City Council Meeting

Good evening. I would like to call the regular meeting of May 12th, 2025, 2026, I mean, to order. The Wayback Time Machine. It's great to see a full chamber. Thank you and welcome to everyone who's come out tonight. We have some wonderful proclamations that we're going to do, but first, if you are able and so choose, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I would like to ask the Asian Festival on Main Committee to come down for the proclamation, acknowledging May as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month. When you've had an Asian Festival for six years, you've got a variety of T-shirts from which to choose, and they're all beautiful. Whereas, the Asian American Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander,

AANHPI community is one of the nation's fastest growing racial and ethnic groups consisting of culturally and linguistically diverse people, representing populations from many countries and islands. Today, the United States has a population that includes more than 22.2 million Asians and 1.6 million Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders. And whereas there is no single story of the AANHPI experience, but rather a diversity of contributions that enrich America's culture and society and strengthen the United States role as a global leader. And the American story as we know it would be impossible without the strength, contributions, and legacies of those in the AANHPI community who have helped build, serve, and defend this country in each successive generation.

And whereas, despite the many successes achieved in this country, members of the AANHPI community can still face systemic barriers to economic justice, health equity, educational attainment, and personal safety. Throughout history, AANHPIs have transformed adversity into opportunities for public service, efficiency, and innovation, resulting in lasting change that resonates beyond our community and has positively impacted our world. This resilience is woven into the fabric of their success, and it is a testament to the unwavering spirit of their ancestors who face their own struggles with dignity and strength. And whereas, in order to honor and celebrate Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islanders in our

community, Wendy Wong, co-owner of the Standard Barbershop, approached the Old Town Fairfax Business Association and joined forces with several sponsors to create Fairfax City's first Asian Festival on Maine in 2021 with great success. Attendance has grown incrementally each year, making the Asian Festival on Maine one of the largest Asian festivals in the DMV region. And whereas, the sixth annual Asian Festival on Maine strengthens community pride, supports local businesses, and celebrates the diverse cultures that enrich Fairfax City, drawing attendees from across the region to experience its vibrant and inclusive atmosphere. Now, therefore, I, Catherine S. Reed, Mayor of the City of Fairfax, proclaim May 2026 as Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander Heritage Month in the City of Fairfax,

and encourage everyone to celebrate the cuisine, art, music, dance, and diverse cultures of the AANHPI community on Sunday, May 17th, in the City's historic downtown. Help us welcome thousands of visitors from across the region to our city for the largest Asian Festival on Maine to date. And with that, I will turn it over to Jensen. Oh, thank you. Thank you. I guess I drew the short straw this time. Anyways, we just wanted to, number one, thank the city for all of your support, because Asian Festival is so independent on, or we're just thankful for the city, because you bring all of the safety and, you know, helping us, you know, with all the logistical support of shutting down the streets. And, again, that's a big lift.

And there's a lot of folks, even in this room, that are going to be there helping out that day. And we're so thankful for that. Josh, you want to come? You've got to be in the pictures. But, again, you know, Asian Festival doesn't, it requires a lot of folks. And a lot of the folks are standing behind me. Some are new people. Some are old faces. But, again, it's a wonderful group of people who have just come together to support Asian cultures. And this year we've got a couple of new things. We're doing a podcast with the Hungry Immigrant. So make sure that you stop in the parking lot over behind De Clou. That's where that will be. We also have mini horses. We have, because it's the year of the horse.

And then we also have Asian cultures showcase. So we're going to have different tents with, and we're adding more cultural aspects to it as we grow. So we're really excited about that. So we hope to see everybody on Sunday. It's going to be a little warm, but we're going to deal with it. And it's going to be all good. So we just thank, again, we thank the city for all of your support. Thank you. Okay, well, I'm going to say something about Jensen Chan, who is the owner of Highside. Jensen has been here from day one, working with Wendy. This is his sixth year. And this is an all-volunteer organization that puts this together. So you've got a business owner who is deeply invested in this festival every year,

and he puts his heart and soul into it. And I don't want this to pass without everyone understanding what Jensen has put in to make the festival what it is today. So thank you, Jensen. Now, a photograph. And I'm going to give you a few steps to the left. A little more to the left. Yeah. Make sure everyone is in the window and they can see the camera and fix my nose. Everybody stretch your necks. Fix my nose one more time. 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. So, Tina Dish, where'd you go? Because now we're doing the Small Business Month, Fairfax City Small Business Month. So I need my economic development team and I need the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce

and I need Tina and I need all the people. All right. I guess you're the committee. Well, okay. Well, there is some cool video circulating around us all today about Small Business Month. Okay. Whereas, small businesses are the backbone of Fairfax City's economy contributing to our community's unique character, vitality, and prosperity. And whereas, nationally, small businesses account for 99.9% of all U.S. businesses and employ nearly half of the private workforce, underscoring their critical role in driving job creation, innovation, and economic resilience. And whereas, studies show that for every dollar spent at a small business, approximately 67 cents stays in the local community, supporting other local businesses, public services, and neighborhood development.

And whereas, the City of Fairfax is home to a vibrant mix of locally owned retail, wellness, dining, and experiential businesses that enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors alike. And whereas, Fairfax Economic Development, in partnership with the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce and the Old Town Fairfax Business Association, has launched a month-long initiative throughout May to celebrate, support, and showcase Fairfax City's small business community during National Small Business Month. And whereas, this initiative features a series of activations designed to encourage shopping local, engaging with wellness and experiential offerings, and giving back to the community through weekly donation opportunities at participating businesses,

benefiting local, nonprofit organizations. And whereas, this collaborative effort underscores the City of Fairfax's commitment to fostering a thriving small business ecosystem and building a more connected, compassionate, and economically resilient community. Now, therefore, I, Kathryn S. Reed, Mayor of the City of Fairfax, do hereby proclaim the month of May, 2026, as Fairfax City Small Business Month in the City of Fairfax, and urge all residents and visitors to support local businesses, participate in the month-long programming, and visit shopffxcity.com to discover where to dine, shop, and thrive in support of our local business community. And with this, who am I turning it over to to talk about Sneakers the Fox?

You want to flip the floor? A little tag team, and how about that? That's fine. Yeah, so I miss my friends from economic development tonight. No, we are super excited every day of the year to celebrate small businesses. It really should be small business year. But the month of May is dedicated and devoted to that. And here in the City of Fairfax, our economic development, OTFBA, and the Chamber work very hard every day to make sure that our small businesses are successful. So this month, you need to be out and about looking for that cute little Fairfax Fox. And I know I'm not going to call it the right thing. I know his sneakers is the name. He's so cute. He's stuffed. And he is hiding some Fairfax City flex cards.

So if you can find the Fox, he's so sneaky, out in one of our businesses, you can win some cold hard flex cards that you can spend in 60-ish, 60 plus, around 60, businesses throughout the city. We're very excited to be a part of it. When am I leaving out, Tina? Just make sure that everybody is supporting local businesses. That's right. That shopffxcity.com has wonderful specials and deals. We've got businesses like Patriot's Pub & Grill that are doing donation drives to support great nonprofits like Bright Paths. There's just so many good things that you can see on that site. So check it out. Okay. A photo? Yes. A photo. Okay. Okay. My council colleagues. Here we go. I love the thing you guys.

I know, right? You love it. And the smiles. Okay. Good? Good? There's a list. Okay, the police department. It's easy to tell who most of you are, so come on. If you're wearing a uniform and a badge, you probably need to be down here with me. Just saying. Well, our city's finest. Wonderful to have you all here. Thank you. The dedicated public servants are engraved on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial in Washington, D.C. And whereas the service and sacrifice of all officers killed in the line of duty will be honored during the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund's 38th Candlelight Vigil, held on the evening of May 13, 2026. In the city of Fairfax. And publicly recognize the service and sacrifices of the officers of the city of Fairfax Police Department and all communities across the nation.

And with that, I will welcome Chief Pedroso. Good evening, everybody. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. Mr. Manager, I want to just thank everybody that's here and that everybody's watching. You know, the work of a police officer is, to me, it really is one of the most important roles in our nation. As the work that these men and women behind me do every day and around our country, it really preserves our way of life. And that's something that sometimes we take for granted, right? We don't have to look too far from us to see that a lot of parts of the world don't have the freedoms and the liberties that we get to enjoy every day. So, on behalf of all of us at the police department, thank you for being a very supportive city leadership team and community.

It's a pleasure and an honor to serve you. And I thank everybody at the police department that puts on this uniform and really fights for all of us every day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Excuse me. I think the one that doesn't look like everyone else. All right. So, this is where we bring Jennifer Rose back up here from the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce and Tina Dish. And we talk about the grants that are going to be given tonight from the Chocolate Lovers Festival. Part of the Chocolate Lovers Festival, the money is given as grants to area nonprofits. And so, should we bring them up? Do you want to bring them up one at a time? Bring them all up? Let's bring them all up.

Let's bring them all up. So, Cameron's Coffee and Chocolate, which is everyone can work. And Bright Paths and Music to Free? Music to Free. If we can get all of our recipients down here. And I will turn this over to Jennifer Rose of the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce. Thank you, Mayor Reed. You know, the Chocolate Lovers Festival is probably one of my favorite parts of being involved with the Central Fairfax Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber was a part of founding the festival back in the early 90s. And it is a beloved annual tradition for the city of Fairfax. I will say this year is probably one of the most challenging years we've ever experienced. Between Old Town Hall being closed for renovations, snowcrete, bitterly cold weather, a pipe bursting in the library parking garage.

It was a miracle that we pulled off such a wonderful festival. And we could not have done it without folks coming to support those small businesses that were in the Taste of Chocolate space at Sherwood. To come support the Kiwanas, the Bar Association events. It was just, it's always a wonderful thing. So, those of you who supported the Golden Ticket Program, and those of you who may know about the School of Rock in Fairfax, where are you, Grant? Grant? Come on down, Grant. He was a sponsor of our grant program. School of Rock Fairfax, which is going to be opening very soon, sponsored our grant program. It's something that's very important, part of the Chocolate Lovers Festival. The Golden Ticket purchases, if you bought one of those chocolate bars from one of those 11 different businesses, 10 different businesses, those proceeds went to support this grant program.

So, I'm very excited to be able to present these checks to three really, really well-deserving nonprofits in the community. There were quite a few to choose from. It's always difficult. And I'm glad I'm not on the committee that has to pick them. At the end, we all kind of come together and choose from the finalists. But we'll go alphabetically, you think? What you got on top? I got Bright Path. Bright Path is right on top. So, come on now for your official check presentation. Move this out of the way for... Just a... Yep, I got it. A minute, a second. Picture, picture. Just a... Please shoot. Yeah, well, yeah, we're going to have different check presentations. Yeah, we've got three of them, so...

Perfect. Big smile. Congratulations. Congratulations. Don't try to catch that one. All right, everyone can work. Should be... If I know my alphabet well, come on down, Cameron. Ellen. So, in case you don't know, everyone can work is who operates Cameron's Coffee and Chocolates. Big smile. Big smile. All right, Cammy. Got it? All right, Cammy. Don't spend it all at once. And then lastly, but certainly not least, we have Music to Free. Thank you. That's right. That's wonderful. Handbell players. There you go. I hear no. Big smile. All right. All right. Have I captured everybody? Any of our grant recipients need to say anything at all? Speak now, forever hold your peace. Thank you very much. Thank you.

So, I think we should do one big group picture. Yes. Paul, if we can do one big group picture. Big, big, big. Like, needs a drone kind of big. Needs a drone. All typical interviews? All right, awesome. Well done. It always feels good to give away money to nonprofits to do the good work that we appreciate here in the city. We can move to the adoption of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda, Councilmember Hardy-Chandler? I move to adopt the agenda as presented with the amendment to defer Agenda Item 7B until June 9, 2026. Is there a second? Second. The motion has been made and seconded. A roll call vote. Councilmember Amos? Aye. Councilmember Hardy-Chandler? Aye. Councilmember Hall?

Aye. Councilmember Peterson? Aye. Councilmember Bates? Aye. Councilmember McClellan? Aye. Motion passed unanimously. I'm just testing you all. All right, we will go on to initial general public comment. I have four people who signed up by 5 o'clock p.m. today, so I will call the first speaker up, which is Janet Jaworski. Good evening. Mayor Reed, members of the City Council. I am not available on June 9th when the noise ordinance has been deferred to, so I'm going to give you my comments tonight if that's okay. I will spare you some of the details, which you have already in a letter from me last fall when you did a work session, but I am so pleased that we are almost to the finish line with this matter.

It's been percolating along for a number of years, and I'm glad that hopefully it will go to a vote on June 9th. If any of you are hesitant at all about the penalties that are included in that, I would encourage you not to be hesitant about it. The situation in our neighborhood, one street over from us, is quite egregious, and while I think most people would correct their behavior on their own before it ever got to a penalty situation, we do have a situation in our neighborhood that I think the penalties would be warranted for. This is, let's see, 2022. This is coming up on the fifth summer that I can recall that almost every weekend they have extremely loud parties with loud music, and under the current ordinance, the police department cannot do anything until 11 p.m.,

and so all of us who can hear this, and I'm one street over and four houses up, so I'm not really right next door. My dad is across the street, in the interest of full disclosure. He is diagonal from this house, so I'm sort of lobbying for my dad as well, but the neighbors adjacent to this house, none of them can sit outside on their own porch. They cannot sit on their own decks. We have original owners who are thinking about leaving the neighborhood for the first time because of this, so I think something like what I've seen, the draft that's out there, it has some teeth. Up until now, it's been disjointed in two different sections of the code. I love the fact that it's going to be consolidated.

