before the meeting which will begin at 7 p.m. tonight. At this time I will now recognize Ms. Clark for our first work session item. Our first item is a discussion on the community survey process. I will recognize Matthew Kaiser, Communications Director, for the staff report. Good afternoon Mayor Reed, City Council. I'm joined today by Jason Morato. He is the Vice President and Director of Community Research for ETC Institute. They are the firm that will be running the community survey for us. He just flew in from Kansas City, just arrived, so we're ready to go. Thanks. Well good afternoon. My name is Jason Morato. I'm the Vice President

and Director of Community Research at ETC Institute. And we are a marketing research firm that specializes in conducting statistically valid community surveys with city and county governments. And soon will be for the first time conducting a community survey for the City of Fairfax. So today I'm just going to give an overview of the process for conducting a community survey. And then if there are any questions I'll be happy to answer those. I just have a little background about ETC Institute. We are a national leader in providing market research for local governments. We've been doing this type of work for over 40 years. And in the last 10 years alone, we've conducted surveys to more than a thousand communities across the country. Some of our recent Virginia clients include

Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Manassas, Alexandria, Winchester. We're actually just getting ready to start a survey now for Fairfax County. And we've also conducted surveys for cities about the same size as the City of Fairfax all across the country. So this is really the type of work that we specialize in. So there are three main phases to conducting the community survey. The first step is to design the survey instrument and develop the sampling plan. The second phase is for us to administer the survey and get feedback from your residents. And then for the final phase, we'll process, analyze the data, and then provide a survey findings report. So the first step is designing the survey instrument. We work with City staff to design the survey questions.

Most surveys include a combination of standard questions that we ask in other cities across the country combined with some more customized survey questions tailored specifically for Fairfax. It's really up to you to determine what ratio you want of standard versus customized questions. For the customized, for the standard questions, for those questions, we'll be able to compare your results with other communities across the country. But then a lot of cities also like to have more tailored questions specifically for them. The typical ratio is about 60 to 70% standardized questions. The rest of them are more customized, but we'll work with staff together in kind of designing the survey instrument.

And usually it takes three to four drafts until we have a survey that we're ready to administer. And of course, we'll wait until we have city approval before we actually begin administering the survey. And when it comes to the sampling plan, we'll be surveying a random sample of city residents. And we want to make sure that the demographics of survey respondents reflect the actual population of the city. That's always one of the most important things to ensure that the survey results are statistically valid. When it comes to administering the survey, the survey is administered by a combination of mail and online. And that's our standard methodology for these community surveys. We'll mail the survey to randomly selected households throughout the city.

And that mailed survey will also include a postage paid return reply envelope. So there's no cost for residents who want to complete the survey by mail. The mailed survey will also have a link to an online version of the survey. And then the envelope that the survey's mailed in will have a QR code that links to the online survey. So there's multiple ways that residents can complete the survey. And the reason we like that hybrid approach is it allows us to reach a more diverse way. We'll also have a look at the first group of residents and get a better response rate by giving people different ways they can fill out the survey. And as we're administering the survey, we'll make sure that the demographics of survey respondents reflect the actual population of the city.

There really are two things that have to happen in order for survey results to be considered statistically valid. One is that households are selected at random to participate in the survey. And then the other thing is that the demographics of survey respondents need to reflect the actual population of the city. So we'll be monitoring key demographic areas such as age, race, ethnicity, gender, and then geographic location across the city. And then for the final phase, we'll process, analyze the data, and provide a survey findings report. The report will include a summary that gives an overview of the methodology that we used to administer the survey. It'll highlight key findings from the survey.

We'll include charts and graphs for each question that was on the survey. The survey also will include some benchmarking comparisons. What we'll do is we'll compare your results to other communities across the country. I'll show an example of that in just a minute here. The report will also include what we call important satisfaction analysis. And that's a tool that we use to help cities determine which areas should be the highest priorities for the city to focus on over the next couple of years. I'll explain that in more detail in just a minute as well. And then we'll also include what we call GIS maps. And what we'll do there is take the survey results and break them out geographically across the city.

And then after we provide that report, one of our staff members will come out and give a presentation of our survey findings. This is just an example of the type of benchmarking data that we'll provide. This slide is from a survey we recently conducted for the city of Manassas. So here you can see the dark blue line or Manassas residents who are either very satisfied or satisfied with these services. The light blue line represents a regional average. Those are the satisfaction ratings for residents throughout Virginia as well as surrounding states. And then the gray bar are satisfaction ratings from residents from all across the country. So this really adds context to the data and helps you understand what these results mean.

For example, if you look at the third row from the bottom, effectiveness of communication with the community. Manassas had a 53% satisfaction rating. You might wonder, is that good? Is that bad? We can see that's above the regional average and it's far above the national average. So that's actually a really good rating for communication. So that's really the value of this benchmarking data that we'll provide. This is something that we call the important satisfaction rating. And this is something we use to really help communities determine what areas should be the highest priorities to focus on. This is based on two different types of data. First, we ask residents how satisfied they are with services.

Then we ask which services residents feel should be the top priorities for city leaders to focus on. And the idea behind this is that the items that have a combination of low satisfaction ratings, but at the same time, a rate as the most important are the ones we identify as the highest priorities. The reason we like to factor in both satisfaction and importance when setting priorities is because you could have an area that has a low satisfaction rating. But that doesn't necessarily mean that residents wanting to invest a lot of resources into that area. So it's good to factor in both satisfaction and importance when you're trying to set priorities. So this here is an example for a survey we conducted recently for the city of Norfolk.

You can see for them public schools and traffic flow are the highest priorities. And then this is something we called our GIS maps. What we do here is we break the results out by census block group. It's great to have the results overall for all response that fill out the survey. But what this does is let you take a look at to see if there are certain areas within the city who have different perceptions or ratings of city services. This example is for a city we recently surveyed in Texas. And this shows the ratings for sidewalks in your neighborhood. The dark blue areas are the highest rated areas. So you can see there's one area where residents are very satisfied with sidewalks. The light blue are good ratings as well.

And the yellow are some of the lower areas. So overall the city received very good ratings for sidewalks. But then when you look at it broken out by census block group, you can really identify which areas have the lowest ratings. So that's just a fairly brief overview of the overall process for conducting the survey. Typically this process takes about four months, about a month to design the survey questions, about two months to prepare the survey for printing and mailing and then administer the survey. And then about a month for us to process and analyze the data and then provide that survey findings report. So with that, if anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Questions from the dais?

Councilmember Hall. I have a question. Excuse me. Based on our population, how many surveys do you think you would be sending out for about 24,000-ish residents? Our goal is to receive at least 400 completed surveys, which is a very typical response rate for a city of this size. Really for cities up to even 50,000 or 60,000 residents, 400 surveys is the common goal for a number of completed surveys. The typical response rate for a survey of this length, and this survey will be about five to six pages long. It will have about 25 to 30 questions. So it's a pretty lengthy survey. The typical response rate is around 12 to 15 percent. So we mail surveys to about seven to eight times the number of households as completed surveys that we need.

So in this case, we'll be mailing the survey to about 3,000 randomly selected households. Now we're guaranteeing a minimum of 400 completed surveys. If we have a really good response, we may end up with more than that. We end up with 430 or 450, but guaranteed a minimum of 400 surveys. Okay. Excuse me. I think you answered about three questions in one, so that's great. What languages do you send them out in? We haven't talked about that too much with city staff. That's really customized based on each city, but we definitely can make it available in multiple languages. Okay. Typically, we mail the survey just in English, but then we'll mail a cover letter along with a survey that describes the purpose of the survey.

And we can translate part of that cover letter into multiple languages. And then the online version of the survey is available in multiple languages as needed. And a lot of times, we'll also provide a phone number for residents who want to call in and take the survey over the phone in a different language or just have a question about the survey. Okay. So that service then is offered in whatever language they would need when they call? Yeah. That's exactly right. Okay. That's great. And then as far as the numbers for the residents across the U.S., is this just accumulation of all of the surveys that you've done across the country, or are you pulling from other sort of satisfaction survey data elsewhere?

There's two different sources for that benchmarking data. One, there are cities that we've surveyed all across the country. And then also every one to two years, ETC Institute conducts a national survey with about 10,000 randomly selected residents across the country. So that's part of the benchmarking data. We'll compare your results with our national survey. But then we also can compare your results with specific cities that we've surveyed. We'll provide the results for specific surveys, but we'll provide an average for, say, cities in Virginia, or it could be in cities of similar size to Fairfax from across the country. Okay. Thank you very much. Sure. Other questions? Councilmember Peterson.

The non-respondents. Do you expect non-response bias of any significance? No, I don't. The typical response rate is 12 to 15%, which is a good response rate. If the response rate were 5% or lower than that, then I would be concerned with that. But I don't expect the response to be that low. It really never is in our surveys. And I think offering in that hybrid approach where we give people different ways to fill out the survey helps us get a good response. Well, maybe to ask it a slightly different way, what is the experience in terms of the perspectives, the survey-based results from people who do and do not respond? In other words, for people who do not respond, are they likely to be more satisfied and people who do respond are less or vice versa?

Do we have any sense around that? Well, these results should represent the entire city because they are statistically valid. So the non-people who don't respond, the results should be similar to this. Now, there is a margin of error. The results are not perfect even for a statistically valid survey. But the fact that households are selected at a random and that the demographics of our survey respondents reflect the actual population of the city means that these results truly do represent the entire city within a small margin of error. And pardon me for not knowing the history, but has there been a survey like this done? Maybe this is a staff question previously for the city or is this the first time?

I believe this would be the first time. And just to follow up on that, would this survey then serve the function of and be designed to provide a baseline, if you will, to see what sort of changes occur in the future if we do come back at another point? Yeah, absolutely. Most cities we work with do conduct these surveys on a regular basis. The most frequent timeframe is every other year. Some do it only every three to four years. Some actually do it every year. And a lot of the questions would remain the same so that for exactly that reason, so you can measure trends over time, but then also so you know what the current priorities are for residents. But then there's the option each time to change in a few questions as needed.

So, yeah, most cities do conduct these types of surveys on a regular basis. And then you mentioned roughly 60% to 70% standard questions, 30% to 40% customized. For the customized questions, what sorts of things do you customize versus using standard benchmarking questions in a case like this? Some cities might provide services that are a little more unique. And it's not that we've never asked that question before, but maybe something we just don't ask as frequently. Something like that. There might be some, I know we surveyed a city recently that had specific questions about related to growth that was unique to their city. So those types of questions and that's 60 to 70% ratio standard versus customized is just an average ratio.

It can be whatever ratio, you know, we want. And then I guess this may be a staff question, but it's a survey question as well. More generally, you're sending a mail survey out. Right. I'm guessing that's because mail is the most effective way to get a response. But I am curious how that compares with digital, with electronic survey outreach. Right. You know, because we have this standard question in the city of, you know, which tools to use for which audiences. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Yeah. It's a mail online combination. We mail the survey to the randomly selected households, but then that mailed survey does have a link to an online survey. The URL will be printed on the survey, but then there also there's a QR code on the envelope.

I think one of the benefits of doing a mailed survey is that it makes a survey seem more legitimate. We'll include a cover letter that'll include city letterhead. It's usually signed by the mayor or city manager. Briefly describes the purpose of the survey. So I think that helps the survey seem more legitimate. Typically about 30 to 40 percent of surveys are completed by mail. The other 60 to 70 percent online. That's a typical ratio. So we still get a pretty good response to the mailed survey, but it does, as time goes on, skew a little more towards online. I worked at the ETC Institute for 20 years. When we first started, it was all mail and phone, sometimes even just phone. And then as time has gone on, we've, you know, graduated to now this current method, which seems to be the most effective way.

Well, thanks. And my last question is for cities where either you or someone has repeated surveys on some regular basis. As a practical matter, how much change do you see? What might we expect if we were to repeat this in the future? I mean, it definitely varies a lot from one community to the next. Usually over a span of a couple of years. It's not huge changes, but there could be, especially if there are like significant road improvements or changes to the way you're offering some type of city services. Those things can certainly affect changes. I mean, it really varies a lot from one city to the next, depending on just what all is taking place with the city. Thank you. Councilmember Hardy-Chandler.

So I was delighted to hear, you know, attempts to get a representative sample. We certainly want information from across the city. So if you're doing a random sample and you said you're monitoring incoming responses for demographic representation. So how do you make adjustments to your approach in order to make sure that you're getting that diversity of age and background and that sort of thing? Yeah. So as we're administering the survey, if we're not getting enough surveys from a certain demographic group, whether it be younger residents or a certain geographic part of the city, then we'll do more outreach to try to target that group. And there's different ways we could do that. We use whatever method it seems like would work best with that group.

One of the most common methods is we'll send out a postcard with the QR code and a link to the online survey. We could even mail additional surveys if we think that would be best. So those are some of the most common ways. We use text messages, but not as often. That's really kind of if we just need a small number of surveys. So, so that's so we just determine which method really would be the best way to reach whatever group we're missing. Is there any way or what are the most effective ways that maybe council members or other elected officials can help support the survey process and get the word out? Make sure outreach is stronger. Yeah, I think just raise awareness of the survey. Just mention it, especially before people receive the survey in the mail.

So they're keeping an eye out for it and they're hopefully less likely to just throw it away thinking it's junk mail. So yeah, just mention it to people, increasing awareness that that definitely could help the response rate. And when are we launching? I don't know if we've determined that yet. We haven't started designing the survey yet, but typically that process takes about a month. Okay. And then it takes us from that point a couple of weeks for us to prepare the survey for Princeton and mailing. So it will still be a little while. Council member Amos. Thank you for being here. My pretty much my only question is, is this also broken down by household type? You know, town homes, apartments, things like that?

Yeah, it absolutely can be. We always want to include at least some basic demographic questions on the survey. Age, race, ethnicity, gender. We can include other ones as well, like type of house, household income, how residents have lived in the city. Those are really optional questions we can ask if needed, if you want to see the results broken out that way. But they're pretty common questions. And this may be an unnecessary question, but I figured I'd just ask real quick. So when you do your comparisons, when analyzing the data, do you also factor in variations in policies that exist between different localities and states? For example, we're in a Dillon rule state. How do you compare that with data from locations that are in home rule states and what we're allowed to do and not allowed to do?

It may not be important, but just wondering. Right. Yeah, I don't know that we factor that in too much. I mean, we could. There's really, we have a lot of flexibility in how we compare the results. Now, the more specific we get, the less cities we have to compare you with. So we have to keep that in mind. I don't know that we've done that before, but we could. But yeah, there's a lot of flexibility in how we can benchmark you with other communities. Council member McQuillen. Mayor Reed. Understanding that we have some people out there that are illiterate, do you then go to phone calls if you find that you're not getting responses through the QR codes in the mail? I, you recognize, you said, or you mentioned that you do text messages or you used to.

We do use text messages really as one of our follow-up methods, just as needed. We don't do it for every survey. We typically include a phone number on the mailed survey for people who want to call us and take the survey over the phone. We don't place many outgoing phone calls anymore. We used to do that a lot, but now it's just very difficult to get a hold of people and most people don't want to take the survey over the phone. But it's an option for those who do want to do the survey that way. Wonderful. And then I had one more question about the detail in designing the questions. I recognize that some of those questions that you showed earlier said quality. So can you dive deeper into that kind of stuff then?

I understand that we have some control over the design and. Yeah, absolutely. So a lot of these questions I looked at or I showed at the beginning of this survey, there's typically a question that asked about major categories of city services. We're asking residents to rate these areas at the big picture departmental level. And that's really what a lot of this is. But then later on in the survey, we do ask about more specific areas within some of these categories. So here, for example, it just says quality of police services. And later on, we might ask about visibility of police in neighborhoods, how quickly police respond to emergencies, enforcing traffic laws. So, yeah, this is kind of the beginning of the survey.

Big picture. We get into more detail as residents get into the survey. Thank you. I just didn't want to assume. Thank you. Other questions? So if we are going to support the survey, I guess my question is, if everyone's not receiving the survey and we're supporting the survey, what happens when people are like, I didn't get one? Well, the reason we do a random sample is that so the results can't be skewed by non-responding. Right. Totally makes sense. So that's, you know, the reason why we do this. Now, one thing some cities do, in addition to this, we open the survey up for anyone to fill out. But we would separate out the random sample versus anyone else who fill out the survey. And we would provide both sets of data.

But our main report, like you're seeing here, would be based on that random sample. It totally makes sense to do a random sampling. But it's just like, if we're telling everybody, look for your survey, answer the survey, and people are like, but I, we have a very engaged community here. It's very engaged. And I can just, people going, I didn't get one. Right. So I'm just, I'm just trying to, in my head, figure out what our plan is for responding to, oh, so you didn't get a survey. Yeah. And if we can collect and separate out that data. And you're telling me that we can do that. We can. That's, that's something, yeah, that's pretty common. We don't do it that way for every survey, but, but fairly often.

So yeah, we can definitely do that. Okay. The way that works is the printed survey has the address on the back, so we know what address it came from. And then if someone takes a survey online, they provide their home address. And that's how we separate out the random sample versus anyone else who took the survey. So. Perfect. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. This was very informative and we appreciate it. Hey. Hey. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Ms. Clark. Our next item is a discussion and update on the fire station number three feasibility study. I will recognize John O'Neill, fire chief for the staff presentation. of the design of the design of the design of design of 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

Good evening, Mayor and Council. A little tech support. We wanted to provide you with an update on the Station 3 project and provide you with some background on how we got to where we are today. After the presentation, solicit feedback from you. Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Mark Minetti to discuss the feasibility study, space needs analysis, and initial concept designs, I wanted to give a little background. In the fall of 2021, we opened the new Fire Station 33. At that time, there were a lot of discussions with the Council and City Manager on their desire to improve the quality of life and address health and safety concerns at Station 3, thus providing the same quality work environment for both work groups.

As you may know or heard me mention in the past, Station 33 has many cancer reduction features and technologies with gear, decontamination spaces, isolation zones, and separate storage areas for personal protective equipment, not exposing them to the diesel exhaust on the apparatus bay floor. 33 was also designed to help address sleep deprivation concerns with the individual bunk rooms, knowing sleep deprivation has a direct link to cancer and cardiac risk. Additionally, 33 provided adequate base space for modern equipment and helped to ensure safe apparatus movements along with adequate storage and work areas. So in mid-FY22, the funds were appropriated to start the feasibility study and the future replacement

for Station 3. We put out an RFP for a feasibility study and possible design options and eventually awarded the contract to the BKV Architect Group in September of 22. The CIP project subsequently was endorsed by the Planning Commission each year during the CIP budget processes, and funds were appropriated for the land acquisition and design. It was also at that time that we started the serious discussions with the Fairfax Volunteer Fire Department Board of Directors on the transfer of the land and the building of the current Station 3 to the city. And as you may know or remember, the design concept process was stalled for a period of time as we explored land acquisition options, and we started back with that process after we

acquired the Mason Foundation property to the south of Station 3. So with that, I'll turn the floor over to Mr. McNetti for his presentation on the study and the process to date. Mark, it's yours. Familiar faces? And I see some new faces. So some of this may be recap, and then for others, it may be the first time you're hearing this. So the purpose of meeting with you today is to review the process to date with City Council and to review the project, give you a project progress update to the due diligence process that culminated in the acquisition of the adjacent parcel for the purpose of delivering the Fairfax City Fire Station Number 3 facility, to talk about next steps with respect to the

program validation and concept design, and to gather further feedback from the City Council. So just in recap, we divided the process up into several different scopes. So scope A was the functional assessment of the existing facility. So we looked at your existing fire station number three from many different perspectives. We looked at it from just a systemic perspective to see what the available life cycle is for the building, how the building programmatically operates, how it supports the mission of fire and rescue. We looked at the site and utility assessment to determine whether or not the existing site would support a redevelopment. And as I mentioned, a full systematic assessment determined which systems could facilitate a

renewal, a renovation, or expansion of the existing building. The outcomes of that were very definitive. The existing building fabric. Actually, you can go to the next slide. I think I have. Okay. So, well, we'll get to that. But scope B, while we were assessing the existing facility, we were also validating the program for the new facility. So we went through and developed room criteria sheets for each space that would occur within the fire station facility. And looking at best practices, as Fire Chief mentioned, that was really important to the city to make sure that the new fire station had the latest and greatest in terms of best practices. And so we developed the program based on the needs assessment.

And then the next step of the process included. Go ahead. We then took that program and we did some test fits of the existing site. So here we're looking at the existing fire station facility. We're looking at what can we preserve of the existing fabric of the building. What made sense, again, from an operational perspective, from a best practices perspective, from the current program as we developed it, as the needs have increased and the staffing has increased and the vehicle, the needs for the different crews have increased, that all needed to be considered. So the first part of that was to look at the existing building to see if there was potential to expand, replace, to expand the building first and renovate it, but also potentially

to replace the building on the current site. And as I was getting ready to say, related to the existing building, there really wasn't potential to salvage any portion of that building to support the development of a new state-of-the-art fire station. The existing building occurred on four stories. It was built in additions, different types of construction. The fabric of the structural fabric of the building was not conducive to expanding or renovating in place. So the option of reusing the existing facility and expanding and replacing was determined to not be in the city's interest. So then we were looking at test fitting a replacement facility, but on the current site. So the current site, as you know, is a very narrow parcel.

Typical state-of-the-art fire stations, we like to have drive-through bays. In this case, the program was set for five drive-through vehicle bays. And we looked at different out-of-the-box options for how we might be able to facilitate the delivery of a new fire station on the existing site. One of the things that needs to be understood is if we are building on the existing site, that necessitates a temporary site or relocation of facilities to portions of the facilities to the existing fire station three. So there's added cost when you do that. So we did do our due diligence to figure out if there was viable ways that we could replace the building on the current site. And while there were options, they weren't great.

And that led us to come back to the city council and seek kind of a thumbs up to begin to look for new site candidates for relocating the facility. And so that takes us to the next scope. So scope D, finding the new site. We looked at different characteristics, GIS data, call data from the fire department. And we developed a criteria for selecting the sites and scoring the sites. And we looked at, I can't remember how many candidates we looked at here. It looks like there's nine of them. We may have looked at more, but they didn't fall. They fell out of the survey. And we mapped them. And we scored each one of the candidates related to the criteria. And the locations that were highest, we evaluated and did test fits on those sites.

That included, ultimately, the site that was occupied by the George Mason Hope Foundation? Yeah, the George Mason Foundation. So the next step, again, this goes a little bit deeper into the location and response that was in the survey. So obviously, your existing fire station 3 is where it is. Your existing fire station 33 is where it is. Your response times are predicated by that. So any movement is going to change the dynamic for response, right? And your city has kind of a, I guess, really an east-west and north-south access in terms of the way the traffic patterns work. And so ultimately, what we were finding was it was favored to be closer to fire station 3 in order to respond to the city.

So ultimately, what that was leading us to was either the parcel to the right or to the left of the existing fire station. Okay. And as part of that due diligence process, we did, as I mentioned, test fits on every one of the site candidates that we felt were substantial and valid to go through that process. This is the one that we did for the George Mason property to validate that that site would actually function and support the delivery of a new fire station. So the next step of that process was then to acquire the site, which the city, I think we went on a little bit of a pause during that time while the city reached out to, actually, I think they were looking at both parcels. And ultimately, the George Mason University parcel became available.

It was acquired. I may have my dates incorrect, but there was a due diligence process in 2024. We conducted a site survey and also a phase one environmental site assessment of the site to capture data to make sure that we're mitigating risk on the city's behalf. Once that due diligence process was completed and the site okayed for purchase, the city procured it. And we are now in, again, this is scope B, the due diligence process. This is the site survey that we delivered. And I think the next slide is the phase one survey that we did. So the next step, scope F, was then to go into the concept design for the facility. And that's where we currently are right now. We've been meeting with the fire department and with the public works group for the city through a series of workshops to develop the site plan, the building floor plan, and then the concept building elevations.

And so we just completed, let's see, workshop four. And we had a great session. And we have three different building concepts that we will be coming back to the city council to present to you. We couldn't get it in the docket in time for this meeting, but we'll be coming back to you for that. So you can see the schedule right now when we're in scope F. And so we're looking to complete that here in June. Thank you, Mark. So as far as next steps go, we would like to complete the preliminary concept designs, update the project cost estimates, and start the discussion processes with the BAR and Planning Commission on design elements, and of course meet with other community members and groups for their feedback.

So with that, that concludes our formal presentation, and we'll gladly take your questions and feedback that you have on the project. Questions from the dais? Questions? Questions? Council Member Hardy Chandler. Very quick curiosity question. What's an ALTA survey? The ALTA survey, that's a property type of survey. I'm not quite exactly sure what's done, but it has to do with titles and those types of things. Thank you. Did you have a question? Council Member Hall. So in the CIP, we have $41 million estimated for this, 11.6, which was adopted in fiscal 2025, and then 18, 18, and 5 over the next three years. Do we have any idea if that is still a reasonable figure to complete this? That's what we hope to come from, away from this once we have a more definitive design concept,

preliminary design concepts, to be able to update that. That was based probably on data from two years ago, based on per square foot building costs from Loudon, Fairfax, and Henrico counties for similar type facilities. That's how we came up with the figures that are there, as a rough order of magnitude. I'm not sure if Mr. Summers or Saeed has any additional. Yep. As Chief mentioned, that cost estimate is a rough order of magnitude cost estimate. We gathered data from similar fire stations around London County and other counties around the Fairfax, and developed that estimate based on the space program that we had at that time. So, as we move forward during the design, we will further refine that cost estimate,

whether it goes up or down, based on the space program and other factors. And one factor right now that I see, the tariffs are, like, kind of impacting future construction, and some contractors are, like, looking at that as a potential to increase the cost for future projects. So, but we have not considered that yet, but we will see. Okay. So then based on where we are in the process, then, is it reasonable that we would need $18 million in the current, I'm sorry, in the fiscal year 2020, I don't know who I'm looking at, because I'm not sure I was going to ask it. But we have $18 million in fiscal year 2026. Do we know what we spent to date of the 11.6? And do we know, do we need all of this to come through the design phase?

So, I may defer to Mark here in a minute as far as what time frame he believes it would take for the schematic designs. But to date, we've spent $5.7 million on property acquisition. And with BKB, we've spent just a hair over $139,000 for the feasibility study and concepts where we're at to date. So, we have not spent all of that $11. And chances are, by the time schematic design is completed and we go out to bid, I would probably believe we would not spend that $18 million in FY26, that full $18 million. But I defer, perhaps, to the experts. So, working with JC, we have leveled the budget. So, we don't want a $50 million in one year. And also, before awarding the construction contract, we should have a fully funded project.

So, this is in preparation for a world of construction in future years. So, we have leveled the budget. Okay. Fully funded means slightly different things to different people, too, though. Because I think we'd have to go out and issue debt in order to cover some, all of this. Correct? Yeah, that's correct. We would, so, the way that CIP generally works is, like they said, was that you typically level funded, you budget and appropriate. But the cash piece would be, in this case, would be the debt service. Or, excuse me, would be the bonds that would be sold to fund this project. So, but we can't, unless council has budgeted and appropriated, we can't actually go to bid and award it. So, it's always a timing issue.

But you're not actually, you're basically, in this process, you're granting the authority. But until we issued debt, which still has to come back to you for approval, you actually have, we're not actually spending the money or spending that level of money until it's actually done. But from a process standpoint, we need to show that in the CIP for you all to budget and appropriate so we, so the project can continue to move forward. So, yes, I understand that. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that we were still thinking that these numbers were mostly accurate and if there was any sort of reason that we needed to go up or down for 2026. So, to make sure that that was, since we're having this meeting, that that was still an accurate figure.

So, thank you. Any other questions? Council Member Peterson. Just to follow up on that, if I understand it correctly, you're levelizing costs so that we can finance over term and we'll pull debt to do that and then we'll be into a regular debt service payment over some period of time. Is that the correct way to interpret what we're doing here? Can you repeat? I'm going to make sure I'm following you. Can you repeat that, please? So, we're taking these lumps and we're going to put them together and we're going to create a level, a whole lump and we're going to create a level series of payments over a period of time through borrowing, through debt. And that period of time, I'm curious to know how many years that is.

I'm also curious to know how big that annual payment will be that comes out of that and when we will know what that level is. Okay. Okay. So, it's a couple of different things. First, so, we're talking about two different things, slightly different things. So, what's in the CIP, what you're seeing in the numbers in the CIP, ultimately we'll get, we're covering whatever, what we expect to be the total cost. That's not actually the debt or the amounts or schedule that the debt will be issued. So, once we get closer to construction, we will issue debt as needed. But we also combine our, we aggregate our debt. So, for example, we'll be doing school projects presumably coming up. We might have other building projects or other projects.

So, we will issue debt for a multitude, potentially a multitude of projects and this would just be one component of that debt. And because of the multi-year nature, we may issue some of, you know, we may issue part of the debt to get started and pay for construction. And then, you know, a year or two years later, we may issue the remainder of the debt because this will be a multi-year process. So, the fire, the fire station construction is probably 18 months or longer would be my guess. So, you know, you're potentially spanning three fiscal years depending on when you start. And so, that's why we will finance it in such a way. But to your point, yes, the payments will, the payments will be level once we start paying the debt service.

So, we will know what those payments are. But I can't answer, until we know the cost, I can't answer your question specifically about what the debt service payment will be specifically on this project. But that's generally how we, we don't typically do single project debt issuance. We would aggregate that for multiple projects. And then, in terms of what shows up in the annual fiscal year budget that is attributable to this project or any other project, is that going to be some share of or level of debt service? And that shows up as the cost burden for this individual project? Or is the cost burden going to be the actual invoice that comes in recognizing that that invoice is actually going to be serviced out of a pool of debt that's been set aside for that?

Is that, I mean, are we looking at an annual budget that's just a series of debt payments? Are we looking at an annual budget that's the estimated very unlevel costs? No. From the budget perspective, you're going to be looking at the level debt payments. That's what, you're not, it's not going to go, it's not going to go up and down. And, you know, so what you'll see is, you'll see there's somewhat of a delta between what's in the CIP and what you actually adopt over your debt. That's because you're not actually spending that money issuing that debt. But, yes, what you're ultimately going to see in the budget. And then what I believe, and JC can correct me, I think the debt service is just a single line.