I know you still have some work to do, I think, with the plainly audible inside the house of another person, and you're going to tease that out before June 9th, but I like the fact that it's going to be consolidated in one area. I think, I'm hoping, it's very hard to change behavior. We know that that is true. I hope that these residents who have not been persuaded to do the right thing thus far by neighbors talking to them, by the police going to their house on multiple occasions, I hope that the penalties in this will be a deterrent, and we will not have this problem in our neighborhood anymore because it really is a quality of life situation. So I appreciate your time and consideration. I will try to come back June 9th, but if I'm not available, those are my comments on the record.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Donald Albers. Hi. I am Don Albers, and I reside at 3540 Sutton Heights Circle in the Sutton Heights community. My wife, Janet, and I downsized from Vienna. We live there 26 years to a smaller townhouse in Sutton Heights. I am here to support the passing of a more restrictive noise ordinance currently under consideration by the council. Previously, as mentioned by my fellow presenters, the developer, Brookfield, LLC, has purchased a quadrant of the tank farm on Pickett Road adjacent to Sutton Heights. Because this is a by-right zone property, they can use the property for industrial purposes immediately adjacent to our Sutton Heights residential community. We see the proposed warehouse use in this portion of the tank farm

as a significant increase in the industrial impact on our residential community. Today, in meeting with Brookfield's representative and council, they have stated that they have no tenants contracted for the space, but they will most likely be Fortune 500 companies. I truly doubt that a developer of their size and experience in this type of property would spend millions of dollars to purchase and clear this site without a tenant lined up, if not already under contract. Without a specific tenant, we in the City of Fairfax have no real idea what the impact will be on traffic, noise, and light pollution in the area. It's a blank slate right now. This is why we support the proposed Stronger Noise Ordinance

to assist in controlling one of these variables. More importantly, recently, DHS ICE has been purchasing warehouse space for the purpose of processing detainees, paying on the average of 11% to 13% higher than market value for Schillmer properties. This was reported on the PBS NewsHour, as well as the Wall Street Journal article. I am providing a copy of this article, which is dated March 28th, for your reference. Through our attorney, to the attorney of the developer, we have asked the developer to commit to not allowing ICE to use the planned warehouse, but have not received a response. In addition, this is key, assuming ICE purchases the properties, no tax benefits will be available to local jurisdictions

from the federal funds from their properties, and they could be on the hook for developing required infrastructure. Needless to say, this potential use of the new warehouse space would be very detrimental to the residents of Sutton Heights, and most of which are young families, and the city of Fairfax. Thanks for your time. Our next speaker, Sherry DeFranzo. Good evening. Honorable Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Sherry DeFranzo. I reside at Sutton Heights Circle Fairfax. I'm here this evening as another representative of the Sutton Heights community, located due north of the Pickett Road Tank Farm, to endorse the approval of the ordinance to amend Chapter 38, Article 2 of the Code of the City of Fairfax

pertaining to noise mitigation and the regulation of loud, disturbing, and unnecessary noise. As you know from previous public hearings, Brookfield plans to demolish the existing 10 fuel tanks in the northeast quadrant of Pickett Road Tank Farm to construct, by right, two large warehouse buildings totaling over 300,000 square feet. As the crow flies, these warehouses will be located approximately one-tenth of a mile, or 500 feet, from the row of townhouses closest to the property boundary. Within these homes, and in fact throughout the community, residents have confirmed that even with our homes' doors and windows closed, we have been able to plainly hear tanker truck operations throughout the quadrant,

often late at night and early in the morning. The existing prohibition related to loading or unloading of vehicles and related matters is currently restricted to in residential areas and after 10 p.m. daily. The proposed ordinance would change the standard to one of noise associated with the activity being plainly audible by persons in any residence with the doors and windows closed across property boundaries and changing the hourly restriction to commence at 9 p.m. daily. Council for the warehouse project claims the new ordinance shouldn't have much of an impact because the warehouses will be designed to allow indoor unloading. However, this does not address engine noise and the beeping from reverse alarms on the trucks.

An idling diesel truck emits approximately 85 decibels. Under the proposed ordinance, noise levels from an industrial zone would be limited to 72 decibels during the day and 60 at night. This, coupled with the plainly audible standard and restricting such plainly audible noise to hours prior to 9 p.m., will go a long way towards protecting the well-being of our citizens and our community. Our neighboring communities of Barrister's Keep and Pickett's Reserve also share our deep concerns regarding the increased traffic and the noise the warehouse development will generate and support our endorsement of the proposal to limit maximum permissible sound levels. Thank you for your time and consideration.

And our last speaker for this comment period is Paul Kane. Good evening, honorable mayor and members of the city council. This is going to sound very similar to some of the previous comments. My name is Paul Kane. I live on Sudden Heights Circle in Fairfax with my wife and our two young children ages five and two. Our row of townhomes sit directly adjacent to the Pickett Road tank farm. Behind our homes, there is only a relatively narrow tree buffer and fencing separating our neighborhood from the industrial property. Even today, we regularly hear tanker trucks servicing the facility at all hours, including engine noise, backup alarms, and the loud venting sounds that occur during fuel transfers.

Now, under the approved redevelopment plan, two warehouse buildings totaling more than 300,000 square feet are proposed for the portion of the site closest to our homes. As a parent of two small children, this concerns me deeply. My children sleep less than a few hundred yards from what could become a major logistics operation with constant truck traffic, loading activity, idling engines, and nighttime noise. The wooded backdrop behind our homes will not be enough to shield residents from the constant noise, especially during the fall and winter months when there is little foliage remaining. We do understand this development may be permitted by right, but that makes thoughtful noise protections

even more important. Developers have estimated 100 to 150 trucks per day servicing the warehouses, but logistics for warehouses inherently involve both inbound and outbound truck movements, making it likely that traffic and associated noise will increase substantially over current conditions. The proposed amendments to the city's noise ordinance are a necessary and reasonable step to help protect residents living near industrial areas. Studies have linked prolonged noise exposure to elevated stress hormones, sleep disruption, anxiety, cardiovascular impacts, and developmental effects in children. The proposed ordinances limits, particularly the nighttime protections, would provide important safeguards

for families like mine who live immediately beside these industrial operations. At the end of the day, this is about protecting residents' ability to sleep, raise families, enjoy their homes, and maintain some separation between residential life and heavy industrial activity. I respectfully urge the council to approve these noise ordinance amendments. Thank you for your time and consideration. We can move to the consent agenda. Are there any questions on any of the items on the consent agenda? Are there any items council would like pulled from consent? Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda, council member Hardy Chandler? I move to approve the consent agenda, items 6A through D,

as presented, and the accompanying motions in the staff reports. Is there a second? Second. Okay, great. A motion's been made by council member Hardy Chandler and seconded by council member Peterson. Roll call vote. Council member McQuillan? Aye. Council member Bates? Aye. Council member Peterson? Aye. Council member Hardy Chandler? Aye. Council member Hall? Aye. Council member Amos? Aye. Motion passed unanimously. We'll go to the public hearings. Our first public hearings, a public hearing and council action on adoption of the solid waste management plan. I will recognize Stephanie Kupka, sustainability program manager, to provide the staff presentation. good evening, mayor and city council members.

We are pleased to be here tonight to present the five-year update to the city's solid waste management plan, which is being considered for adoption tonight. over the last several months, we've had the pleasure to work closely with city staff, community members, and our consultant, RRS, to develop the plan. And I'm now happy to hand things over to our lead consultants, Helen Lee and Olivia Poldamini, to lead tonight's presentation. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mayor Reed and members of council. We are pleased to return to this body with an updated solid waste management plan update, also referred to as the swamp for the city of Fairfax. Thanks for having us again. So our agenda for this evening

covers four main areas. We will begin with introductions and a brief overview of the project background and timeline. From there, we're going to review the city's baseline conditions and waste projections to establish the data foundation for our planning. We will then discuss the extensive stakeholder engagement process that informed this plan. And finally, we will present the swamp development process and the key action recommended for adoption. So here representing the swamp update, I am joined by Stephanie, who introduced herself as a sustainability program manager. My name is Helen Lee and I'm joined by Olivia. And we would also like to recognize the efforts of Melissa McDonald, the city's former

environmental sustainability specialist, who's not present today but was critical for delivering the final salt waste management plan. Together, our team has worked to ensure this plan is thorough, data-driven, and reflective of the city's community priorities. So this timeline illustrates the full scope of the swamp update process. The project kicked off in September 2025 and has progressed through several phases. Engagement meetings began in the fall and continued through the winter. A public survey was conducted during the same period complemented by tabling events and in-person outreach. The swamp document itself was drafted through the spring of 2026 and key milestones along the way included public meetings,

meetings with the ESC, four solid waste advisory committee meetings, as well as presenting before council during work session. We are now at the final step, tonight's public hearing for final adoption. So for those less familiar, let me briefly explain what a solid waste management plan is and why it matters. A swamp is a long-term planning document spanning across 20 years. It guides how the city manages all aspects of its waste and establishes goals and initiatives that shape future infrastructure decisions, informs programs and services, directs education and outreach efforts, and support budget and policy decisions that keep services efficient, equitable, environmentally responsible. This is not just

a compliance document. It's the city's roadmap for sustainable waste management. To provide additional context on the scope and urgency of this plan, a swamp addresses the entire waste hierarchy, anything from source reduction all the way to disposal. It includes projections of waste volumes and assesses our facility capacities. And a critical data point that I bring to you today is Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality reports that the state has less than 20 years of landfill capacity remaining according to calendar year 2024 assessment. That figure underscores the need for proactive planning. And on the financial side, since 2007, the city's municipal solid waste disposal costs have increased 73%

from $52 per ton to $90 per ton. That is a trajectory continuing to grow, which I will discuss more shortly. The city is required by state law to meet a 25% recycling rate, and we are pleased to report that in calendar year 2024, the city achieved a 39% rate well above the mandate. However, we must continue to build on that success. By law, the plan must be updated every five years, and the swamp must be adopted by city council to ensure accountability and resource alignment. We're going to now transition to the baseline that underpins this plan. Understanding the city's current landscape, including population trends, housing composition, and waste generation patterns is essential for projecting future needs

and designing effective strategies. So this chart shows the city of Fairfax's population from 1960 through projected figures of 2050. The data draws from U.S. census records as well as the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government projections. The key takeaway here is significant growth ahead. The city's population is projected to increase from approximately 24,000 in 2020 to nearly 40,000 by 2050. More people means more waste generated, which makes it imperative that our waste management infrastructure and programs scale accordingly. And this slide represents the percentage of the city's population by ethnicity over time from 1960 through 2023. The data clearly shows that Fairfax is becoming

an increasingly diverse community, and today, we recognize the growing diversity such as the AAN HPI community. This demographic shift has implications for our waste management communications and outreach. As our community diversifies, we must ensure that all education materials, recycling instructions, and program information are accessible through multiple languages, visual aids, and culturally appropriate channels. Equity and access to information is a core principle of this plan. So this next map displays the distribution of housing types across the city. As you can see, Fairfax has a mix of single-family, which is the majority, townhome, and multifamily housing. This matters for waste management

because different housing types require different service models for collection. Single-family homes typically receive curbside collection, while multifamily properties rely on shared dumpster service with different recycling access and challenges. And while a majority of the housing types in the city are single-family, we are seeing a growth of multifamily housing types in the city. And this is a critical trend for waste management planning because multifamily residents historically have lower recycling participation rates across the country, not due to a lack of interest, but due to limited infrastructure and access. And so as multifamily housing continues to grow, developing effective recycling

and organics programs for these residents become increasingly important. So our plan addresses this directly with targeted strategies for multifamily communities. So you're seeing here both historic and projected tons of municipal cell waste generated in the city broken out by residential and commercial sectors. The projections assume a status quo scenario, meaning no new interventions, and under this scenario, total waste generation is projected to rise from approximately 19,000 tons to over 28,000 tons by 2050. Both the residential and commercial sectors contribute roughly equal to the waste stream in the city of Fairfax. Next. In this slide, you will see historic tons from 2016 until current

and projected breakdown of materials disposed versus diverted under the same status quo scenario. And that gap between what we dispose and what we divert represents the opportunity. So without new programs and policies, the amount of material going to disposal will continue to increase in lockstep with population growth. So this plan is designed to bend that curve, to increase diversion rates and reduce our reliance on disposal facilities whose costs, as we discussed, are continuing to rise. And as part of our assessment, we reviewed the results of the 2024 waste composition study that was conducted for Fairfax County. And the data revealed that 37% of the waste stream consists of recyclable materials,

paper, plastic, glass, and metal, while 33% is organic material, including food waste, yard waste, and other organics. And this data is foundational to the strategies we are recommending, particularly around the opportunities for organics diversion and improved recycling. On costs, we wanted to highlight some numbers. In 2025, the trashish postal costs for the city were $79 a ton. Single stream recyclables were less, at $70 per ton under a cost share contract with market values. Yard waste ranged depending on the capacity of the facilities. Priority goes to Prince William County, which is a lower rate. If they are at seasonal capacity, Fairfax County might be the next place to go. But critically,

what I want to show on the right side of this slide shows the projected trash disposal fee increasing through fiscal year 2031. So the approved rate for disposal at Fairfax County for FY27 is $98 per ton. And the county's advertised budget plan for FY27 showed the disposal fee rising to $141 a ton by FY31, representing 78% increase in just five years. These escalating costs make waste reduction and diversion not just an environmental imperative, but a fiscal one. So moving on to the stakeholder engagement section of our presentation, robust community input has been central to this planned development. And we invested significant efforts to ensure that the voices of residents, businesses, and other stakeholders

were heard and reflected in our presentation. The city's outreach effort was comprehensive employing both digital and in-person channels to maximize reach and accessibility. And these efforts included the city's engaged Fairfax website, very engaged, dynamic survey. We're really proud with some of the survey results. Social media, multiple events such as Fall Fest and Trunk Retreat, mailers, YouTube. And beyond those primary channels, we pursued additional outreach avenues. We had a feature in Fairfax Now, city scene, school outreach, bus sats. We had A-frames that were posted at community locations at major intersections, park trail intersections, and promotional postcards that were printed

and distributed. In total, we estimate approximately 50,000 engagement touch points across all channels in the city. And the level of community interest in this topic was both gratifying and informative. And from this extensive engagement, several clear themes emerged. First, nearly 92% of survey respondents reported that they actively recycle. And 91.5% either strongly or somewhat agreed that they support efforts to increase recycling. So the data is clear. City of Fairfax residents care deeply about recycling and waste reduction. And here were some of the major themes that we heard from our stakeholders. The desire for additional public recycling bins, convenient glass recycling, food waste composting,

clear consistent multilingual recycling instructions, greater transparency on how recycling is processed, and expanded specialty recycling drop-off options. And with that foundation of data and community input, we now turn into the swamp development process itself, how we translated baseline analysis and stakeholder feedback into a concrete implementation plan for the city's future solid waste management. And so as part of our development process, we benchmarked our city's approach against neighboring jurisdictions pushing to increase waste reduction and waste diversion with recently updated plans including the city of Alexandria, Fairfax County, and Arlington County. Three major themes emerge across their

plans, waste reduction strategies, recycling, and organics, and what we found that these strategies are highly consistent with what the city of Fairfax communities identifies as priorities. And that regional alignment supports our confidence in the strategies that are being proposed in the plan and helps ensure consistency for residents within multiple jurisdictions. So this slide might be familiar. It presents the key strategies that were previously shared with council at the February work session. And from the council work session, what we heard from you, the council feedback was broadly supportive of strengthening the city's solid waste and sustainability efforts with repeated emphasis on education and outreach,

convenience, prioritizing high-impact actions such as cost and emission reductions, including interest in curbside organics, glass, and better public recycling infrastructure. We were also hearing balancing out some of those support with some caveats centered on implementation details. So, you know, funding approach and fairness, education needed to change habits. You know, there were four-legged creatures that were brought up at the last session. So having, you know, concerns for pest issues for public bins and the need to update the city's ordinance first to enable effective enforcement in the city. So with the combined feedback from council and extensive stakeholder engagement along with the feedback

from ESC and the Solid Ways Advisory Committee, strategies were developed and organized into these five goals that were providing the framework for the final solid waste management plan. And this stable summarizes the final swamp at a high level under effective government operations. There are actions focused on developing effective collaborative systems for sustainable waste management. Education and outreach includes actions to increase awareness and participation among residents, businesses, schools, and institutions. Source reduction contains actions to prioritize reuse, repair, and material efficiency. recycling looks at expanding access, improving quality, and reducing contamination. And organics encompasses

actions to increase the diversion of food scraps, yard waste, and other organic materials. And in total, this plan contains 54 discrete actions across these five goal areas. And this is a blueprint for the city of Fairfax. Regarding the public comment period, the comment period opened on April 1st. The full draft swamp was posted on the Engage Fairfax webpage for public review, and the link was distributed to city staff for input. All feedback received during the period was carefully reviewed and taken into consideration in developing the final draft that is before you this evening. And we also want to recognize and thank the letters of support that were submitted from both the ESC and the Salt Lake Advisory Committee.

And we are actually joined by Ms. Colleen Regan from the Advisory Committee today, who is also the Zero Waste Program Manager for George Mason University. And Diana Gibson. Oh, thank you, Diana. I got your question. I just turned around. All right, so in closing, our recommendation to council is to pass a resolution adopting the city's updated salt waste management plan. This plan reflects rigorous data analysis, extensive community engagement, regional benchmarking, and months of collaborative development. It positions the city to manage rising costs, meet our state mandates, succeed recycling targets, and deliver on the sustainability goals our residents have made clear that they support. We are so grateful

for your time this evening and for the community's active participation throughout the process. We welcome your questions. Thank you. All right. Thank you. That was very comprehensive. Before I open the public hearing, I'm going to ask if there are questions from the dais. Council Member Peterson? Thank you. Great work and coverage there. Just a little bit more detail around one or two things. Plastics. Yes. What is the game plan with plastics, both in terms of reduction, recycling, et cetera, because I know it's a key area. Yeah, absolutely. And the plan addresses looking at the market conditions. Recycling is a market. It sometimes goes up, sometimes goes down. There are new materials that might be added

to what can be recycled because technologies are evolving and changing over time. In fact, one of the recycling facilities in Maryland, in Elkridge, that just opened up, where the city is sending materials to, now have 22 optical sorters and are recycling more materials than ever with the help of robots and AI. And so plastic reduction is something that we really want to encourage our residents, and that's part of education and outreach, and there are plans in the plan to try to divert more. Thank you. Source reduction. I'm sure there's a lot to that story. Let me just ask about one piece of it, and that is food waste. In the anecdotal stories, I was at a pizza place, no names mentioned, at closing time,

not too long ago, and at closing time, probably at least 12 pizzas were put in the trash can at closing time, right? But it's indicative of a bigger problem around food waste, and globally, some people call that the world's stupidest problem. But do you have a particular strategy around food waste in the commercial environment in addition to the residential environment? Yeah, that's a good question. Food waste reduction, I think, really starts with education and outreach and also understanding for businesses that there are protections around liability for food donation. So that's one. Another is, this is, you know, coming down the pipeline, but in 2026, the state Virginia General Assembly passed a bill

to give localities the authority by ordinance if they choose to look at food waste recycling for large quantity generators, like a restaurant or, you know, stadiums or something like that. So that is some, it's a new local authority and power that the cities might choose to exercise. Fantastic. And one last question, revenue generation. Can you say anything more about the plans to possibly look at converting things that are currently really just a cost center and a cost stream into a revenue stream in this area of solid waste? Yeah, one of the strategies that were proposed to evaluate is alternative funding mechanisms. So whether, excuse me, if solid waste fees should be covered through a special purpose

revenue fund or an enterprise fund, that could be a strategy to evaluate. That could be a different revenue generating possibility. Thank you. Councilmember Hall? Thank you. I have a couple questions and then comments. It mentioned the schools in here, and I know that that's always been kind of a difficult conversation to have regarding composting, especially because we're, you know, with Fairfax County and if they don't do it one place, they don't often do it elsewhere. I still would strongly like to see if there are ways that we can maybe at our city schools try to take a different stand. and I recognize that there are challenges with that and like you said, the smaller four-legged animals that nobody

wants to see. But as a side note to that, so my sister lives in Encinitas outside San Diego and when we were done with dinner one night when I was out there in February, she opened her freezer and they have a very large bag and they scraped all the food that would have otherwise at our house either gone into the trash compactor or gone into the garbage disposal. And I don't, I should compost more but the fact that it like sits on the counter and it gets super gross just has totally skeeved me out but this freezer idea like really clicked in my head of I should be doing this, right? Like this is easy, this is something that we could all do and I'm bringing it up now to remind myself also to re-implement this,

you know, thing that I thought about in March when I was out there but I think it's a really, really good way for people to get over the gross factor of it but still be able to do the thing and then take it when they are going to be at City Hall or some other place. So I know we talked before about maybe implementing other places for it, something at Cutner Park maybe on the other side of the city. Do we have any sort of additional opportunities to be doing things like that within this new swamp? Yeah. Or updated swamp? Stephanie, would you like to? One of the projects we'll be working on in the near future is a residential waste and recycling assessment. So one of the areas we'll be looking at

how we can improve is composting. So we'll be looking at options like curbside composting, adding additional composting centers, et cetera. So that's something we'll be looking into and we have funding to do so. So that will be something that will be happening soon. Okay, great. Soon like in the next year as opposed to like the next five years? Assuming that's the schedule that we move forward with, we will be coming back in June to discuss that schedule for the Environment Sustainability Special Projects. Okay. So as of now, we're looking that in the next fiscal year that that would be a project we'd be working on unless things change. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Glass recycling was another thing.

Is that kind of maybe we could do once or twice a month as opposed to just having to go to the purple bins? Yeah. So as part of the residential assessment, glass, we're looking at glass, construction and demolition debris, and yard waste. Okay. So there's a variety of curbside surfaces that we're looking at and how we can improve them. Okay, perfect. And then I had discussed it, so I just want to credit all of you for the work that you've done and also give a special shout out to Melissa McDonald, who I am very sad is no longer with us. No longer in the city. I don't mean it in that way. I realized after I said that, I was like, oh boy. Hi, Melissa. So, but huge strides have been made throughout all of this process.

I know, especially over the past few years, but one thing Melissa told me before, and I will confirm it with you as well, is that if you happen to have a trash compactor at home, you can still compost your plastics. It doesn't impact their ability to be recycled. Is that correct statement still? Like if you take your soda bottles or your Gatorade bottles and you essentially crush them down. Oh, I thought you were compact. I might have said compost. I didn't mean that. I meant compact. Did I say the wrong word? Sorry. Yes. Compacting them is still okay with regard to recycling? Yes. Okay. So if you want to step on them and make them smaller, always a good choice. And I did also just want to share an app

that a friend shared with me a little while ago. It's called Too Good To Go. T-O-O Good To Go. So food waste, restaurants, things like that, you can pick up much discounted bags of food or pastries or things like that. So I have friends that swear by it. You get very specific pickup times and amounts and all that. So I would encourage everyone to check that out to try to be able to reduce what our restaurants at other places are throwing away. So thank you again for all the hard work that you've done on this. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hardy Chandler? So I want to zoom out a little bit. First of all, read through the actions and there are 50 plus actions and they seem very clear, doable,

all of that fun stuff. I think really core, focusing on the education and outreach is really dealing with, and there's some hints in some of the questions, mindset, right? And really shifting our mindset even more. You're starting with a city that absolutely cares about this topic as you discovered in all of your engagement efforts and the mindset to actually take some, you can have the greatest, you know, tools and apps and all of that, but when having people use them and see that as a part of their daily life, I think it's really important. So number one, I think the plan is fantastic and I absolutely support it. I also really appreciate that the comments that we made last time were absolutely heard

and I feel like that there was really attention to the kinds of things that you asked us to prioritize. One of the things that I'd like for you to elaborate on a little bit more is, and this speaks to the mindset piece, is how, again, kind of building on the education and outreach, how to foster community-wide ownership of these efforts and ownership of the plan so that, as I read the actions, they were very heavily, you can imply, staff will do this and, you know, this group will do that, but getting members of the community to join in those efforts and in a way be ambassadors for these efforts in order to amplify the impact, could you talk a little bit more about that because that, I think,

is how these become embedded and how a community supports a plan. Yeah, absolutely. You know, during the stakeholder engagement, as we mentioned, over 50,000 touchpoints, it really showed the enthusiasm and excitement over residents to participate and the Salt Ways Advisory Committee, I think that was another great example. We had not only businesses, residents, but, again, even with George Mason University internal staff, there was enthusiasm in providing feedback and being champions of what we're doing. So, absolutely, I think behavior change really helps when it doesn't just come from the government city staff. It definitely helps when neighbors nudge, you know, gently to others and in an educated,

you know, in an education way. So, that's really helpful. Thank you for the comment. I also wanted to share something. So, as part of working with our community, in the past, we'll look into this in the future as well, we want to have recycling champions. So, we want to work at like public events like the fall festival where we can have recycling containers throughout and we're also started to have composting containers as well at these events and in the past, we've had volunteers work at those stations to help volunteers sort their trash because it can be confusing. So, we like to involve the community in those kind of events and at the Fourth of July parade, we will have a special station where you can refill

your water bottle so you can bring your own water bottle and that way we can reduce waste. So, at events, we want to make sure that we're engaging the community to reduce waste and empower them and also work together to spread the word. So, that's just one of the examples of some upcoming initiatives. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Amos? Honestly, that was a perfect transition to what I was actually going to ask you. So, to the community champions piece, the neighborhood champions, in the document, it's listed as a long-term goal in part because you want to develop programs around that as well and obviously, I imagine that's a staff capacity issue to a certain extent.

but I'm still wondering, since we do have a pretty engaged population and I imagine quite a few folks would be interested in doing this and not having the exact details on what short, medium, and long-term range would be, why is that considered a long-term goal instead of something we want to do sooner rather than later? Yeah, so, as you mentioned, it is a capacity item right now. However, you know, some smaller volunteer initiatives that are one-time events could be more feasible with the staff capacity that we have. So, at like the, you know, the 4th of July or Fall Festival where it's a one-time event to have volunteer, but have regular volunteer management does take staff capacity and right now

we don't have a volunteer manager at the city of Fairfax so it's a little challenging with staff capacity but it is a very valuable tool and we'd love to look into that more in the future. Okay, and when it comes to, well, I understand staff capacity is a component of it as well. It could be an opportunity to also work with a partner organization. I imagine, for example, a group like Volunteer Fairfax might be more than interested in something like this so that might be worth a broader conversation. I think this looks really great. You've done a lot of excellent work and definitely second the notion that you've incorporated our comments pretty significantly. The only thing I want to flag and feel free to comment it

or not, this is really just a comment from my perspective, a lot of the language is implicit to a degree, especially surrounding the multifamily piece. I love the multilingual access and the promotion. You also included components like the annual compliance inspections as well. My only concern is that the language seems to be more centered on enforcement for multifamily and doesn't really emphasize assistance to the same degree. Again, a lot of it is implied, but perhaps that will also come with the program that you'd be working on developing. But I just wanted to note that. Oh, yeah. We also have funding to do a commercial solid waste and recycling assessment as well. And a part of that scope

of work, it relies heavily on support and education. So we would develop toolkits that they could use to print out posters, guides, kits for their residents to make things easier for them to provide waste diversion and recycling opportunities for their residents. So that's something that we would definitely want to support those multifamily complexes versus being more, you know, we want the carrot versus the stick. No, absolutely. And education is a significant part of this, probably the most important part of all the efforts that we're going to do. I'm only flagging that just because I know we had a brief conversation last time just regarding the feasibility for a lot of these complexes that might have

limited space. But being able to coordinate with them on like, okay, here's some opportunities on things you can do, I think would be really beneficial on the forend. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hall. Just one quick question or comment. You had mentioned having water at the July 4th parade. Given the extreme heat for Sunday, is it possible to possibly do that at the Asian Festival to have water that people could bring water bottles and refill as opposed to having to buy all of that? We had an Asian Festival planning meeting this morning and the Asian Festival Committee will be providing water bottles. The truck comes at a cost and that was not part of their planning ahead of time.