It's not, you know, we show it as a single entry in the budget. It's not, we track it obviously in our accounting system, but from a budget perspective, the debt's just a single amount. But as a practical matter, can you share that debt out by project? We can. If this one's a $56 million load? We can. Okay. Yeah, we can do that. And then from a timing perspective, I know we're playing with estimates now, but when is it that we get a better feel for what the costs actually look like here? Sure. So we will update the project costs along the way in a few milestones. First, after we complete the concept design, we will provide an update. And the actual bits that we received once the design is complete, that will be the real number that we can expect this project would cost.

Other than that, end of concept design and along the design, maybe 85% of the design will provide, I mean Mark, will provide another update, updated cost estimate. And we will base our, we will update you along the way. Would you like to add anything? Yeah, that's typically, we'll, we'll do an estimate at the end of the concept phase, right? And that's typically what they would call a class, I might get this backwards, I think a class four order of magnitude. It's beyond an order of magnitude. You've got some definitives because you've got a plan. It's not just a square footage number. You've got some type of architectural intent. And then at DD, when you've got your major system selected, you get into a much more broken down estimate.

So it becomes much more accurate. Then in the documents phase, we typically have one estimate that is commissioned at that point too. And that one is, is, is, is closer to what you would get on bid day. So you typically during the design process, you're going to hold a contingency within the estimate, right? Because there's a design contingency because we haven't finished the design. It's in process. And then that contingency is diminished as the design is developed. So you're looking at these in different milestones. And then, you know, a design development is like when we want to say that, you know, the design direction is, is kind of where it needs to be. We were meeting the budget goals and we can move forward into the documents phase.

So that's where we would have a course correction, right? If we saw that we're outside of where the budget goals are, it may mean looking at systemically or looking at deferred program or scope or something like that in order to meet the budget goals. And that typically needs to happen at the end of design development. We don't want to go beyond that without, like, we're on track. And we monitor during the documents phase as well. You know, it could be one or two different submissions that we do to get estimates in order to go through that phase. And then, you know, one of them would be pretty close to prior to bid. So probably when we submit the documents for permit, we'll do the final estimate based on that.

Thank you. Beat me to the punch on the course corrections. What does the timing look like in terms of when potentially you would evaluate that need? So we're moving pretty, we've got a pretty good pace that we're going on with our workshops right now. And again, we're going to be coming back to you with a presentation of the design concepts and getting the city council's kind of direction on which direction you want us to proceed. And then we'll develop that for our BAR presentation and community outreach. That ends the concept phase. And then the design development phase can be completed in eight to ten weeks typically. We're going to be at that point looking at major system selections. This building will have a goal of sustainability.

And the city is determining what that goal is going to be. There are state requirements for sustainability as well. So there's minimum requirements for these types of facilities. And so, you know, we've talked about that internally. We will probably have a sustainable design workshop during the concept phase to determine our sustainable goals for the project. And that's going to chart the course. But for DD, we figure probably eight to 12 weeks we can complete the DD phase. And at that point, the basis of design is identified. We have a cost estimate that's supporting those system selections. And we'll know where we are if we need to make any course corrections. Thank you. Other questions? From Dias?

All right. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. Very informative. Thank you. Ms. Clark? Our next item is a discussion and update on the Willard-Sherwood development. I'll recognize Brook Harden, Community Development and Planning Director, for the staff presentation. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Pleased to be with you today to present the Willard-Sherwood Health and Community Center project. With me this afternoon are other city staff, Fairfax County staff, the project architects with Grimm and Parker, and the city's project management consultant with Blue Heron Leadership Group. There will be a few presenters who I will ask to introduce themselves as they begin speaking. We will go through each of the topics listed here on the agenda slide.

We'll try to be brief in our presentation, leave time for questions, if it's possible to save those to the end. To provide context to the project's location and how we arrived at a partnership with Fairfax County, we wanted to touch a bit on what led us there. The 2014 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan recommended that the city study green acres. The committee was then formed and found that the existing facility was not conducive for a community center in terms of its layout and condition and identified a host of deficiencies. The committee recommended a new community center at a central location in the city that would be more accessible to all residents and served by transit. The committee considered 21 potential locations and narrowed those to six finalist sites, which the Willard Health Center site was one.

The drawback at that time was that the county's feasibility study hadn't started, so future plans for the Willard site were unknown. So the city then proceeded with an alternatives analysis to evaluate three city-owned or partially city-owned sites. All of those sites presented significant impacts to open space, tree cover, and or current operations, and none other than Van Dyke was central. Transit served with a campus layout that provided a connection to other city facilities and parkland. There was support for being Van Dyke adjacent, but there was no interest in building in the park. The county conducted its feasibility study around that time and moved up its redevelopment timeline for the Willard Center,

which aligned well with the city's desire to proceed. Joint interest in working together has now manifested itself into a number of agreements between the two jurisdictions that are summarized on this slide. The city-county joint project team has worked closely together, meeting weekly for a number of years. Fairfax County is handling procurement for the project, but city staff coordinates on scoping, participates on selection committees, works with the designer, and collaborates on the preparation of all documents. Since phase two is where we are now, and that agreement covers how our relationship is proceeding into the future, I'll cover that in a little bit more detail on another slide. The school facility condition assessment wasn't completed until September of 2023,

so the Willard project was already underway, but I did want to mention just briefly that the findings from that assessment listed on this slide confirmed the earlier work of the Green Acres Committee on the condition of the building and the recommendation for a new facility. Back to a little more detail on the phase two agreement, which covers the project through completion of construction. Site and building costs are generally broken down by the pro rata share assigned to each jurisdiction according to program space. This is currently 58% county and 42% city. We will have a slide toward the end that will cover current cost estimates. Parking costs are assigned based on the number of spaces required for each jurisdiction's use,

which is 64% county and 36% city. But I will note here that this formula applies to how the cost of parking is assigned, but the spaces themselves will be shared in use. The agreement specified that at each stage of design, the jurisdictions will evaluate proceeding or terminating, and that is what has occurred to advance the project to the current final stage of design. The agreement also covers the construction manager at risk form of construction procurement, and the guaranteed maximum price for the project. Ownership and use is covered in the agreement. The city does not pay for the property and will have a 99-year lease with automatic renewals. The county retains ownership of the property,

but the city will have indefinite use without acquisition costs. The agreement specifies that an additional agreement that covers ongoing operations and maintenance is to be prepared, and an administrative committee to provide building governance is to be formed. As I mentioned, we'll go in greater detail on design as well as the program, but the basics are that the existing Willard Health Center will be demolished and replaced with a new facility connected to the existing Sherwood Center. That includes the existing programs and services offered by the county at the site currently, adding in a child care center, and moving the city programs currently at Green Acres to the new facility. This will be a green building with a LEED Gold certification,

and we are working our way as close to net zero energy as is feasible, meeting state requirements for new public buildings. With that, I'll turn it over to James Patterson to review the project schedule and community engagement. Thank you, Brooke, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you all. I'm helping with the project management for the city's project. I also live in the city, so I'm looking forward to hopefully working out in this building in the not-too-distant future. I'll touch on the project schedule and talk a little bit about the community engagement elements. This project started, as Brooke said, with Green Acres in 2015, but the project formally with this design, the due diligence site evaluation started in December 2021.

We went through a concept design phase through 2022 and into 2023. We've been going through the design permitting and entitlement. The entitlement is in for its third review currently. The permits, the site permit was submitted roughly a month ago, and the building plans are supposed to be submitted this Friday. So we're at the end of the design, going through the permitting. The plan is to award construction, and we're using a CMAR construction manager at risk procurement method, which you bring the contractor, the general contractor, on during, at the end of schematic design, and they work with us hand and glove to kind of build in constructability and value engineering as we go through the process.

It's been a very successful partnership up to this point. They actually bid out the project to the HVAC, the plumbing, the site, the earthwork folks, and that will happen towards the end of this year, this calendar year. And that's when we come back with a guaranteed maximum price. When the project's fully bid, we know the total price. They guarantee that price throughout. And then the construction would start the first quarter of 2026 and go through the fourth quarter of 2028. Next slide, Brooke. This slide really just shows one of the things the city council made very clear to us back in 2021-2022, is they wanted a very thorough and robust community engagement process. And what this shows is that we went through each phase, the pre-design, the due diligence,

to the concept, looking at different alternatives to the schematic design, design development, and now in the construction document phase. Is each of those phases we met with the folks listed, the Board of Architecture Review, PRAB, Commission on the Arts, the community, and the mayor and the city council through each phase with the mayor and the city council, the city council having to approve us going to the following phase. The pre-design was in January of 2022. And what was, as part of that robust engagement, we met with the community, we met with all these groups before the architect put pen to paper, you know, came out with a question of what do you want in a community center? What should this design?

How does it fit within the context of the community? So we wanted that input to inform the design throughout. And then we'd come back to the community and all the stakeholders at each phase is, hey, did we meet your expectations? You know, what are you looking for in the next phase? What's shown on the, oh, I wanted to highlight just a couple numbers from our engagement. The very first community meeting in January 2022, we had, this was in COVID, so we had two virtual, one in person, fully masked up. We had 150 people participate at the three events. We did an online survey through Engage Fairfax. We had almost 1,500 hits or visitors and 465 comments that we received through Engage Fairfax. What this slide also shows on the right is just the different stakeholders that were engaged,

kind of the usual folks that would be engaged in a project like this. But then all the different community associations and HOAs. We went to the senior center, Lunch and Learn. We went to the senior center committee. We went to the churches that are kind of dotted around that site. Went to Daniels Run Elementary, Fairfax High School. We went to the Layton Hall apartments. So we did a lot of outreach to get a lot of good input. And at the bottom of this slide, which you all have, is the project website. You can go in and engage Fairfax and kind of pull up the history and the different presentations. So you can go to the county website and all of the community meetings, the virtual ones, were recorded.

So you actually can go on there and listen to the recordings of the feedback we received. Next slide. This slide, I'm not going to read all these comments, but this slide is just to demonstrate we got a lot of good feedback. And in general, the community is very excited about the project. They love the rooftop amenity space. They like the site being close to Van Dyke Park. They ask for things like making sure there's accessibility, you know, like a tree cover. And those are all things that we built into the design as we went forward. And Antonio will present the design, but they kind of love the look. One thing we heard on early on is don't build an institutional-looking building. We want something iconic.

This is the one community center in the city of Fairfax. You know, make it special, especially at the corner of Blenheim and Layton Hall. And with that, I'll turn it over to Brishali. Thank you, James. I'm Brishali Oak with Fairfax County's Department of Public Works. I'm going to give you a very quick overview of the county and city programs that we are including in this facility. I also wanted to point out that today we do have with us from the health department, Dr. Gloria Ado-Ayansu. She's here. She's the director of the health department. Also, we have Dr. Parham Jabari, and he's the deputy director for medical services. So both of them are here to answer any questions that you might have specific to the health department.

So we've worked very closely with the health department as we develop their space needs and also understood their operational needs. And at this point, where we landed is a total of about 58,000 square feet for the county programs. And that includes all of the programs and services that you see listed here. Most of them currently do exist at the Joseph Willard Health Center location, and they will be continuing to be offered in the new facility as well. And again, all of these services are available to both the county and city residents. With the exception of a couple, as I mentioned, the district office of the health department is a new space that we are incorporating in this new facility. And then a couple of the clinical programs related to testing is also new.

But all the others are existing at Joseph Willard Health Center. The last couple bullet points, infant-toddler connection and the early childhood education programs are offered by the neighborhood and community services. The infant-toddler connection does exist at Willard. They have currently moved out of the space, and they have moved into a temporary facility elsewhere in their locations in the county. The early childhood education is a new program that we will be bringing to this facility based on the needs that were identified by NCS in this area. So that's a new program approximately about 50,000 square feet. I'd also like to point out that there's a temporary facility for the health department to move into.

That's currently in the works. Lease is already in place, and improvements are currently proceeding, and the health department will be moving out of the existing Willard Center by October of 2025. So moving on to the next slide. With regards to the city programs, and we have Stacy Summerfield, I'm sure you all know her, Director of Parks and Recreation with the city. Again, we've worked with her and her group intensely in terms of developing their program needs and operational efficiencies that they would like to bring about in this facility, as well as continuing to maintain that connection to the existing Sherwood Center, and also identifying any adjacencies that make sense based on the compatibility of the uses.

So at this point, I think we've landed on about 45,000 square feet total for city programs, and that includes all of the ones that have been included on the slide. Again, includes the senior center that will also have associated outdoor recreational areas, classrooms and preschool youth program related areas and spaces for camps and such activities. Then also a new gymnasium with a track on the upper level, a fitness center with equipment, classrooms for fitness classes, as well as administrative offices. So we do recognize that there are a variety of programs clearly in this facility that will be used by patrons of different age groups and all with differing needs. So recognizing that we have tried to design the building in a manner that will allow separation of users, but will also incorporate certain control points,

as well as security elements that will help make this facility safe and secure for all users. So that's our goal. And then I know that our design team will be going into some more specifics of that in some of the upcoming slides. So with that, I'll hand it over to Antonio from Grimm and Parker Architects, and he can go over where the design started and where we are today. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. All right. All right. And so I'm Antonio Rubello with Grimm and Parker Architects. I'm the lead designer for the project. With me is Rick Morrison, senior project manager for the company and the project manager for this project, as well. You've heard how exciting this building is with so many programs.

and we had the fortune to design it and put it all together. And oh boy, it's quite interesting because that site, it's kind of compact for so many things that need to go on that site. So I just have two slides showing a little bit of the process that got us where we are right now. We looked at many options to fit all this program in there. So there's a lot of competition for the first floor. Elements like the health center that need to be right at the first floor to have its own entrance. The child programs that need to be right on the first floor. The gym wants to be on the first floor. Everybody wants to be on the first floor. So we had to look at how can we put this together. And last but not least, we have to park over 200 cars on that site.

And we're like, oof, 200 cars really leads the charge in how volumetrically we're going to look at the site. And so we looked at options where we, option one, we said we're going to bury the parking under the building and put the building right on top of it. Option two and option three were options where we were building parking garages around the building and kind of pushing all the program and stacking it where it becomes so high. Option one became the preferred option because it really was the most sensible way to use that site to its best advantage and reduce things like the heat island effect and other things and maximize how we could do the site. So we did volumetric studies of what those options could be on that site.

And clearly option one came ahead because it really gave us a building that looked like a two-story building, a friendly building, rather than a ginormous building with a four- or five-story parking garage around it. So that was the option that was selected. And so as we moved forward that the design, one desire was to incorporate civic presence on Blenheim and also have another entrance for vehicular traffic coming in. So we have a pedestrian entrance that is connected to a multimodal transportation hub that the city is developing right at the intersection of Blenheim and Leighton Hall. And then we have the other entrance that faces the Jurgensen Lab on that site. If you know the site, there is a great difference there.

The existing Sherwood Center is a little higher than that site, so we took that to our advantage and we designed a building that connects on the second level directly onto the Sherwood Center. So going through the floor plans very quickly, the parking garage occupies the full footprint of that site. We maximize that. We park about 235 cars in these two levels. You come in from the back in a ramp and you park, and then there are centrally located elevators that brings folks up. And also there's a convenience there at a corner that for folks that want to go one level up, they can do as well. The plan was designed with the idea of being simple to understand that you would need a map to go into a building,

a building that has a lot of uses. So one thing that we did was we created a spine, a main spine in that building that connects the two main entrances, and by which all the program was associated to that spine on both levels. And so there's a pedestrian entrance that is connected to a stair and is connected to a ramp for accessibility for folks with disabilities. And on the other side, it's at grade. There is also the main entrance. And then attached to that spine, there is a secondary corridor that is also replicated on the second floor that goes north-south and connects to the Sherwood Center. On this first floor, the health department. So the health department is such a large program that we put it in two levels.

And we divided it according to the functions of the health department. So on the first level here, we are providing where that arrow is that says health department. There's a door that directly goes from the outside to the health department. One does not even need to go through the building if one doesn't want to. So it goes right there. There's a reception desk and then the other functions, like the nursing stations and all those things are right there at that level. On the opposite side of the corridor in pink, it's a child with program that kind of hugs a playground. And on a very prominent site along Blanham, we put the gymnasium and right behind it, the city childcare with the four classrooms for after daycare

and with its own playground as well. We also provide stairs, beautiful stairs, to encourage healthy habits of going up for people who are able to. But of course, the elevators are located centrally that can take folks up as well. So as we go up to the second level, again, the same idea of the circulation going east to west and north-south. And we have the second floor of the health department with another welcoming desk for the functions that are exclusively offered on the second level. And then you have the infant-toddler connection and right adjacent to it, the administration area for the parks and recreation. And then right along Blanham, the most spectacular area of the building are the city's fitness center,

exercise room, and the walking track. So it's really a building that kind of talks to the community as one would walk or drive by or ride a bike and see this building and see all the activity. It's right there. Of course, like I said, this level connects back to the existing building, the Sherwood Center. On the third level of the building, there is the senior center. And in essence, if you come from the Sherwood side, it's going to feel like you're only going up one level, not two, because it's in the middle floor. The senior center has its own outdoor roof terrace, a wonderful amenity there. And it also has multi-purpose classrooms. There's a stair also offered to come up here, but one can also take elevators and land right in front of the door

of the senior center without having to walk anywhere. So just very quickly here, the existing Sherwood Center is also going through a refresh and the renovation and a small addition. We're renovating some of the rooms. We are opening a corridor to connect to that connector bridge. We're adding a small addition for changing rooms and storage, and we're moving the front desk to face the door, because currently, if you know that center, you come in, kind of the front desk is stuck to the side and doesn't work so well. And the multi-purpose room that's there now, it is going to be renovated for the performance arts. Now I'm going to take you quickly on the exterior. So this is a building that is designed to maintain harmony with its context.

In the city of Fairfax, we want the building to be not too big, so it reads like a two-story building. We want the building to have red brick to talk to the other red brick buildings of the city. It is a building of its time. It's a contemporary building, but it's soft. It's calm. But yet, we also introduced elements that not only work for solar shading and all that, but also give a little bit of excitement to the building, making it into not a stuffy government building, but rather a civic building that everybody can be proud of. This is an aerial view that kind of better shows the solar arrays on that roof. We estimate that at least 50% of the energy can be reduced on this building by using all the solar arrays there.

You see the roof terrace for the seniors. You see how we manage the grading going down to that intersection where the transportation hub, which is not part of our project, but we're working with the city to kind of mold it together so it's seamless, which is buses, bicycles, and walking trail, and the whole thing at the corner. And we're softening those retaining walls with planters and plantings and all of those things there. As we... This view just shows how interesting you could walk all the way from the park on the right through the existing Sherwood building, right through it, right through that bridge, and into the new building. It's all connected. It's all one big facility. As you go on Layton Hall, because it's a long facade, it's a big building,

one of our things that we wanted to do was to reduce the massing of that building. So we did that by breaking down the volumes, as you see, and by using different color and different material like that wood-looking panel that you see there to accent some areas. So now let's take a quick visual tour inside the building. If you come in from the Jurgensen side of the building, you're greeted by this double-height space, and the first thing you see is a little bit of tone and color. That's not there just for aesthetics. That's also for wayfinding. We are making sure that each department has its own color so that you will remember that, oh, the child care would be the yellow area or the health department will be the blue

and the exercise will be the teal and so forth. As we move in from the other side, we're also celebrating the history of the city of Fairfax with a mural. As you come in and as you see the welcome desk, the info desk is strategically located on the main artery of the corridor at the intersection of that other secondary corridor for great visibility to all entrances and all places of the building. The gymnasium is a good example of a space that is purpose-designed for its purpose. It's a state-of-the-art facility. It will have four pickleball courts. It's going to have a walking track. This is not even in the same planet as the current facility at Green Acres, which they're using an old cafeteria of a school.

So this has been really welcomed by everyone. And then there's state-of-the-art exercise rooms like this one here with all the modern equipment. And at the best location, the best real estate part of this building, there's going to be the fitness area where you can exercise, and there's views from that to the intersection below. The roof is going to have a multipurpose deck for the senior center to use. The museum here is illustrated bocce courts, but those things are in flux. This is just to prove that we can fit those bocce courts there, but they can use other things there too. And the senior center itself, it's an inviting, welcoming, warm place that has a kitchen and is designed with different little spaces for seniors to use

and do what they do in a daily basis. The connecting bridge accentuates how much we looked into natural light coming into this building. And another aspect of the building is a request from the community to celebrate art and to exhibit art, public art. And so we created a bunch of spaces along the walls, purposely designed to welcome art of all types, including other niches for sculpture and other media that's not just paintings. So with that, these are some views of some of the other programs. They might be run by the county, but that doesn't matter if you're a citizen and you're a Fairfax, you're going to be using these things. This is the first floor of the health department. The second floor of the childhood program, infant-toddler connection.

So now just to wrap up, this is the new lobby area for the Sherwood. We moved the welcome desk and a view to the renovated multipurpose room with acoustic panels for performance arts. So thank you. Thank you, Antonio. Sure. And so you get some fun stuff, I guess, about it. Yeah. You go through the dollars and cents. If you look at the spreadsheet to the right, the base building, the total cost, estimated cost is $129,650. And that's $1,129,650,000. And those costs are split, as Brooke talked about earlier, it's $5842 between the city and the county, and that's based on square footage, a pro rata share. So the city share is $51,930,000. Then the next row down is additional commitment. So when Antonio was talking about the different alternatives,

Alternative 1, 2, and 3, Alternative 1 was the underground parking that everybody liked. Alternatives 2 and 3 actually worked for the county. The city very much wanted to do Alternative 1. So an additional commitment was agreed to between the city and the county that the city would contribute $3 million to go forward with Alternative 1. Then you drop down to total base building cost is $54,930,000. And I'm going to drop down to the lower, and then I'll come back to the performing arts. But if you look at the current, what's in the county, CIP, going down the columns is Brian was talking about different years. You committed different levels of CIP funding. So the total funding proposed is $56,000,000 that we are within.

The fiscal year 26 is before you all now. The $9,025,000 is proposed that the city council will act on this year. Going back up to the spreadsheet, the performing arts is an alternative. So that was designed, and it's designed so it can be plugged in or plugged out of the building. And when Antonio was going through that slide, there's a piece of that renovation that will happen to the Sherwood Center that's base building. So the corridor that connects, the bridge that connects the buildings, the renovation to the front desk, that's all part of base building costs that is part of that $54,930. The optional piece is the renovation to the performing arts. So doing some improvements to improve the lighting, the acoustical,

replacing the ceiling from concave to convex so it's more conducive for performances, creating a sound room and a light room, and creating the dressing rooms and the prop storage is part of that $4 million. At each phase, as we've gone through the process, the city is asked to act on, one, do you approve moving forward with a project, base building, and two, do you want to move forward or not move forward with the performing arts options? And Brooke will talk about this in the final slide in terms of when that option will come back before the city council. And the next slide. So this slide gets into the operating budget. So the previous slide is looking at capital budget. This is looking at operating.

And you see at the top of the spreadsheet, and this is broken into the green, is the Willard Sherwood Health and Community Center. And then the reddish color is a performing arts option, just to separate the cost out, since that is an alternative. So at the very top is the $54,930 capital cost, and then everything below that is the operating cost. So the first number is the fixtures, furniture, and equipment. And the best way to explain that is if you turn a building upside down and shake it, it's everything that falls out of the building. It's furniture, it's equipment, it's gym equipment, those kind of things. And that's estimated at one point. I need better glasses. One point, whatever. Then the capital repairs.

The capital repairs, security, custodial, and utilities, are based upon building owners and managers association benchmarks for those costs. So it's based on either a percentage of total value or square footage cost. So those, as you run down for the annual maintenance, which would start in fiscal year 29, would be a partial year when the building opens, is $823,000 or $824,000. The security, $75,000. And that doesn't include physical security. The physical security, cameras, intrusion alerts, panic buttons, those are all part of base building. But the operating cost of having a security guard or paying for those operations is at $75,000. The custodial costs, about a penny, a square foot, $105,000.

Utilities, $84,000. And all those costs are split the same pro-rider share, 5842. So the total operating cost is 2.7, a little more than $2.7 million. And then Stacy's going to talk in a minute about some of the staff. I will note, as we're looking at staff, you're looking at park and rec staff. And we still have to determine who's going to maintain the building. Either the county can maintain it or the city can maintain it, or you contract the whole thing out. So we have the overall cost for maintenance. If the city maintains it, it would also fund, within that $1.6 million, three positions that would be on site to address urgent calls, take care of preventive maintenance types of activities.

And the performing arts, same kind of analysis, $4 million, base building, $300K, maintenance, $120,000, $60,000 for capital repairs. I will note the capital repairs, those costs don't start until the building's about five years in operation. Security's included in the number above, custodial and utilities, for a total operating cost of close to $200,000. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Stacy to talk about some of the other operating costs. Thank you, James. So looking at the operating costs for the building, just comparing it to Green Acres, now it's a significant expansion in services from our Green Acres facility, but in this proposal, Green Acres would close when the senior center and that programming

moved over to the Willard Sherwood. So currently, Green Acres, we have 62 operating hours per week. Our staffing over there is $567,500 a year. That includes our senior center staffing, a percentage of our operations staffing, and our front desk staff. Now those 62 hours don't include rental hours, so we sometimes go over that 62 for rental, and that is covered by temp staffing. At the Willard Sherwood, we are looking at a potential 96 operating hours per week, so a significant expansion, especially with the fitness center to open early, close late, different events with the gym as well. The staffing, now the 2.1 million number that you've seen, that is 100% staffing. And so if we are using the building 100% of those 96 hours,

and we're using all floors, that is that 2.1 million. So we did also generate a potential 1.2 million number, which would be at 60% capacity. So if we were to close different floors at certain times, like say we finish on the third floor, the senior center's closed, we close that floor off for the evening. We're also looking at different options of utilizing AI-enabled security cameras, automatic door locks, and different other measures, which will help us keep an eye on this large facility. And so there is a range there of potential staffing. Now that number is on top of our current staffing. It is in addition to the staffing that we already have now. It does include a full-time opening and closing manager,

and a mix of about 30 part-time benefited and some unbenefited customer service reps to run the facility. We are also looking at revenue potential. So when we look at FY24, our rental revenue for Green Acres was $73,721, primarily rentals. That does not include our program revenue for the senior center, and that is because most of that revenue is cost recovery. So we are, for things like senior trips and things like that, we're just doing a cost recovery model to cover the cost of those programs. When you look at that number, it does appear as though we're bringing in about half a million dollars in senior programming, but a lot of that is going out as well with the programming. Over at the Willard Sherwood,

we see the biggest revenue driver potentials as different memberships that we would offer, the senior center, the fitness center, program revenue for fitness classes, youth programs, adult and senior programs, different programming that we have in the gym, as well as some rental revenue. So potential gym rentals. Now we do have a lot of interest in the gym, so that would be around the city programming. The third floor classrooms, because once the senior center programming ends for the day, those classrooms would open up for rentals, and then the third floor patio, which is weather dependent. So a conservative annual revenue number we're looking at is around $600,000. Okay. And to wrap up, next steps for city council's consideration

are approval of the proposed FY26 capital improvement program. This will be the final allocation for this project. Moving forward into this summer and this fall will be a work session and a public hearing on the land use applications that have been filed, and that would be typical to what the council is used to seeing with any type of land use application. There'll be a staff planner that has reviewed the project and talk about traffic and site design and impacts and all of those sorts of things with a public hearing following thereafter. As was mentioned earlier, the project is proceeding under the construction manager at risk approach, and so as part of finalization of the budget and costs,

as well as the construction documents, a guaranteed maximum price would be presented for council's consideration along with those final construction documents. At that time, if there were any adjustments that needed to be made to the development agreement related to schedule or budgeting, we would bring those potential amendments forward at that time. That's it for us. Happy to answer any questions. All right. Questions from the dais? Council Member Amos. Thank you all. So a few questions. One, in terms of if we wanted to look at, for example, undergrounding parking can be extremely expensive. We have some high recurring costs coming. Is that set in stone or is there still the possibility of having above-ground parking instead?

Not at this site. Okay. Above-ground parking in 240-some spaces, it takes that two and a half acres. And you can look at the footprint. We almost filled the footprint of that site, so you can double the footprint. I'm sorry. You can double the footprint and try to spread it out. There's just a much more than a park. There's no room for surface parking at that site. Second question. Since this is poised for construction to start in 2026, this is an election site location. Do we have a backup plan for where that would be relocated? We have been working with the elections office to talk to them about... We have a larger number of election sites in the city than required, so we are talking about that,

and it is on the horizon. Okay. And last question. I love the design of this project. I am extremely concerned about the recurring costs in terms of advertising opportunities or event programming. What options do we have on the table to make up that difference? Because $600K versus $4.7 to $5 million annually doesn't add up. I think we could definitely look... We are continuing to look at different ways to potentially, in small ways, lock some of the doors to reduce the staffing costs. I think we could certainly partner with the potential Future Parks Foundation to look at different options there, but I don't have any concrete numbers. Other questions? Council Member McQuillan. Thank you, Mayor Reed.

On the project context, this is a question I have regarding the... It might just be the way it's written, but it says, The partnership... The City Community Center Alternative Analysis 2016-2017 partnership with county at existing Willard Health Center property noted as option to consider if feasible. Can you explain that a little bit more? Sure. So as part of that study, there were three sites that were evaluated, one being the existing Sherwood site and Van Dyke Park. As part of that analysis, the consultants suggested that an alternative to trying to keep the project completely on city property would be to look at a potential partnership with the county at the Willard site. Part of that was based upon,

as Council Member Amos had the question a moment ago, was so much of the parking to serve that design was going to end up being in Van Dyke Park, even with some structured parking in that concept, was just very impactful. And so the consultants have said, an alternative may be to pursue what we've since pursued as a city. Okay. Thank you for providing some background on that. Sure. And then going into the school's facility condition assessment recommended for Green Acres, it says here, more appropriate to build replacement. Replacement is less expensive than renovation or maintenance. So that is essentially where we would be moving everyone out, doing what we're doing now, but with the Willard Health Center, right?

Is that my understanding? Correct. And then, sorry, I started to write on here instead of to the side. Could you explain, it says here on the stakeholder and community engagement, this engagement involved a feedback, or did, was pricing, was pricing ever discussed in the community feedback stuff regarding, you know, the senior fees and the services offered in the building? In the most recent, when we presented, when we presented to the, the mayor and city council, one of the things that was important is that we disclosed all the costs. So the most recent outreach, which was November of 2024, included operating costs. The earlier, the earlier engagements, I'll tell you the truth, I don't remember.