Okay. But they will have pallets of ice and pallets of water for people. Awesome. Thank you. Councilmember Peterson. A couple quick things. One generally is about the relationship between solid waste and water quality. And the anecdotal piece of it is that some of us have had the problem that I know you are aware of. I'm not sure where it fits in the waste management side of things. People dumping used oil into storm drains and storm sewers. and I'm not sure again whether that's considered a solid waste issue at least at its upstream no pun intended level. But is there anything you can say about what you are doing to try to reduce that problem? I can take that. So the Environment Sustainability Division

works very closely with our stormwater utility staff. Okay. So with our monthly newsletters and social media posts we try to share the stormwater utilities posts because there's usually information about only rain down the drain. So we've done initiatives to help educate school children on that. And there's Boy Scouts and Girl Scout events where they mark the storm drains. And I believe if the stormwater utility credit is still has I think there's still a credit where if you do mark a drain that only rain goes down the drain you can get a stormwater utility credit I believe. I can check with on that. But yeah we regularly coordinate with stormwater utility to cross collaborate and share that

information with the public. It's very important that we inform how to dispose of things properly especially household hazardous waste and battery batteries have been a big issue too. You may have heard that there was a battery fire yesterday in our truck but luckily staff was able to find it quickly and remove it. And then David would you like to add something? In addition to the markers it doesn't happen that often where somebody dumps motor oil down a storm drain. But when it does we hear about it right away because it ends up in the creek and people see the discoloration and the sheen in the water. typically we get out there right away. Code enforcement helps us. They're responsible for cleaning.

They're responsible for all the cleanup and there could be some huge fines. It doesn't happen that often. I think in the last five years it might have happened once and we were on it right away. Well just then for the benefit of the public if somebody happens to be tempted to do that is it the case that service stations will take that oil and they can recycle it there. What is their preferred option for actually disposing? A lot of gas stations will take it and even we have an oil recycling at the property yard. And we do have the markers on the drains and like folks were saying the residents are very aware. Because I think the person that did it wasn't a resident. It was somebody who was just

driving through the city who did it last time. But we got them. So the broader question is whether there are other types of solid waste that find their way into the water system through watersheds etc. And whether the programs we have to reduce solid waste improve, can potentially improve water quality and reduce the burdens we otherwise are facing for maintaining water quality standards. Can you just say a little bit about that because that connection of the dots I think is something that's underappreciated. Most of the things that end up is trash. And that's one of the projects we have in our stormwater utility is the outfalls. And we try and design the outfalls so if there is debris that gets

into the storm sewer system, it stays within the outfall and doesn't go downstream. It's kind of caught in like a four bay. So that's the design of the stormwater outfalls and Mr. Ito has some proposed upcoming I think in the next month or so for award. So having good outfalls that work, having markers on the storm drains, and education is the main reason how we keep debris out of the storm drains. So I appreciate you covering that because I think that citizens need to realize that if waste, solid waste, isn't well managed, it will oftentimes end up in the creek. that's its last sort of resort. One thing that maybe Mr. Summers also could help with before he sits back down that came up last year during

budget and the question mark of the potential for converting these costs associated with waste management into revenues, you already have been doing as much as possible as I understand it effectively to sell waste, to paper waste, for instance, to move it into markets that will purchase it. But I understood those markets kind of leveled off. Do we have a crystal ball whether that's picking back up again so that we'll be able to do more of that in the future or has it pretty much hit the brick wall? A lot of the stuff we were selling like paper was going to China and a lot had to do with the relationships that we have with other countries. companies, but we still get good money for metals, but

paper and plastic we're really not getting much for. At one time when I started here, we were making more on the recycling than we were spending, but that hasn't been the case for at least a decade. Okay. Last question is on yard waste. I'm guessing this is an occasional problem, but it has been, and that is instead of taking yard waste to the curb we're composting and it ends up in somebody else's property or in a park, people on the edge of parks that deposit yard waste in the parks. I'm guessing that that's something that our parks program is on top of and otherwise that's something we're on top of, but can you comment just a little bit on that because I think there sometimes is a temptation by

people to do that. Well, I mean, we pick up yard waste for free, so we do everything we can to control it. One other thing to mention is I think going back to what you were talking about as far as the cost, the keeping the cost down is really, we really need to tighten up our ordinance because there's a lot of loopholes in our ordinance, which as they talked about, the tipping fees go up. There's more and more people looking to exploit the loopholes in our ordinance and the city of Fairfax has a reputation of taking everything. So that I think is the key as far as the cost part is tightening up our ordinance. And I'm sorry to not remember clearly, but is that something we already have in a discussion plan

going forward? We do. As part of, I don't know if you can go back a few slides to the blocks. Yeah, and here. The first block up there about container limit policy. So there's oftentimes because the city accepts and picks up everything at the curb, there could be limitations that are placed so that there is kind of a limitation of how much is dumped at the curb. So that could be one opportunity. You could have bulk pickup through a fee by appointment instead of everything collected every time. And that will also encourage, we want to not just think about the stick, but finding ways to encourage residents to reduce and donate materials like, you know, furniture, et cetera, that could be used and given a second

life. Great. Thanks. My last anecdote is rock the block. Last year, if I'm not mistaken, I heard this from Director Summerfield, the cups were compostable. And hopefully we'll have plans to do more of that, but I thought that was really a wonderful way of setting an example for how we would handle something that otherwise wouldn't be as treatable as a waste product. Great to see that. Thank you. Other questions from staff? Okay. The one comment I want to make about commercial recycling is that the businesses in the city obviously pay for commercial trash pickup. But I've had restaurants ask me about glass recycling because they go through so much broken barware and wine bottles and just so much

glass gets dumped and carried away, which is not something that really our solid waste management program addresses because it's a contract between commercial businesses and a commercial carrier. But to Councilmember Hardy Chandler's point, for people who are saying, what could we do as a business in the city if we want to do something other than, and glass is just an example, dump the glass in the dumpster? You know, if we came up with a program for glass recycling, is there a way to incorporate it for businesses in the city or not? So as Stephanie mentioned earlier, there is a residential and commercial recycling assessment that the city is looking into, and that would kind of address some of

those challenges. For glass recycling, some recycling facilities in the region are, some of the recycling facilities are starting to consider putting the glass back into their blue bins, into their blue recycling bins. That could be an opportunity, but that evaluation would be that future project. Yeah, and Goodwill recycles glass, they pulverize it and sell the glass dust to concrete companies. That's just something they do on a very small scale for things like those vases that get donated that you're never going to resell them. And so they have a pulverizer for the DMV. But that's one nonprofit, that's one pulverizer, but that's how they are making money off glass by selling it as an ingredient

for concrete. Yeah. So more of that kind of thinking and figuring out, I'm sure it comes down to capacity and money and the ability to address these things, but I'm intrigued by the fact that when people want to do better, that we as a city, I welcome trying to figure out through assessments, and that's fantastic, figuring out how we can create a mindset in the entire city about how we look at trash and recycling. And to your point, seeing furniture on the curb makes me crazy, and I see it every morning walking my dog, that people will not call Purple Heart, will not call a service to come pick it up off their curb. They just wait for our refuse guys to put it in the landfill. And so from an education

standpoint, I think we have a very engaged, very environmentally savvy residents and businesses here, and anything we can do as part of this is in the long term going to benefit the city at every level. We need people to change how they think about it. So I love the plan. I appreciate the amount of time and feedback and the outreach that you did. It's quite remarkable. And by the way, I saw the recycling facility in Elkridge because I took a field trip with Melissa. Yeah. And it is completely awesome if you've never been there. We saw all the AI and how they suck the stuff out and different size holes and cubes of recycled metal. It was amazing. Amazing. So if there are no more questions from the dais, what I'm going to do

is I will open the public hearing. Ms. Shinaberry, has this public hearing been properly advertised? Yes, it has. I had one person sign up prior to the start of the meeting. So after I called the first person up, if there's anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this item, they can. So our first speaker is Colleen Reagan. Hi. Good evening, Mayor Reed and city council members. I'm Colleen. Hello. I work as a zero waste Mason program manager at George Mason University. And I also served as a member of the solid swamp update advisory council. And I'm here to express my enthusiastic support for the 2026 to 2046 swamp update. So first of all, serving on the advisory council was an invaluable opportunity to

contribute my zero waste expertise alongside city staff, residents, local business owners, and other community members who openly shared their varied perspectives and thoughts throughout the strategic planning process. As a zero waste Mason program manager at George Mason, I share the city's commitment to advancing waste reduction, reuse, and responsible resource management. And the implementation strategies outlined in the plan align with the strategies that we're employing over at George Mason to specifically minimize waste at the source and redesign pathways for reuse and redistribution on our campus. One example of the shared commitment is our Patriot Packout program, which is actually going on

right now. So it's a university-wide effort to reduce useful, well, excuse me, to eliminate useful items ending up in the trash while addressing basic needs and security on campus. So Patriot Packout collects thousands of pounds of usable donations such as clothing, homeware, non-perishable food supplies, and redistributes them for free to Mason Patriots, local community members, and nonprofit organizations at its free store events on campus. And so this helps to both reduce landfill impacts and support individuals' basic needs. And so this plan is really important to me as a George Mason staff member. And it was important to me as a member on the committee that it reflects the diverse needs of folks who are part of the city

Fairfax community. George Mason students are deeply connected to the city of Fairfax, with many living, working, and commuting through the city on a daily basis. As such, the city's approach to solid waste management affects all George Mason Patriots. And I want to say the city's proactive, community-driven approach to developing these implementation strategies gives me confidence that this plan would deliver a more efficient, equitable, and environmentally responsible local waste system. And I'm grateful for the opportunity to support the strong spirit of collaboration reflected in this plan and align zero-waste efforts and contribute to a more sustainable shared environment. Yep. Thank you.

Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak on this item? You can come forward. Good evening. I did not prepare remarks in advance for this, but I was part of the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee. My name is Diana Gibson. Do I need to share my address or anything? You can. Are you going to give it to me afterwards? Yes. Foxcroft Colony Neighborhood. Good afternoon. You guys received my letter of support earlier on behalf of the committee, and we really appreciate the facilitation and the really thoughtful work that was done both by the consulting staff and the city staff and the other members of the committee. So I wanted to thank you all for that. To address some things I heard in questions from the council just now,

Council Member Peterson's question about water quality being affected by solid waste. One thing that there is a line in the solid waste management plan about education regarding leaf collection, and leaves, depending on fall leaves, depending on how they are processed or left on the ground, like if they are left in the gutter or if they are shredded, then those nutrients are delivered more quickly to the watershed. So in order to reduce nutrient pollution, I would love to see more leave the leaves on site in composting kind of efforts. And so more awareness around leaving the leaves would be wonderful for that goal, to reduce nutrient load and improve our water quality. So I just wanted to put that out there as something that I am personally very passionate about,

and also as an environmental educator, I'm very passionate about invertebrate conservation, so not shredding the leaves or leaving them. We would love to have more fireflies, wouldn't we? And Mayor Reed's question about alternatives for glass. There is a really exciting initiative I've seen for small-scale glass pulverization, not just being used in road construction, but being used in ecosystem restoration. So this particular example was in Louisiana, where they have a lot of subsidence of the land, and so they're trying to rebuild back sandbars and such. But using sandbags, basically that are filled with pulverized glass instead of sand. So finding other ways to use sand in our community for flooding control or ecosystem restoration

is a possibility that I want you all to be aware of, and it's a very cool initiative. So you all have my official comments in writing, but I am very enthusiastic about all this and wanted to address those two specific questions as well. Thank you. Is there anybody else? Yep, you may come forward. Good evening, Mayor and Council members. My name is Amy Anspa. I live at 3702 University Drive. I wrote a formal letter, but I didn't get a chance to submit it yet, so I will do so for the record afterward, but I wanted to share a few excerpts from the writing here tonight. I wanted to voice my strong support for establishing a municipal curbside composting program to complement our city's existing trash and recycling services.

60% of overall food waste ends up in landfills, and 96% of household food waste ends up in landfills. This is simply because people don't have an easy way to dispose of it in a responsible way. And when food scraps end up in our landfills, they break down and produce carbon emissions, which is obviously bad for the environment and contributes to climate change. Municipal landfills are one of the largest sources of human-related methane emissions in the United States, and so we have a responsibility as a community to try and do our best to reduce that impact. Many of the residents in our community have tried backyard composting. I will say I am a backyard composter, and it at times is gross, but I still do it because it matters to me,

and it's a good legacy to teach my family. However, this past winter was a really good reminder that it's not always effective. When I couldn't even transverse my backyard because of the snowcrete, it became a real pain point when I had to resort to putting my food into the trash bin when we had a household habit of composting at home. I know that the city has the city composting outside here, but it's just not very convenient to people who don't live very close or who have kids and just can't run their smelly compost to the municipal compost disposal at will. Which is why I really wanted to speak here today, because I think composting adds a lot of value in terms of teaching the younger generation

about how to take care of their community and environment responsibly. When you teach people to compost, it also makes people think more about the food that they're wasting. And so you're not just reducing the food at the end of the chain, you're reducing all of the food consumption all the way throughout the supply chain. So you produce less, you waste less, and ultimately that has good ramifications. Our city has done an excellent job with the recent rollout of the trash bins and the recycle bins, which we see throughout our community. I think it would be a great opportunity to add a third bin to the mix, which is for composting, and curbside composting would take out a lot of the yuck factor that is there today.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak? All right. Then I will ask, well, I will close the public hearing. I will now close the public hearing. Is there a motion, Council Member Hardy-Chandler? I move that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the Solid Waste Management Plan update. Second. A motion has been made by Council Member Hardy-Chandler and seconded by Council Member Peterson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, a roll call vote. Council Member McQuillan? Aye. Council Member Bates? Aye. Council Member Peterson? Aye. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? Aye. Council Member Hall? Aye. Council Member Amos? Aye. Motion passed unanimously.