I don't think it did. Okay. And what was the primary feedback that, or what did you hear from that? That they liked the rooftop terrace and they wanted to make sure the building was accessible and they put, they put art into the facility. So we didn't hear, in presenting the, the cost information, we didn't get a lot of feedback on the cost. Okay. Thank you. Actually, I don't think we got any. They wanted it to stay free. They wanted it to stay free? Is that what you just said? They wanted that. I don't blame them. Some of the seniors that attended in terms of, you know, what Stacy's talking about in terms of membership fee is they kind of like the current structure. Of course. Yes. Sure. Okay.

And then, question regarding under the stakeholder community feedback stuff again, the November date that you just mentioned, there was concern about the availability of fitness equipment. Could you explain a little bit more about that? Do you want to take that one? Sure. Was this the question regarding just the fitness equipment in the fitness center? Yeah. I actually remember that discussion. Okay. On the 24th. And what it was is that city residents were concerned about county residents taking up the equipment. And their concern was, what can we do to make sure city residents have first access to the equipment? So it's not county residents there. I remember that discussion clearly. I was getting it confused

with a long discussion about the type of rowing machine we might want. Okay. Yeah. I know there's been a lot of back and forth. Thank you for explaining that. And then, the health center, other county programs and operations, how many city residents do we, are currently served at the health center? And I apologize if we've asked that and been, received that information before, but. Good afternoon again. Mayor Reed, council members, I'm Dr. Jabari with the health department. So looking at our last full fiscal year was about 5,000 unduplicated patients. We were up to around seven to eight before the pandemic and have had a little bit of a drop off as we've been able to establish partnerships with our federally

qualified health centers, find individuals medical homes, and try to deliver our services more efficiently. In addition to clients, we also have a vital records office there, which is where we provide death certificates, marriage certificates, and so forth. And so roughly, we get about 20,000 of those a year. That's a very active site for the entire county and city that will also be moved to another, you know, temporary location while the Willard is being built. Okay. And does, so the 5,000, do you know how many of our city residents currently go to that health center? I haven't looked at it as a breakup of whether they're a county or city, so I wouldn't be able to answer that today. Okay. We are open generally

to everyone, so it could be, you know, depending on the services or need, if someone is looking, let's say, for an exam that might require physicians, such as an STI visit, and if it's not offered at the city of Fairfax, we may point them towards Annandale, Herndon, so we really look at all five as available resources to everyone in the county and the city, and there's a good bit of crossover. So I wouldn't be surprised if we see some of that in our Springfield office or Annandale where city residents are going there because the appointment is available that day. That makes sense. I was thinking from a standpoint of parking and the fact that our city residents live closer and have a free Q bus

to use to get to who I'm from, so I was kind of thinking in that generalization. For the community center programs and operations, I know that the county is able to add an early child education class to their part of the building. Are we adding any new programs to ours? So our little school, the preschool program which we operate out of Sherwood would move into that space into one of those four classrooms. We'd utilize the remaining four classrooms for our Daniels Run before and after school program allowing an expansion of kids to participate in that and then also different youth programming throughout the day. We do a lot of preschool music programs and things like that during the school day.

Lots of different youth programs in the summer and then some of our summer camps would also be able to use that space. Okay, so programs that we currently have but we're kind of using in other places right now so we bring them into this building under one roof. And also be able to expand it. You want to mention that the county is going to contract out there. Yes, and the county space will be contracted out and I know that Main Street who's currently with us at Green Acres will be going out for that contract. Okay. Let me see. Sorry. Is this building designed for potential future expansion or renovation? Yeah, sorry. I was looking for you. I couldn't find it. Sorry. I know I'm just going through my pages

now. To my understanding, no, it is not designed for future expansion. We maxed out the parking. So we were looking at doing the big performing arts center on this site. We had to go down another level of parking. So we maxed out what we could get within the footprint. So it'd be hard to fit anything else on this site unless you're in Van Dyke. Unless you're in Van Dyke. Excellent. Thank you. This is also a design question. I see that we have the two playgrounds. This is just a, I was just curious. Why are these separate? Why wouldn't you combine them? Oh, I can answer that one. So the one is attached to the county's childcare space. So there's no going out into the facility. You're at a direct,

those rooms are a direct connection to their playground. And then the same with the city site. So all of our classrooms have a direct connection in a secured fenced area to go out to the playground and come back in. Okay. So there was no way to design that where they could share some playground space or make this playground space larger and more open by sharing? It was not a design issue. We could have at the time done that, but there was a preference for that problematic separation. I'm just curious. I wanted to point out here that the county childcare has its own requirements, licensing requirements. So the playgrounds have to be separate for county and city. That makes sense. Thank you for explaining that.

How many elevators will this building have? Three. Three? Three. And where are they? Are they just all central in that one spot? No. So there are two right in the middle. And there's one at the northeast corner of the building that serves all the way to also for loading if need be. But it will be a passenger elevator. Okay. Excellent. And then, do I understand the design correctly that if they're entering Sherwood Center from the back, there's no desk or greeter right there? They'd have to go closer to the front of the building. Is that correct? We have added a control desk there. So, Brooke, if you go to the next floor, sorry, you'll see the small L-shaped rectangle in the upper left corner

of the track there is a control desk. Right here. Yes. Thank you. Excellent. Okay. So you come in, it's right there on the left. Thank you. I think that might be it. Sorry. Yeah. That's all the questions I have. Thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member Hardy-Chandler. Well, I definitely appreciate programming being in one space. We know this adds to the health of a community. And I really appreciate this model in us sort of taking the lead here. I'm curious if there are, in collaboration with the county, other ways to diversify the revenue. You said the projected annual revenue conservatively would be $600,000. Are there thoughts about how that might be expanded? What might be other ways

that other than fees, other than fees, let me be specific. Other than fees to seniors, especially, are there other more creative ways to expand or diversify revenue for this facility? Yeah, there are certainly things we can look at and we can come back with an expanded revenue plan for some potential ideas. I mean, a lot of this current revenue model, all of it actually is fees for program use, membership fees, and rental fees. That's fine, just not seniors. Yeah. Are there other things that the county has considered in other places or in other locations that have generated different forms of revenue? We did base our membership fees and that on county facilities as far as what other facilities in the area

are charging. And we can certainly look to see if there's other creative revenue streams that they've found. We also, no one wants to pay more fees, but we do a lot of free, we have a, you know, free agreement with our community partner youth sports organizations, so we don't charge any of those hours. So there is, we do have a lot of free, we give a lot of space away. So. And just to follow up from that, you talked about some of the staffing costs being potentially reduced if some of the floors are closed down during certain parts of the day. Does the programming model align with that? Yes. So this, the conservative revenue would be, of course, not programming every single space every hour of the day.

So looking at that 96 hours and thinking, well, certainly the fitness center has to be open and ideally we're maximizing the fitness classroom, but maybe the third floor doesn't open as early. If we're going to be open at late at night for gym programming, maybe just the first two floors of the building are open. We've also looked at different ways to lock and unlock the stairwell doors to ensure that they're fire egressed, but people are not able to kind of move throughout the building without being seen by our control desk. So that was considered in the location of the various programs? Yep. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Hall. Thank you. I do have a number of questions. I'll try to direct them

to the same people at the same time. So looking at this versus Sherwood, what exactly is different? We're going to have the same preschool. It's still going to be, and I'm working from the city side, not from the county side. We're still going to have the preschool. We're still going to have the senior center. We're going to have the Daniels on before and after school care, which we currently have at Sherwood. Now it'll just be in one building. Yes. It will give us more room to expand that program, too. We're currently sold out for after school, the before and after, and we do have some, as of last week, we had some before school spaces. So how many extra students, kids, are we talking? Roughly.

I can get you that number and have Katie look at both classroom spaces to see. Right now we only have one classroom space, so we would be looking at having potentially, we would have two, potentially three. Okay. And, sorry to interrupt, but the $600,000 of projected annual revenue, does that include only adding new students, or is that including what we're already getting from the programming that exists with the before and after school care and stuff, or is this totally new revenue? That it would be new revenue. Okay. And of that $600,000, does that include roughly $95,000 that had been discussed for senior fees? Yes. So that includes a senior fee, a fitness center membership fee, programming,

and then rental revenue. Okay. So if we took out the, we'll call it $100,000 to make numbers even, because I know that's been a topic of conversations, now we're looking at projected annual revenue, maybe a $500,000 instead. Yep. Okay. Okay. And so what else is new? The gym space, it's an expanded fitness center, so a fitness center does exist at Green Acres, but it's very small. It's really only utilized by our seniors, so this would be an expanded fitness center, and the fitness classroom would be much improved from what exists at Green Acres. as far as being able to the additional people. The estimated capacity of the fitness classroom is 20 people. Okay. So 20 people for a class. Class. Yep.

Per class. Okay. And this would piggyback to the classes that are already being offered at Sherwood that would move over from there to here, plus the potential to add another class or classes. Yep. Okay. And what sort of square footage are we talking for the fitness area, like the gym part? Sorry, not the gym, the exercise equipment. Yes. Is 2,000? 2,000 for the fitness center and 1,000 for the classroom. So 2,000 for the fitness center. Yeah, it's 2,000 for the fitness center. And then 1,000, you said, for the classroom. Yes. The classroom. For the classroom. Okay. Do we have any idea like what Oak Marr? I'm just trying to visualize what 2,000 is in my head compared to another location. I do not know

what Oak Marr is, but I can certainly find out. I'll ask another question in the meantime. Yeah. Who would you say this building serves specifically? Again, city side only. I'm hearing seniors, child care. Youth and adults, yeah. So I think we would hit all kind of three big chunks because we've got youth programming on the first floor with the classroom space, of course, the gym as well, senior center, the expansion of our current pickleball program over at Green Acres, which is probably one of the most popular things we have indoors right now, and then looking at having open gym in the evening for adults and families and different gym programs, the track as well, and then the fitness center.

Okay, and we currently have two indoor pickleball courts at Green Acres? There are three total because there's two in the gym and one in the cafeteria. The gym, if it rains really hard, is unavailable, so we're down to one. Okay, so we'd be going on a good day when it doesn't rain or monsoon, we have three, and we're going to four. Yep. Okay. Also with the ability to drop a curtain in the gym so that we could do like half pickleball and half youth programming in the summer when we're running summer camp. Okay, and I think, sorry, I'm trying not to skip around here. The gym rental, I thought you previously said before that because of the agreement with FPYC, there was going to be very limited options

for community use and or rental of the gym, but it sounds like what you're saying now is different than that? No, we still wouldn't be a ton of rental revenue from the gym. We would add in available rentals around what's not utilized by FPYC and our programming. Okay. So minimal options. It's smaller, I would say. So when I looked at our potential revenue, the rental revenue is lower than the program revenue because we have so many spaces available to program and so much interest from the community for community programming, and then we would simply have to release rentals around that availability. Okay, but looking at like an open gym on a Tuesday or a Tuesday and a Friday, those are probably

minimal opportunities? Well, that would be kind of, that would be programming because we would do a registration for the open gym time. Yeah. Okay. And I did just hear from Katie, so we're looking at going from 26 kids to 40 kids in the afterschool program with two classrooms. Okay, 26 kids to 40 kids. And so, do you have any idea what that revenue is roughly? I can certainly pull that for you. Okay. So the outdoor space for Bachi that was shown on the roof, recognizing that's a flex space, once set up for Bachi, though it needs to be set up for Bachi, right? Trying to pick my parents' place like they, nothing else goes on there besides Bachi. Bachi. Well, we've looked at, so we've been meeting

with the Bachi group. We've looked at a lot of temporary Bachi courts. They actually would prefer that in the redesign of Van Dyke Park, Bachi be included so that they could play there and then walk over to the senior center. Okay. They don't, they don't really love any of the temporary Bachi options that are available on the market right now. Okay. Because we're looking for something that can be put down and then picked up for events. Yeah. Okay. Or like covered over like the, which you go to like DC. Yeah. They're, they play very seriously so they want that gravel layer. I understand. Are the, the current ones at Green Eakers, are they smaller than like regulation size or am I just seeing them different

because they're in a bigger space compared to where my parents are? They are regulation size. We host the Northern Virginia Senior Olympics. Okay. And they, they want a third one so we can host more people to play Bachi. Okay. Okay. The seniors on the second floor, would then have seniors on the third floor. Correct? Like if they come in, if they come in from Sherwood. Yep. But if they come in from the basement, they're just coming up the elevator feasibly or conceivably. Yeah. The picture that you showed before about the entrance, it was a couple back, like where you can come right into the health center from that side door. Yeah. Does that side door, does that just go to outside? Like that's a flat,

like would you park and then come up that outside door or that's if you arrived by bus or something like that? So, let me, let me show you a side plan. I was trying to acclimate myself. Yeah. No, that's a good question. So you see, there is a, a, a, a small lay by. There's also some surface parking spaces right outside that, one can stop here, walk and go to the door, which is right there. Okay. Outside. And you can drop someone off. Let's say you Uber in or, or you have a family member drop you off and all that to get a medication or whatnot. They can drop you off right here and you can walk right in. Okay. Outside from, from the street. Yeah. Okay. But then if you go to the next slide and if you park.

Right. I was having difficulty trying to figure out where the elevators are. They're right in the middle. There's this, this bank of two squares here. Those are the elevators. Okay. So then can you go to the next level and show me where those end up in the building? Sure. They're right here in the middle here. You come in near the desk. Okay. And then you go from, from here, wherever you want to go. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sure. And the health services that are provided, that's kind of a catch all for anything and everything. Infectious disease, birth control, medical appointments, all of the things at the county. I'm going to let the doctors speak. Okay. Thank you. Sit over there. Sure. So, so our basic services

are mostly preventive and services like WIC, Women, Infant, Children, where we provide supplemental nutrition for pregnant moms, young children. We do a lot immunization, so they're well visits. The health department, you know, used to generations ago, serve as a primary care site for the underserved, but that's not what we do really anymore. We have very specific programs. When it comes to things like STIs, again, those are specific visits that you set up in the room, and like every other clinic, we follow the regular infection control procedures. You know, one of the programs you hear about is tuberculosis. Oftentimes, those individuals are diagnosed in the ED. They're referred to us. They're started on therapy,

and after two weeks of antibiotic therapy, they continue to see us to make sure that the long-term regimens that we provide over six months, nine months, isn't having any side effects, so they're no longer infectious after those initial two weeks. Should they have to come in in those initial two weeks, we have set up in the site where you actually see the health department arrow. There's a side arrow that brings you right into the lobby. If I can use the mouse, once you go through the secure access, we have rooms here that are called negative pressure rooms, just like in the hospital system where they blow out the air, so we're equipped to take care of individuals that might have an infectious disease.

In those situations, even though I want to, you know, let you know, you may be running into these folks in the community, at the bus stop, at the grocery store. In the elevator in the building here. So you don't necessarily get, even if you're in the elevator for a few minutes, the risk of catching these sorts of illnesses is very little, but we usually give you a standard of if someone with tuberculosis came into the room, they would want an eight-hour exposure with people around us unless someone is immunocompromised or has other situations. So minutes walking past by the types of patients we see don't pose a risk to the public or to others. Okay, that's good news. Thank you. Especially with seniors

and kids and just normal life. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, the, I am, no. So the health department has, the Joseph Willard Center is one of five health centers that we operate and every, all the other four are in other multi-purpose used buildings. Okay. And as Dr. Jabari was saying, our clinics are really well clinics. It's not primary care where people are ill and you're not really sure what's going on. We have public health specific clinics. STDs are not, you know, respiratory immunizations. These are kids getting their shots or people traveling, international travel. the WIC program. These are infants and children supplemental, food supplemental program. And, and then the TB program where we are

treating individuals who have inactive illness. So when you are exposed to TB, you have what we call latent infection and you're not sick. a third of the world is infected with latent TB. You're not coughing. You're just doing your daily business because your immune system has taken care of it. But for some people, that immunity breaks down. Like when you are immunosuppressed, you have HIV, you want chemotherapy, those kinds of things. And then the, the, the infection can become active. that's when you start coughing and can pass it on. When you are not coughing with, from TB, you just can't, you just can't pass it on. And when that happens, people are very sick. They've been coughing around

for months and eventually after multiple ropertussins and whatever, they seek care because they're really sick and they are hospitalized. And as Dr. Jabari was saying, the TB treatments are very powerful. Within two weeks, they are no longer infectious. But because they have to take these medications for many, many months, we all know that even when we have to take antibiotics for five days, after the third day when you start feeling better, you know, some people just don't continue. Can you imagine having to take TB meds for nine months, sometimes small if you have multi-drug resistance, and you're already feeling better about after two to three weeks. So that's an opportunity for us to check on them.

Besides coming to the clinic, we have nurses who go into their homes of these individuals and, you know, address their needs. We have what we call direct observed therapy. Every day, somebody watches them take their medicines so that they continue in that right path. So when they are coming to the clinic, it's mainly, you know, for the physician to lay eyes on them and make sure that they're, you know, if they had weight loss in the beginning that they are progressing. We do x-rays to make sure the x-ray's cleaning is clearing up and so on. And they always come to the clinics with a mask, even though they are no longer infectious. and they just don't show up. We know when, I mean, there's a specific time

where we see our TB patients and we do have N95, what do you call the rooms? Negative pressure rooms. So. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Just to jump around a little bit, the November 2024 meeting that was held, you mentioned that that talked about the costs and people didn't love the senior fees or the other fees were the actual ongoing maintenance costs and personnel, like the 4.8 million, was that discussed at length with people? Was there any feedback on that? That was presented. I'm sorry. That was presented. We actually had the exact same slide. Okay. And I went through it exactly the way I went through it today. at a community meeting or at the council meeting? At a community meeting.

Okay. And that was attended, you said, by how many people? Or maybe you did. The 150, that was the very first concept. Okay. To tell you the truth, I don't know. I think Anthony was there. I was there as well. It was in the smaller room and there was a very good crowd of people there. Okay. Yeah, and it was a very lively discussion. People asked a lot of questions. Okay. Thank you. And that brings it to the 4.8 and I only asked this because you made a comment about how it was split 42-58. The costs that are reflected on page 39 for the Willard-Sherwood Health Center, the 2.8 and the 2.1, those are the city portions of the cost. Correct. Correct? Okay. So all the utility costs, I didn't include it

in the chart. This just shows the city's cost. So the split is still 58-42 for utilities, custodial, security, but I only showed the city costs. Our portion of it. Okay. I think I just have one more question. Let me just run through the rest of my notes here and just make sure. Yeah, so my final question is about the city's child care portion. If you can just show it on the slide for me. You want to see the plan? Yes, the one where, just so I can get a good visual of it. So it just, it looks like the exterior one. I'm sorry. We don't have a view. Page 22. Sorry. Oh, okay. Slide 22. So granted, I don't know how the sun comes and goes, but I'm just trying to visualize. It looks like the side that faces Leighton Hall

is a bit more open, has potentially the opportunity for more sun. It looks like the city side is kind of tucked back there behind the building. We don't have a view, but the good news is the building is not too tall. Can you go to the next slide for me? The next slide, yeah. There you go. Yeah, but as you can see, it's in the sun. The sun actually does, does shine in that, in that space because you don't have a lot of shadow. The building isn't too tall. It's two stories only at that level. Okay. And when you're looking out, the sun moves in the sky around noon, it's almost vertical. Okay. And in the afternoon, so you do actually have sun. Okay. I'm just worried about them in the winter if it's like frigid.

So are we. Working with our playground supplier, we've actually talked to them about building in some shading because there's quite a bit of sun. Okay. And so we've built in some additional shading into that area over some seating and over the primary playground equipment. That's great because that is certainly easier to add shading than it is to add sun. Yes. And it's all fabric shade. So some of that can come down in the winter, which a lot of it we do remove for snow weight and things like that. So it helps us cool it in the summer and then also it looks like we'll have plenty of sun in the winter. Okay. Oh, sorry. One thing I did just want to point out, you brought up the FCA in here, which I think

is really helpful information, but I do want to point out that the purpose of the FCA was intended for school use. It was not a conversation about an early childhood, about preschool or about a senior center. So when the city school board paid for the FCA, it was looking at Green Acres as an educational institution, as a school. So comments, concerns, slightly vary, I think, based upon the usage of the building overall. Correct. And we just looked at that in terms of the analysis analysis on systems, roof, windows, those sorts of things that would have to be addressed, seemingly regardless of what that use is. Agree. I just want to make sure that that conversation, that that point is out there

as far as the actual purpose of it. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I have heard back from Katie. We are looking at around $100,000 gross for the additional before and after school care spaces. Now that doesn't take into account program costs and staffing. Okay. So then back to the, we'll call it $500,000 after taking out seniors, the $2.1 for staffing. Sorry, $2.8 for staffing. $2.1 for staffing. So the $2.1 would increase then based upon additional students here that are enrolled? Or just to make sure we're comparing apples and apples with what's presented. Yes. When we look at our programming revenue, we have to remove, for programs, we do remove out our staffing and program costs.

And so we just look at the true net revenue. And so a lot of the employees are contract employees for classes or temp employees that we have for different programs. And so those are in a different pool from the $2.1, which is just our control desk staffing. So our program revenue has to cover the cost of any staffing that we add in. Okay. So we're looking at then $600 potentially minus seniors, which includes a new $100,000 of gross of the additional classroom opportunities, but the $2.1 number would potentially go up in order to cover the additional for those students. Did I understand that correctly? Did I say that right? The $2.1, we don't include any of our program staffing because we take that programming

out of the cost of the, the revenue of the programming. So any, like, anytime we design a new program, for example, just to use an easy one, like an open gym, whatever we're bringing in for revenue has to cover any additional staffing or any additional costs we're going to incur for that program. Okay. And so then our revenue is really just the remainder. Okay. So the $500 or $600 of revenue is essentially the net. Yes. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Yeah. Council Member Peterson. Thanks. Just a financial question or two. So the construction cost, as I understand it, on the city portion of this is $55 million. is that to be debt financed? Yes. And the annual debt service payment that we anticipate?

I don't have, well, it depends on the rate, obviously, of when we issue the debt, but I don't, don't have that information right yet, but we can certainly calculate an estimate. Okay. But that would be, added to the $5 million annually for operations. Until the, yeah, until the debt's paid off. That's correct. Right. Okay. So it'd be six or something like that. And that translates into just, I don't know whether this came up in the outreach session over cost, but the translation back to real estate taxes is we're talking five, six cents. Currently, one cent is $8.35. So, so say 1.2 per million. So if five million would be, you know, about six, six cents or so. On an annual basis. Correct. Yeah.

Okay. When the county made the decision to move forward with this project, was that contingent on the city also deciding to join or was it a contingency or was it not a contingency? It was just an evolution. Do you want to take that one, Brooke? Or? I can. I mean, the agreements that we've, the city and county have had have moved forward as a joint facility. And so those agreements have been in place since the county completed its feasibility study, looking at the condition of the existing Willard and made the decision that that facility needed to be replaced. They were evaluating whether that could be renovated partially, so on and so forth. Once they decided that, that it needed to be replaced,

the city and county have been working together jointly. And the, the agreement anticipates that at the end of each phase, both the county and the city have to, there's exit ramps for both. The building in reality doesn't stand one without the other. So it would be a significant major redesign if either party dropped out. Can you say that last part one more time? So the building as designed with two levels of underground parking, the gym and the exercise facility along Blenheim, if the city elected to exit, which, which will be the next decision before the city council when we get the GMP, it's not like the county can then move forward with their part of the building. They'll have to redesign

the whole building to fit just the Willard Center. Okay. Or the Joseph, Joseph Willard Center. Yeah. So I, if I understand it correctly, back 2016, 17, thinking something like that, there, roughly this time period, there was an identification of potential sites and some level of analysis or feasibility determination about those sites. Is that the right? That's correct. Yeah. And there were a couple different ones. I think Green Acres was one of them. Green Acres was not one of those because, because the committee had recommended that the city not pursue Green Acres because of its location, because of, because of physical issues there. So the three sites that were evaluated in 16 and 17 are shown on this slide.

It was City Hall, Van Dyke Park, and Sherwood and Providence Park and the West Drive Property Yard were the three sites that were evaluated to that point. Okay. Well, part of the reason I ask is just the, I think there's been an acknowledgement a couple times that we're squeezing a lot into a relatively small space here and some of the other options may have a little bit more elbow room. How much of an issue was the elbow room issue here? Was it determined that it really wasn't so terribly important so it was okay to work with this very, very tight footprint? Preferable to the alternatives and I don't, I don't have the images. They are on the city's webpage and I can certainly share them with you

but looking at the Providence Park option, City Hall, for example, trying to park a facility here. Basically all the, the Veterans Amphitheater and the whole front yard would have been covered in parking. Providence Park, there was a significant amount of the existing tree canopy along West Drive that would be removed to try to handle that as well with the Van Dyke option and so what was looked at as part of that city feasibility was is there an opportunity to build off the front of the existing Sherwood Center, again, keeping everything on city property. What that did is encroached into the existing Van Dyke and so looking at those options, there just wasn't an interest from the council at the time

to pursue any of those. It was much too impactful to city properties in terms of trees, open space, or operations, or all three of those. and just as I understand it, Green Acres had been taken off the table by that time so it wasn't a part of that assessment. Is that right? It was not, no. Okay. All right. Okay. I think that's it for the time being. Thanks, you. Any other questions on this project? Council Member Hall. I'm sorry. It's very quick, I promise. The outdoor space, the rooftop area, is that included in our square footage or is that over and above what is stated in the numbers? Thanks, square footage. Thank you. Okay. We've got 10 minutes until our regular city council meeting starts.

So I think the next two work session items will wait until the work session after we wrap up our regularly scheduled council meeting. Yes, Mr. Foster. That is absolutely fine. I just wanted to point out, so I know that I believe there's a desire to add some trails motions to the regular agenda. I believe we can get our trails presentation done within 10 minutes if that would be helpful. So you can have that knocked out prior to your meeting. But if not, I perfectly understand. Just wanted to let you know that council might prefer that. Well, given the amount of time we've spent on the first three items, I think you're suggesting that we can do this in 10 minutes is optimistic. I think the presentation can be done in 10 minutes.

I did not, if there are tons of questions that would be correct, you would go longer than that time frame. Councilmember Hardy Chandler. I would be in favor of just hearing the presentation and stopping there. Yeah, I think the key thing is just that we do need to be in a position to add these motions to the agenda later. So, and then that would just be one less thing for afterwards if everyone's amenable. All right. It seems like everyone's amenable. We will do the trails presentation. Discussion and updates on trail projects. I'll recognize Wendy Sanford, transportation director, for the staff presentation. Okay. All right. Good evening. I have a very brief presentation to go over the status of the various trails that are in the CIP currently.

There are three. The Pickett Road Connector Trail, the Country Club Commons Trail, and the George Snyder Trail. Just briefly, by way of trail planning background, in the city, trails historically have been planned by the Parks and Recreation Department. And so all of the trails that we have in front of us today were initially part of the Park Strategic Plan. However, they then moved from the Park Strategic Plan into the city's comprehensive plan. And the importance of the trail network and trail connectivity is cited throughout the comprehensive plan in numerous locations. And then starting about six years ago, transportation funding was used to implement these trails. And so there was the partnership between the Parks Department and the Transportation Department.

So first, to get into the Pickett Trail, what you see on the screen is shown in yellow is the existing or planned trail network. And so you see going even into Arlington, the Arlington Boulevard bike route. You see the Cross County Trail, which picks up at Fife Park and heads east and connects to the Wilcoxon Trail. So the Pickett Trail is what's shown in red, which is a missing off-road link connection between the Cross County Trail and then the connector trail that runs through Circle Towers north to the metro station. So it is a short piece of a trail. This was originally, as I mentioned, identified through the Parks Department. PRAB had identified this trail as both a safety issue and an opportunity to improve connection between city and county facilities.

As I mentioned previously, this completes an off-road missing link of trail. Currently, users are forced up onto Pickett Road, which has heavy vehicular volume, including a large number of trucks. And then what is shown in that left graphic is the accident volume on this road. There happens to be a number of accidents. This is sort of the downhill part. It is a very narrow sidewalk on the bridge on Pickett Road there. An important piece of information to mention here is that the alignment of this project closely mirrors an alignment of the Fairfax County water main. And Fairfax County has been planning a rehabilitation of their water main in this location. We have been coordinating with them from the very beginning when this project was simply an idea.

And as part of the two-year program, we were working with Fairfax Water. What you can see in green is the water main alignment. And then what you can see is the trail alignment with the pink sort of overlaid on that. So what you see is that about half of the alignment of the project overlaps with the trail. So this area is going to be disturbed either by our project or by the Fairfax Water project. And so this is something that has been in coordination for some time. In terms of the status, we are currently at right-of-way acquisition, which is simply an easement from Fairfax Water. Most of the property is city property. There is a very small portion, if I go back to this map, closer to Arlington Boulevard, that is actually Fairfax Water property.

So the project itself is construction of approximately 1,200 linear feet of trail. This was funded by FY18 smart scale funding. We are mostly complete with the plans. And again, we are in right-of-way acquisition, again, and easement. We have approximately $6 million of funding. We don't expect to spend anywhere near that. Approximately $700,000 has been spent to date. In terms of the forest impact, I will have Anna present. So like I've discussed in previous presentations, when looking at forest impact and trails, looking at both forest factors as well as site conditions and then how that interacts with the project design. So for this project, it's almost fully in the resource protection area, a little less than an acre.

The forest condition is fair to good. It's fair on the edge of the forest along Pickett Road and moves into a healthier condition as you get further in. There's fairly high invasives along the edge. There's utility easements along Pickett Road where the invasives have overgrown that area. But then as you move into the forest, significantly less so. 84 trees are proposed for removal. And like Wendy said, there is overlap with the water main replacement. And so some of those would be getting removed. Of course, there would be additional trees from the water replacement project itself. The site is fairly flat in comparison to other projects we've talked about. And so the grading is significantly less.

There is some grade towards as you approach Fairfax Boulevard. And that's probably when you see more tree removal in those areas. And so I'd look at this impact as probably low to moderate with it being on the more low end. And I would say also, unlike a lot of projects, this does provide access for invasive control. That's not always the case. Some of the invasive control is very difficult in this site. And so the trail would provide better access. And, of course, management needs would be additional planting. Okay. Moving on to the next trail, Country Club's Commons background. This was originally envisioned as part of the Metro to Mason route. And it was in a slightly different location. But later it was identified that this location could provide the same level of connectivity.

What this project does is improve access to Old Town and Fairfax Boulevard for both residents north and south of Fairfax Boulevard. What you see at the bottom are two graphics from the multimodal transportation plan. The graphic on the left shows the street grid. So all of the white lines are streets that exist in the city. What shows on the right is what we call the functional street grid, meaning streets that connect elsewhere. So what you see is all of the streets in this area around Blenheim in this area do not connect out to Fairfax Boulevard. In order for residents to get out of this neighborhood by vehicle, the access is on Blenheim Boulevard. And so what this connection does is provide a non-vehicular connection across Fairfax Boulevard.

Otherwise, it's about almost a mile and a half to get from the same point sort of in Country Club Hills out to Fairfax Boulevard using Lion Run or going around towards closer to Old Town. So what this does is it provides access to bicycle facilities on Fairfax Boulevard to the George Snyder Trail. And it was and it's located right behind the fire station, giving it sort of eyes on the trail, which provides a level of security and safety. This shows the concept planning for this project. It would be mostly boardwalk. The photo on the right is just an example. That is the Navy Federal Credit Union Trail in Vienna, if you're familiar with that. But that is sort of an example photo of what this trail would would look like.

In terms of the status, this project has not started. We have received the funding. This was included in the FY19 two-year program and we received FY20 smart scale funding. We have five million dollars to do this project and, again, has not started. And then in terms of the forest impact, again, I will have Anna speak to this. Again, this project is fully within the or almost fully within the resource protection area. When considering passive recreation trails, thinking about what alternative options might exist and what the project design is, we don't have a project design yet. So some of the information is hard to say. We don't have a tree inventory for the number of trees to be removed. When it comes to invasives or other disturbance on the site, there is some at the edges.

As you go into the forest, there's less. But access for invasives, unlike what I was saying for Pickett Trail, access for invasive removal is not necessary for this area. There is a concern that more invasives would be introduced through inserting a trail into the area. The terrain is variable. It's flat towards the country club's neighborhood. And then as you approach the fire station, it has a significant grade to it. And so grading and the impact of trees would be a concern in that area. And like most projects, planting and invasive management, and I would think overall impact would probably lean towards more than moderate end because of that grade as well as the invasive concern. Thank you.

And then lastly, the George Snyder Trail. I have one slide on this. We're very familiar with this project funded by concessionaire payment. We are in final plans. The status is that the advertisement has been paused awaiting direction from city council. VDOT has given the city a deadline of December 31st to have updated 100% plans. That concludes my presentation. And again, these are just trails. There are. I do want to mention we have numerous shared use path projects, shared use paths in progress as well. But the ask of us was to discuss trails. Thank you. Council Member Peterson. Just for clarification, and maybe Mr. Foster can help here. There is a map of the, a sketch map of the alternative.

What I had expected it would be in the presentation, but when might that be available for people to review? Well, I have paper copies, but Casey can pull it up because it's been, we just got it yesterday. There you go. Well, if I might just, this is the product of quite a bit of community input and consideration from council members. But this is a sketch of an alternative route that is outlined in green in this map. And you can't probably see the color coding real well, but essentially there's a set of red dots, which is a route 66 bike path coming off 66. It connects with blue dots, which are existing or approved segments of bikeways. The green dots are proposed connector segments that would connect the dots between the blue so that we have a continuous connection that comes down Eaton Place, University Drive into Fairfax Boulevard.

And then from Fairfax Boulevard goes all the way down in this case to past Fairfax High School. Just to note that when we visited with VDOT, the conversation was around looking at an alternative that would focus on the west only that would terminate at Fairwoods Parkway. But when we had internal discussion, it was suggested that for purposes of presentation to VDOT, we stretched that the full distance to show that it could be possible pending resources available. So in this map, it runs the entire duration of Fairfax Boulevard. And I think the context for this is that VDOT had asked to have us return with a sketch for initial consideration as soon as possible to make sure that this is directionally correct so that we could take next steps if they're in agreement.

So who exactly on the dais was involved as far as input? Could I just ask? Could I? It in. Okay, I'm just trying to determine when you say who was involved in designing this with a lot of input. This looks like that it is not a shared use path or trail to me. It looks like it is a bike path that is using existing sidewalks and existing sidewalks and already paved paths. Would that be correct? Is that what this is showing? So the design details remain to be determined, but this is following, in the case of the Green Dots, an existing sidewalk that's seven feet wide that would be a candidate for widening and a candidate for the installation of a protective barrier so that it could serve as a shared bike path.

And that would be consistent with similar designs that have been used in these kinds of circumstances. It also connects to work that's currently approved or in place to do the same in terms of a shared bike path that comes out of the intersection up by the Moose Lodge and down to Eaton. If I may, I think some other benefits of this over a trail in the woods is that this would truly be accessible in the evening hours. It would be well lit. It would be available to be used at all hours of the day and would not be essentially closed from dawn to dusk like the trail through the woods would be. It also does not have a lot of the devastation to our forests that I think every other version of this proposed plan does.

I think it still provides the connection points. What I really actually like about this is that we talk about connectivity. We talk about bringing people into our city. Having a path that goes right through the woods and doesn't put them at all into our major arteries does not encourage them to stop and shop, does not encourage them to check out a new restaurant or business. I mean, I think this provides that connection point. I'd feel much safer with my child riding, they're my kids now, riding their bikes from our house to Fairfax High School on something like this rather than what currently exists. And I certainly wouldn't put them on a path through the woods to then turn around and go to the high school.

I mean, it's dark at night when they get out. It's dark in the morning when they go to school. To me, this is great. I don't think this precludes a conversation about a footpath that could run through these same spots or something along the stream restoration project. I think those are separate conversations to have, and I don't mean to muddy the waters here. But if our goal is connectivity, this is connecting businesses, residents, people. This is bringing people where we want them to be. So that's my take on this. Ms. Sanford, is this an entirely different project? I'm not really in a position to answer that question. I think the question is whether it meets the scope and the intent of what we submitted, and I do think that that's an interpretation that VDOT would need to provide.

My hesitation is that given the time limit that they have given us, the exploration and public engagement that would be required to get this project to 100% plans, is what concerns me. This is a significant amount of right-of-way acquisition and evaluation that has not occurred. Which makes me feel like this is an entirely different project. What I have said in the past is that we are not precluded from doing this. This and the trail are two separate types of projects. They're for different types of users. They're different in nature. Councilmember Amos. I think it's okay. Just worth at least asking VDOT. And if they come back to us and say no, then clearly we need to reevaluate. We don't even know if this is a feasible option.

I would like to hear from them first before we just, we don't need to spend all night talking about this. Let's move on. Anyone else? Councilmember Hardy Chandler. I apologize. I did not see who had input on this. Councilmember Hall and Councilmember Peterson. Okay. And a number of members from the community, just as a reference point. This wasn't just Councilmember Peterson and I sat down and did any of this. I was much more advisory, but there was a lot of community input from people that are vested in seeing a difference, a different option. Well, I would add also, and Councilmember Bates, can you correct me here? This is actually somewhat consistent with the proposal that you made over a year ago.

And we chatted a bit about this in relation to that. Somewhat. There have been a couple changes. So, further discussion on this? Councilmember Amos feels like we should submit this to VDOT as a preliminary design. Ms. Sanford should, you know, I guess there's a consensus. We have not voted. There is a consensus to present this to VDOT as an alternate design. Okay. Okay. So, it sounds like we have a consensus. Yes. Councilmember Bates. One question. One question. Just in case there might be feasibility issues with this route due to the, you know, the constraint of the drainage ditch at the corner of Eden and Fairfax Boulevard, could we maybe add just another green dotted line the rest of the way down Eden Place as an alternative just in case they say that, or it comes back that we might not be able to do this?

Councilmember Bates, what VDOT is going to be looking at is just the concept of an on-road versus an off-road facility at this point. There is a lot of engineering that would need to be done. That is one of many issues that would come up. The sidewalk falls off, you know, there's a steep grade in many places. So, there are retaining walls. There is drainage. There is grading. There are numerous engineering issues. So, I hear what you're saying, but that the question right now to VDOT is an on-road option, a completely on-road option, an alternative that is feasible under our current project. I mean, that is what I understand as the question. The feasibility, I think, is a whole separate question in terms of the engineering, the technical feasibility.

Right now, the question is, is this project allowable, I think is maybe the right word to use, under the current project scope and definition? And then, if yes, then we move through the feasibility. Yeah. Okay. I think that makes sense. I think it's certainly worthwhile to send this off to VDOT and see what they come back with. And just to clarify, I think when we chatted earlier, the green segment at the very beginning of Eaton is on the south side. It's on the south side as designed. The north side is possible, but that would get to getting in the weeds a little bit. That's not here, but that's certainly something that could be added as an alternative. But the larger, so for the time being, this is just south side and it connects to the blue dots, which are the already in place connection down University Drive.

Yep. All right. Are we ready to conclude this presentation on the trails and adjourn into our meeting? It seems like we have consensus. I am now. No. May I ask a question first? Yes. Council Member Hall. Thank you. So when it comes to the Country Club Hills Connector, you slide, I think it's nine, the functional street grid. Just to point out there that that doesn't include the footpaths that currently exist. My husband and our dog and I went out and walked those over the weekend. We did the entire George Snyder's Trail. We did the footpath that goes from Pinehurst to the high school. And we did the footpath that goes from the commons down. And I don't know if we took a wrong turn, but we dumped out on the not police or fire station side of the M&T Bank, the Main Street Bank there.

The functional street grid refers, again, to the streets that are for vehicular use. Footpaths are certainly there. They exist all over. What we're talking about is an accessible path, which is different than sort of a footpath or a goat path type of a thing. Okay. It just seems like an odd term to use, and maybe it's just a transportation term, but functional street grid would mean to me you can drive a car through it. Yes. And if we're not driving a car through it, then I don't know that we really care that it is a street grid because it's for non-vehicular traffic, as you said, right? Correct. Okay. Maybe just a transportation quirk. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Bates. To follow up on that, I think something else that might be helpful for us to see is, and I think I might know where it is in the comprehensive plan, but I'll try and find it.

But maybe when we have the vote later on, if we could maybe pull up the diagram that shows the 15-minute walk sheds with regard to the activity centers in this area. I recall seeing that in the comprehensive plan. That might be, I think, maybe a bit more relevant to paths specifically. Anything further? Chair Gregor? Well, just to add, I'm in support of that, but hope that we would pull up the most recent version of the comprehensive plan that includes all of the updates that were provided by the Environmental Sustainability Committee last year. That would, I think, help us show the consistency of what we're doing here against those updates. Anything else? No? Okay. Great. We'll take a five-minute recess before we start the regular council meeting in the chambers.

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. That was beautiful. 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. 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 can move on to the public and provide the staff. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We just, thank you. stand has been proposed is 360 million dollars that is a 216 percent increase in eight years now i look to see what the explanation for that was and frankly i can't understand it in 2017 the city had 400 full-time employees the city now has 464 or will have if the proposed budget is adopted that's an increase of only 14 percent i thought perhaps the significant inflation that i see every time i buy anything might explain it no that's only 30 percent

so for reasons that are are not clear to me at all the city budget is increasing at seven times seven plus times the rate of inflation and i would submit to you that in the election that we just had that might have been a time to let residents know what the choices are that they might have to make regarding these financial burdens and the fact that nothing at all was said by any of you is pretty appalling thank you is there anybody else in this room yep you can come forward sir hello i'm david giller at 10305 darby street and i've third time i've been here about the very same issue um i just went to you know your um working meeting about the um sherwood and the willard center and it's you know really interesting and it's really fun and you see these beautiful drawings and this

beautiful thing i have a lot of problems with the actual proposal which you know we can talk about at some point i mean one of them is just expansion i mean how why would you ever want to build a building that costs that much and have no way of expanding and they just said no there's no expansion built in but while i can understand why you would want something like that and i like these things i like we talked about last time i was here about a lot of the arts and this sort of thing to add to our tax burden of all the people who live in this city all of them the renters the people who are own houses the people who i guess who live in hotels to add this much money in one year i mean my bill went up 20 percent i know everybody's didn't mine went up 20 percent and i'm just

completely i mean i understand it's a tough job to have to say no to things but this particular as an example this plan to build this multi-million you know yeah it's going to be shared with fairfax county but fairfax city believe me is going to have a lot of the burden of maintaining it and keeping it going having staffing um i just think it's just beyond we can't afford it and you know to have to borrow borrow borrow and then have to keep paying paying paying and raising taxes on everybody who lives here i just think it's wrong it's just morally wrong and it's it's just wrong for the people who live here and really can't afford it so i thank you for listening to me and i appreciate your time and

i know it's hard i certainly understand how hard it is so thanks a lot is there anybody else hello my name is zach bros i'm at 35 74 sutton heights circle the new community on pickets road i'm actually here in my personal capacity but also as the hoa president on behalf of the majority of the members of the community i sent out a notice beforehand to ask if they wanted me to stand as a proxy and the majority of folks asked me to uh and voice my opinion here which is that again with the i agree with the folks that have just spoken we need to take a look at expenditures before we look at a tax raise of this magnitude i think there's three different ways we can look at it there's the special projects the community center we just talked about which is a astronomical price that we're going to

have to carry for many many years the debt service on that is extremely high in addition to that we have some increases on just general cost centers that are magnitudes ahead of inflation so again we have to look at why why are we spending that amount of money are we seeing the same increase in population coming into the community that justifies that spend and then third there's just some areas where we need to look at do we need these expenditures zero based budgeting go back and look and say is this something we actually need or do we just need to keep tacking on six to seven percent increase every single year it's not sustainable and frankly the the members of the community can't can't sustain a 15

percent increase i know there's other tax uh rates that are on the on the agenda tonight the meals tax again is another tax on top of this that again hits everybody in the community so again i'd ask for the council to really think about whether we need this tax increase the assessments are increasing so you're already seeing your base expand but to then add a tax rate increase on top of that that's why you're getting people there to come up here and saying 15 16 20 percent increase and that's again that's in one year um and folks around here are or having to watch their pockets so when you're having to factor another 20 percent on your on your unexpectedly uh that is something that cannot you know is is

difficult to to swallow so again i'd like to take implore the council to look at expenditures before tax increases thank you is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item hello my name is doug cox hate speaking in public i'm at 39 16 fairview drive fairfax virginia i'm going to reiterate what these guys said just to drive it home sometimes you got to say no all right i don't know why we need a health center i've lived here over 30 years got long fine without it we have so much debt already we don't need to keep adding to it now i hear 27 years after we refurbished fire station three are we really going to get rid of that one and decide i think i see in the capital budget 40

million dollars for a fire station we're not fairfax county and yet fairfax county can still build one a fire station out of tyson's with a transit facility for 20 million dollars why is ours 40 million dollars five million for land the rest i don't know i don't know where these numbers come from can't keep paying it what these other folks are saying i feel like i got a deal mine only went 14 folks yay me but i got divorced this past year so i had to go through all this stuff before so i had it handy 2016 to 2022 year over year add up the 22 rate to 20 or 16 rate went up a total of 20 percent for me over those seven years if you get what you want what's being asked of the taxpayers next year

high 39 in four years that's a lot of money i'm an old dude if i retired at 62 two and a half months of my retirement social security would go to just keep paying this bill and if it's gone up 40 percent in the last four years what's it going to be in the next two three four it's just not stopping it's not like it's a one-time oopsie this is becoming the new drumbeat expensive infrastructure vanity projects i would call them thank you for canceling the trail 600 feet of elevated trail in the woods guys you got to start thinking every one of these projects comes with a tail it comes with a financial burden whether it's staffing maintenance like the other person said the other person said we have increased staffing tremendously someone else pointed out when our

hiring spirit look like from 2022 to this point what are we 11 increase in staffing 48 50 ftes below the line but are being requested in future years between now and 30 30 30 can't afford it it time to get the fiscal house in order thank you very much next person katie johnson 101 32 spring lake terrace um this is the first time in the work session i love going to work sessions and retreats um that i've heard of an exit ramp at each each phase of the willard sherwood agreement and i'd ask that you guys explore the exit ramp at this phase it's too much it's too big um it's just too much thank you is there anybody else in the room that wants to speak on only the real estate tax rate i will close the public hearing no council action will be taken tonight and the tax rate will be set

on may 6 2025 you're on general public comment sir okay this is just public hearings right now in the budget okay so the second public hearings on 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 taxation of certain real property in the city of fairfax used for zoned for commercial and industrial purposes and to establish a separate tax rate on such real property effective as of january 1st 2025 revenue from which would be used exclusively for transportation purposes that benefit the city of fairfax i'll recognize jc martinez chief financial officer to provide the staff presentation mayor council section 58 decimal 1

dac 3221 decimal 3 the code of virginia was adopted as part of the transportation bill enacted during the 20 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 on commercial and industrial property revenue from which shall be used exclusively for transportation purposes to benefit the city city council can adopt a rate between 0 cents to 12 and a half cents however no formal action on this item would result in the rate reverting back to zero the attached ordinance would set the 2025 tax year's rate at a dollar 12 and a half for 100 of assessed valuation this would be no change from the 2024 tax year

and would be applicable to all affected real property as of january 1 2025 the proposed 2025 rate of a dollar 12 and a half per 100 of assessed value is the maximum rate allowable by the code of virginia approximately 201 132 dollars per each one cent of tax rate is imposed or about 2.5 million dollars at the proposed rate of 12 and a half cents per 100 of assessed valuation in a very simplistic example of how the city leverages this funding for every one dollar the city levies in the cni tax the city receives another one dollar in nvta 30 funding we can then use that two dollars as local match to two dollars in revenue sharing funding so the city starts with one dollar in cni and ends up with four for transportation funding happy to answer

any questions are there any questions for mr martinez from the dais all right i will open the public hearing mrs shinneberry has this public hearing been advertised yes it has no one signed up prior to the meeting to speak on this general or this public hearing item is there anybody on that is in the audience who would like to speak on this certain public hearing item all right seeing none i will close the public hearing no council action will be taken tonight council will will consider on may 6 2025. our next public hearing is on ordinance amending chapter 102 article 2 section 102-31 imprints b of the code of the city of fairfax virginia to increase the wastewater utility rate by 6.0 percent for fy26

i'll recognize jc martinez chief financial officer to provide the staff presentation thank you mayor council once again in conjunction with the city's financial advisors and consulting engineers a wastewater utility multi-year financial and capital planning analysis has been developed the primary goal of the analysis is to create a comprehensive cash flow planning model taking into account existing and projected operating and capital needs while minimizing rate increases for existing customers based on the analysis staff recommends that you use a rate increase of six percent in the city's uh wastewater utility the city raised rates 10 percent in fy 2014 through fy 2020 8 percent in fy 21 and 6 from fy 22 through fy 25 increased residential and commercial wastewater user rates are required to fund the city's increasing costs associated with its aging infrastructure within the city

and to cover its share of expenditures associated with the operation of and the capital improvements at the nomen coal wastewater treatment plant the city contracted for 6.27 capacity in the plant which is owned and operated by fairfax county major plant upgrades are necessary necessitated by stringent stringent federal regulations designed to improve wastewater treatment and quality the critical plant construction and renovation projects needed to replace and improving aging infrastructure the proposed six percent rate increase would impact user fees as follows as listed in the staff report the increased user fees are expected to increase wastewater utility revenues by almost six hundred thousand dollars the quarterly financial impact to residents customers consuming a typical

volume equal about 14 000 gallons is about 10.53 cents per quarter happy to answer any questions are there any questions for mr martinez from the dice seeing none i will open the public hearing machine of areas this public hearing been advertised yes it has no one has signed up for this public hearing item to speak on is there anybody that would like to speak on this public hearing item okay seeing none i will close the public hearing no council action will be taken tonight council consideration on may 6 2025 our next public hearing is on an ordinance submitting a chapter 102 article 5 section 102-203 in parents b of the code of the city of fairfax virginia to set the rate for stormwater utility service furnished by the city at 34.30 per bu in parents billing unit a 6.0 percent increase i'll

recognize jc martinez chief financial officer to provide the staff presentation thank you mayor council the city's stormwater utility fund initial rate was 28.80 per billable unit also known as bu and was set at a time when the stormwater utility was created on december 14th 2021 this action is to set the rate at 34.30 per bu or a six percent rate increase for calendar year beginning january 1 2025. user fees are expected to generate stormwater utility revenue of approximately 3.2 million dollars or an increase of about 183 thousand dollars of note we do issue stormwater credit credits and on average that's about 130 000 per year happy to answer any questions are there any questions of mr martinez

from the dais seeing none i will open the public hearing miss shinaberry has this public hearing been advertised yes it has no one has signed up prior to the meeting is there anybody on 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 on may 6 2025 our last public hearing item is on an ordinance amending chapter 90 in parents taxation article 6 in parents tax on meals section 90-262 of the code of the city of fairfax pertaining to the levy and the amount of tax on meals i'll recognize jc martinez chief financial officer to provide the staff presentation thank you mayor council once more once section 90-262 of the

city code currently provides a four percent meals tax the proposed ordinance would increase the amount of the meals tax to six percent as set forth in the city manager's recommended fy 2026 budget the effective date of this change would be july 1 2025 the previous meal tax change was from two percent to four four percent in 2004 or 21 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 tax real estate taxes due to visitors and non-residents paying this tax deletions to the current language are shown as strike throughs and additions are double underlined as text in the staff report the two percent proposed increase would

generate about an additional 4.4 million dollars in meals tax revenues each one percent generates about 2.2 million dollars this change would result in a tax increase of approximately one dollar to a 50 dollar meal happy to answer any questions are there questions for mr martinez on this item seeing none i will open the public hearing mission of areas this public hearing been advertised yes it has and i had people sign up prior to the meeting to speak i'm going to call the first speaker sabrina henderson to come forward good evening mayor city council and fellow community members my name is sabrina henderson my family has owned pj skidoo's restaurant here in fairfax city my father cosmos bells has been a business owner in

fairfax city since 1970 he originally owned the black baron restaurant and converted it to pj skidoo's in 1978 this restaurant is my father's other child he loves this business more than me at times he is 86 years old and still comes in six days a week he's an immigrant from greece traveling alone to the u.s at the age of 11 to escape poverty and find a better life over the years he has owned grocery stores and restaurants he's seen it all i'm here today to express my strong opposition to the opposed two percent meals tax increase pj skidoo's is a generational family business my cousin dimitri who's here tonight some of you may know him as tacky also owns part of the business with my dad and i left my corporate

job over 12 years ago to come help my my family restaurant this is our livelihood pj skidoo's has been a part of this community for over 45 years currently employing 72 employees we want to continue to be a part of this community for years to come the restaurant industry has faced wave after wave of challenges rising food costs the last three years food costs has increased 30 to 40 percent you see it for yourselves in the grocery stores labor shortages higher wages supply chain issues and a customer base that's become more cautious with their spending a two percent increase may not sound like much but for us it's another obstacle that will push customers away and tighten our already thin margins yes the tax is paid for by the customer but make no mistakes it's small

businesses like ours that feel the consequences we're the ones who deal with the fallout the slower nights empty tables the difficult decisions about staffing and hours this proposed tax increase is a death sentence to restaurants business is already drastically down you will see more and more restaurants closing and how much revenue loss will that be for the city this is not the time to stress the restaurant industry even more with this excessive and exclusive tax we have always prided ourselves on being an affordable meal option for our community but that isn't the case anymore we've been forced to raise our prices in order to cover our growing expenses when customers see higher prices on their checks whether it's from increased cost or higher tax it does affect their behavior

they dine out less they order less they tip less and they choose cheaper options sometimes they may even go somewhere else entirely maybe even a neighboring town where the meals tax is lower or non-existent that drop in spending directly impacts our sales our staff's earnings and our ability to stay afloat we're not asking for special treatment we're simply asking that you truly consider the effects of this decision a two percent meals tax increase will chip away at the trust and affordability we have worked so hard to build with our community it puts us at a competitive disadvantage please don't put another burden on small restaurants trying to make it in the city we're not just any local business we're a part of the heart and

culture that makes fairfax city unique please don't make it harder for restaurants to survive support us if we have supported you in the city for so many years thank you for your time and uh we we have quite a few signatures petitioning against this so do i hand them in to you or okay our next speaker is bill hamrock i appreciate your enthusiasm really i do but if we just maintain some decorum in the chamber i would appreciate it hello thank you for having me uh my name is bill hamrock and i'm the owner of hamrock's restaurant and kelly's oyster house right in the city i'm going to start with two reference points i was leaving hamrock's tonight just earlier this afternoon i told my server beatrix where i was going

told her what it was about initial response immediate was oh my god people ask us all the time how much our taxes are second when i opened hamrock's in 2016 speaking with the city it was no no no no you can't have a sign no that sign is too big no you could can't put a sign there the sign where we're actually facing the street 2016. since that time i have found the city to be extremely helpful improved and supporting thank you for that it is much appreciated chris brin chris bruno and his staff are great he was a huge addition with the staff and everything they are doing police fire city offices treasurer's office i found to be helpful i can call them i can approach them when i go i can talk to some someone i get

answers they listen i'm wrong they tell me i'm wrong and they let me know how it can be fixed i found it to be very helpful okay meals tax please don't do this with this increase tax is going to be viewed as 12 percent it's not a two percent increase customer gets to check they see an additional 12 percent okay then they don't notice the two percent they they see 12 percent customers don't give us a break on that but we become more expensive as of now fairfax county does not have a meal stacks with fairfax county not having a meal stacks this we shouldn't be here talking about it this is a drastic increase on us six percent more than our competitors a mile and a half away 75 of our business comes from outside the business you guys already said that

what if they stop coming we will be known as most expensive this will hurt some will not come that that will definitely happen 12 percent onto the total check six percent more than fairfax county it's drastic it's not fared we're not competitive that shouldn't be considered however part two it sounds like fairfax city the fairfax county will have the males meal stacks you know it's not done yet but they are working on it it may happen chances are it's going to happen even with fairfax county getting the meal stacks their meal stacks will be three or four percent probably okay if it's four percent they're even with us if we go up an additional two percent we are still most expensive is it just two percent more no we are most expensive um

people people will see the increase it will hurt us most expensive is not good it will scare people away when restaurants lose business they go out of business we are still in the middle of business please don't do this please don't hurt our businesses appreciate your time thank you our next speaker is randy barnett good evening everybody i want to thank you for everything you do for the city i won't be as eloquent that's sabrina that was amazing i do have some talking points i'm not a great public speaker um but it really is a lot of the same you've already heard um we are in an industry that is getting really pinched right now everything you go out to is more expensive everything you just hear about inflation is about food whether it's grocery stores or restaurants

sales are already down if they're up or even it's because price is increasing we're having to increase our prices to meet those demands as it was just mentioned somebody wants to go down a mile out to fairfax corner they're already four percent cheaper now don't make them six percent cheaper if they want to go to mosaic you know they're cheaper it's it's very it's already a challenge to get people to come to the city right traffic traffic lights parking even though the parking is so much better than everybody believes um all those reasons right we have to get people in the city we we need incentives to bring them here over the last few years inflation inflation inflation all our prices have gone up what my burger used to be is not what my burger is now so that so the meals tax revenue

has to already be going up significantly uh i don't i don't envy the position you all are in um but there seems to be an ability to look harder at expenditures instead of taking the easy right route out to to higher taxes please you know when i looked up some of the other regions uh other towns because that's where the pinch is right on on the towns what their other meals tax are vienna go down the street to vienna three percent go to herndon 3.75 percent manassas four percent haymarket four percent prince william county one of the ones with account with the county tax four percent we will be the highest meals tax in northern virginia and and i believe to by statute the highest it can be at six percent right so i would just say that that

that that the the um where the meals tax can be voted on it gets roundly rejected um by the county the county got the legislature to change the rules and and and they will probably you know increase uh roll it out but it will re it will result in reduced dining out it will result in hitting middle income and lower income people people you know families more than others um it it targets an industry that is already at the just being pinched more than any other industry out there at least i think so um we're already starting to lose some people right we just lost herbs we just lost to have a bite there's others out there that are just holding on right um try to keep the people there let's try to keep our businesses here and get our revenue

through the volume not through the percentage thank you our next speaker cyrus coleman um hi mayor and council members um i'm the owner of uh doce vita italian kitchen and wine bar in elise restaurant here in fairfax um i appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today um yeah i mean just what most people are saying this is going to put us at a competitive disadvantage there's no other local municipality with a six percent meals tax um we are constantly competing with fairfax corner mosaic um to you know bring people to our restaurants um i also sit on the restaurant committee restaurant week committee with fairfax city and we've worked extremely hard to make fairfax city a restaurant destination and there's no uh this is going to impact that all that work

um seems the common trend with some of the restaurants is that we're we're down we are already losing traffic to our restaurants in the city and this will tremendously impact that um just to reiterate bryana three percent alexandria five percent manassas four percent arlington four percent uh i got here a little early because of the time i didn't realize it started at seven and i sat in on the work committee there um and listening to the sherwood project i i'm not a city resident i'm sure that project is would be amazing for city residents but if i ran my business like that project i would be out of business and so to increase meals tax to help support a project like that if that's the case it just doesn't make sense and

to also read i mean the restaurants are challenged right now we we are getting the burden of inflation inflation we are already raising our prices um this this is not going to help things so i would encourage you all to vote against this proposal and find another way to raise the money so thank you for your time appreciate it our next speaker is bridget fonceca mayor council thank you i'm bridget fonceca over there is amanda and rose we're um an all woman and all george maize and alumni owners of patriots pub and grill patriots have been in the city and making fresh food since 1996 30 years next year we are members of the central favorites chamber of commerce my concern with this 50 percent meal seconds increase is that no restaurant has actually

recovered financially since covet the prices of food have skyrocketed we just had to increase food prices for uh to compensate for our ever rising overhead we appreciate the city prides themselves in supporting small businesses with restaurant week an extension of restaurant week small business saturday a small business month but this tax does not support small businesses according to a report from fairfix times this tax will be directly increased the uh the cost of meals which will make families and individuals less included to go out to eat this will result in the closure of more small businesses when patriots was observing relocation options in 2018 we decided to stay in the city due to the importance of small business success especially because of support from the chamber

the city does not need more loss and division we need restaurants to continue to provide a safe haven for include include inclusivity and family love i have 156 uh people petitions here if i may thank you our next speaker is josh alexander good evening mayor and city council thank you all for being here and dealing with all of this um i don't know i know how i'm doing but i also know how a lot of my friends are doing in this business and there there are some struggling folks and a closed business a closed restaurant generates zero percent meals tax and they might hack it out for another couple years but when the lease is up i can tell you they are leaving they're packing it up and they're going everyone's very tired a lot of my friends are still living off of