We will go on to our next public hearing, which is a public hearing and council action on an authorizing ordinance and bond resolution for the issuance of sewer system revenue bonds and the maximum aggregate principal amount of $11 million to finance capital costs related to the city sewer system, including without limitation, no men cold capital costs. I'll recognize JC Martinez, our Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer, to provide the staff presentation. Thank you, Mayor, Council. As presented during the March 24, 2026 work session meeting and introduced at the April 14, 2026 regular meeting, a review of the city's capital funding plan for its wastewater fund confirmed the necessity to finance a portion of its capital sewer projects

by issuing bonds. City staff, in collaboration with Davenport & Company, in its capacity as the city's financial advisor, will be applying to the Virginia Resource Authority, VRA, for new money financing as part of the summer 2026 Virginia pulled financing program. This option was determined to be the most efficient and cost-effective approach. Through the VRA application, the city will be requesting revenue-supported financing for various sewer capital projects. This proposed financing is anticipated in the adopted FY27 budget. The net revenues of the city's sewer system operation shall be pledged as backing for the proposed revenue bond issuance. Happy to answer any questions. Along in the audience here, we also have Davenport Representative Kyle Lux

along with our bond counsel, Chris Culp from Hutton-Andreuson-Kirth. Again, happy to answer any questions that counsel may have. Okay. Are there any questions of staff at this time? Okay. Seeing none, I will open the public hearing. Ms. Shinaberry, has this public hearing been properly advertised? Yes, it has. No one has signed up prior to the meeting, so if there's anybody in the room that would like to speak on this agenda, the item may come forward. Okay. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Is there a motion? Is there a motion? Council Member Hardy-Chandler. I move to approve an ordinance and bond resolution authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds of the city of Fairfax, Virginia,

in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $11 million to finance capital costs related to the city's sewer system capital project costs? Second. A motion has been made by Council Member Hardy-Chandler and seconded by Council Member Peterson. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, a roll call vote. Council Member Amos? Aye. Council Member Hall? Aye. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? Aye. Council Member Peterson? Aye. Council Member Bates? Aye. Council Member McQuillan? Aye. Motion passed unanimously. We would go on to second general public comment. Is there anybody in the room that would like to make a general public comment at this time? Well, all right then. I will now recess the regular meeting to go into a work session.

We will take a five-minute recess to go into the work session room. Good afternoon. 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. parking shortage with new accessory dwelling units.

So it's not saying that an ADU has to add a parking space to a house. Some ordinances are written that way. This is intended to guard against parking shortfalls where they could be most problematic and where they could be most problematic is houses that are currently deficient in parking below that minimum standard. One more detailed issue here. We had talked in our last work session about how to potentially deal with the conversion of existing structures to accessory dwelling units and particularly existing structures that do not meet whatever standards are in place for ADUs themselves. So meaning they'd be considered non-conforming. So for instance, garages that were built too close to the property line or too tall and so on.

There's a number of examples throughout the city, really throughout any city of these kind of structures. And actually there are so many different variations on what could be considered non-conforming. That this really isn't an issue that's well addressed through rigid standards by saying that this can be converted but that can't and so on. So under the draft amendments what would happen if a property owner would wish to convert an existing non-conforming structure to an ADU is that this would go through the Board of Zoning Appeals process. The Board of Zoning Appeals is set up to handle exactly this kind of situation. Special exceptions that really could be best handled on a case by case basis.

This is really the default set up for the zoning ordinance. And staff feels that this is really the most equitable avenue for judging non-conforming structures with this issue. One thing that both city council and planning commission had asked for at our last meetings is a map to demonstrate how many houses in the city would potentially be eligible for ADUs under these draft conditions. So this map, this shows that by analyzing the three criteria in green up here, so this being footprint and lot coverage and building coverage. By analyzing those three criteria, the vast majority of homes, so 85% of homes, would have space for a 450 square foot accessory dwelling unit using these criteria. As we'd expect, neighborhoods with smaller lots, so think of Ardmore, Westmore, and so on.

Or neighborhoods, again, like Country Club Hills that have unusual lot configurations, would tend to have higher proportions of properties that may not be eligible. But even in those cases, there's still a lot of properties that would be eligible, as you can see in the map. Now, this was done on GIS. Due to GIS limitations, we were not able to analyze setbacks on this map. So what we did to try to gauge the effect of setbacks is we spot checked a sample of properties to see what the effect of the recommended setbacks would be on ADU permissibility. We found that the vast majority of these green properties, so about 95% of the green properties, would still be eligible from a space perspective with the recommended setbacks.

An important point to note is the box in brown down here that this analysis does not, and really this kind of analysis cannot account for things like topography or, you know, for that matter, an owner's preferred placement. If somebody really wants an ADU unit on a certain corner of the lot, but for some reason it can't go there, let's say there's a tree in the way or whatever, this just looks at it from a numerical standpoint. But still provides a good kind of high-level estimate. And I should mention, too, you all have an Excel spreadsheet in your packets that looks at some of the main details of detached ADU ordinances from other jurisdictions in our region that allow detached ADUs. So just another piece of information for you all as well.

So tonight we're hoping to receive some feedback, receive some guidance on these draft detached ADU standards on the draft ordinance that you all have. Like I had mentioned, Planning Commission held a work session last month to review this draft. The Commission was comfortable with the idea of detached ADUs, was supportive of the standards in the draft amendment. One recommendation that the Planning Commission did have was to adjust the setbacks for ADUs, detached ADUs, that would be on the side of a house to ensure that the ADU would be set back from the front of the house. The Commission made this recommendation out of aesthetic considerations so that a separate unit wouldn't be glaringly visible from the street, for instance.

So as for next steps, if City Council is interested in pursuing amendments like this to allow detached accessory dwelling units, we could move into public hearings. We could do that relatively quickly. Or if Council prefers, we could hold additional work sessions. We could hold other meetings as well, whatever Council's preference would be. So with that, I'm glad to answer any questions. Thank you for the presentation. Are there questions? Council Member Bates. Thank you. First off, I'm interested in how this compares with the guidelines for other accessory structures. I know you showed the setbacks earlier, and I think that makes a lot of sense being kind of a middle ground. With regard to height, do you know off the top of your head what the height guidelines are for other accessory structures, garages, et cetera?

So the height limitations for accessory structures that are within a required yard, so within that green shaded area, is 12 feet. There is no separate height limitation for accessory structures that are within a required yard, so that would, like I mentioned, if it's not listed as a separate entity, that would be the height of the district, so it would be three feet to, I'm sorry, three stories or 35 feet. So there is no additional height restriction tied to the height of the building within, you know, not within the required yard? Not within a required yard, that's correct. Yeah. All right. So I think that given that, you know, understanding, of course, that those other types of accessory structures, you're not going to have residents, you know, living in there, possibly being able to see into somebody's yard or house next door.

Overall, I think this is definitely looking a lot like what I'd like to see. You know, I'd like to think about what we could do to, you know, just kind of make sure that the height limits aren't overly restrictive, just, you know, knowing that on the one hand, you know, it is more strict than the guidelines for accessory structures, but also, you know, not wanting to have concerns about privacy and, you know, that kind of thing. The height, and we went into a long discussion about height at the last work session, and I promise I will not go into a long discussion about height tonight. Right? But this graphic might be helpful because this explains how height is measured, that it's actually measured to the midpoint of the structure.

So between the eaves and between the peak of the roof. So 12 feet, which is the, you know, garage accessory structure limit in required yards is basically one story. So that 20 feet does allow for one and a half stories. It would allow for flexibility even with unusual topography. So that's why we felt comfortable with 20 feet as far as that goes. Yeah. Yeah. And I guess on the other hand, having a stricter height requirement perhaps can in some ways sort of control the affordability of the unit itself. I mean, if you're going to run out an ADU or, you know, or what have you, I guess, you know, not necessarily run it out, but, you know, have it built in your yard and, you know, have a resident living in it.

It, you know, I guess it kind of helps keep costs down for, you know, having that built and being able to have accessible to residents. Thank you. Oh, actually one more thing. With regard to the residency requirements, can you remind me where we are with that? Right. There's one residency requirement, which is an owner occupied requirement. So, and this is the case right now for accessory dwelling units. We're not proposing to change this. And what it says is that either the main house or the accessory structure or the accessory dwelling unit must be occupied by the owner of the property. So, so the property itself could not be a full rental. Okay. Yeah. That's what I thought. Yeah. And I think that makes a lot of sense as well.

Thanks. Okay. Council Member McQuillen. Thank you. How enforceable is the owner occupancy requirement? The owner occupancy requirement is, is not enforced proactively by, and, and, you know, most of our standards dealing with where people live are not enforced proactively. So this would be a complaint based scenario. We have not had a complaint based on accessory dwelling unit owner occupancy. Yeah. Good. Good. Good. And then, so they complain what happens at that point? Then our code administration would go out and, and would inspect the property. Okay. Is it like a fine? What happens if they are fine, found using the. Right, right now there is a permit for accessory dwelling units. Yes. In, in the zoning ordinance, it says that if some of, if the conditions that are listed in the zoning ordinance and this being one of them are not maintained, that that permit can no longer continue.

Okay. So the permit would be revoked if, if it was found that the homeowner was not in the, on the property living there. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And then I did have another question. I, I wanted to just give a little feedback. I, I second the commission's statements about the setback. Oh, I know what my question was. My question was about accessibility to the ADU. Is there any requirements for accessibility to the ADU, a detached ADU, if in this. Not, not from a zoning standpoint. I, I don't know if there is from a code. You know where I'm going with that. Right. Yeah. Because I was looking at the setbacks and if we change the setbacks to make them more narrow, that makes it easier to provide accessibility.

However, if we want to maintain the current setback requirement that we have and we want to carry that through, that's going to eliminate that ability. You know, I, I just wanted to make sure that there's going to be some accessibility so that that's thought out. Right. And you're talking about accessibility as far as steps. Exactly. From the street where they're going to park to their unit. So dependent on topography. Yes. You know, that if the rear yard slopes down a lot or up a lot, that that would make that challenging to get that, you know, there's a certain angle that can't be exceeded or, or something. I, I'm not aware of anything in building code that addresses that. There is not from a zoning standpoint.

Okay. Um, what I see is just from, you know, my, my point of view is that if we're looking at putting, if someone is looking at putting an accessory dwelling unit on the side there and we're already decreasing the setback. Now they're right next to their neighbor. How do you think they're going to get to it? Right. Right. So we know exactly how that traffic is going to flow. So just another thought to think about when we're talking about these things. Yeah. And, and the commission debated those side yards. Uh, it, it, it's an, it's an unusual situation where the side yard would actually be big enough to build a structure like this. Most houses are built out close enough to the side required yard that it wouldn't be possible.

I searched pretty hard to find that example in country club Hills, which is a good, good neighborhood to look in for that kind of thing. But there's really not a whole lot of, uh, you know, of, of houses that would be a candidate to that sort of situation. Okay. I just, I know that my experience of living in my, I live in Westmore and I'm looking at the Westmore plot land and I'm, I'm living right next to a construction zone right now, a new house that's being rebuilt. And there is no, I mean, it's the setbacks are when you live amongst it, it's a lot different to experience it firsthand. So that was my thought process on that. Um, I wouldn't be supportive of narrowing that the side setbacks.

I think that's just too much. Um, I would prefer to keep it with what we currently have. Um, and the height, I also have concerns about the height. I like that 20 foot one and a half makes sense to me, but going higher or including the language of, or the height of the principal dwelling. When I'm seeing some of these new rebuilt homes that are very large and towering over their neighbor homes to think about another, an accessory dwelling unit being that tall, I don't know how that would work. So that's, I'll be honest. Those are the things that I have big concerns about. Um, I also have some concerns about the two car on the street parking. Um, and I think that's pretty much the majority of the notes I have, but I'll review some of the things I had written up when I originally looked over the presentation.

But thank you. I appreciate you answering all those questions. Councilmember Hall. Thank you for the presentation. I feel like every time you come, I learn a lot more and I also have a lot more concerns. Um, so the slide that you showed where 85% of the single family homes in our city could potentially be eligible to put in an ADU. So that how many single family homes do we have roughly? Do you know? In, in, in these three zoning districts, uh, about 5,000. Okay. So if even half added, that's 2,500. You're talking most likely at least two people living in a house. You're now adding 5,000 residents that doesn't take into account any of the multi or high density housing that is coming through.

I'm very concerned that we are overloading all of our systems, our schools, our roads, all of the things. Um, especially after the, uh, presentation from Satoshi Ito previously about the Nomen coal. And if I recall, if I did the math correctly, I think the number of water units, I'm sure I'm screwing up the phrasing on it, but I think there was a max of like 34,000 or 36,000 residents that were going to actually be covered under what it is that we're already paying at this point in time. So, um, the presentation earlier that showed the trajectory of, you know, 40,000 residents here by 2050, these are really concerning things for me in addition to not even having this as an option. Um, my other concern is, well, I have a lot of concerns.