covid money and it finished up last year so i'm going to have to go to the next speaker it's coming zero percent doesn't help anybody let's just keep it at four thank you our next speaker is jennifer rose good evening mayor members of council it was tough for me to pick which public hearing to speak in so consulting with the city clerk we threw me in here but i'm going to be covering all the topics this evening again on behalf of the central fairfax chamber we thank you for your ongoing commitment to the city's economic health you do not have easy decisions to make i do not envy you as you know the chamber represents a diverse array of businesses that are the backbone of the community's prosperity and we value this opportunity to share our perspective as you finalize your budget

earlier today i did send you a more detailed statement you probably haven't seen it yet because you've been in work session but i wanted to publicly reiterate a couple of points your budget's resilience on reliance excuse me on increasing the real estate tax rate meals tax utility fees are going to have a direct and negative impact on small businesses and economic development in fairfax city these measures risk undermining years of progress in making our city a regional destination for entrepreneurship innovation and of course dining we urge the council to reconsider the current approach and instead focus on reducing tax and fee rates to alleviate the financial burden on the small businesses rather than seeking new revenue through higher taxes and fees

you have been and we are appreciative that you have been reviewing city spending and really look towards those meaningful cuts and efficiencies they are there you can find them this approach will help ensure the city's fiscal health without sacrificing the competitiveness and viability of the local business community our small businesses are resilient but they cannot continue to absorb the ever-increasing costs without consequence the proposed budget as currently structured sends the wrong message to entrepreneurs and investors who are considering coming to the city as a place to do business so please demonstrate your support for economic development by rejecting tax and fee increases and making the hard choices to control spending i appreciate your consideration of

this and as i was listening to the restaurants one of the restaurant owners actually asked me earlier how many businesses have closed in the last couple of years and i just started thinking about the restaurants off the top of my head i can think of probably eight restaurants in the city of fairfax that have closed in the last two to three years another restaurateur asked me how many new restaurants have opened to replace them it's not eight thank you is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item on the meals tax yeah okay good evening my name is doug cox 3916 fairview drive uh listening to these proprietors you know i saw this in the council reporter two percent meal tax and i thought you got to be kidding me when i was a kid

my dad said if you like a local business patronize local business so that they're always there now as a city resident what i'm hearing is there's potential two percent tax rate i know one dollar on every 50. say i go out nice dinner 100 bucks with a friend or two now i'm out two bucks i know not a killer in the grand scheme of things it seems but why as a resident am i being penalized for patronizing a local business business i mean that's the way i feel with this you're going to penalize me two percent because i want to give my business to a local vendor a local restaurateur give them a break all right again i came up here before almost 30 percent in the last three years it'll be 40 tax increase on my real estate

you know and that includes storm water at six percent increase year over year you know i'm paying a lot most people that come to these fairfax restaurants i guarantee you are fairfax city residents don't penalize us don't penalize them because i want to see those places when i'm hungry and feel like going out i don't want to go to mosaic i want to go to fairfax city i happen to like a lot of these places that already spoke today i hope they're around don't do this tax please thank you is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this agenda item yeah i'm david geller um from derby street uh my parents had a restaurant a long time ago and so i kind of know what it's like to run i mean i used to i didn't really work there but i would hang out

and um i just think if we want the city to um just in general for businesses we have to make it economical we have to encourage businesses to thrive here and one way you do that is you keep the taxes low i mean it's as simple as that i realize it's the businesses aren't paying the taxes directly it's the customers but the customers will end up um staying away i mean it's maybe a small fraction just like you said it's not a huge amount of money but they will i mean that's what will happen and all these little struggling restaurants will have a much harder time of it and i really like the restaurants i really think they're great and i think we need to encourage them we need to encourage all businesses but you can't do that by raising the rates and i know earlier i've been

talking about my own personal um thing about um the the real estate tax the thing is we have to figure out how to spend less i mean i just think it's as simple as that i mean you know you can tax the tree you can tax everything but that's just not going to help everyday life in our city it's just not and these businesses we want them to thrive and obviously as you heard today from the actual providers this ain't going to help so thank you is there 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 on may 6 2025. okay we will move on to general public comment

i have a couple people who signed up prior to the meeting our first speaker is tom ross good evening mayor and council tom ross a long-term resident of fairfax city over 40 years residing at 3520 country hill drive in the city of fairfax earlier tonight you took action on item 4a on the agenda which was added at the last minute i am deeply deeply disappointed with this action and ask that you seriously give consideration to reconsideration it was done at the last minute it was done without an opportunity for public comment it was done without an opportunity for a public hearing and it was done as though you were worried about what you might hear very very disappointed about six weeks ago i sent all of you a message on the george schneider trail

and i was planning to speak at your council meeting but got slightly waylaid by an ambulance ride to fair oaks hospital which kept me out of action that night until recently so tonight let me intend what i have to say even though this may be after the horse has left the barn as they say there are many in our community who oppose paved trails because they impact some of our natural areas the community and i understand that i understood it when i was on council when i was sitting where you are there's no question that the schneider trail and others will have impacts on our natural world which i and others in the community believe can be addressed through environmental restoration and have been so planned however there are others in the community who feel equally strongly about an

interconnected system of trails some paved that provide access to all ages and abilities i feel strongly that we both can do both protect the environment and create an interconnected system that serves all of our population both now and for the future that is why i supported those trails projects as a citizen as a member of city council so of countless other citizens community leaders and the community members and others that have provided input i believe we have an obligation to consider why previous decisions were made to support these projects and the benefits they will bring to our community in the long run i believe we can accomplish both protect and preserve our natural areas and at the same time allow for public access and participation in healthy activities i believe the plans that were developed

have done just that today is earth day and i consider myself a conservationist for almost 30 years i served with the national park service overseeing a range of programs that address local conservation and recreation needs in that capacity we worked with communities throughout the nation to find a balance between public use and protection creating trail and recreation systems that benefit both the citizens that reside there and the natural resources that are important to all i honestly believe and have believed we had an opportunity to same in fairfax but now that has gone by the boards um i encourage you again to reconsider the actions you've taken tonight there is a great opportunity to create an opportunity in this community for an interconnected system of trails that

provides access and opportunities to all citizens in the city please consider that thank you our next speaker is philip latassa i speak tonight representing the friends of aquitaine creek the friends of aquitaine creek always advocate for the principle of making our streets safe for people before we make our forests safe for pavement we therefore thank the council very much for your resolution pausing the george schneider trail for reconsideration we therefore also commend the newly described proposal for a route linking eaton place university drive and fairfax boulevard such a route would complete the vision of improved east west non-motorized connections while sparing our last precious woods and wetlands

we commend the council also for the action taken this evening to pause the picket road connector trail a redundant duplication of existing connections thank you our next speaker is michael fabio i am mike fabio 3920 chamberage road and i also would like you to reconsider your recent trail reposal decisions trails are treasures to be passed down from generation to generation city councils comprehensive plans and prabs have recognized this for years and developed the plan and a strategy to fund the plan i was looking forward to the day i could take a walk with my grandchildren from old town through van dyke park and country club hills to the george schneider trail that dream seems to be coming to an end

how did these good ideas get so bad so quickly getting from point a to point b is only half the equation the journey must be safe accessible for all and pleasant the proposed alterations to the plan deny us that journey and thrust us onto busy highways the vision has always been to have these trails off road the daniels run trail is the best example of that forest and trails enjoy a symbiotic relationship we can't have a trail without a forest but the forest can't be enjoyed without a trail a trail is a walk in the woods a trail along a major highway is a sidewalk we need recreational trails the country club connector trail would allow the country club hills neighborhood to have a pleasant short walk to the schneider trail conversely

it would provide mosby woods a fantastic access to the rest of the city the environmental impact is low to moderate it is funded get it planned get it done the key idea of the north fax small area plan vision was to bridge the divide between north fax and mosby woods connecting both communities with the akatink creek a linear park and trails provided by the developers would terminate the snyder trail this will no longer be possible with a trail redesign it's planned it's approved it's funded get it done the present picket road connector is the safest route because it's off-road it's short has low to moderate impact and connects to metro prosperity ave and the cross county trail it's planned it's approved it's funded get it done

in these times of right raising taxes it seems unreasonable to give back any of the 41 million dollars of hard-won funding that has been awarded to these trails every month you delay raises the price tag for our taxpayers and everyone here has complained about raising taxes you my friends are raising our taxes as we wait thank you our next speaker is patrick walker sorry about jumping in there uh earlier i was pretty eager to talk but i'm not entirely familiar with uh all the jargon associated with these meetings and as such that kind of represents me patrick walker resident of one 0009 spring lake terrace in the country club hills community as someone it's just kind of a neighbor not someone who wants to get in anybody's way and definitely not someone

originally who was against anything that would resemble a trail being paved i've lived in country club hills for 20 uh almost eight years now and in the first few years i thought how great of an idea it would be to have a paved trail through those woods so that residents could get to the other side on fairfax boulevard since 2017 though um four years ago i walked down my driveway to see someone passed out on the sidewalk right in front of my property uh called fairfax police department they said this is a normal occurrence because they come quote unquote through the woods fast forward two years later i get home and this is a personal note uh to find that my wife was on a walk along spring lake terrace

which parallels the woods that separates fairfax boulevard uh and spring lake terrace where this trail would be paved um and someone had followed harassed harassed and scared her and sexually harassed her until she ran home on her own i said well where the hell is this guy she said i watched him come through the woods right out by where they have the books which is exactly where the trail would have ended up so on that note i understand that this can be a journey for many but it's been a journey already through the more intrepid individuals transient individuals homeless or not drug world or not i don't know but these types of individuals would have a much easier journey just by going through that

trail so in this personal personal and rather selfish note i am still against and will always be against this particular trail the cch connector trail connecting to our neighborhood thank you is there anybody else that would like to make a general public comment good evening my name is susan kyler i live in cambridge station i want to thank you all for um taking the design concept for the george snyder trail which meets the criteria by the way for which the money was awarded to v dot for consideration i also want to thank you for canceling the country club hills trail which is widely something that is widely opposed by the people who live in the area and um i want to thank you also for pausing the pick a road trail connector because there's a there's some

parallel ones even the county has said at one point during a meeting with the attended by the mayor that why are you doing this when there's a there's a trail a stone's throw away so i'm really pleased that you paused the um that trail for reconsideration and to look for other design options that would provide access so thank you very much i know you have a hard job i also want to thank you for looking at the budget and spending those long hours trying to figure out where we can cut um in order to avoid tax increases thank you katie johnson 101 32 spring lake terrace i just wanted to say thank you very much for um considering alternative alignments we also truly truly believe in a connected city that is walkable and bikeable and

i feel like looking at realignments that can achieve both um are very possible and thank you for taking that action tonight is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak on general public comment okay we will move forward to the consent agenda is there a motion to approve the consent agenda council member hardy chandler i move adoption of a consent agenda for agenda item number 7a consideration of the may 25 2025 regular meeting minutes agenda item number 7b consideration of the april 1 2025 special meeting minutes agenda item number 7c consideration of the april 8 2025 regular meeting minutes agenda item number 7d consideration of an award of construction contract to sagres construction corporation in the

the estimated amount of 4 million 117 611 for the intersection improvements at the mclean avenue warwick avenue fairfax boulevard intersection agenda item number 7e introduction of an appropriation resolution for the general capital wastewater transit storm water cable old town and transportation tax funds for the fy26 budget year i move to approve the consent agenda items number 7a through e and the motion accompanying the consent agenda item as printed is there a second there is a second however i would like to pull items d and e out of the consent agenda okay we will cite item 7d and e will be removed for discussion a roll call vote on the consent agenda minus these items the consent agenda item number 7a

council member mcquillen aye council member bates aye council member peterson aye council member hardy chandlers aye council member hall aye council member amos aye motion passed unanimously so item 7d is a consideration reward of construction contract to sagres construction corporation in the estimated amount of 4 million 1 17 611 for intersection improvements at the mclean avenue warwick avenue fairfax boulevard intersection i'll recognize wendy sanford for the staff report okay thank you um the item before you as the clerk mentioned is the consideration of an award of a construction contract for intersection improvements at the mclean avenue warwick avenue fairfax boulevard intersection um this project is a significant project this is taking a very complicated intersection simplifying it adding pedestrian accommodations

as part of this we will be adding a new traffic signal also at far avenue and fairfax boulevard the city has been working on this project for a number of years the city has smart scale funding to complete this project we have we recently put this project out to bid the bids came in under estimate so we are within our estimate within our engineers estimate for construction um and so the city has approximately 10 million dollars in funding for this um and um again this project is within budget and also our capital project manager sunny sarna is here if you have additional questions are there questions from the dias council member peterson and i asked for this just for sake of clarity because of a lack of familiarity so i appreciate the additional clarity that you've provided but also

because i'm not familiar with public um perspectives on this and just want to check and see whether there have been any significant public concerns around this and if there have whether they've been addressed and how but essentially just to check again out of lack of familiarity with this because i recognize this is a big and complex project yeah so this project i i i'm recalling when this we had the two-year program and this project was even included and the property owners at those corners did come to us and express the concern just about the functionality of that intersection there was public engagement there was all of the engagement with all of the property owners there was outreach particularly with the owner of the

baskin robbins and that property owner um and then the kia dealership and then the printing company um and there were comments that came from the neighborhood and from these owners everything has been addressed there's been it's this project has been relatively uh has been positively received but i would also defer to sunny or mr summers if there's any additional comments they would like to add are there any additional questions my only comment to add is that this is one of the more interesting intersections in the city as i recall so i know you're trying to deal with it it's it's a difficult intersection it's a multi-leg intersection it's confusing it also causes congestion on on route 50 because of the the many

legs of the intersection so this is simplifying it putting it converting it to a really a more traditional four-legged intersection and then again adding another signal and that's that new signal is also going to help with north facts west that new roadway that was that was just constructed it's going to add a signalized access so we'll be breaking the median on fairfax boulevard in that location for that new signal it'll also assist the neighborhood um south of fairfax boulevard in that location to get out making a left um and instead of utilizing the the main intersection they can come to the new signal at far avenue and make a left there should be a map of the of the project in your um i was actually going to ask if moving forward we

could have like a link or something to the we had okay i'm sorry we moving forward that should have been included there was a i thought there was a one page summary of the project that we had posted no okay we will make sure to get that to you it's not no image yeah yeah no okay i will make sure you have that there is the information about the project is also posted on the city website and i can follow up tomorrow with a with a diagram of the intersection one more question i don't have the map but i believe there's a car dealership kind of in the middle of all this that's correct um is the uh improvement here anticipating the potential for there to be any shift in the occupancy around that area in case

for instance the car dealership was to decide to move where somebody else might because again it's a kind of an interesting collection of things at this intersection so uh there is a pending land use application involving that car dealership which will be coming to council at some point so that's separate issue but yes it's all kind of intertwined thank you any other questions are is there a motion to vote on 7d yeah we need a motion on the floor for 7d back last page of staff report yes councilmember hart chandler i move to authorize the purchasing agent to award construction contract in the estimated amount of four million one hundred and seventeen thousand six hundred and eleven dollars to sacred construction corporation for intersection improvements at mclean avenue warwick avenue fairfax

collivari intersection is there a second second a motion's been made by council member hardy chandler and seconded by council member peterson a roll call vote council member amos council member hall aye council member hardy chandler council member peterson aye council member bates aye council member mcquillan aye motion passed unanimously go to 7e which is the introduction of an appropriation resolutions for the general capital wastewater transit stormwater cable cable cable cable cable cable cable cable transportation tax debt service and american rescue plan act imprints arpa funds for the fyi 26 budget year i'll recognize jc martinez for the staff report thank you mayor council as a city clerk just

mentioned this is just an introduction of an appropriations resolution which is needed for the general capital waste water transit transit storm water utility cable old town transportation tax debt service and the american rescue plan act funds in order to implement the fyi 2026 budget the amounts contained on the staff report are pending approval of the final fyi 2026 budget adoption as we're working through this process we will have a budget adjustment worksheet which will show all the debits and the credits and the changes to the final appropriation which will be voted on on budget adoption night may 6. happy to answer any questions council member peterson well thank you i think again it was for clarity here and part of it is

procedural and if i understand it correctly this is pending approval of the budget so the details are subject to that is that correct yeah so the the parallel the corollary that that i would give you is it's the same as the meals tax it's the same these are all advertised maximums in this case these are the numbers that are reflected in the city manager's budget and then just so you can act on them night of the budget they need to be introduced and then you'll have the hearing in action on budget night okay thank you any other questions on this item okay seeing none is there a motion for item 7e councilmember hardy chandler i move introduction i move introduction of the appropriation resolutions for the general

capital wastewater transit storm water utility cable old town transportation tax debit debt service and arpa funds for the fiscal year beginning july 1 2025. i further move to waive the first reading and set the public hearing for may 6 2025. is there a second second the motion's been made by council member hardy chandler and seconded by councilmember peterson a roll call vote councilmember mcquillen aye councilmember bates aye councilmember peterson aye councilmember hardy chandler aye councilmember hall aye councilmember amos aye motion passed unanimously okay we will now take a five-minute recess to go into the work session in the workroom of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the way of the

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. 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 INCORPORATION OF THE FOLLOWING OR THE LISTED IN RED POTENTIAL EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS. COUNCILMEMBER HALL HAD A

RECOMMENDED PROPOSED CHANGE TO SCENARIO FIVE WHICH KEPT THE REAL ESTATE TAX RATE AT AN INCREASE OF TWO AND A HALF CENTS, NO CHANGE TO THE MEALS TAX, UTILIZING THOSE POTENTIAL EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS IN RED. GIVEN THOSE REDUCTIONS, IT WAS ACTUALLY FOUND THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY REDUCE THE REAL ESTATE TAX EVEN MORE SO AND POTENTIALLY HAVE A RATE INCREASE OF 1.75 CENTS, MAKING THE POTENTIAL FY26 REAL ESTATE TAX RATE A DOLLAR 475. ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND SHOWN? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO GO TO SCENARIO 4.1, COUNCILMEMBER AMOS, WHICH HAD PROPOSED A 3 CENT INCREASE TO THE CURRENT REAL ESTATE TAX RATE AND NO CHANGE TO THE MEALS TAX. THAT WOULD PROVIDE SOME REVENUES, MINOR OR A SLIGHT

CHANGE FROM SCENARIO 1, WHICH IS AGAIN THE PROPOSED MANAGER SCENARIO, TO THIS ONE WOULD BE A REDUCTION OF ABOUT $7.7 MILLION IN REVENUES, YET UTILIZATION OF THE LISTED IN RED POTENTIAL EXPENDITURES, SO AGAIN UTILIZING THE FULL AMOUNT FOR THE EDA REAL ESTATE RESOURCE FUND, THE PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED PRIOR CIP APPROPRIATIONS APPLYED TO THE SCHOOL BOND, $3 MILLION REQUEST, REDUCING THE MINIMUM CASH TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CIP, UTILIZING THE PROPOSED 5% POLICE REDUCTION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED BY POLICE IN THE 10% EXERCISE REDUCTION, BUT NOT THE WHOLE 10%, JUST THE FIVE. UTILIZING AN ADDITIONAL $1 MILLION IN THE HIRING FREEZE OF NONURGENT VACANCYS FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR. REDUCING TRAVEL AND TRAINING BY 420, SO NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT, I THINK IT'S 535 WAS THE ENTIRE

AMOUNT, SO THERE'S A LITTLE LEFT OVER THERE. REDUCING THE RENAISONS HOUSING FUNDING BY 392, SO BASICALLY ZEROING THAT OUT. ADDING IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR AN EFFICIENCY AUDIT, I THINK ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP AS A SUGGESTION AT OUR LAST WORK SESSION. ADDING IN AN ADDITIONAL $118,000 TO FUND SALARY FRINGE OF ONE FTE FOR A SPOUT GRANT POSITION, WHICH IS CURRENTLY GONE UNFUNDED, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY COMMUNICATED TO COUNCIL DURING A SATURDAY WORK SESSION OR RETREAT. REDUCING THE NONPROFIT GRANTS BY $100,000, SO NOT THE FULL 300, SO THEY WOULD STILL RECEIVE $200,000. AND THEN DECREASING THE AMOUNT OF THE PROPOSED ANNUAL FEE FOR SENIOR PROGRAMMING FROM $60 TO $15, WHICH WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR PROPOSED REVENUE OF

ABOUT $71,000. DOING ALL THAT ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE THERE, THOSE BULLETTED RED AND BLUE ITEMS WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A VERY SMALL POSITIVE VARIANCE OF ABOUT $67,000. THIS ADDITIONALLY WOULD ALLOW FOR A 3.5% MERIT TO BE PAID TO ALL GENERAL SALARIAED EMPLOYEES IN ADDITION TO THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC SAFETY STEP AS WELL. AND THEN ALSO IMPLEMENTING THE PAY STUDY SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PROPERTY YARD OF ABOUT $500,000. I THINK I'M COVERING EVERYTHING. I DON'T KNOW IF I MISSED ANYTHING, COUNCIL MEMBER AMOS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND OR COLLABORATE WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBER. AND I MEAN IF WE QUICKLY ALSO JUST WANTED TO PULL UP 4.2 BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY THERE'S NOT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE THERE AT ALL OUTSIDE OF THE .5% MEALS TAX CONSIDERATION FOR DISCUSSION. YEAH. OF COURSE. SO AS THE COUNCIL MEMBER

STATED, THE ONLY MAJOR CHANGE HERE IS A POTENTIAL INCREASE TO THE MEALS TAX OF ABOUT HALF A PERCENT. THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL OR MAYBE THE REQUEST WOULD BE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 550 OF THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO BE DEDICATED TO THE SCHOOL BOND PROJECT WITH A POTENTIAL SUNSET. IF THE 1% SALES TAX OPTION WAS AVAILABLE, THIS IS THE OPTION THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OR THE GOVERNOR POTENTIALLY KEEPS STRIKING DOWN THAT IF THAT WERE TO COME INTO FURITION, AT THAT POINT COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO POTENTIALLY RETRACT THIS HALF A PERCENT MEALS TAX INCREASE AT THAT TIME ONCE THAT WAS AVAILABLE. I THINK EVERYTHING ELSE SORT OF STILL HOLDS TRUE. THAT DOES SHOW A LARGER POSITIVE VARIANCE OF ABOUT 617,000.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS ON COUNCIL MEMBER HALL? THANK YOU FOR SENDING THE PACE STUDY IMPLEMENTATION. CAN YOU KIND OF RUN THROUGH THAT? I REALLY DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT BEFORE OUR WORK SESSION STARTED. SURE. I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT HERE, SO I'M GOING TO GO OFF OF MEMORY. MEMORY IS PROBABLY GOOD ENOUGH TO DO THEORY BASED. SURE. I'M GOING TO ESTIMATE THERE ARE PROBABLY ABOUT 30 TO 40 POTENTIAL AFFECTED INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE PROPERTY YARD IN DIFFERENT FUNDS, DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS AS WELL. THIS WOULD BE QBUS, THIS WOULD BE TRANSPORTATION FUND. YOU ALSO HAVE STORM WATER AND WASTEWATER EMPLOYEES THAT ALSO WORK DOWN THERE BUT WITHIN THOSE SPECIFIC FUNDS. AND THEN THE LARGER POOL ARE THE GENERAL FUND EMPLOYEES

WHO DO FLEET, ASPHALT, REFUSE, OTHER THINGS WITHIN PUBLIC WORKS WITHIN THAT AREA. THERE WAS A STUDY THAT WAS INITIATED IN EARLY 2024 BY THE REQUEST OF THEN THE PRIOR CITY MANAGER ALONG WITH THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HR TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL RETRAINING INITIATIVES FOR EMPLOYEES THAT WERE LEAVING FOR POTENTIAL HIGHER SALARIES AND OR OTHER FACTORS. BUT SPECIFICALLY HIGHER SALARIES WITHIN THE REGION. HR TOOK THE INITIATIVE INTERNALLY. THERE WERE TWO INDIVIDUALS, TWO HR STAFF THAT DID AN INTERNAL EVALUATION OF THAT SET GROUP, THEIR CURRENT PAY RATE, THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAD WITH THE CITY, THEIR YEARS OF EXPERIENCE THAT THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD ACQUIRED, WHEREVER ELSE THAT WAS, HOW IT WAS RELEVANT AND WHAT WAS AND WHERE THEY CAME IN AT

INITIALLY WHEN THEY WERE ORIGINALLY HIRED AND HOW THEY COMPARED TO OTHERS WHO MAY HAVE COME IN AT AT A LATER TIME WITH A EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF SERVICE AND OR EXPERIENCE BUT WERE BEING PAID DIFFERENTLY. SO THIS IS MORE OF AN INTERNAL EQUITY FIX THAT IS BEING PROPOSED. IT WAS PRESENTED AND FINALIZED IN ABOUT JULY OR SO OF 2024. IT WAS PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED WITH THE NEW CITY MANAGER AT THAT TIME, LASLO PACKLE, WHO ALSO SORT OF EMBRACED AND SUPPORTED THE IDEA OF IMPLEMENTING THIS. HIS SUGGESTION AT THE TIME WAS TO INCORPORATE THIS IN THE FY26 BUDGET DISCUSSION BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF ABOUT $500,000. IT'S ABOUT $385,000, $395,000 IN SALARY AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT IN FRINCH. SO ABOUT $500,000 TO

BASICALLY REBALANCE AND PROVIDE EQUITY INTERNALLY WITHIN THOSE THAT SELECT GROUP IN THE PROPERTY YARD OF EMPLOYEES. THANK YOU. AND TO CONFIRM, THIS IS NOT A ONE-TIME EXPENSE. THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT GETS ADDED TO THE BUDGET AND THEN CONTINUES TO ADD AND GROW EVERY YEAR BASED UPON OTHER THINGS. SO stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom stom

impact whatever those new rates are. But it would not equate to $500,000 every single year for this group, if I answer your question. I don't mean to be simple-minded, but if big picture, someone's making $50,000 and now this pay study said they should be making $80,000, that's a $30,000 increase this year. Correct. Wouldn't that then have a $30,000 increase also next year over what it would have been had we not done the pay study implementation? So yes, and I think I may have misunderstood or not explained it as well. So to the base budget, yes, you now have to increase the base budget by this potential $500,000 going forward. In addition to that, then you would have to increase it an additional, I'm going to make a number here, three or four percent based on inflationary costs,

medical insurance, fringe benefit costs, potential merits, things of that nature. I think that, I think we're both saying the same thing just different ways. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And for those employees that were included in this, does that include the consideration of a three and a half cent merit or would that be completely on top of in addition to whatever that number is? It would be on top of if approved and that would be effective January 1, 2026. Okay. And are there other departments for which this same process has yet to be done that we need to be thinking of long term? That is an excellent question. I don't know if I can fully answer that, but I can say that in the past, in the

recent past, and I think I noted it in the email communication, that there was a very similar study done in 2022, if I'm not mistaken, with public safety moving them from the general salary scale to their planned step scale. And there was a increase at that time. I could not figure out the number 100% of what that was, but it was budgeted. And that was the last internal equity analysis that was done a few years ago for that, for that area or for that group. Okay. Yeah. That's actually what prompted me to ask the question of, are there others? Because there was one, then there was another one. So we just, I feel like we just need to understand if that is potentially an issue. I recognize that this is a hard

conversation to have. I mean, I think it's not uncommon in most fields for people to change jobs and move around. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened here, but people get hired at a certain date. They get, you know, ongoing merit increases, cost of living adjustment, whatever it is, and they get to, you know, X and Y salary in five years. Someone new comes in, comes over from somewhere else, has similar experience, but the market is paying a different number. It's not unheard of. It happens. It's, it's unfortunately just hitting, I think, at a very bad time combined with a lot of other things. So I do think it's a conversation to be had and to be discussed and to be thought about, but I'm not exactly sure where I am on it right now. Thank you for bringing the information,

though, so we can understand it. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. I'll, I'll, if I could elaborate. So in other jurisdictions, so Alexandria is the most current one that I can explain or give experience. They actually do a one-third review every year of their entire class and concept class classification. So they all review within those positions, sort of see what the market is doing specifically within local government. And if need be, they would propose any adjustments for internal equity and also to maintain competitiveness within the region. The next year, they would do another third. The next year, they would do another third. So then by year four, you've done a hundred percent and then you start back with that original third. So it's not uncommon

in local government. We're not there yet. That might be something that we would consider. I know we're in the process of hiring a new HR director, but again, just initial thoughts or just wanted to provide that feedback. I appreciate that. Seems like local government is its own wild animal that does not relate or portray out to some of the real world, it seems. So thank you. Council member McQuillen. Sorry, just to confirm, this is, Public Works is the only department that, and Public Safety, is the only department that's had this type of analysis done. I can only, or pay study, sorry. Correct. I can only confirm of Public Works and previously of Public Safety, there were previous pay studies done. I don't know if they looked at any specific, just a specific

department or what's been implemented a hundred percent. I can only go back two or three years, given my tenure here. Thank you. Sure. Council member Amos. Yeah. So to just briefly go over both scenarios. So I wanted to meet with everyone first, and I pretty much got to everyone, either in person or via text message, so appreciate the feedback. I wanted to see what everyone's priorities were and where we could get some consensus on reductions, but what are some of the hard lines that we want to draw? My approach to this is, in my opinion, with the school bond on the horizon until we have that one percent sales tax, I can't really go that low. And so when I was approaching this, it was with that mindset. And consider the fact that with the tariffs impacts, rising construction

costs, it is quite possible that we actually need that full 220 million, which, mind you, exceeds our entire CIP. So we can never truly make enough. And so with this, it's pretty much preparing us for the chance that we don't get it. Because if we don't, then things get much worse for us and we have a horrible year next year. No one's going to walk away from this happy, in my opinion. So with 4.1, that was excluding the meals tax and we were pretty much just right there. And that was to keep that flat because I do agree with the comments that we received earlier that our restaurants have been paying that for a significant amount of time. Granted, we are now also operating with the knowledge that the county is

planning on going to four percent. And in addition to that, we are having a much different conversation than we were back in March. We're no longer looking at nine and a half and two percent. I don't like the meals tax. What I will say in addition to that is if there were to be any kind of meals tax for me personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable unless if it were dedicated in some kind of way. And I know that one of the priorities, especially with the one percent, is if we dedicate it specifically for school funding. I also played around with the idea of if we dedicated it specifically back to restaurants through Restaurant Week and a culinary program, as we previously discussed with entities like Josh

Alexander, for example. But we felt like the schools would be the best avenue if we were to pursue that. But I wanted both on the table just for discussion. But my approach to this is pretty much we need to be prepared for the worst scenario. I don't even know if we're there with this one, but I'm trying to incorporate what I heard from everyone to some degree in there, making sure that nonprofits have funding, providing the merit for staff, looking at where we can reduce, including with the CIP transfer, but also, for example, some of our grant positions. Do we have additional flexibility to prepare for those if we potentially lose more like the Sprout Grant? And in this scenario, well, both scenarios, the Sprout Grant is funded through next fiscal year rather than ending this

December, which is something that we've received from, for example, ESC members, PRAB in addition to that. So it is a mixing pot of pretty much all of us. So I'm looking forward to the conversation about it. Other discussions? Council Member Bates? Thanks. I just want to put out there that first off, as far as the 5% police department cuts, according to the memo that we got, that the 5% reduction, they can maintain current staffing levels, but it would impact equipment purchases, training, vacant tent positions, and retention incentives. And so even that 5% cut is a no-go for me. Any cuts to the nonprofit grant program is our no-go for me as well, because this is really not the time to be considering that, given the conversations and actions that are happening at the federal level.

And sure, we didn't see the entire amount utilized last time around, but that was the very first year that we did it. And it was still most of it, I believe it was a little bit over 200,000. Is that correct? Yeah. So a little bit over 200,000. And we also, first off, we're going to see most likely the word getting out more so the second year around than the first year, but also probably more demand due to uncertainty surrounding federal funding. And additionally, I do not support cutting the pay study implementation. I think that's probably been a long time coming from, based on my familiar, familiarity with it. And I want to make sure that we're taking care of our frontline public works employees and making sure that not only they can continue providing the

service levels that we want to see and that we don't lose more of them, but also just they're being taken care of in exchange for the hard work and the hard jobs that they have. I also would not support cutting the merit increases. I think that's consistent with what's been done in the past. And I would be extremely wary of any additional cuts to training and travel because that, you know, if we were to just kind of go to the max cut from, you know, that's equivalent to what's in scenario five, that may not directly impact services and staffing, but it may have an indirect impact in terms of them not having the travel and training that they need to go get training and, you know, get the skills enhancement of, you know, certain kinds. So, yeah, I mean, that's kind of where I am. But one

additional potential compromise I'd like to propose is if we were to increase the meals tax by, say, 0.75 percent or 0.5 or even 0.25 percent, but not increase expenditures at all and just use all of that to further cut the real estate tax rate below that 3.5 cents. So, I'm open to hearing what the others think. Councilmember McQuillen. Councilmember Bates. So, I agree with Councilmember Bates in regards to the 5% police reduction. That's a no-go for me, especially as we are facing a lot of issues with our economy coming up and increased costs of things, a rise of unemployment. We need to retain and treat our police well because I'm really concerned about that. I am okay with a hold on the merit for one year. Training and travel, I'm completely fine with

cutting the travel element, but I don't want to cut training. I, unless it's something that's very vital and they have to leave for it and travel for it. I think right now we're with this increase, potential increase in real estate tax, as we've heard from a lot of our constituents, that means a lot of people won't be able to take vacations. They're going to have to cut costs themselves and so it's not right that we're sending people when they can get that same knowledge, potentially through, you know, the internet or something, or virtually. I prefer to keep it, the real estate rate under three cents increase. Right now, that's kind of what I'm looking at and leaning towards. Anything above that, I'm just not even, that's tough for me and you guys know where

I stand on the meals tax. So, thank you. That's what I'm thinking right now. Council Member Peterson? On the merit increase, has there been any evaluation of or any consideration of a lower merit increase combined with a market rate adjustment for people at the higher end? I would say not formally if council were to propose because there have been different proposals of reducing it by a percent to two and a half percent to two percent to a half percent. We could look at those options if need be. We just sort of need that direction and we can put proposals and scenarios together. We can have the 4.1 Peterson scenario if need be, sir. Council Member Amos. So, I would not support going, doing that. I prefer the full, the full merit. I will also acknowledge that

in my opinion, we are a little, we need to focus more on the long term because some of what we're doing here to get the tax rate lower is using one-time money for recurring expenses, which is a very poor practice, especially in government. And so, some of these will be permanent. But for example, if we want to increase travel and training in the future, that becomes far more difficult. Same for renaissance housing funding. If we want that to come back, if we want to, if we were to reduce non-profits, scaling it back to 300,000. So, I, I'm extremely cautious about using one-time money for recurring expenses. I'm not a big fan. So, that's where I'm at. Council Member Hardy Chandler. Council Member

So, I would like to commend my colleagues for coming up with, um, these scenarios to help lead us to a compromise discussion. We have to remember we started out at what, 9.5 cents? So, so the fact that we're having a discussion around three is, I think, um, a lot of progress listening to where people are understanding the current climate. Um, with that said, I think that even as we're considering numbers, we absolutely, and I think this is something that you are trying to get at, Council Member Amos, we have to consider the longer-term impacts of these decisions, the investments in prevention. These are beyond numbers. Um, they have implications, and they tell the story of our city. And so, I think that when we go below three, I think, I think three is so bare bones, um, but willing to look

at that as a compromise area. Um, the barometer for me is going back to those priorities and values, that we talked about earlier. Safety is important. So, the 5% cut to the police, um, is not something that I can support, nor can I support anything that diminishes the merit of our staff. I believe that there are beyond the numbers, service implications and long-term implications, um, that have to be factored into, um, our budgetary decisions. So, I am leaning, and I also want to say that I would not support more scenarios. We've worked hard to get to these and reducing scenarios to try and find some common ground. So, I don't think we need to add other permutations if we can help it. If we can

find something among the ones that are before us, which are, you know, not going to make everyone happy, not going to cover everything, but I think gives us an opportunity to really reflect, um, where people are and what is reasonable in terms of running a city. So, I appreciate the work of these scenarios, and I would love the conversation to sort of narrow down some of the, um, support, not support areas, so that we can maybe come up with an approximate, um, whole city council scenario. Other comments? Council Member Hall. Um, so, I spoke with Chris Bruno with the EDA, um, and he was able to offer, I said, take out the 10%, can we just focus on maybe $100,000? So, he was able to offer up the Culinary Careers Collaborative and the

Women's Entrepreneurship Program, as well as a miscellaneous bucket for unplanned studies. So, that could be another $100,000 that we could reduce. I get that it's only $100,000, but when you want to add back in other things, I think that maybe that is something to be considered. Um, personally, I think three is too high. I think we are facing tough times right now, and I, I just, I feel like when people come and they talk to us, it's not that it's falling on deaf ears, but I, I just don't feel like big picture, we seem to be taking things to heart. And I think that people losing their jobs, people not knowing what they're going to do, I, I think that those things are not being fully considered in

some of these scenarios. And quite frankly, I love our staff and I think they do a great job, but to me, this is not the time to give a merit increase. If you want to call it a cost of living adjustment, I might be able to get a little bit more behind that, but quite frankly, no. I, I think that people should be embracing and happy with the jobs that they have right now. And if they're not, and they can't recognize that this is a tough year for our city and for every other city across the country, well, maybe you're not in the right place. Maybe none of us are in the right place then. I mean, I, I, I just, I, I think that that, I just think it's silly. I, I think that most people are happy to have a job right now, me included. Um, I think that the Renaissance Housing Fund, I think, um, if the memo was

from, um, Mr. Harden was correct, it said that we would only be able to do about one to three loans regardless. So to me, I love the program. I took advantage of it, but that's $392,000 that I think is a hard no for me that needs to come out. Um, it could maybe be brought back later, but with the high interest rates and everything else to me, hard no. Um, I do actually think I would like to consider the additional funding for the efficiency audit. Um, I think that's something that we really truly need right now. Um, and thank you to council member McQuillan for suggesting it and for, um, council member Amos for suggesting it in his plan. Um, I'd like to have a little bit more feedback, I think,

on the Sprout grant position and whether or not that position would actually be able to do any of the items that are included in the budget for those items to be completed with the CIP. Um, I got the impression at 5% police reduction from Natalie that that was okay, that they were, that that was manageable. That's a million dollars. So I would like to reconsider that. Um, I do not support any meals tax increase regardless of where it's going. Um, reducing travel and training. I think no to travel. I think mandatory required training is where we need to be. Again, this is a year. This is one year. It gives us the opportunity to see how are all these other things shaking out? How are the grants eliminated? How are the federal workers that were laid off? How are the contractors

that are laid off? How is everything shaking out? It's one year. If you can't survive for one year here, I'm sorry. I just, I don't have a lot of patience for that. We're in a tough position. Everyone is in a tough position and we all need to act like that. I would agree. And I think we should look at things like eliminating rock the block and the fireworks display because if we are having tough times in the city, then everybody needs to wear that austerity across the board. And those are nice to have, not must have. And if we're doing it on the backs of our employees, public works, parks and rec and public safety to put on these free events, not just for our residents, for the county, I think they need to be taken out. That's just my two cents worth. Council

member Amos. I actually wasn't done speaking. Sorry. That's okay. Thank you. There, I'm glad that you actually bring up parks and rec. So there were some questions that I had in there. I think we discussed earlier about the trout situation and the pond. Do you know if that's something that we fund annually, $2,000 to stock the pond for the event? Or is that just a one-time thing because the pond ran out of trout? I don't know if I can answer that question. So I'm getting the head nod saying yes annually. Okay. So that, I love a fishing contest for kids, but $2,000 for trout. And I was also told that they like very oxygen-rich water, which apparently doesn't continue. So maybe we should switch to

sunnies or something else that can live in ashby pine year-round. There, I also think we need to reconsider the thrones. I think we need to reconsider. I had asked some questions. I don't think I ever got an answer on my Fiesta Fairfax, the number of participants that came. And I also didn't get an answer on there were some math errors on the spreadsheets for some of the holiday events. I was just trying to, I was trying to do a cost per participant analysis to see. And I believe with, I'm going to get the math wrong, but I want to say it was like $58 to do the fishing derby, because it's like $2,500 divided by 75 participants. So I was trying to go and do cost per person and try to come up with like, what is this really worth to us? Where could we look for

outside sponsorships? Where could we try to do something else? So I'm at two. Two is, I think, probably the max that I'm willing to go to. I don't know where the numbers I just suggested shook out. Um, I also, Council Member Amos, want to recognize that you had a $15 increase in the annual fee. I'm sorry, a annual fee of $15 for seniors. I had proposed zero before. Um, I would be willing to do $15. I think that is manageable. That being said, I do think we need to look at more cost recovery models for some of these other things. So when you come and you do lunch with Santa, that was a favorite thing my kids used to do. Maybe you have to spend $5. Like there's small things that we can implement. I don't want to

just, you know, charge everybody for everything, but we cannot just continue to give things away for free for everything. And if we're going to start to charge one segment of people, then I think we do need to consider charging others. So I'll stop there. I'm sure I'll have more to say in a minute, but thank you. Council Member Amos. So, I mean, in terms of looking for reductions throughout the year, I completely understand that. And that is the point of including something like an efficiency audit. What I do want to reiterate is that, for example, at the budget open house, which was the goal to hear from more people. I did hear from people as we did tonight, that there were a lot of people who didn't

like their tax assessments. I also heard from people who actually told me they were okay with the nine and a half, which I think is wild. But no, it was multiple people. I've actually received multiple emails as well saying they understand, especially after the budget open house. We are having a completely different conversation than we were back in March, including from what a lot of people referenced today. There were still people who thought it was going to be the full nine and a half. Now we're looking at three. I would testify on nine and a half. I probably wouldn't be too, too upset if it were a three cent increase, to be honest with you. And the same for the meals tax. That conversation today was two percent, not a point five. Now I

understand that if there's no support for that, that is perfectly fine. But with the approval of the school bond, with us trying to use one-time money to afford recurring expenses, I thought these were mistakes that were that happened in the past that we did not want to replicate. And so I understand wanting to get to two, but I think building in buffer space and getting that one percent sales tax next year, because assuming that it will pass on the referendum, we still wouldn't have it till FY28. No, the budget. Budget FY28. It'll be in 2027. And because it still has to go on the referendum and it still has to pass that, even if we were able to get through this. We're banking on an election this

year for the one percent to pass and we don't have a backup plan. And I've asked about it, about if we can get private funding for school renovations, what are some options on the table, and we don't really have that. And when this school bond was passed, and I, you know, 70 percent, extremely important, I get that. It was on the idea that we would have that one percent sales tax. Now, we can assume that we're going to get it, but that's just not how you do fiscal management. When I first learned about the school, and I attested this, when I first learned about the school bond, it was in conjunction with the one percent. And so, I mean, not to turn this into a school's discussion, what I'm saying is, with financial

planning, we can keep looking for reductions, but we still need to make sure we're preparing for the future. This is not just a one-year thing. And so, I just want to tell you all where I'm at. I can't go to two. So, that's me. Council Member Peterson, did you have something to share? No, but I'd be happy to. Well, I just see you buzzing around the room, and I thought maybe there was something, something to all that buzzing around that you'd want to share with us. Well, I think that a possibility here that needs some additional review by our Chief Financial Officer is that within, I'm not sure where it is within, whether it's in CIP, it's in sustainability. Okay, it's in sustainability. The city has planned, and I have spoken about this before, I absolutely support

this, doing a combination of two climate action plans at the same time, one for mitigation and one for adaptation. It's a total cost of $440,000. I think one of the possibilities here is that we stretch that over two years and free up $220,000 to give us a little bit of breathing room here, and actually give the staff a little bit of breathing room too. It's really tough to do that work in that period of time. They want to do that work correctly, which means having stakeholder involvement and doing it in a stepwise manner. It's really super technical work. I just think giving them two years makes their job a heck of a lot easier, and it gives us a little bit of breathing room here as well. But that's dependent on you. So we just confirmed, and my hunch was it was in the CIP.

Gwen just confirmed it. She just pulled it up. It is in the CIP, so it would not, both of them, that would not impact the general fund 100%. Well, okay. Is there a way to take advantage of this opportunity that would help us here? We could do what you were suggesting, if it's so amenable to all parties and if that's the will of the council, but it's only impacting the CIP, and that is a potential $220,000 reduction in the CIP, but not the general fund to sort of really impact the proposed scenarios. So in terms of a cash transfer to CIP, this doesn't have any impact? No. You know, it was in one of the responses that we sent previously. You would have to, because it's in the CIP, if you wanted to cancel the projects, I'm not suggesting that, but the way to take advantage of it

is what you, is like, is analogous to how we're funding the school bond, the CIP, basically prior CIP appropriations. Instead of spending it on that, you wouldn't spend it on that. You could, you didn't have to spend it on the school piece, but I've just, you would, you would, could reduce the cash transfer by $420,000. But, but then you would not have the funds and you would not be able to do, do those plans. Because, because that money has already been appropriated and it's in the CIP to be spent on these. And so it's not going to help you with the, with the tax rate or what you're trying to do in terms of getting balanced. Council Member Hardy-Chantler. So getting back to the scenarios, I think that there are, I try to look for and opportunities.

So I think the, some of the questions you raised, I think there are opportunities to get at those, but through the efficiency study, I would not want it to be sort of popcorn, different things. And I would certainly wouldn't want $2,000 to hold us up from coming to some agreement. So I think it makes sense to invest, especially for the long term, because decisions about 2026 are stepping stones to the years beyond that. And these are not siloed decisions. These are things that impact things for the long run. So I think if we think sort of what kinds of things can impact future things, I think we can get to some of the questions and things that you want to look at free versus pay, but through a data

informed approach that is more planful and intentional. So I go back to, of these scenarios, I think for me, something around the Bates Amos thing leads us to a full, for May 6th, a full city council. It doesn't mean that other questions don't need to be asked. I think they do. But I think that we can be planful about those questions for upcoming periods through the things that we incorporate in the approximate scenario that we select. And again, I just go back to when we talk about our staff beyond their pay, they also eat in Fairfax City. They have lunch in Fairfax City. They also in various ways beyond their job support our city. So to me, that has rippling benefits economically for all of us.

Again, it's thinking about the numbers, but it's also thinking about the numbers beyond the numbers. So I'm hoping we can kind of come back to where we can find common ground among the scenarios that people worked really thought for. I think that's a lot of the scenarios that people worked really thoughtfully to create. Council member Amos. I also just want to acknowledge that a lot of what we're looking at potentially cutting or suggestions have come up during this process. We didn't ask people if they want those cut. And I still don't think we've even come close to hearing from the majority of citizens. And so I do want to make sure that's on the table because we're about to get that information.

We're about to do a community survey where we can fund an efficiency audit. We can have those in conjunction for next year. And if we allow ourselves some buffer room, get the 1% because if it passes the state, I don't know if we can assume that it's going to pass on a referendum considering what's happened to the meals tax in the past. I think with the context of the school bond, people would be understanding. I think with that narrative, we could even get to a point within the next year or two where we could keep it flat or reduce it further. But if we get to next year and we don't get that 1% approved by the state, what are we going to do? Outside of jumping the tax rate by potentially 20 to 30 cents in a couple of years.

Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mayor, if I may. I appreciate this has been a very good discussion. If I may, if I just can sort of reflect back for just a moment what I've been hearing. I was trying to take notes when everybody was speaking. So I, it sounds like a majority of you do not want to increase the meals tax. That's what I'm hearing. Um, at least half of you are not interested or would not support. Those are my words. That's what I'm hearing. But would not support, um, the 5% PD, uh, reduction that was, has been mentioned as a, as an, as an alternative. Um, what I have heard is somewhere, um, between two and three cents. Um, as far as, uh, what you might be willing to consider for, for real estate. Um, so we're, we're, I say we're making progress. We're, we're getting a little closer. Um, we can't, I mean, we can certainly, we want, one suggestion would be is if we could, you know, we can agree on a, on the rate,

on our, on our suggested rate, we can get you there. You have all these options. And, and I don't want to say they're all plug and play, but I mean, we can, we can adapt those to, I think, to get you to the number that you want to be at. Um, but, uh, so that, so I, I would say that. The other thing I would just sort of would reiterate, and, and, and some of you have said this, um, is, when you adopt the budget, whatever the, whatever you adopt and the tax rate that you adopt, we're not going to stop looking at the budget or stop talking about the budget or stop figuring out ways to figure out how we can reduce things. or as your priorities change or, or, or, or as you flesh those out, whether they are going down the same path or whether you want to veer in a different direction,

we're going to continue to do that. So this isn't, um, this isn't a one-time decision in the sense you've got to decide this and then, okay, we're not going to talk about it again until next year. And this is an ongoing process. So you've mentioned efficiency study. That's perfectly fine. Welcome to welcome that. I would also say, I think there's a lot of that we could, that we can do. I've done that. I think the staff could do that. Um, but you want an outside person, third party, perfectly fine. You know, because it's going to tell you, you know, it's going to tell us what it's going to tell us, whether there's things we can do, things we can't do, um, or, you know, things we can do better. It'll, it'll give you that. It goes, still goes back to,

um, what this community, what you as a council, what this community values. So I hear you talking about, we, we, we want to do these things. We, you know, you've talked about cost recovery, but we don't want to charge the seniors a fee. We want to talk, you know, we talk about, we can't do this, uh, what we, we, but we offer all these free programs. Um, so again, we can continue to do that. And as I've mentioned to you before, it, it, it's all about the choices that you make. And so whatever number you land on, you're not going to, you're not going to do what I, what was proposed and recommended. I get that. Then that's perfectly fine. Um, but with that decision comes these kinds of reductions in order to get there. And so we're

prepared, um, to do any or all of those. Um, but we, we need to get hopefully enough, enough agreement from council on the direction that you want to go. And, and what I would say is, is that when I say you don't necessarily have to make all those decisions this evening, you do need, we do need to decide what direction we're going to go. But all of these things that you're asking about, can we do this? Can we be more efficient? Can we look at cost recovery? Can we, are there better ways to do things, technology improvements, et cetera, et cetera. We're still going to continue to look at those things. The fact that we adopt about, it's not like we just stop once the budget's adopted. And then we wait and we wait until next year. We'll continue to do that. And so I, I,

I just share that with you just to sort of hopefully provide a little bit of context that, um, you know, we're prepared to do what the council wants us to do, but I would, but really what I'm hearing is you're between two and three cents. And so you're very close. Um, and I would like to see if there's a way for us, uh, us being the staff or, or certainly as you continue to discussion, if we can get you to a place that you're comfortable with this evening and the weekend, then we'll have everything prepared and show you what that looks like. But with the assurance that we're going to keep looking at this, you don't have to decide all this tonight. You're not going to be able to decide all this tonight.

All these are, these are weighty questions and things that we don't, some things we don't know the answer to, and we're not going to know the answer to for some time, whether what's the economy going to do, whether we're going to get a 1% for, uh, option to fund schools. Um, those are things that we'll continue to, to work on react to. Um, but you all have, have, have a weighty decision to make. And that is what is it that you want to do for this budget? And so I think you're getting close. And, um, and I just want, I just wanted to just, I guess, reassure you that we're going to continue to do all the things I hear you talking about, which is how can we do things better? How can we, um, get the best value for our residents and our taxpayers? So that, that part's not going to stop,

regardless of what you do this evening or, or, or regardless of what you ultimately, even if you adopted my recommended budget, that would not stop. We would continue to look at those things. So I, I thank you for letting me share that. And just to further complicate this, you know, I'll remind everybody that the mayor can vote on the budget and the mayor cannot vote on the tax rate. So if the budget is three, three, and I vote to break a tie, it doesn't mean anything because if it's the same three, three split on the tax rate, then you have a dilemma. And I think we need to talk a little bit about what happens then and why we need to get to at least a majority of four, because I am out of the equation on this. So Mr. Foster, could you talk about that?

Yeah, sure. Um, so the mayor's correct. And I know that, uh, the city attorney is, is in the process of, of helping and we'll be sending you a guidance document just, uh, on what things can, the mayor can vote on and not vote on because it's kind of quirky. Um, so she's correct. She can vote on the budget, but not on the tax rate. Um, so, uh, and the two obviously work hand in hand. So, um, and the same thing on the appropriation. She, she can't vote on the appropriation part either. Uh, I think that, is that correct, Mr. Yeah. Okay. He's giving me the thumbs up. Um, so again, um, you know, ultimately we've got to get some, we have to get a budget adopted and it's going to take four votes or excuse me, the mayor can break the tie, but the reality is, is with the tax rate and

appropriations, all of that works hand in hand. So the reality is you need four, four of you have to agree on something and whether, you know, you may, again, you, you, I know you all have certain, have certain priorities, things you feel very strongly about, um, which is, you know, which is very understandable and admirable, but, um, this is a body. You act as one, you act as a body, even though individually you all have your own opinions of what you think needs to happen or not happen, but we need to find a way to get enough agreement. Um, so we can move forward and continue the business of the city, um, with the assurance that we, again, we'll continue to look at all the ways that we can, we can, uh, be more efficient and look at things, uh, and see how we, how else we

can reduce costs, find new sources of revenue if they're out there that don't necessarily negatively impact our residents and our taxpayers. Um, that, that, that's, those are things that, um, we continue to do as well. We're somewhat hamstrung by our friends in Richmond and we are overly reliant on property taxes. That's no, no different than the rest of the localities in Virginia. Um, and that is not something we can change. Um, so we have, so that's the things we have, we have to, to work with. So to the mayor's point, ultimately four of you are going to have to, and in, in an ideal world, it'd be nice if there was some unanimity, but at the end of the day, four of you are going to have to agree on, on something.

Council member Hall. Do we happen to have the March 31st ADM numbers from city perfect schools or FCPS? That has not been communicated to us yet. Okay. It seems like we should, right? I can inquire with the superintendent, but that has not been shared with me yet. Yeah. Okay. Well, we'll see if they're posted on the state website and look at that up. I'll look at that right now and Mike can get you an answer. Just one more thing I want to say. It, if, if we're not going to consider in this current budget, any other sort of cost recovery models for programs, events, et cetera, then I withdraw my vote for considering the $15 for seniors. I think it's not appropriate if we're not going to be looking at other things.

Council member Amos. I mean, I think we should keep looking at cost recovery and that's also why we have the Parks Foundation. So I think that's an ongoing process. Well, not just cost recovery, but also privatization, which I know we were going to cover tonight, but we're going to reschedule it. But seeing where we can also get private dollars for covering, but I think it should be a combination of multiple things. Reductions. How can we decrease our debt? But also cost recovery, privatization. Well, we're decreasing it. We're getting there. We're getting there. But at the end of the day, a lot of the debt that we have is CIP related and is not really completely assisting us with this general fund. So that's part of the reason why the proposal I brought up, all that stuff, but we got

to get to something. Council member Hall. Yes. Less debt. Great. But until we can pull out the CIP that's not CIP, the operating and maintenance for next year, which I cannot wait to see, did we not get the report for the CIP from prior years of funds that were scattered around that we don't know about or not aware of? Still working on it, ma'am. Okay. This is why it's really hard to say, yay, we're going to have consensus tonight because there's so many moving pieces and parts that are still out there. And to your point, no, it's not over. But I'm withdrawing my vote on any sort of senior tax if we're not going to be able to consider anything else in the current year budget with that. Council member Peterson.

Yeah. So it appears that there's still some outstanding questions that could be helpful here in terms of getting to a bottom line. A lot of stuff came in today, yesterday. Stuff has come up in this meeting. I don't know how much potential there is within all of that to help us out a little bit here, but it sounds like there may be some and we haven't exactly resolved that yet. I mean, my own take is I have been working very hard to see if this two-cent scenario was something that could be made to work. And I'm not done with that. And I'm taking that very seriously. I'm not saying I don't have flexibility around that, but I really kind of need to see a little bit more resolution of some things. And I have, you know, clarifying

questions on a few things that came up earlier tonight that would be, you know, included in that. I don't want to burn too much time, but there still are some things that are kind of gaps from my standpoint that we kind of need to get on top of. But again, I am leaning towards protecting the taxpayers in this city and finding ways to restructure our spending in both the short and long term and get a start on that while we are at the same time protecting vital social services and safety, really key things in the city. But we, in my view, still have some outstanding questions here that haven't quite gotten resolved yet. And what questions are those so we can... Yeah. So I heard the police chief say that she was okay with 5%.

I believe that's... I believe that is correct. We had the same... The conversation that we had was they could maintain service. The question was, can they maintain the services out on the street as far as with the personnel they have and so forth? In the memo, it talked about what the challenges were. She did say that. You're correct. Three of your colleagues were... What I heard three of your colleagues say is that they were... That was not something that they wished to consider. So that's not for... So we can't... You know, unless... If... Unless somebody wants to change their opinion on that, that's really not going to help us. My question would be, why is it that when the police chief says she can live with 5, we... Any

of us believe that we cannot live with that figure for public safety when we have the assurance from the police chief that we can? Council Member Hardy Chandler. So my recollection is that came up as part of a very, you know, sort of across the board discussion about the 20 or whatever it was, 10%. And I think people offered up a lot of things that would not have been optimal. Again, security is an important thing. And again, I think it was because they... A lot of people maybe felt pressure to offer up something. If... There wasn't that pressure, that's not my interpretation of some of the presentations that we got that people were reluctantly offering up things to comply with that request. But again, I go back to

things that I think are priorities. I also go back to the individual departmental presentations where there was information about things that they wanted to do and that were in the best interest of the department, again, long-term. So that's my reason for wanting to maintain... not include the 5%. Council Member Amos. This has nothing to do with the 5%. Just to follow up on the senior part real quick. I do also want to acknowledge the $15 increase is only about $23,000, $24,000. So technically, and even in this model, that could still be covered, just so you know. So that doesn't... if I'm understanding that correctly, that's just revenue generated. So it could still be covered by this model

and we don't do any increase and keep it free. So programming could still remain free. I just... I didn't know, again, whether we wanted to add additional revenue factors. I thought the full 60, I understand, especially in one year, was a bit much. I know we talked about cost recovery in the past, so that's why I included that in there. But if that's something that we're not amenable to, it can still be covered. Council Member Peterson. Well, I'd just like to go back to maybe the 5% and beyond that. What we heard from department heads here, who I think take their jobs seriously, as well as the commitment of the city. And we have pushed people, and they're pushing us, including the citizens. And folks came forward to see what they could do here.

And in the case of the police chief, she gave us her assurance that she could stay whole at 5%. But she wasn't alone. We heard other department heads come in and say, you know, these are things we can do that weren't part of the original game plan. And we have assurances from them that that would maintain services or infrastructure at levels of protection that they felt comfortable with. So I have a really hard time disagreeing with that assurance. And from my standpoint, that is translatable into an agreement we can reach here, because I think those were reliable statements. And because this was a relatively short period of time, my guess is there's more where that came from. But we may not have time to actually uncover it here. But I'm certainly of the view that those are reliable statements that we should count on for our budget here.

So, again, this is verbatim from the memo that we all got via email. At a 5% reduction in expenditures, the police department can maintain current staffing levels. The reduction would largely impact equipment purchases, training, vacant tent positions, and retention incentives. So that's the report that we got. And I certainly don't dispute that, you know, they can certainly maintain current staffing levels with that 5% reduction. But, you know, it has other impacts that that might have more long term implications that I'm not totally comfortable with. Councilmember Amos? Councilmember Amos? Councilmember Amos Well, I guess I'll just ask, is that one of those things that we could not do the full amount that we can have discussion on?

Like, for example, keeping the retention incentives? Would people be more amenable to that instead of doing the full million? We could see, kind of get more of a cost breakdown of what that 5% really looks like? Councilmember Amos Well, I'm sure anything is possible. Well, I mean, two cents, the difference between two cents and three cents is $835,000. $835,000. That's what's your, that's the delta. If that's the discussion point, and maybe that's not the discussion point, but the difference between a two cent increase and a three cent increase is $835,000. So that's what you need to, if that's, that's the difference. That's what, that's the bridge, that's what you have to bridge if you're wanting to come to some kind of agreement, whether you're meeting in the middle or figuring out an alternative way to do $835,000 than what's being proposed for, to go from three cents to two cents.

Council Member Hardy Chandler. Council Member Hardy Chandler. And so can we, and if that is the tipping point, I mean, that I think does get us closer in the discussion, because aside from, you said you could get us there, right? Somehow you could get us there. And so if that is the one of the factors to get us to three cents, I think, you know, that's something that we should consider. But could there be something else that covers that $800 and whatever thousand dollars to get us there also? There, I mean, there's lots of options. I mean, so, so, and I'm sorry, and just to follow up, what do you need tonight? I'm sorry? What do you need tonight in terms of what we, I mean, because I think we could talk about this.