I'll go through them. Taxing concerns. So is the value of most of these properties potentially going to automatically go up if people start putting in ADUs because now the value of that land is potentially that much higher because my neighbor and 85% of my other neighbors that live in single family homes would have the potential to add an ADU. So how is that going to impact taxing and affordability for our residents who are already living here? I don't know if you have an answer for that or not. Probably not. So your question is about property values for houses in general just because the option of adding a detached ADU would be out there, whereas now it's not. Correct. Is that, is that, uh, undoubtedly it would go up just, you know, probably minimally for any single housing unit just because it adds more income potential flexibility for property owners.

I don't think anybody's come up with a estimate, but it would be just, just like other kinds of building permissiveness. Uh, you know, that it, it, it would increase the value of homes in, in general slightly. Uh, you know, uh, you, you, you wouldn't see a big increase the next day. You know, it would all be based on property sales, you know, from year over year. Uh, but, but I, I couldn't say that there would be no impact on existing property values. Well, and I'm just totally spitballing numbers here, but let's say I live in a house that's worth $600,000 and I have a half acre lot and I have a smaller house and I can now put a larger house behind mine. If my house was already worth $600,000, recognizing that it's inclusive of the land.

Right. I might now be adding another $400,000 asset onto that land that now my home is worth, my homes are worth a million dollars. So my concern, one of my primary concerns is that if we're saying that this area or the city is already too expensive for the average person to afford a home, now they're going to be competing with someone that might be looking at a property and saying, well, now I'm going to buy that and I'm going to put two houses on that property. So I think we are really making the city much less affordable from an ownership perspective. If we are considering this in the full details in which you've laid out tonight. Now, another way to think about that in the, and the planning commission had, uh, some comments, not, not on housing value, but on things like parking or utilities, for instance, where, you know, that they, you know, we're concerned about similar kind of overloading of capacity.

Uh, what, you know, one way to look at it is that houses. So let's say, uh, you know, on that half acre lot right now, a homeowner could build an addition, you know, could add 3000 feet to the size of, of their home. Uh, as it is now, which would similarly increase property values. So the, you know, the detached ADU and, you know, especially with the size limitations that are put in place, uh, you know, it, it would add flexibility. And like I said, undoubtedly would raise that bar a little bit, but given all of the options, the property owners already have as far as expanding homes or as far as tearing down and replacing, uh, you know, the detached ADU would be just one additional option rather than a big game changer.

And it's the same kind of thing. Planning commission had a lot of concerns about parking with this as well and said in a neighborhood, for instance, where there's already tight parking and people park on both sides of the street and you have to weave in and out. And it, is this going to make things worse? Uh, you know, it, it would really be no different than somebody adding an addition onto their house, uh, and having an extra person or extra two people living there. Uh, which, which right now is something that could be done without the city being able to, uh, you know, apply a parking standard at all. Yes. And no. I mean, I think the, the, well, I don't know that we need to go there right now, but I do think that you're, we would be shrinking the inventory that an average buyer would be able to look at, or a new buyer or a, you know, person is new to the area.

Because now you have the potential to do two houses and now they also can't afford that ginormous house either. Um, some of my other concerns were first of all, not enough parking. Um, I do not feel that two off street parking spots is sufficient. I think if you are going to add an ADU, you should be required to add another minimum of two additional parking spots. Um, we can think that we're going to drive bikes and, you know, fly everywhere around here, but I don't think that's a reality. And I think, like you said, if you go into some of the older neighborhoods that are very referenced on these maps that are not. In the RL, you already have very close together houses that most of them don't even have driveways or have they have one car driveway and they're already at capacity.

Like you said, parking on both sides. So I think this is a real, real concern. Um, are these units allowed to have basements? Uh, theoretically, yes. But chances are a basement would get into that, a basement of an ADU would get into that, uh, square footage maximum. Uh, so, so theoretically they could, it would be an unusual configuration where you could do that two story, uh, you know, two story. With one underground, uh, and, and still be within the square footage requirement. Okay. And with regard to the square footage, so one of the slides said it was 35% of the house's gross floor area. Correct. So if my house is 3000 square feet, I can do 35% of that? Or is that my main level consideration?

Not if I have a two story house? No, that, that includes gross. So gross square feet is all of the stories of a house. The reason it's written that way is a lot of attached accessory dwelling units are in the basement. Uh, so, so yes, it could be 35% of that, uh, amount, uh, but it would also have to be no more than 50% of the footprint of the house as well. So if your house is 3000 square feet on three levels, first floor, second floor and basement, that house would have a footprint of 1000 square feet. Okay. 50% of that would be 500 square feet. So it, it's not, and, and that, that, that's the reason for those multiple calculations because it could take into account multiple stories of the main house as well as just the footprint.

Okay. And when it comes to gross floor area, does that include an unfinished basement as well in those calculations? Understanding, again, the main level footprint? Yes, it would. Okay. Um, page 15. Let me see what my note was on there. Um, so page 15, it talks about the, um, existing standards for the maximum percentages for residential lots. In here, RL has NA for building coverage and NA for lot coverage. Does that mean that those areas like my neighborhood in Cobdale do not have a maximum for which you can build on your lot? Correct. Not, not as far as building coverage or lot coverage. When did that happen? When did that change? I, I think that's, that's been there as long as I can remember.

I, I don't recall. Okay. When we renovated in, when we renovated in 2015 and 2016, we were told we were disturbing too much land and we couldn't put a cover over our existing front porch and we couldn't put walkout steps to our basement. Mind you, then a few years later, our neighbors who lived on 0.56 acres, the neighbor died, they sold the house. The new buyer tried to put three homes on that same lot. They now have two, but they are much bigger homes than we have, but they don't seem to have any, um, disturbance of land. So I, I'm just curious when, I would really like to know when that mentality changed, because if that's the case, I feel like I should have been able to do whatever it was that we wanted at the time since we live in RL.

I, I, I wish I could speak to your situation. I, I don't know which, uh, part of building or zoning code that, that bumped up against, but I'll, I'll, I'll, I'll look into that for you. Okay. Yeah. Again, just from a curiosity perspective, and I am actually really concerned then that we don't have a maximum building coverage or a lot coverage in those residential areas. Um, especially if there's talk about adding in, um, ADUs, because some of those houses are very, very large and have the capability to put a very large house on. Um, I know Council Member McQuillen asked about the ownership. Um, I know Council Member McQuillen asked about the ownership. You're still required to live there. Um, I think that could be very, I think that could be easy to manage for the first owner, the person who puts it on.

But I think after you do that, someone, a buyer, an out of state person, someone who doesn't bother to read the code, could be very mistaken when they go and buy a property that has two houses on it. And all they see is rental potential. And now we're in a situation where they close on that house. We wait and see who moves in six months down the road. Somebody complains, which then prompts you guys to go out and investigate. Again, we have one investigator as my understanding. Um, what do we do then? We require this person to either sell their house or to move into the house and continue to try to prove that they live there. I mean, that just seems I'm all for requiring them to live there. But I'm just thinking years out down the road that that might be impossible to try to even navigate.

Well, rental restrictions are awfully tough from that perspective because the, you know, the only way to enforce it is for representatives of the city government to visit someone's home and to inspect who's living there. And that's something that we just don't like to do. Well, and they also don't have to let you in, right? I mean, aren't there things on that? And that gets into a whole other issue. So, uh, what, what we will do, we will work out before any public hearings, we will work out how this would actually be administered between the interaction between zoning and code administration. Uh, you know, as far as any kind of a permit that's required for it and, and, and whatnot. So we'll try to make it as simple as possible, uh, you know, to understand, you know, and like I said, for those new owners as well, as far as whether there would be a rental inspection or anything like, like that for detached accessory dwelling units.

But again, you move in and then six months down the road, you're like, peace out. I'm going to rent my house now. Right? So I just think there's a lot of concerns here. Um, and I think again, the more we meet and the more we discuss, the more, and the more we learn about the city in general, the more overworked and understaffed you all are. And I think trying to take on something of this magnitude is nearly impossible with our current capabilities. Um, I did have one last thing to point out and then I will, um, concede the floor to somebody else. But, you know, we're talking about the noise ordinance, which was supposed to be on the agenda tonight, which has now moved to June. Um, if I now all of a sudden have a new neighbor in my backyard, which is now only eight feet or 10 feet or 12 feet, which by the way, I'm not in favor of shrinking any of those setbacks.

Um, I now have a whole other set of people that I have to either tell my children that are used to swinging in their backyard because the house is over here that now they can't play outside anymore because the person cheapened out and put in new windows that now you're eight feet away from my playground. So I, I, there's so many concerns that I have about this and I truly appreciate all the work that has been done on this. And I know that I was previously supportive of pursuing this conversation, but I do not think that I can continue to pursue this the way it is at this time. So thank you. Council member Hardy Chandler. So I'm having the opposite response. Um, we've had information presented on ADUs, uh, over time and iterative process.

Um, we've asked for additional guardrails and those have been provided. Um, when we go back to the eligibility under the proposed, um, structure, how does that compare to eligibility currently? Eligibility as. For ADUs, attached ADUs under the current ordinance. As, as far as physical or operational standards. In terms of going back to that one where we looked at the properties that are eligible. Oh, I. For separate ADUs. How does that compare? How would this. If at all. Would it look different if we're talking about eligibility currently? Eligibility currently would be just about every housing unit because you, you could slice out a portion of a housing unit. Now, I mean, it might require modifications, plumbing, ingress, egress and, and so on.

Um, but most housing units could be sliced out to have a, a separate living quarter of 400, 500 square feet somewhere in the housing unit. So if people wanted to add an ADU now as an attached, as an addition or something like that, we would be moving this closer to a hundred percent. Really? Yes. Okay. So this is actually lessening, um, the amount by, again, putting more guardrails in there. Correct? Right. There, there would be fewer houses that would be eligible for a detached accessory unit as opposed to an attached accessory unit. Yeah. I think that's an important comparison point in terms of this baseline that we're starting with. The other thing is, um, I really appreciate, uh, the discussion about changes in property value.

Um, that to me comes down to choice and people have a choice whether or not to improve their property, um, to extend or to, um, add additional rooms or those kinds of things in alignment with whatever the zoning allows. Um, I believe in people having the choice to have detached ADUs, um, particularly when we're talking about opportunities for multi-generational situations. And, um, um, I think, of course, we can, uh, uh, uh, imagine, um, some of the, uh, unusual circumstances that might happen. Those could happen now. Right? Um, but I really do think that over time my support of ADUs and specifically my support for this going to a hearing and hearing from the community, um, and getting some additional feedback is helpful.

But from a factual standpoint, this actually lessens, um, the opportunity. And then it becomes, again, the owner's choice, uh, to improve their property in one way or another. So I really appreciate the information and I fully support it going to hearing. Council Member Amos. Thank you. Uh, not gonna do too much. Great presentation. Uh, appreciate all the work you've put into it. Uh, I had just a comment and a question. I do think that, and to be frank, it's happened with pretty much every jurisdiction that's had this conversation on detached ADUs. It tends early on, especially at the Planning Commission stage and at the decision stage, that we overblow how many ADUs are actually gonna be there.

Fairfax County did the same thing when they were having this conversation to the point where, uh, I don't know how many of the supervisors opposed it. But if you had that conversation with them today and I used to work in code compliant, well, one of my issue areas was code compliance with Fairfax County. There's barely... The infrastructure and investment requirements that you'll, that you'll need to have to even get that off the ground. Even though this says 85%, it'll probably be, what, five to ten that might even consider doing it. So, I think if we even compare it to our regional partners, you would definitely see it's not gonna be as significant as... Scary as it sounds from the, from the forefront.

The only question that I will have is really communications with communities that have HOAs. I think you may have touched on this last time, but I wanted to follow up. If HOAs have superseding standards, how does that, how does that work out? Restrictive, restrictive covenants from an HOA would prevail over this. So, if there's a homeowners association, uh, that says that there are no accessory structures permitted, that would prevail over the zoning ordinance. That, that's what I thought. Okay. Most of those cases are in planned development districts. So, communities like Farcroft, for instance, or, uh, what, whatnot, uh, are not in RL, RH, RM. But in the case of, uh, restrictive covenants in these general districts, that would prevail.

And, you know, obviously GIS does not do a restrictive covenant analysis, but that could be a part of it, too. Thank you. Council Member Peterson. Uh, on, has, I think, I don't know who this is. This is for possibly Mr. Lubkerman, who I think is in the back. Uh, actions by the general assembly on ADUs. Do they have any effect on what we do or don't do here? So, I think, I think you may have had a conversation about this, but not. The, um, the enabling authority or the, the changes that are coming out of this session of the general assembly, specifically carve out jurisdictions that already have ordinances for ADUs. So, the city has an ordinance. Um, our position is the city can modify its ordinance.

Um, I think if the city were to get rid of its ordinance, then it might become subject to the requirements, the state requirements. But the current city ordinance is enforceable. You can make amendments to it. Okay. And you don't have to incorporate the state requirements because it's specifically states. Anybody that has it isn't subject to it currently. Great. Thank you. I wanted to pick up on points raised about the impact of this on property values and assessments. And I think my most basic question is whether we have actually done an analysis of the impact of a change in policy on the, uh, assessed value, uh, of homes. And for that matter, um, their prices, uh, have we done that kind of analysis formally?