Right. Until the wee hours, but I want to also give the staff what we need to sort of. I'm looking at them, but I have seen, I have done this before in other places. And then what I think, what I think we can do, and I'm looking at them, and they might kill me when I suggest this. However, is what we need to know is the tax rate, which tells us the revenue, and then we can plug, then we can, we can plug all the things that we need to put in place. What we can do is we, we can hold the, so if we're, so I guess what I'm saying is if we need to, if you agree on the, I'm just going to say for sake of discussion. If you tell us we will do three cents, no change to the meals tax. That's just only, I'm reading that because that's what's on the screen at the moment.

Then that's going to, then, then, then what that tells us is that we need to reduce $7.8 million. We can, and we can show you how to get to the $7.8 million. We can, we can, that would allow us to get, to adopt, or to put things together, and we can, in essence, have a, have a, have a, in essence, a placeholder for that, for that, an offset for that number to, to, as a placeholder, until we can figure out exactly the certain things. I, I, I, for example, I, I believe everybody is fine with the $5 million, using the $5 million from the EDA. I've heard nobody say don't use that. So, that, so, I mean, uh, huh? You already took it back. Well, yes, we took it back the only to preserve that it didn't get spent.

I'm going to need to comment on that one, then. I did not like the way that happened. I, I, I feel like reading through that agreement, it should have been that council directed city manager to pull that money back. I think it, I, I won't say it eroded our relationship with the EDA, but I don't think it was the best action at the moment. I, I think asking them not to spend it was totally sufficient, and I, I just, I didn't like how that whole thing went down. That being said, we need the $5 million back. They understand that. We have it. But I did not like that. Councilmember Amos. And I was just going to say that the only reason we're having this conversation between two and three is because of the EDA money anyway, which won't be there next year.

So, throwing that back out there. I'm looking, I, I believe we can, we can have a placeholder, but that, but knowing the number, that's the important thing for us. Is that not correct? I would say, excuse me, I would say that is the primary thing, if possible, and if I could kind of overstep. But the secondary thing is, of these items, which ones are truly non-negotiable? Where, I think the manager was sort of alluding to that of, where are there four votes of no or four votes of yes? And then we can fine tune that, given where there's consensus or potential consensus of either a yes or a no. Versus us come back to you knowing that there's a tax rate, a potential tax rate, but then still not providing accurate information because we're unaware that the 5% police reduction is, should have never even been brought up.

As a, as an example, or the pick one was not supposed to be on there. So, just as a starting point to get there, would it be helpful to go down each of these and survey us? I mean, because it still may be 3-3 tonight, but that's okay. But. I'm sorry. I think so, Councilman. Councilor Embraim? Yeah, I was just going to say, if we want to not just look at this one, but we could also look at scenario two, because I think it lists out more that we could just discuss and see what's non-negotiable and what. Yes, 4.2. Just because I think it lists out more, so we could just have a more comprehensive discussion if, either way. Okay. Okay. So, so. Councilmember Peterson? Well, of course, the other way we could do this is start from the bottom and work our way up, which is, I think, where I'm leaning, right?

Okay. Mr. Martinez, did you want to proceed? We can. So, when you say from the bottom, you're talking about scenario. Why don't you take Councilmember Hall's scenario? We can do that. May I just ask, just for a quick clarification. The real estate fund, as I understand it, that was in CIP originally before it was pulled out and sent to EDA. Is that correct? It was in the general fund transfer to the CIP. We had not transferred that. Okay. We do our transfers at the end of the year. Okay. That's helpful because just double-checking on the, the DBW issue we talked about before, just to clarify and verify, there isn't a way to pull that out of CDP to realize the financial savings that we could then apply to putting this thing on a two-year stretch as a part of a general fund thing.

From what I understood, you say originally with that suggestion was a delay or an extension of? An extension. So, instead of a one-year program, it's a two-year program. But in totality, the 440 was going to get utilized. Is that a correct statement? That's right, but not in FY26. So, those funds have already been appropriated, unlike what I think the school board chair identified, and so did Director Summerfield. Those projects were not going to go forward, so they can be reallocated to something else. In this instance, regarding the climate plan, they're still going to be utilized, so I can't reallocate them. I can extend them, but I can't reallocate them to something else. I guess where I'm stumbling a little bit is why this is a capital improvement project.

This is, you know, a policy development project. It seems to me to be something that could fit in more than one place, and there would be some flexibility around that. We're not building a bridge. And I would say that when it was originally appropriated in 2004, 2005, that's the fund that the project manager or the person sponsoring the project identified them to go. So, they're within that fund right now. I recognize that. I'm just double-checking to see if it could not be reallocated in some place that matches the cash flow reality of what would happen with an extension. I mean, you can... We're talking to you. I mean, the cash flow was... I don't want to say it's not relevant, but it's not relevant to this discussion.

The money you're talking about was appropriated in prior years. So, in essence, it's from a budgetary perspective. It's already not truly spent from a cash perspective, but it's already done. You put it in the fund. I'm not disagreeing with you. Why is it in CIP? I don't have an answer for you. There's lots of things that shouldn't be in the CIP that are in the CIP. And as we previously communicated, we're going to work on getting that corrected to where it's a more... You know, it should operate as a truly capital plan. But to what you're asking is we can stretch it out. We can... We can... If that's the desire, but it's not going to help you balance this budget. You would have... The only way...

You would have to... And I guess you could remove it from the CIP. But then you have no way to pay for it. I guess you could take the funding out of the CIP and the project out of the CIP. But, again, it's money that you've already... That's over and done with. And you haven't spent the cash yet. The cash is still there. But from a process perspective, it's in the past. You can't go... You can't undo it from that perspective. It's money you've already spent. Yeah, I think the point of confusion is that we've been through a lot of CIP things, some of which we don't even know about yet, that turns out they're probably not going to move forward or don't need to or could be done on a delayed basis.

And we've been rearranging them. I mean, we heard from Parks and Rec, we still don't know what that full list looks like. And so it's just a little odd that, you know, we've been moving things around in CIP, right? And stuff, again, we're still on that discovery process here. But in this case, we can't do that. And I'm sure I'm missing something that we'll need to follow up on. But, again, it's just a little bit confusing that we've gone through that process on other issues. When you say you've gone, I'm not sure I follow you on that. Parks and Rec identified, yeah, 1.6. Correct, yes. And that money is in CIP. They're not going to do those projects. That money is already in the CIP. And it is supplanting, adding money to put in.

It's your, instead of putting in new money to do the schools, it's money, you're reducing the cash transfer. You're offsetting what was expected to be the cash transfer to do that project with, in essence, money that you have already allocated. That's how you save. Or that's how you impact the budget. So if you want to use that 440 to impact the budget, the way it will impact the budget is you cannot do the project, or I should say not do, to postpone the project to some future date, use the money that's already been appropriated to offset the cash transfer. That's a half cent of real estate tax. But then you have no funding to do your study until you, at some point, come up with money to do the study.

Well, again, it's, thank you, confusing and frustrating because it's an example of where the cash flow side of this is not lining up with it, apparently in a cruel approach here. Correct. This is not private sector accounting. We're not on a cash basis. So it's fund accounting. That's just how government accounting is done. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that's how it's done. We're not on a cash basis. And so we do fund accounting, and that's how this process works. And I can sense you're frustrated with that, with my answer, but that's how it works. Well, but, I mean, I am familiar with public accounting that's done both ways, I mean, for all sorts of purposes. So, I mean, that's a longer thing we can talk about

after the budget's over in terms of how we manage these things. There is going to be an interesting anomaly between the actual cash flow and the fund-based accounting that happens here because of a bunch of timing reasons, and I will be very interested to see at some point what that actually looks like when we look at it on a cash basis to see how much we actually needed and spent. But all that said, if that's not something we can do right now to help here, you know, it's too bad. I just wanted to see for sure because it's a whole pool of CIP stuff is a really big one for us to attempt to do something constructive with. Council Member Hall. So before we jump into scenario five, are there any opportunities in our supplies or other charges

throughout all these other various budgets? I know I had brought that up before. We never really drilled down into all of them, but is there nowhere to look in there and find a few hundred thousand dollars that is not going to be missed by not doing it for one year or something that's really not significant in all of these different departments, so insignificant that it just got called other? I would hope and I would think that the department heads listed those items already in their 10% exercise. I'd have to go through what was sent out to council and provided by all the department heads, but I think a good portion of that was related to non-personnel costs, but I'd have to go through line by line and figure that out for you.

Okay. Well, I guess I need to go back through the 10% budget since we're still trying to iron things out. So thank you. All right. So are we going to start from the bottom up now? So given scenario five, haul at two and a half cents, no change to the meals tax. If that is sort of the starting point, the items on red there, I guess starting from the bottom up as well, I'm assuming everyone would be okay with the 18197 going away from communications, which is 0.25 FTE that is not being utilized nor is there expectation of it being utilized right now. There were other obsolete items too from that that he had listed as obsolete. Okay. That equaled that amount. Yep. Yep. It's on hearing okay. $95,000,

which would impact a revenue reduction, no change to the annual fee for the senior programming. Would everyone be okay with that as a potential reflection of the new scenario? As in not charging? As in not charging, as keeping the FY25 approved amount the same. Next item would be a total reduction of the nonprofit grants. This was a new initiative in FY25. We had set aside $300,000. In this instance, all $300,000 would go away as well. I'm not comfortable with that. Yeah, I think that's Bates, Amos, and Hardy Chandler. Could we agree on $200,000? Because right now there's $217,000. I don't think we need to leave extra wiggle room for other opportunities to request money. And I think you also mentioned before

about the Salvation Army consideration. I included in the plan, I was just at $200,000. So I can be amenable to $200,000 for the year, but I would prefer to come back at some point. Okay. It looks like Council Member Bates is not cool with $200,000, but everybody else seems to be. So. So let me just clarify. Not reducing it by $200,000, but reducing it by $100,000. Correct. To $200,000. Perfect. So that it remains. Sorry. Yes. Go ahead. Are you keeping notes? If not, we can go back to the recording. Next item is $392,000 reduction on the Renaissance housing funding that would, again, very similar to the previous item, would be zeroed out for FY26. Can we just do this gladiator style? Yeah. We can do a gladiator style.

Yes. Okay. It sounds like it's unanimous. Next item. I feel like a bidder saying next item up for bid. Sorry. Next item, $440,000, no merit for the general employees. In this instance, it does include the public safety step, which is funded. So I'm seeing three. Three. This looks split. Maybe discussion, Mayor? Is this an area where, back to my earlier question mark, there's a partial plus a market rate at the top, market rate adjustment at the top, we might consider? Do we know what that might look like? So I'm going to go very quick here. 12, 440, 7 divide. So each half a percent, yeah, each half a percent is roughly equivalent to about $63,000. If, when you're looking at three and a half percent merit,

it equals, if I got this right, we got $440,000. So each half a percent is about $63,000. So if we were to reduce it by a percent, that's $120,000. That'd be a 2.5% merit. But what if we did a lower merit and then just include, I think like Tom said, a market rate adjustment. Sorry, this is falling in my mouth. For those at the top. I think we'd have to calculate the market rate adjustment. So that's not included in this. That would be a smaller amount because you're only affecting the top and the bottom of the range. There are some employees that are at the bottom and there are some employees that are at the top. I would have to work with payroll and HR to figure out what that was because that was not a part of even

the proposed manager scenario. Yeah. I would be curious to know what that looks like. Okay. And in the past, we've done a 2% market rate adjustment. Is that the potential starting point or something else? How are people feeling too? 1%? No. You know, at some point, 1% is just an insult. Really. I mean, these, these, yeah, well, you know, people have bills to pay to who work for us and while I would, I want to not burden our property tax payers, instead we're burdening our employees and we're still asking them to maintain the same level of services to our community but, you know, their expenses go up and we're not taking care of them. So, to me, a 1% increase, I'm just speaking for myself, is an insult.

I'll just say, oh, sorry, but, go ahead. Council Member Bates. So, I would be comfortable going down to 2.4%. That is the current year-over-year inflation rate according to the Census Bureau for the D.C. area. Somewhat arbitrary but, that I think is what I could go down to. I could be amenable to that. Okay, 2.4. Council Member Amos, Council Member Hardy-Chandler, Council Member Peterson, Bates. 2.4. Okay, so, it looks like we have four that are yes and two that are no. Is that, am I counting correct, am I counting noses correctly on the 2.4? That's Amos, Hardy, Chandler, Peterson, and Bates. Clarification, if I may? 2.4% merit, no market rate adjustment. No. That, just clarifying. That's what I heard.

I'm just clarifying. Is that what everybody heard? Excluding market rate? I actually didn't. Why are we excluding market rate? One, I don't know what that cost is going to be. It's not going to be significant. I would assume 2% would probably be about $40,000, $50,000 if that. I heard 2.4% market rate, I'm sorry, 2.4% merit and a 2% market rate adjustment. I'm wondering how much support we have for 2.0 across the board. It's a question for your colleagues, sir. So, 2%, is that something people are willing to do? 2? Is that the bottom that we're willing to? Can we establish that that's the bottom? That is the bottom? Okay. It sounds like 3? Okay. It sounds like we have at least 4 who are not willing to go

below 2. Okay, one more. If I could just make a comment. I mean, people need to see it on their paychecks. So, I feel like people are seeing a paycheck, which some government employees are not. That's just me. Yes, Councilmember McCullin. I just, yeah, I just want to remind people that a lot of people are just lucky to keep their jobs this next year going into this economy. And so, I'm not trying to diminish the roles that our staff play or the service that we receive. But, when we're talking about increasing real estate tax rate and taking more money out of people's pockets, we do have to recognize that at the same time if we're giving our staff increased raise and things like that, even with market,

I'm just saying that's not happening for most people right now. And I would say that we need to take out some of the things these employees support, like the 4th of July, fireworks, which is not a must-have, and all the rock the blocks, which are not a must-have. They are free events, and our employees set up, clean up, and run them. And so, that's not something that is deserving that our community is paying for, and I don't know why our employees should feel like they've got to deliver this premium quality of life in our city when no one wants to pay them. Council Member Amos. Just to add, I still prefer the 3.5, and contextually, the reason why I say that is because over the next few years,

we don't know what the budget is going to look like, and it is quite possible, especially if we don't get the 1%, that we won't be able to increase merit next year, the year after, at least through 2030, 2031, 2032. That is on the table. So, that's why I would recommend doing the full 3.5. I can be amenable to 2, but nothing below that. If I may. Yes, Council Member Hall. I understand what you're saying, and I respect it, but I also think that the citizens of our city pay taxes because they want to be able to attend some of these free things, and maybe, instead of being able to go on a vacation this year, they're going to enjoy the heck out of every single rock the block and every other free event

that we put on because that's all our family can afford to do this year because one of their spouses lost their job. Meanwhile, and again, I appreciate all of our workers, but meanwhile, all of our employees still have a job. We didn't lay off anybody. We just didn't overly merit reward them because it's a tough spot that we're in. So, thank you. Council Member Amos. Yeah, and just so we don't go far too down this rabbit hole, again, we have a Parks Foundation to try to get private money to cover those events. No, it's not that much. Well, they're supposed to assist with sponsorships. That's one of the things. Yes, we're looking for sponsorship opportunities for our events that are run by Parks,

and if we're not doing that, then we should be, but the county, they do summer concerts all the time that are completely free because they're covered by private donors, so we have an opportunity to do that as well, so that's not just an end-all, be-all here. Council Member Hardy Chandler. To my mind, it's not our residents versus our employees. It's our residents and our employees, and we should support what they do in service to our residents. There's a cost to losing them also that our residents will pay in addition to that, so different perspectives on it, but it sounds like we've landed somewhere, even if it's for different reasons. Are we done on this one? Well, yes, Mr. Martinez. Just to clarify,

because I was slightly distracted, 2% merit, whatever you want to call it, and a 2% market rate adjustment. Is that, or did I miss something in between? I'm sorry, are you adding in 2% market for the high-end people, or you're adding it in addition to the 2% merit? So, the market rate adjustment, what that does is it resets the scale of the salary. So, each grade has a starting point and a high point. We're talking the step? No. Nope. So, each classification has a beginning salary range and an ending salary, like a cap. The market rate adjustment adjusts that percent by 2%. So, if it was $100,000 where you're starting, it's now being moved to $102. If you were at $100,000, you would automatically

get a $2,000 increase because that's the new bottom. If you were at the top range of that, if the top was $100,000, we would do a market rate adjustment of 2%. So, now you would be eligible to get a 2,000 or 2% increase when that availability came as far as the merit. It's just the range. Yeah, I'm going to go with a no on that one. Councilman Peterson? I would maybe just keep it simple and do the two merit and leave it at that if that's okay to folks. I'm looking at all of you. Okay, it looks like leave it at 2% merit. next item was a $500,000 pay study as was previously discussed. This mostly impacts the property yard, those individuals that are in the general fund, those that are also in different

funds, specifically wastewater, stormwater, and transit, those specific funds would absorb whatever those increases would be. This is only displaying the general fund side of things. Excluded or included, correct. I'm going to go with exclude. Thumbs up. Council member Hardy-Chandler. I recall we were talking about this towards the beginning. just to clarify, this would, would this increase the pay for those who, with its impact, those who are toward the lower end of the pay scale the most? Yes. So the majority of these have a pay inequity where, for some reason, they've been here X number of years or have X number of experience but are not being paid comparable to someone who has an equivalent

number of experience, years of experience doing the exact same job. Okay. Thank you. So, so the question on the table is, do we make an adjustment based on pay and equity as it has been identified in this study? Right. So, can, I see a thumbs up on supporting the 500,000 pay study implementation. I see two. Okay. I have a clarifying question if I might. Is this a two-way street? Because, you know, when you do salary surveys, sometimes people are above norm and sometimes they're below norm, right? So this is strictly bringing them up, not anybody adjusting or holding somebody who's possibly too high. There are people that are not getting the increase because they are in parity with their payers.

So there are multiple people that are right where they should be and no one would ever be losing where their salary is. Okay. All right. So it looks like we have one, two, three, four. This is for the 500,000 to keep it. Implement it. Implement it. It looks like we've got at least five for that. one thing that maybe wasn't totally clear is whether this is 100% or none. Is there anything in this that's a partial option that makes sense? That is a good question. That is a very hard question for me to try to answer. The inequities have existed as I've mentioned since the beginning of 2024. So it's been over a year. If this were to take into effect, it would be January 1 of this year. So it would

be almost 18 months. I don't know if the employees even know that there are inequities. people and I would think that they probably do because everyone talks about what their salaries are. I don't know. I can't really speak for them, but I would think that they would be happy for any increase. This is just what the analysis and the pay studies showed to bring everyone, not those that were lagging, to an equitable rate compared to their peers doing the exact same job. I don't know if I fully answered your question. It's a tough one because neither of us have the data in front of us to know how this distributes and whether there's a critical set that really are ultra priorities that comprise half of these

funds and the other are arguably things that could be postponed. But we don't know the answer to that without looking at that distribution. But that would be sort of my question mark, is whether there is something that comes out of it that indicates that we could take advantage of. I mean, I'm happy for that to be a follow-up to see whether there's some flexibility here based on that kind of look, if that's information you could actually get access to. So the spreadsheet and the data, and it was in an Excel spreadsheet, so you can manipulate it and inform it whichever way you want. That information is there. And to Gwen's point, not everyone that's listed on there is getting an increase. It is just

those that were in an equitable position, situation. Right. But if there are varying degrees of inequity, if there are those that are glaring inequities that simply can't wait and others are marginal and can, that's important possibly to know. Correct. Because it's a big chunk to do all at once. It is. And I think that was the previous discussion with the city manager of, because it was such a large chunk, instead of rectifying it right then and there and impacting the budget and it now becoming a part of the base going forward, let's try to be a little more cognizant and plan for it in the FY26 budget development process. I'm not sure what we do here, except at a minimum, I'd like an asterisk on

this if we decide to move forward so that you have the opportunity to do that second look and see whether there's something that might constitute a partial here that makes sense. I don't remember the vote count if there was four or five. I can't stand how all this stuff is falling on us this year, this time, this administration, it's just like dump, dump, dump. dump, and it's super frustrating. I blame prior councils. I blame the federal administration. I can't. It's just a lot. It's a lot. I hope our residents realize that. I hope our employees realize that because I'm feeling like a jerk up here, not agreeing to things, but it's a lot. Thank you. Council Member Hardy Chandler and then Council Member

Amos. I think a clearer division is what Council Member McQuellen suggested earlier is the next item in terms of reducing training and travel. I appreciate it. The split of supporting training and maybe limiting travel. That, to me, makes clearer sense. It doesn't get to a fairness question where I've done, I've been a part of multiple compensation studies. It's hard to do some splitting there when you're trying to bring people up to fairness. So I would like that conversation more in terms of travel versus training, supporting and including training, pulling out travel for FY26. I'm sorry, did we wrap up the prior issue? May we do that? So, you know, my two cents worth, you know, pay inequities when you

talk about the property yard, these are the, some of our employees who work the hardest, the longest, doing the toughest jobs manually, and they, we are trying to solve a pay inequity. And I'm sure they are grateful to have their jobs. They show up every day to do the jobs. Our, our residents are thrilled at their curbside pickup and we have reliable Q bus drivers and all the people who work down there doing the jobs that I don't think unemployed federal contractors are going to want to do. I do think this is important as a city to address inequities among our employees. our residents prize more than anything else probably our parks and rec and our public works employees. And when these folks

who are not at the highest pay scale in our staff are, are, know that there are inequities because they do know what their coworkers make, to me this is a priority to solve this problem. And 500,000 may sound like a lot, but spread that across these people. Look at their take home pay after the deductions and it's a little bit of money. But for somebody who now is in an economy where, yeah, everyone's talked tonight, the restaurant owners, about how expensive food is, a little bit of money in your paycheck makes a big difference in how you are living your life. And I don't think it's too much for us to ask this city to do that for these employees. Council Member Amos. All I was going to say is that, look, in my

opinion, everyone here is doing a great job. There's some structural things I think we could work on, but that can wait until post-budget. But we were given a lot, mostly a new council. And it honestly, from the conversations I've had with the community and from the testimonies we've heard, we've been afforded a lot of grace because we are dealing with a very unique situation between the school bond, the administration, and some of the grant money and the uncertainty of the economy. So keep working. We'll get through it. It's okay. It's okay. At the end of the day, we're going to move forward. So can we just go back around again to... For the pace, the pace, yeah, what I, what we can, what we believe we

saw was that the majority of you supported including keeping that in the budget. Yeah, I think it was five million versions. Yes. We, I mean, we can, we can go and reevaluate if the sort of the criticality of them. I don't know, you know, what, what exactly that, I mean, we, we have the spread, I mean, the, the, the, the amounts vary depending on how out of whack some, the, some of the folks are. And so the reality would be at least on a surface level would be that the one, that the ones that are most critical are probably also the largest amounts. And, you know, you, you, you might could argue maybe not, but I mean, if, if that's where the most disparity is, that's probably the ones where you

wouldn't want to wait. So you, you would not get, you would probably not achieve the level of reduction by trying to, to, to make that, to do that analysis is all I'm saying. I, I would only add, you know, I agree, except in terms of how you measure largest, you might try it on a percentage basis too, to see which ones have the greatest percentage variances. True. True. Yeah. Percentage, sure. And, and again, at the low end, that, if that pops up at the low end, that could be super critical stuff, so. Yeah. Yeah. We can do that. Yes. On the travel and training, not to jump ahead, I, I, I know we've got more to go through. What, the, the, the, the, the suggestion I would make, I know, I'll look behind

them, that 535, is that a, in this one, is that a zero out? Okay. I'm just gonna, if you, what I would say is, I think we can, we hear what you're saying, what I would say is, even, even if you zeroed it out, we would still need to find money to do what I would say is the, you know, if I need a paramedic to get recertified in order to do his job, we're gonna pay for that, whether you zero out training or not. And so, what I would say is, those kinds of trainings where people need to maintain certifications, what I would, for lack of a better term, I'm gonna call mandatory, we would still do. And that may include travel. They may have to go to Richmond or someplace in order to make that happen.

What I would, guess what I would assure you is, is, is, is, and I don't know what the number is, I'm, I'm, I'm leaning towards around 400 or so, is rather than reducing 535, I think we could reduce around 400 with the commitment that what we would only do necessary training and we would not do any travel unless it's necessary, it's, it's needed for, or if it's required for the necessary training. Certainly any other trainings we can bring in-house, you know, free trainings, online, virtual, we can still continue to do that, but I think that that's how we would manage that. And I think that's, that would be my suggestion to the group. Councilmember Hardy-Chantler. That would be acceptable. We heard from staff that there are

mandatory trainings that are needed for certification. We need it, we need certification for people to, and organizations to be accredited. And so those would be accepted. It would not be hard and fast. But if there are optional trainings that are, that, that require, or, or things that require travel that are optional or would like, then those would be the ones that would be able to. Right, right. So for, so for example, most of our staff have, or belong to professional associations. Excellent training opportunities would not say that they are absolute mandatory or required for certification. So that might be the kind of thing we would skip this year. But if I need somebody to, you know, if the, the assessment staff needs

to get their license renewed and, and require that CPE, we would pay for that and make sure that happens so they can, they're still have their license or paramedics or whatever. It could be a variety of departments, but we want them, whatever they need to do their job. But I would also say sometimes certifications are, are not necessarily mandatory, they're nice to have. And that just helps them, you know, be more qualified, but it's maybe not a requirement of the job. But again, we would, that's, that's the distinction we would try to make and limit that funding. So my, and I'm looking at JC, he gave me a nod. We would suggest we could do 400, which wouldn't zero it out, but that would be the total, so the reduction

wouldn't be 535, because this, in this scenario, it zeros it out, but we'd reduce it 400. And we'll try and see, we should be able to hopefully make do. And obviously, and if we don't need to spend it, we won't. But that's just, that gives us a target number. I'm sorry, so you're saying instead of 535, we would leave 135,000 in the budget? Correct. Okay. Why did I think when we did the 535 initially that that was still allowing for mandatory travel, mandatory training? So the five, no. I mean, I trust your numbers over mine, for sure. 535, zero, out. All departments. Okay. All travel and training. Okay, thank you. At that time, sure. So people are good with 135 for travel and training, for continuing

education, anything deemed necessary? Everybody's good? Is there a thumbs up on that? Okay. Presuming it's not requiring travel to Las Vegas or Europe. Okay. Correct. Okay. Correct. Ashley, Councilmember Hardy-Chandler? Being from Las Vegas, that's a fine place to have training. Thank you very much. Go Vegas Golden Knights. Okay. Okay. So that brings us to the police reduction? It does. I do have one. I only have one sheet, though. So if you want, I can try to read it. And this is directly from the police chief. There's the cover memo. Budget savings, 5%. Executive, reduction of $332,000. Peer support services, training, promotional testing, mental health patient sitting. Criminal investigations, reduction

of $68,000. Encompasses training, two cadet position temps, which equals $62,000 of the 68. Patrol operations, reduction of $369,500, which encompasses training, EST, CNT, CDU. I don't know what those are. On-call, breaching kits, shields, e-bikes. Of the 369, there are four officer position temps, $320,000 of the 369,500. Administrative services, reduction of $134,000. MVR repair contract training, additional temp help, one dispatcher, one property evidence technician, which is $116,000 of the $134,000. Professional standards, reduction of $119,000. Incentives for instructorship and specialty pays. Temp help range masters of $70,000 of the $119,000. And then lastly, community services, $30,000 training by team gear and equipment.

So the breakup that she had here was $488,500 in equipment, training, and incentives programs, $568,000 in temp help wages, or a total of $1,056,500. Yes, Mr. Foster. If I may, if council wants to consider some alternate amount, rather than worrying about where they are, is pick your number, and let the police chief determine what things to keep and not in terms of, so if you want to split the difference instead of the million, do half a million, then she can and her team can determine how to spend that half a million or $750,000 or $250,000 or whatever number. If you're wanting to consider an alternate number, my suggestion would not be to try and figure out those things. She and her team know best how to spend that.

She was identifying things that could be saved as part of the exercise. So if this is, if council is willing to consider an alternative amount that you all can agree with, let's just agree on the amount, she can take and her team can take care of where to place it. Okay. Okay. Council Member Peterson. Well, the other way, though, that this could happen, I know the timing's not right here, is for her to tell us, what is it that will maintain a full protective level of safety for the committee here, for the city, rather, and what is that amount? I mean, we came in with the five, but there's more. There's a five plus in the questions. How much of that plus falls in the category, no, this is really critical to have.

No, it's not critical to have right now. That would, to me, tell us where the number is, and I don't know where that falls. I agree, cherry picking the thing is impossible for us to do, but that's the other way to look at it. Fair, but her comment, which I pulled up, Mr. Bates read to you, is they could still maintain full staff, and she told you what was impacted, but with the million dollar reduction. So, again, at least the last time, the three of you did not really like that option. So, it's either, either you can leave, we can leave it in, because there's not four votes to take it out, or you could agree on an alternative number, and my suggestion is, again, is let, let her and her team determine what's best,

to your point, to continue, to continue the function. We can certainly report that back to you, but rather than trying to figure out what that is, what, you know, because anything is better, I mean, losing some amount less than a million is better than losing the whole thing. So, we can figure out how to best spend that, or she can figure out how to best allocate that, where it is best for her department and for the community. I think Council Member Bates has something. So, I just want to kind of add to my stance on this. I would be willing to support a reduction, if that reduction is recommended by the city manager, and or the police chief, that they say that this, you know, whatever we're cutting is really just not worth the cost,

and we've, you know, gone back and figured that out, whatever that amount is. So, I don't, you know, I don't know what that amount might be that we might want to go back for, but, I mean, whatever it is, if we have a recommendation that, that, that reduction is actually recommended over the full amount, because whatever we're cutting is just not really worth it right now, then I could support that reduction. Council Member Hardy Chandler. So, I agree with Council Member Peterson for the chief to tell us what proportion with the parameter that the decisions for the cut truly take in long-term impacts, not just positions for now, or whatever those elements are that we're thinking in terms of safety,

but also what might be a stepping stone for their long-term plan. The other thing is, you said we should keep it in if there are not votes to take it out. It's only in because we're starting with scenario five. If we started with an earlier scenario, there wouldn't be three votes to put it in. So, I just want to make sure that this is not the decided on scenario. Fair enough. We, we, we had to have a starting point. This was the starting point we were working from. So, I'm okay to, and I think this kind of echoes what Council Member Bates was saying. Um, if she wants to propose a smaller number with the guidance that it, it isn't just a cut, it's a cut that doesn't have long-term consequences.