There's been sort of anecdotal information here, but have we actually done an assessment of that? Uh, no, no assessment has been done. Uh, if, if the council would like, I can talk to the real estate assessor, uh, get her opinion on what that kind of impact, if any, would look like. Uh, I'm, I'm not aware of any, uh, assessment that's out there that takes a look at the value of other properties, uh, you know, with the added on potential of a detached accessory dwelling unit. Okay. But we, we can, I mean, I, I, I can look, I can see if, uh, our assessor has an opinion on that. Well, I would be, I'd be supportive of that. I think the, uh, scenario that we probably want to avoid is not so much the scenario on which somebody elects to put, um, an attached ADU in place.

And as a consequence of that, faces a higher assessed value. But the scenario under which people who do not elect to do that nonetheless face increased assessed values of their homes. And as a consequence, higher taxes, they then have a dilemma, uh, which is you have to swallow the extra cost of that. Or you have to make a decision which could be to accelerate your transition out of the neighborhood. Uh, because it's one more straw on the camel's back in terms of increased property taxes. So I think it is a critical issue, uh, to look at. Uh, and it is, I think, possibly compounded by the scenario in which, uh, the potential to put a detached unit on increases the, um, marketability, uh, to investors to buy these homes and to find a way for these to become rental properties.

And that becomes the investment. And so just to be clear, it's my understanding that we do have a requirement that the principal residence be occupied by the owner, but we do not have that requirement for the detached ADU. Correct. And that can be a rental. That is by definition a rental unit. Because you wouldn't have a separate ownership, right? So we're automatically expanding, um, the rental base. And we're doing it in a way that could have involuntary effects on current property owners in terms of the, uh, taxes that they face. So that's a different, that, that is something that I think is an analyzable scenario and one worth doing. Uh, the other thing that, um, would be, maybe worth understanding a little bit more clearly is, uh, the demographics around this.

Because the, if I understand it correctly, the original intent or one of the original attempts of attached, uh, ADUs was to enable and to encourage multi-generational living. People stay right there. They have more elbow room. More than, you know, more generations of family can be together. I wonder whether the reality, though, of the detached ADUs is something different, which is it encourages multi-family occupation development. And that is a different development pattern and that's a different demographic. And then it gets into issues of transitioning neighborhoods into multi-family rental, uh, scenarios. I just think these are important issues that we should have some real estate analysis on so that we have some, uh, clarity on this.

Because these do affect the character of the neighborhoods and they, they affect the, uh, the financial, um, status of existing owners. So I would be, uh, very much in favor of that. And I honestly would recommend we try to get some additional assessment on those things before we take this to public hearings. So that we can be, um, able to, uh, encourage public comments based on more than just anecdotal, um, and speculative information on these things. And I, that's the only comment I have for the time being. Thanks. Council Member Bates. So, uh, first off, um, you know, certainly, um, want to consider that this is something that, as was pointed out, is not affecting every single, um, unit in the city.

And in fact, is probably going to affect, um, mostly the, uh, the larger plots of land, which would probably be, um, you know, the higher value homes to begin with. More so than, uh, single family homes on smaller plots of land that are not compatible with this or townhomes, condos, of course. Um, secondly, um, you know, certainly would be interested in looking at what the, uh, the impact would be. But at the end of the day, um, unless it's, you know, somehow a massive impact, um, you know, we're looking at the possibility of increasing the housing supply. By adding units that are smaller, um, and, uh, and therefore perhaps a bit more affordable or a bit more attainable, uh, to potential residents that would not otherwise exist.

Now, on the other hand, um, correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that residents, if they want to, can add on to their house up to the, you know, the, um, current zoning constraints. And then rent that house out to up to four unrelated individuals or, um, perhaps more if related individuals are involved without the owner living there at all. Is that right? That's correct. Yeah. So this, if they were to construct an ADU on the property, that's adding in a constraint that the owner has to live on the property that wouldn't even otherwise be there if they were just add on to their house. Right. Correct. Yeah. Thank you. Council member Hardy Chandler. I just wanted to piggyback on, uh, a comment by council member Amos.

And that is, uh, to highlight that we do have data from other communities that have done this. We're not inventing the will. This is something that has been, uh, done in other communities. And so I think it's important to, um, learn about those proportions. Um, I come from prior to Fairfax communities where this was widespread, accepted, did not add, you know, um, any of the concerns, uh, that were talked about. In fact, just were sought out, um, and while I offered that as an example, I think more broadly just that there are other communities where these kinds of proposals. And in my opinion, this is very conservative, in fact, um, are highly successful in, again, going back to the original reason for this diversifying housing options.

And, uh, in addition to home ownership, which we can all understand the perspective of that. I just want to elevate the voice of renters who may, you know, want to be close to family and those kinds of things. And not everyone is eligible for, uh, home ownership here. And so the diversification I think is supported by these parameters, which are in general relatively conservative. So thank you. Council member Amos. 一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些一些

isn't at odds. For example, in that case, the owners of the principal house were two older adults who had the detached ADU developed behind to bring their family in from, so out of Fairfax County residents, moved them into Fairfax County, which were two parents and two kids, which by nature is also part of a multifamily distinguishing, but it was just one family. And that was with a maximum of 1,200 square feet, which could actually accommodate a family. If you have a 450 square foot ADU, that's a lot less feasible, in my opinion. So you still need the square footage requirements and the bedroom requirements to accommodate families in the first place. So trying to equate the two, I think, doesn't quite work.

Councilmember Hull. Thank you. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I could be wrong, but I thought Fairfax County only allowed ADUs when you live on two acres or more. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct right now. Fairfax County is in pretty much the stage where we are right now, that they're looking at potentially expanding that to smaller property sizes. But right now, the detached ADU is two acres or more. OK. So your point about seeing very few makes sense in Fairfax County, where most people don't have two acres of land as well. So I think that's a little bit of a different conversation. I understand the point, though, and I understand Fairfax is looking into it. So thank you for that. So thank you for that.

Sorry. I had one other thing to say, and I am blanking on it. So you can come back to me. Councilmember McQuillen? I, too, would like to request some more analysis, particularly regarding communities near college campuses. I think that changes some of this a little bit. When we talk about some of the concerns that we're hearing from our residents in regards to detached ADUs, a lot of it is in regards to what will happen because we're located next to a college community. It's not I know we're going forward with this, with the idea that, you know, we want to invite multigenerational families and things like that. And that's great. However, the reality is that this is what's happening in our smaller

community neighborhoods. You have people who are purchasing several of these houses that are traditionally 1950, you know, like what I live in, a Cape Cod-style home. And then they are renting them out. This is how they're making money. And so I think a lot of this is stemming from seeing that happen and that turnover occurring in these smaller neighborhoods. So I would like some more analysis just to better understand, and especially before we go to a public hearing so that the public can have that information as well before they provide their feedback. Thank you. Okay. Just so I understand the kind of analysis, because we've talked about a few different analyses. We've talked about the analysis for potential property value impacts.

I know Council Member Peterson had asked about an analysis of potential demographics. Is that what you're mentioning as well? That would be great to know, as well as... I think I had... Jurisdiction. I may have removed it. I'd just like to know what kind of trends we're seeing with this. So are we... You know, Fairfax County is our neighbor. However, we just learned that it takes two acres for you to be able to do a detached ADU. So they're not really comparable to our situation. I'd like to kind of learn what has happened with other jurisdictions that have implemented similar policies and how that has unfolded or changed the character of their neighborhoods. That's kind of what I'm trying to figure out.

Okay. The demographic component is something I don't believe that we'll be able to look at, because I'm not aware of anyone who's been able to take a look or who has wanted to take a look at, you know, any kind of housing issue and say, these are the kind of people who move in there. You know, from this perspective, we treat a person as a person that, you know, one or two people will be occupying an ADU. We don't know if those one or two people will be 60 years old or will be 20 years old or whatever. It's kind of an uncomfortable thing to think about that one might be better than another. I have not seen a demographic analysis of this or boil down to a college area. I think maybe more about rentals, turning that into rentals and inviting, you know, non-related

people onto, you know, maybe something like that. Yeah. The aspect that we can do is look at areas in this region that have had detached ADU standards for a few years. And those would really be Arlington County and Alexandria. And we can see how many, those two jurisdictions have had them since about 2019 or 2020 or so. So we can see how many units were built in those jurisdictions, you know, over that amount of time. And, you know, give a rough estimate as to that. That and just to understand also what the community's feelings are of it. Are they supportive? Have they had a good experience with it? Are they happy with it? What issues have stemmed up? What have they found has happened or occurred that maybe they would have, if they knew,

would have gone back to the drawing board and said, instead, let's do it this way? That's kind of what I'm looking for is to kind of better understand what has occurred in those situations, especially with communities neighboring colleges. Thank you. Councilmember Hall. Thank you. I remembered my comment. You said about the 450 square feet, most likely not going to be families. But I think that we have actually seen a much stronger shift in what we didn't think a family was going to live. Like, for example, at the circle blanking. Scout. Scout on the circle. Thank you. We didn't expect any kids. We have 56 students that live in that building. So I don't know how big those apartments are, but I think a one-bedroom apartment, or in this

case, maybe a one-bedroom accessory dwelling unit, is not what used to be a one-bedroom. I mean, that might mean now you have two kids and parents that are sleeping in a living room. And quite honestly, as a parent with young children, I would think that someone's backyard that now has an ADU is much more attractive to me, even at 450 square feet, than living in an apartment, because now I have a yard. I have a this. I have a that. So I don't think it's as cut and dry, and I'm certainly no expert to be able to even argue it one way or the other, but I don't think it's very easy for us to say people that are X are not going to live here, because I think we continue to be surprised by who lives

where in our city right now. Thank you. And I would just add to that, because we've had this discussion before, that it comes down to affordability. I think families are moving into apartments because they're not moving into the homes in our single-family neighborhoods. College students are, and they're paying $1,000 a pop to live there every month. So I do think you're right that there are more kids in smaller units and apartments because that's what they can afford. But I think also, and I believe, Mr. Foreman, you pointed this out, we are seeing a decline in students in older neighborhoods. So it's a settlement pattern issue more than anything else. And I think sometimes that is difficult to predict.

Council Member Peterson. Yeah, just going back to the comparison with other jurisdictions, obviously, the one thing you need to be a little bit careful about is apples and oranges. I mean, there's the two-acre standard, which is pretty significant here. But there are all sorts of reasons why things could be different. And real estate assessment issues are notoriously localized in their nature. And I think this is an area where granularity matters. In fact, I think this is an area where not only should we have analysis that's granular to the city level and its unique market characteristics, if at all possible, getting neighborhood-level analysis would be helpful here. How this plays out in Country Club Hills, Mosby Woods, Ardmore, Westmore, et cetera, we have

a collection of neighborhoods, and it could look and feel a little different. And it could be affected by proximity to amenities like George Mason University. So I would argue in favor of the granularity to see if anything is picked up there. I have a last question. I just want to be sure I'm understanding the slide 17 correctly. Existing structures eligible for ADU conversion, even if they don't meet ADU standards. But they have to go through Board of Zoning Appeals. Correct. Assuming they do, then they don't have the same height limitations, the same setback limitations, anything. Okay. This also gets into a little bit of analysis here and what the numbers potentially look like. How many of these structures exist and what's the potential for conversion?

I don't know the answer, but I'd sure love to know, is that a big number? Is it a small number? What's the realistic potential? Because that is a very different scenario where you go in without limitation to existing structures and the incentives are going to be pushing in that direction to do precisely that. So I would like to request that we have a look at that just to have some sense of that profile and its potential. Thank you. Council Member Bates. Thanks. So first off, even with the two-acre requirement in Fairfax County, you know, thinking about Great Falls, the area sort of between VN and Centerville, especially Clifton, I would imagine that there's still probably a significant number of houses fitting that bill in the county.

But still would like to perhaps look at, you know, what other jurisdictions might be seeing and even perhaps that subset of the county, you know, housing stock. And in Arlington especially, you know, they have Miriam Mountain University, they have other campuses there, and that would be interesting as well. So then with regard to running out to college students, you know, again, certainly a possibility, but also a possibility on existing houses as they currently are, especially with the owner-occupancy requirement not being there right now. And then with regard to, you know, families and where they might live, again, you know, an issue that could come up with renting out existing housing stock to families or even renting out, you know,

adding on to a house and then renting out the addition to a family or what have you, especially, again, without the owner-occupancy requirement being there. Thanks. Other questions, comments? Okay. So Tracy Kendall sent us all an email today about the number of students, faculty, and alumni that live in Fairfax City, which is very interesting. Apparently this was done in conjunction with VPAP. VPAP. And so the other thing that she sent, okay, that's ours. So the other one she sent is for the county as well. And it's very interesting because we have hundreds of students living in the city, not in accessory dwelling units. For Fairfax City, they count 479 students who live here, 181 faculty and staff who live here,

and 3,377 alumni who live here. So if they have identified 479 students, they are living in rentals. They're living at the flats at university, but that's nearly 500 students who are not living in accessory dwelling units. But that's 500 people almost, students who are living here. In the county, the number of students for the entire county is 11,180. The faculty in the county, 2,056. And the alumni, 70,044 in the county. So this was just very timely that this came across the email today. So houses, single-family homes, are not being purchased in the main by families with children. I mean, I'm sure there are. But a lot of these homes are being purchased and they're rentals for students, up to four unrelated students.

And in my neighborhood, one of them is renting for $4,000 a month, which is each student is paying a grand. And so I don't think an accessory dwelling unit is going to rent for that kind of money, number one. Number two, the amount of investment to actually build a structure in your backyard, I couldn't even ballpark it. $250,000, you've got water, sewer, electricity. It's got to meet all the standards, all the codes, insulation. It's a house. You're building a house. I don't know how many people are going to rush to do that, even if we say you can, because of the accessory dwelling units, as I recall, that exist in the city that are not detached, I think the number's 25. Because I will say, we have been talking about this for three and a half years.