Um, thinking more broadly than I could support that. I can certainly consult with, with her and her, her team and, and, um, can come back with something. What I would, I think what I would offer is that, um, uh, uh, the original budget proposal didn't have any of this, this reduction in it. Um, and it was a way to identify things that could, you know, but when you talk about it's retention incentives, it's training, it's all the things we've been talking about. So yeah, to, you know, can you forego that for a year for a short period of time? I mean, I think what she's saying is, yes, we can do that. Is that the best? I mean, is that best for the long-term operations of the department? Um, considering that you've talked about,

you know, the, the, the previous study that was done. And so the, the, what that we had, we were, we'll have to build up towards, and this is would, this reduction I think would just put us further behind if the goal is to try and get us to some of the things that that plan talked about. Council member Hardy Chandler. That's exactly my point. You know, if it interferes with our competitiveness in this market, then I would want her to not offer that up. So let me add to my guidance that she can also come back to us with zero. Mm-hmm. Council member Bates. Uh, yeah, and that, um, that's sort of what I was getting at. I mean, if, if the recommendation is that, um, you know, the recommended course of action is to not cut anything,

then I would not support cutting anything. And also, I want to look at, make sure that we're looking at, um, not just, you know, is this recommended for this year, but is this recommended as a permanent cut? Um, I, I meant to add that earlier because we want to be looking again long term. Um, I mean, I don't think that we want to keep taking a bite out of the police budget, then adding it back and then taking it out, adding it back. I don't think that that's really very healthy for, for any department, especially in public safety. Um, given the amount of stress that they're all under, even more so perhaps in other departments. Um, so yeah, definitely agree with council member Horry Chandler on that.

It's not a permanent reduction. Right. So it's not being, it was not proposed as a permanent reduction. So, so for purposes, cause we're trying to work our way toward a tax rate for purposes of, um, trying to get there, should there be a placeholder number? Is there like a placeholder number that says, suggestions? So what I would suggest, just as just a suggestion, but understanding what the manager and everyone else has sort of communicated, leave the 5%, the 1,056,500 as a placeholder now, confirm with the police chief, if that is an accurate number and, or if it can be modified down. If it's modified down, it would be incumbent upon the finance team and budget to figure out what the delta is and identify that gap.

Right. Right. So that would just benefit the tax rate to be able to reduce it. If reducing it is something the chief says she wants to do. Correct. Is everybody okay with this as a placeholder? This is a placeholder number to get us to a tax rate. Council member Peterson. Just to clarify. So we are, we've got a million and change here that is being shown as a reduction. Correct. And we're adding it back in. No, we're leaving as, we're leaving it in. We're leaving it in. Leaving it as a reduction, but she can come up with a recommendation. Correct. So leaving it and leaving it as a reduction. And so just the million dollars is 1.2 cents. Okay. Or roughly is what you're talking about of a tax rate impact.

If, if you put it back in. Council member Bates. One more question. The, well, this is kind of about both this one and the next item, but the, well, first off the non urgent freezing, non urgent vacancies. Did that include 10 positions or only permanent positions? No, this, those are FTE. I mean, it's not eliminating, but it would be freezing FTEs full time or, and or part time as they become vacant. And we would, again, we, we're, we're, we still need to better define it, but the term we're using right now is non urgent. So again, if, if public safety, presumably it would be considered urgent. So if there was a vacancy, that's something we'd fill. If it was an administration, we'd have a straight,

a position that's probably not considered urgent. We wouldn't fill that, but that would be frozen for some period of time. So it would be sort of on a case by case basis, depending on what our staffing is. For example, we, you know, some public works positions, say like a fleet mechanic might be considered urgent, but a different public works position may not be considered as urgent. So again, it's, we can't necessarily tell you each, what would be or what wouldn't be, but we would be evaluating that as, as that happened. Right. So, um, I guess the, the one thing I would say is that with, uh, temp, vacant temp positions, uh, not just within the police department, but at large, if we could maybe,

um, look at those with the same criteria that we, uh, looked at, um, the one million for freezing non-urgent vacancies already. Absolutely. I'm sorry. Maybe I'm, I'm, I guess I misunderstood. I was just that we were intending that freeze to be regular positions. Certainly temps would be that we would look at the same way. Okay. So that, so that million does include potentially temps as well. Yes. Okay. So, well, actually that kind of follow up to that then, um, so all those temp positions that were included in the 5% reduction aren't necessarily an additional. Well, so you were saying that you did not include any public safety under that non-urgent vacancies. So even the temp, uh, vacancies in public safety are considered to be urgent vacancies.

No, what I would say is we, that, that million dollars, that number that's there is, um, is our best calculation of what we would save by freezing non-urgent positions. We're not, we don't actually have specific, specific positions. Um, with the exception of the, the one exception that the, it was the, the, the Debbie city manager was certainly in there. Uh, we would not, that would be one that we would not fill. Um, but as far as other positions, um, I can't necessarily say it's these positions that we were looking at. Um, that is a, um, you know, a number we feel very comfortable with. Um, if we could save more, we would, or we would, we, we, we, we would absolutely do that. Um, and part of it is,

um, we, it's something that we would be monitoring as the year goes on. so it could be that we, if we have lots of turnover, we can freeze positions for less than maybe we would need to. But if we don't have much turnover, then some positions would be frozen for much longer. Um, and again, it's part of that is that's a management issue in terms of how we, how these things come up. Cause we can't necessarily predict, um, which things might become vacant or, or, or remain filled. Okay. So I guess the, uh, the, you know, the one last thing is that, um, from what it sounds like, we want to make sure that, um, you know, the, the 5% police reduction, if, or whatever comes back to us, um, if that includes temps,

you know, is that in addition to the million or, um, uh, you know, partially in addition to it and partially overlapping with it, or, you know, whatever that might come out to me. I understand that that million is not really, uh, is more of an estimate, but, but just something to kind of consider. Council member Peterson. And thank you. Those are really great questions. I guess I have a, I guess I have a, a bit of a bottom line question, which is, can you work with this number? Work with it in what? I mean, do you, you mean you want it to be larger? No, no, no, no. I don't mean, can it be larger? You just essentially explain, this is an estimate and it's just, it will require further management.

Yes. And what I would tell you is that we would, um, if the million dollars is what we need to achieve, then we're going to manage it to make sure we get at least a million dollars over the course of the year. Which, so, which means we may freeze positions for longer than we'd like, but if that's what it takes to get us to the number, that's what we'll end up doing. My only, um, hesitancy slash recommendation would be if upon further examination you find out that that is requiring freezes of a duration that are, um, critically, uh, not wise to do for some reason, I certainly wouldn't want to force that. Right. So there needs to be perhaps a little bit of, uh, flexibility on discovery here. Right.

Sure. I mean, absolutely. I mean, we're, we're, we're, I mean, it's, it's up to us to, to manage. Um, and so certainly if there's, if we were to get well into the year and we're finding that we weren't having issues, with, with that number, we would certainly come back to you and we'd either, we'd have to get a supplemental or come up with something different. Yes. So, so is that million dollar is, is everybody good with that? Yeah. Is that a million dollars? It looks like that. Everybody is good with that number. So that takes us to the CIP. Not, not to rush. How do we feel about the next three? Does, do we want to pull one out or, cause we've talked a lot, I think about those three and I think the plan is kind of,

I don't know if we need to, did anyone have any questions about them or can we just kind of go up to the other items? That, that all depends on whether I'm allowed to vote twice for things. Yeah. Okay. And then I know that, I think the only things that were really different on mine were the addition of the efficiency audit and the Sprout grant, if I'm correct. Yeah. Yeah. You want to go to that slide? If we're finished with the hall, we'll go to Amos 4.2. And that one. Yeah. So I think those are the only two that we have not discussed. So how does everyone feel about Sprout grant? Do we want to fund that through fiscal year or just, or would that end this year? How do we feel about appropriating an additional 118,000 to fund Sprout grant through,

it's just through next fiscal year, correct? Is this, this will be to fund the position that was defunded with the, with the federal government ending the Sprout grant? Yeah. That came up at our April 5th work retreat when we all found out at the same time. So this is 12 months. Yes. But, but the grant has been canceled. Correct. So we have found funding through the end of this fiscal year for her, or for the position, which would end if there was no additional funding found. Yes. Council member Hardy Chandler. And that includes fringe and benefits and all of that stuff, which it's folded in there. Okay. Okay. If we didn't continue with this role, we would lose the outreach programs that we're doing as far as like training,

super volunteers, invasive control. Can you kind of comment just on some of the highlights of what the role does? And I think you're absolutely right. I saw I, at the April 6th, third meeting, I actually had a copy of the position's job description. I think the manager actually read it. To your point, I think it was everything and other items that I cannot recall off the top of my head right now, but, but yes, what you stated and more. Are there other costs associated with that role? That if we are not thinking about those, then we wouldn't be able to do X, Y, and Z events that are not funded elsewhere, or was that not included in the grant at all? And it was just straight up salary and benefits.

And then those other things are included somewhere else in like an ESC or public works budget. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. Okay. Brooke has a cheat sheet that will provide some clarifying information. Otherwise we just have a person and she can't do anything. And I, and I, hopefully this was shared previously. I'm sure it was. There's a lot of emails. Among all, among all the things. Um, but the urban forester looked at, um, if the grant were to be canceled, uh, but the CIP items continue to be funded, um, and the stewardship coordinator was funded, there would be a reduction in the amount of services, activities that, um, that that position would provide, but we would continue to, um, do the invasive management,

the contract services associated with that, the education and outreach associated with that role, uh, in working with the, the Mason, uh, fellow, uh, the volunteer programming, the forest rescues, um, program coordinating, um, this year was 213 volunteer hours, continuing that into FY26, FY26, the residential, uh, tree giveaway program, uh, tree planting on public property, tree watering and establishment care, um, and tree removals for invasives or vulnerable species. All of those activities would still proceed, albeit at a reduced rate with, uh, the stewardship coordinator remaining, uh, and employment for FY26. Council member Hardy Chandler, where would all of that fall if not coordinated by this position?

Um, it would be, um, they would be either canceled or dramatically reduced. If it were just other staff that were, that were responsible for this. Um, so to go through that list, uh, the invasive management, um, would be heavily reduced, more reduced than it, um, would be otherwise. Education outreach would be heavily reduced. Things like the forest rescues program, the residential tree giveaway, um, the city jobs program, relationship with that, uh, would all be canceled. We wouldn't be able to, to continue with, with, uh, supporting those activities. Things like tree planting on public property, watering, and tree removals would continue, but at a reduced rate. So I think this is really important because it's Earth Day.

Um, and this community has made a commitment to these things that we've just named, which is why we applied for the Sprout Grant. It's why we got the Sprout Grant, because we are a small city, and having someone to engage our community, to run these workshops, to do the training, to do the education. It is vital. It truly is vital to what we're trying to do in the city, which is a huge job, especially when it comes to invasives, which are eating the city, dare I say zombie apocalypse. But anyway, you know, it seems unusual to like carve out this one position. And yet this one position really supports something that repeatedly we say is a priority for the city. Councilmember Hardy Chandler. And I would also add,

having worked with a lot of volunteers, the hours that good coordination of volunteers contribute to the city far exceed the salary. You know, if we had to pay for all of those hours, that would, you know, more than cover the salary. So I question the quality of continuing all of those activities in the absence of this position. I don't see it happening. Councilmember Hall. Yeah, I agree. I'm in support of continuing to fund the role. I did just want to ask, are we at all in consideration of reducing the $100,000 that the EDA provided with the Culinary Careers Collaborative and the Women's Entrepreneurship Program and the miscellaneous bucket for unplanned studies? That would kind of offset this role.

Could we give any consideration to that? Well, I would say this about the Culinary Program. It is a job training program. It is a workforce program. And being able to provide that, I think that's the one that we are doing currently with Vienna and George Mason University, that is a free program to give people training and restaurant skills. And so, you know, it is an opportunity that we would be taking off the table for people to get job training in industry where there's a lot of openings in their good entry-level positions. The Women's Empowerment Program, I mean, I think those were small grants to women entrepreneurs. You know, that could probably be cut. What was the third one? It was just the two.

I asked Mr. Bruno, forget the 10%, but if you could come up with $100,000, where would it come from? And those were the two plus items with the bucket. So we could certainly go through and pick other things in there or do the same thing with the 10% on other levels. I mean, I'm trying to do that, trying to look at some of the supplies and stuff. So it was just a question. I didn't really want to touch the lift and fig programs. Right, because just like our commitment, you know, if you think about our city council goals, economic development is number one. And if we start removing our investment in economic development, this starts to eat away at the ways we're trying to be the city of preference for businesses being here.

So that's a tough one. I know. It's just a tough one. We can't say as to everything. I'm trying to say no to some things. Council Member Hardy Chandler. Could we leave that open and just charge staff with potentially exploring possible offsetting places somewhere in alignment with our goals and priorities just to see if there is anything to offset? But I think there is consensus that we do want to maintain this role. Yes, Mr. Hartman. If I may, Madam Mayor. As part of community development plannings, 10% potential reduction. We had identified $139,022 in contract services that could potentially be reduced without an impact to our day-to-day services. If the council desires, we could apply that to the difference.

That is incredibly generous of you. Yes, Mr. Martinez. So I'm not saying no to my colleague, but we're actually trying. Gwen's actually has a real-time debits and credits. So as we're continuing, we're seeing either the deficit grow or decrease. My suggestion would be I think we have one more item potentially. I think I'm hearing we're in agreeance with the 118. Or at least leave it in as a placeholder and see where we are. And then we have one more item on top of that. And then if we can figure out where the variance is, either talk about EDO and or CD&P and or other and see what we can come up with. Okay. Does that sound like a plan? Getting us to two or three, where is that right now? Two and a half right now.

Okay. I swear. Council Member Peterson. As long as Director Harden is not allowed to sneak out of here before we're done. Oh, yes. Council Member McQuillan. I don't know if she'll be happy with me sharing this information, but I did receive some information from the chamber regarding some of the services they may be able to provide or assist with in terms of the women's empowerment and culinary arts. So just throwing that out there. She may or may not appreciate that information, but I just thought I would. Share that with the rest of my council. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we're set. We've approved the 118 for the Sprout full-time position. That leaves the last thing that we're looking at, which is the additional funding for an efficiency audit.

Council Member Hardy Chandler? So I think in the spirit of a legacy for the city, I think that some sort of efficiency audit needs to happen. but what i heard the city manager say is there are existing staff resources to do that i would want to make sure we make use of the resources that we already have before paying for external consultants for that but i do think the audit itself should happen and it sounds like that could answer and set up a lot of other future decisions council member mcquillen so um i had thought about that initially when i started to research and understand more about efficiency audits and what other municipalities do and my concern is when it comes to identifying potential bloat or areas in which we are inefficient i i really don't want to put another staff member

in that position i feel that that puts them in a moral potential dilemma and i think having an individual independent audit would be better just since it removes um that moral dilemma or the potential for it to come into play that's that's my thought process on that other thoughts on that leaving it in council member peterson i do think there's merit to an independent on it i'm i have no idea whether that's the right number for one and i also think there could be merit with perhaps a blend here you know there may be some things that could could and and possibly even should be done in-house uh whereas other things might be done independently and but i i don't know where that lands in terms of the number right maybe it cuts it in half maybe it doesn't i don't know

uh council member amos and then council member hardy chan well based off of that feedback maybe it'd be another one of those where we kind of keep it as a placeholder and then adjust it based off of what we determine what can be done in-house versus what can be done independently placeholder scenario i'm amenable to that uh the pros of in-house is that you have knowledge of your organization but to your point you do lose the independent object objectivity a combination could be very helpful i would also want to know um if there is any available information on the actual savings that could come out of an efficiency audit from similarly situated cities um is this investment you know it's kind of like when you pay somebody to do your taxes you want the refund to at least cover the taxes

right you know the preparation amount so if we're going to do this i would want the savings or at least some indication that for similarly situated cities that the savings that is possible or probable is likely to cover that cost anyway well let me council member hall then council member mcquillen i am big on outside independent independent audits for a variety of reasons i think all of which have been stated and covered but i did just want to put my vote in for outside agency because i think it's it's much easier to take a hard look at things and ask the tough questions and not feel like you're going to offend the person that you like but that you think their role is not as productive as it could be

um and i just it's just information right how we choose to act with it is an entirely different conversation but i think i i would heavily support an outside audit and not an internal one and if it's only going to be internal then i don't think it's even worth doing to be honest council member i don't think it gives us what we want so so we seem to have settled on where we can do some stuff internal where can should we be independent and kind of revisit at some point like with the community oh yeah okay okay oh this was all on so the other thing with the efficiency audit that i not just about finding money in ways to but it's to be more efficient right so it could be reallocation of an employee into this space or just

working two different departments a little bit differently to become more efficient so i'm i agree i think that i would like to see you know that this is going to benefit us in the future but i think overall since we've never had one and it is something that municipalities it's very common as our cfo had stated previously that they a lot of municipalities have this yearly annually um so i just think it's worth especially since we seem to be at this crossroads as council member hall had stated where everything feels like it's just coming timing wise on us now and so i think it kind of eliminates our it allows us to govern it gives us recommendations um and allows our staff to do their job as well without tying their resources up and their time up on things

you know like this okay thank you okay yes council member amos yeah and i mean just to quickly add to that i think if i think the intention is to probably do more than one of these uh at least over time and maybe i don't know if it'd be annually recurring whatever we're looking like but it would be some kind of recurring cost so seeing where we can reduce to try to get the best deal out of it as well would be good councilman peterson i would be in favor of this provided that director harden can circle back and help us out a little bit with his offer and if there's anything that's still there in the eda offer from director bruno it'd be great to see about that also particularly in light of some of the alternatives

that were raised so loved maybe it's time to move to that but that would be my take on what i'd like to see happen here okay so it sounds like everybody wants to leave the 200 000 in as a placeholder for an external or hybrid efficiency audit all right so where does that leave us so tentatively right yes drum roll at two and a half cents no meals tax no changes from what is being discussed votes up or down without further clarification from the police chief right now so taking the full million 1556 000 we're at a negative variance meaning we need to come up with money of about 363 incorporating potentially 100 000 from edo incorporating intentionally 150 000 or so from cdmp that's a negative variance of about 124 000 which i think collectively we can figure that out probably go back to

the 10 percent cherry pick and hopefully i'm not speaking out of turn manager um cherry pick some items from that if that would be amenable to council two percent no no mra so two percent for so yeah so recap so we can do all this at two and a half cents and we can do all this at two and a half percent for the next five percent reduction reduction for police is still included so if all of that if if if to your question was have talked to the police chief come back what can we live with and or what's the what's recommend so if the recommend is that we need all of that million dollars then that's another 1.2 cents now you're up to 3.7 well or yeah i'm just saying that that's fine but that's that's that's that's that's how that's how the math works

um so um or you we you can say uh uh 450 400 uh and you put would you could put some of that back and be at three i mean we can still ask the question and and and if the quote if the answer still is the million the million is fine then you're then you're at two and a half but if she comes back and says anything less than a million then that two and a half is going to have to increase uh that's you know or or you're gonna have to cut something else so and i don't think we're back at the drawing board i think you know what i've heard is that people are some of us i don't want to speak for everyone some of us are comfortable with three we're now from two to three to two and a half to three so if she comes back with something around that puts us at three not 3.7 but three i think we could

have a conversation and still consider this work tonight progress councilmember bates so um so if we were to uh not want to cut any of the um million fifty six thousand um but we also did not fund the efficiency audit or the sprout grant um where would that leave us potentially so just to confirm fully not to do the five percent reduction for police so add back in the million 56 and then do away with the sprout and the efficiency study that would put us at a negative variance of 862 862 000. so basically backed up to around 3.5 cents i think another penny that's right okay um so all things considered i guess depending on what we kind of come back with uh what they come back with but um uh one more thing uh since it looks like we're talking about roughly you know a one cent difference

that we're down to um what would the uh increase in the yearly bill if you happen to have it for a median valued home come to for a one cent increase in the tax rate 65 65 65 right what's the median price 65 65 yeah 65 for one penny 65 dollars 65 for one penny okay so for the median and for roughly for the median house yeah that sounds about right so just want to kind of put that out there that you know how much do we really want to kind of haggle over 65 for the year for somebody who owns a median valued home that's 650 650 and yes i do carry around my tax bill all year with this in case you're wondering so yeah so one so what so on again it depends on what your property is assessed but for a median 650 one penny of real estate 65

right you're 770. right yeah yeah yeah that's i mean that's that would be what the additional cost on an annual basis would be if you did one cent more than what you wanted to do that's what it would be again some will pay less some will pay more depending on what their property is assessed at so may i mayor no yes yes yes okay so uh thank you for all the discussion so where we're at now is two and a half cents uh based on uh all of the and with the major play the major placeholder being the pd piece which i will have a conversation uh tomorrow with the chief and can report back but we can certainly um prepare every what we need to prepare based on the with the two two and a half cents and then we can show an uh an alternative based on if she if she comes back with an alternative number

what that would look like and so we can have that ready for may 6th okay yes council member amos and just reiterating so everyone knows i will be on a work retreat that day but i will be i guess calling in or video and i don't know how that's supposed to video video cap okay yeah that's good you can still participate it works it works this is i mean this is good we'll have different scenarios and options and i'm sure we will hear you some updates between now and may 6 too as you find these things out correct correct we'll we'll we can we'll we'll have something for you this week yeah that's why i'll i'll this is helpful because now now we know now we know what you're at we the two and a half cents no meals tax

we can we'll we'll i'll we'll i'll talk with pd we'll have that conversation and then if it's a number other than the million 56 then we'll also have a discussion on the alternative ways to make up that delta without and and leave the rate at two and a half okay but but i but but what we're going to do um and what i'm i'm seeing nodding the heads i just want to confirm but what we will do is we're based on this this um all the discussion feedback we're going to prepare ordinances and resolutions etc for to show a real estate tax rate increase of 2.5 cents and that's the only tax rate increase there'll still be the wastewater and stormwater charges um that were proposed um and with these changes and that's what will be in all of the documentation which you'll of course get to see

ahead of time and i will communicate with you um later this week it probably will not be tomorrow but later this week on my conversations with police and depending on what those conversations yield um if we have to if we have any alternative scenarios to but but i but i think we can keep you at two and a half cents and no meals tax change and if that is in these with these general parameters if that's six if that's acceptable then that's what we'll be able to prepare for you okay thumbs up do we have thumbs up on this is a plan this is a plan councilmember bates sorry one more question just to clarify for those watching from home um that 65 dollars that's looking at the current value of a home for this coming fiscal year right so 2.5 cents versus 3.5 cents for this upcoming budget

that's a 65 difference for the median valued home for this current year taking into account um increases in assessments and all that correct i mean that's what a one cent difference would mean the 65 on a median median median value of six of 650 000 that's correct thank you okay that's puts a exclamation point behind that sounds like everybody is a thumbs up they we have our staff has a direction to go in and we will hear something later in the week once we you've talked to captain yeah we will we will i will send out uh communication um later this week with confirming the the the all the details and this is what we'll have ready for you um for your meeting on may the 6th that sounds excellent um if we're good

with this then i am now going to reconvene the regular meeting and ask the manager if he has a report out for us uh i do not but let me just say thank you i know this is a lot of work i know that you don't necessarily like where we've ended up um but uh and i would agree that it's totally unfair for you to be new and have all this come on you at one time um but um i appreciate all the discussion all the questions um i think you have done um very good work to get to get us to this point so i think we we can we've now can get the ball over the over the goal line now and we will be uh ready for you on may 6th and as i mentioned earlier we'll continue to do all the things that i mentioned as far as continuing to evaluate and

come up and and uh if there are other alternatives that we can because i think we're all mindful of wanting to make the most efficient use of uh the resources that we have and and not uh you know spend more than we need to all right council member mccullin just wanted to say happy earth day and congrats to the chocolate lovers grant recipients um and i'm looking forward to the history day and arbor day this weekend thank you all right council member bates uh thank you happy earth day and happy belated easter to all who celebrate thanks council member peterson i want to thank um everybody who stays up late to watch us and in the case of today started early it's been a long day but uh really thank

everybody who's contacted me by email and i i can't count the number of emails i have received but i very much appreciate them i've done my very best to respond to everyone and hope that you will continue to be in touch and let me know how you feel about things and what you need to be well represented in the city your voices really do make a difference and it's been a great help to me to understand your perspective on things the other thing i would just say on a personal note is i wanted to take the opportunity uh to wish my mother her happy 96th birthday happy birthday mom council member hardy chandler so i want to thank my colleagues for the collegial discussion around the budget and around these

very challenging issues it's been a journey but it is what we signed up for when we put our hat in the ring and i do want to actually encourage other people to run for office to experience this uh dynamic um i do want to highlight that it seems like every few days or at least every week um i at least get some information about one of our departments or an individual receiving an award um we have award winning staff um and it's constant and i try to think of different ways to say congratulations but mostly i'm really proud of the work that's done by those who serve this city um that can't be underestimated um so i really want to acknowledge all of the staff who are constantly winning awards achieving accreditation achieving acknowledgements not just from us but

from national entities and that's something that we should all um as residents of fairfax be very proud of so congratulations to everyone for the awards that are won that have been won and that will be won it council member hall thank you um i will echo your sentiments um this is it's been a night well it's been an afternoon that turned into a night um but i i do think we did good work here i think we all contributed we all worked hard we all helped and i hope that the community can see that we truly did try and we got it down from a lot to i hope what is a reasonable number for um our community to be able to manage um just a couple other comments um i'm sorry i don't have the name of the poetry student but

your poem is beautiful um congratulations and thank you so much for being willing to come up and read it and thank you to um teacher faiza alum for bringing forth your wonderful students as usual um i did just want to point out that we have wonderful footpaths in our city i know it's not a trails conversation it's just a statement in general um i'm still continuing to learn where some of them are and i am enjoying them and i would like to see more of them so um not everything needs to be a transportation project but i think that there are definitely opportunities that we can build into a little bit more connectivity in some different ways um just to one point and it's really just because a community member spoke up tonight um i think it's important to note that when we ran we had absolutely

no idea what a proposed budget was going to look like for the city i don't think any staff members knew what a proposed budget was going to look like so when we hired our interim city manager brian foster he came in he looked at the numbers he came up with a budget so the rest of us up here your council members we sat by we learned what that proposed budget was we've been working we've been talking i don't know what stage in the game people are in watching all this but we didn't do anything up here to make a budget we're working with a budget that was presented and trying to do our best to incorporate all the things that we think are important and and things that maybe are not as important so just want

to be sure on that process um finally i want to thank all my colleagues for not supporting a meals tax um i was the child of a small business owner my parents my dad owned a bagel bakery my mom did too but she was a teacher um and an italian bread bakery so i know what that's like and i know that when you raise the prices of flour and sugar and butter and all the things it really does make things extremely expensive so i want to thank our city businesses for coming out for speaking up for all of the signatures and petitions that were passed out tonight i know that's a lot of work i know it's a stress and a strain on you your business your employees um and your patrons that come quite frankly so thank you for doing what you do and i do want to agree with doug cox um we all like to go

out to eat here in our city and so if we are able to do so and can support our local businesses please go out and do the best that you can for them so that we can all try to ensure that they're still here so um and one other just question point of point of clarification is it possible to allow video messages for residents if they're not able to come and be at our meetings i was told the county does that and then they play them at the meeting is that something we could look into or consider rather than sending an email but that way they know that their voice is being heard and read and voices faces being seen is it is it possible i'll look to brian but i believe the question is yes the concern we have from the staff perspective is we would i'm making your mouth move you're right oh

we would want to see those ahead of time so there would have to be a deadline so that we could vet them that's the same reason why we don't allow people to bring forward powerpoint presentations or give us a flash drive because we have no idea what's on that and we wouldn't put it out to the public without vetting at first and i understand that but if they're here in person and they start going off the rails what do you do the mayor can rule them out of order if they're being abusive or but you'd kind of mute their microphone or similar to what you would do on a video i would imagine i have no problem with them being viewed in advance as long as we understand that we're not filtering and if there's something

that's inappropriate then it would still be shared with the council just not publicly shared with council maybe if that's you mentioned that you had heard that this was happening in the county yes we'll take a look the video video video testimony yes pre-recorded the day before they cannot pop up the same day so we'll look at what the county is doing okay i just think it'd be a great opportunity for our residents sure okay thank you there we go oh i don't know what's going on now okay it's that time of night cool uh so just wanted to thank you all we we got through it brutal but we got through it uh wanted to thank staff i know we've been spamming you so uh appreciate all the updates and the random scenarios and the point ones

and point twos i also want to thank brian foster our city manager for kind of taking the bull by the horns after kind of getting thrown into a quite a situation especially with a new council and then all the things that we have coming up with cip and all that stuff so wanted to thank everyone involved there um i'll be sending out an email later uh so just wanted to let you all know in advance i think that after the budget is approved our one of our first work sessions needs to be something on structure rules and procedures reviewing robert's rule of orders all those things so i'll be sending that email probably tonight or tomorrow uh in addition to some of the fun events coming up just wanted to shout out it is national poetry month uh as a poet myself wanted to just throw that out there and also month of the

military child so shout out to all my fellow military kids there we go you had japan that was pretty cool uh and then also because i know i feel jennifer beaming into me right now wanted to make sure that uh spotlight on the arts is recognized because it is coming up on april 25th uh which is going to be next friday from no this friday this friday this friday my bad i forgot what day it was uh from 7 p.m to 8 30 p.m uh it is on our calendars so uh it is a public meeting because there will probably be quite a few of us there so uh be sure to attend and have a fun time all right um i really don't have a lot to add just to echo the sentiments of everyone here on the dais it's been a lot of work for our staff for our city manager

everyone here has done an awful lot of work it has been a lot it's been a heavy learning curve for everyone uh even billy and i who've been through two budgets together there's always a lot to understand about this process and i think the public has been right there with us they certainly were tonight um it is spotlight on the arts this friday at 7 at sherwood center we have history day coming up on saturday and these are the things that make our community special and i appreciate our employees who make those events special for the residents and for the visitors from outside our city who cherish these events as much as we do we do and with that i am now going to go into a closed meeting so there you go we're going into a closed meeting that means some of us go and some of us stay

so there you go all right bye bye design design design design