I realize this council has not been talking about it for three and a half years. But Billy and I, Council Member Bates and I, have been talking about this for three and a half years, from the moment in which we said, why do we not have a policy on attached dwelling units? The fact that the General Assembly moved on this, that they, both chambers, with bipartisan support, passed this legislation, and it was signed by the governor, to me sends a signal that the Commonwealth of Virginia understands that if localities aren't going to do this, this is the catalyst to do this. So to me, the housing issue, from a policy perspective, localities can decide how they want to do it, but the state stepped in because localities haven't done it.

We have an accessory dwelling unit policy for non-detached units. And I believe in the last report that I recall, there are 25 people who have used it. Now, this council voted to remove some of the restrictions that you had to be 55 years old, you had to be a family member, biological family member, or you had to be disabled. We stripped that away because, quite frankly, who lives in your home and who you say your family is is up to you, just like property rights means that if you own a piece of property, within guidelines, what you do with your property is up to you, within restrictions. And I don't think we should lose sight of that. Like, we don't decide for people who decide to build an excessive dwelling unit who is going to live there.

We're making all kinds of assumptions about who we think is going to live there. We're making assumptions about the fact that they will all be rentals, when, in fact, it could be families who are putting family members there and no money whatsoever is changing hands. We're just making an awful lot of assumptions. And I think further analysis is not going to help us to predict what people in the city are going to do if they are allowed to build a detached accessory dwelling unit. That, to me, is making public policy around whataboutism. And that is not a good way to make public policy. And so I think that the way this is shaking out that I'm hearing is that there are three people who want more analysis

and there are three people who support the ADU policy. Now, I think what you're asking us to do is to decide what we do next. Is this another work session? Do we go to public hearing? Would that be an accurate statement as far as the call for question? Correct. Okay. I'm going to turn to Council Member Amos. Council Member Amos. Oh, the only other comment I was going to bring up was part of the catalyst for why the county is revisiting as well is that they published the SHAPE plan, which is focused on older adults specifically, to create opportunities for home sharing. So they want to expand their home sharing program. You need the space to do that. Older adults can, through creative lease arrangements, coordinate with younger families,

particularly workforce families, teacher, police, fire, through these ADU arrangements, but also just creative leasing in general. So that was part of the catalyst for it as well for why they're revisiting it. So what are your next steps? I'd like to go to public hearing. Council Member Hall. I think your comments are interesting, and I also think that the majority of people who bought here bought without having any expectation that they would be able to put a second residence behind their house. And I think that if we as a council decide that for them, I think that is concerning that if we decide that for them, that now all of a sudden maybe they don't want to do it, but now neighbors on either side of them want to, and they've completely lost their privacy.

They might not want to stay in their house, and we've now forced a resident to abandon their house. So I just think it's a very, very slippery slope. I actually wonder if maybe we do it by special use exception or a special use permit. You know, maybe you have to do something to prove that your house, your location, is not impactful to the neighbors, that you've met the parking, that you've done this, that you've done that, and that's not a buy-right thing. Because I think, unfortunately, we've seen a lot of buy-right development, be it residential or commercial. That is not necessarily in what many of us would consider the best interest of our city. Prime example, in my opinion, vape shops.

Close to school, too many everywhere. So I'm actually probably a no on even moving forward with this at this point and definitely not doing a public hearing. Thank you. Council Member Hardy-Chandler. Community input. Let's do the public hearing. Let's hear from our community. Again, I think that we can hypothesize about what might happen, but I think we need to hear from the community. And we can still bring in additional information about other communities, whether that's Fairfax County or other jurisdictions. But I also just really want to reiterate that homeowners within limits should have choices. And I completely agree with this being a viable choice. I think the parameters are reasonable.

They're even more restrictive. And I also want to go on the record to say I welcome students as neighbors. I welcome them wholeheartedly. I live in a house where next door several students pull their money and live together, and they were excellent neighbors. So I really appreciate this discussion. I would like to extend it out to hear from the community, as we often talk about wanting to do. And I would support that. Council Member Peterson. Yeah, I support the community being able to discuss things, but I think we owe it to them to provide them adequate information and education so that they can have that when they express themselves and have the benefit of the kind of work, the homework that, you know, we can provide them.

So just to be clear, what I have suggested we do is an assessment of the impact or get some understanding of potentially the impact of a change in policy. And that is a change of policy that will affect everybody, not just those who decide to exercise new eligibility under that policy. It will affect everybody because it affects everybody in that 85% class, the value and the assessment of their property. How much, we don't know. There are all sorts of unique characteristics that I think ought to be addressed to try to shed a little bit more light on that so that when we have a conversation about this, it's one that's informed and, you know, not clouded by things that are just speculative. And I think that is not too much to ask.

This is a change in policy. It affects property values. That's a sensitive issue for people in the city. And if we could clear that up, I think it would be the basis for a more meaningful public discussion that we can have. So what is your preferred next step? That we conduct that analysis and come back so that we can discuss that and shed some light on this issue from the perspective of some staff analysis that would occur here. Council Member Bates? So I want to provide an illustrative example that perhaps gets at what we've been discussing earlier. Somewhat near my neighborhood, there is a house that was torn down and then subdivided and then three houses were built. So that's up to 12 unrelated individuals or more if some are related on what was once one lot.

You know, they're much taller than the other houses nearby. And the owner doesn't have to live in any of those houses. Whereas if they had had this as an option, perhaps less reward but also less risk because they don't have to tear down the house that was there. They can just, you know, build an ADU. And, you know, they may have chosen that as an option. And in that case, the owner would have to live there. So, you know, with that and with all of the work that has gone into this and all the discussion that's gone into this, I support moving forward to the public hearing. Thank you. Council Member McQuillan? Council Member McQuillan. Council Member McQuillan. somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow somehow

I think this is an acceptable time to present that information to our community, and I'd like it to be done prior to the hearing. But I would like to move forward with the hearing. Thank you. So you would like to move forward with the hearing? I'm fine with moving forward with the hearing. However, I would like to have that data presented to the public before that, if possible, please. Thank you. So it looks like we've got three people who are fine with moving forward to a public hearing, two who want more data and presumably another work session. And Council Member McQuillan would like more information, but it's fine with the public hearing, but you would prefer the data before the public hearing.

Okay. May I read? Yes, Council Member Hall. If we're going to be moving forward, I absolutely support the request for all of the data that has been requested. I can't imagine not having that information to share with the public to be used for decision-making. Otherwise, I think we're just talking about height and setbacks. And to me, that's not the most critical piece of some of these decisions. So I will move forward with the public hearing only on the caveat that we have all of the information that Council Members have requested and that they are on board with prior to getting to that point. Well, we have been talking about this for three and a half years. The staff has put in a tremendous amount of data and research, and we have had work sessions on this.

And I understand that you'd like more data. Some of the data you're requesting, I think we can get prior and be presented as a presentation from staff with a public hearing. So, yeah, Mr. Forman. Right. So the data that you're asking about, especially as it regards Arlington or Alexandria or similarly sized jurisdiction with similarly sized lots with an ADU policy, can be presented at a meeting that includes a public hearing. So I think what it comes down to is do we do a public hearing with a presentation from staff prior to the public hearing, or do we have another work session and delay a public hearing? I think that is the question that we are asking. So one more time. We're just going to go around the room.

Council Member Amos, what is your preference? Presentation and public hearing. Thank you. Council Member Hall. Delay until we have another work session and the opportunity to go through the information to review it and to ask additional questions. And I will say you and Council Member Bates might have been doing this for three and a half years, but the rest of us have not. And I don't think it's unreasonable that new voices and new thoughts and new people up here ask new questions and expect them to be responded to. Thank you. Council Member Hardy-Chandler. I think we have access to the data that we need and to move forward with that presentation and the hearing. Council Member Peterson. I think that new information is reasonable and in order here.

I think we've indicated the need for something that's really tailored for the city to do that. I also think that, and this is not a comment only about the issue before us today, but a general one, I don't think it's always so reasonable to provide people information concurrent with a public hearing and their comment when they don't have time to review this, when they don't have time to think about it, when they don't have time to discuss it. Even with their neighbors, we expect an on-the-spot turnaround reaction to information, and we even expect Council Members to do that. And I don't think that is a reasonable thing to do in many cases. I think it's entirely reasonable to give a little bit of breathing space here

when you have new information to be considered, and then we can come back and talk about it in what will be a more meaningful way as we do that. And so I would support very much that we do that, and I support, as we do that, also the possibility that there may be some options that we haven't fully considered here that might alleviate concerns, and that is one of the benefits of that kind of discussion. As a, for instance, transitioning away from buy rights to special exemption would be a classic case of a third way. And if the reality is there's a very restricted number of these that are likely to happen, then it makes special exemptions to be not a difficult thing to go through in terms of the numbers.

So that would be one of the benefits by that extra breathing space, is we would find our way forward to some constructive alternatives here that would alleviate some of the concerns and the questions that have been answered. As a result, I think we need to be a little bit patient in terms of giving ourselves a chance to see that information, being a little bit patient in terms of giving the community a chance to see it and talk about it. Thank you. Council Member Bates. So we've had multiple work sessions, and I, my, you know, to the best of my recollection, staff usually gets us the presentation at least several days in advance for us to go over, especially with something, with the weight of an ordinance amendment or something similar.

So I think that that is something that we can reasonably expect. And certainly support any further data or information that does not place a significant burden on staff that they can get to us by that time. And so with that, support moving forward with the public hearing. Council Member McQuillan. I would like another work session. Thank you. Well, that's 3-3, and the mayor would like to move forward with a public hearing. So we will set the date for the public hearing, and we will have a presentation at that time. Council Member Hall. I would like to then specifically ask that we do not have a vote scheduled for the night of the public hearing well in advance so that residents have ample time in order to consider,

review the presentation, and understand their options. Mr. Lubkeman. Thank you. So it's always the prerogative of the council to decide if it wishes to vote on an item that's on an agenda that evening. We initially schedule public hearings and action on the same evening unless there's a vote or a consensus or a majority of the council that would like to proceed otherwise. So the default will be that there'd be a public hearing in action on the same evening, but council can certainly vary. Thoughts, Council Member Amos? I would like to get feedback first before we make that call, just like we did with the noise ordinance. If we get a lot of feedback, then we can hold. I'd like to see what the feedback is first from the community.

Council Member Hall. I also would like to keep in mind that we are doing this now going into the end of the school year, summer vacations and all of those things. So our audience might not be as engaged as they might be during other times of the year. And that, I think, is why we chose to delay the noise ordinance before, specifically because of summer and those things. So I am all for delaying the vote so that we have time to hear from the community. Council Member Hardy-Chandler. I'm fine with moving forward with the public hearing. And if we end up delaying the vote from that point, that's fine. But I want to move forward with the public hearing. So just to clarify, there's always an opportunity, as we have done before, to decide to a date certain,

to simply decide that we will defer the vote to a date certain at the meeting. Absolutely. We do it for a number of reasons. In the case of noise, it was a combination of council members' requests and also my requests that we extend because we had some open issues. But we have plenty of examples throughout the history of the city where council has decided to delay a vote on a matter, even though it's scheduled for the night of a public hearing. Just great. Thank you for that clarification, Council Member Peterson. Well, thanks for that also. So it doesn't, as I understand it from your comment, require that a majority of the council be in favor of an agenda item being placed on the agenda and scheduled.

That can be done by default. And it's up to the council to overturn that by majority vote. Is that what you're saying procedurally? Items are placed on agenda pursuant to your policies. The decision on whether to vote on an item is done by council ordinarily at the meeting at which the item is scheduled. Unless there's a vote prior to vary from that. Okay. Well, I would just say as a general matter, you know, it's best for bodies to place things on agendas and vote on them based on a majority. It makes for better decision making, better governance. And I would certainly support us honoring that and reflecting that as we make a decision here. I, you know, again, I think this is one where it's perfectly legitimate to ask what we're asking for.

And there's good reason for that. But I also want to be real clear that speaking on my own behalf, but I think this is reflective of others. This is not a commentary on anybody who resides in homes. I teach at George Mason. And, you know, I know many Mason students who grew up in the neighborhood and live in the homes now, live in their homes now as they are students, et cetera. I have had intergenerational housing. I've had homeless people living in my home. I've had a lot of different things. It's not about that. It's really about trying to have an open and clear understanding on things that are not yet open and clear and things that may be improvable if we have a little bit more information and opportunity.

And I think that's the spirit in which bodies like this can and should operate to try to make the best solutions for the broadest range of people involved. So I do think a work session is a reasonable option for pursuing it in that manner. Council Member Bates. On that note, I agree with Council Member Amos and Stacey Hardy-Channeler with moving forward. Council Member McQuillen. Our residents deserve to know that we're not creating unintended consequences and that the success of this policy depends entirely on whether the residents believe that Council did its due diligence and took the time to put meaningful guardrails in place. So on that note, I would prefer that we defer our vote to allow us time to hear out our residents

and get the feedback from them after they've had the ability to go over the information. Thank you. Okay. So we will move. We will set the date for a public hearing with the understanding that based on that feedback that the Council can decide, again, by a majority, that they want to defer the vote to a date certain that it's not that night if that is what the Council decides after the public hearing. Does that sound like we have a plan? We have a plan. Thank you, Mr. Foreman. I very much appreciate the presentation. I appreciate the progress that we've made on this. And, again, I think the General Assembly has also made it clear that they also value the fact that accessory dwelling units are an answer to housing in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Just one point of clarification. Just to make sure that staff is aware of what additional is being asked. An analysis of potential impact on real estate assessments. Yes. I think to checking with Ms. Christine Johnson on when they assess. Because one of the things that I think we talked about when we discussed the unattached accessory dwelling units is that generally when you apply for a permit, you go in, you assess it, and so the tax assessor decides this much value has been added to the addition or the space that you built out. So your taxes go up based on that. So what I think we're asking is if you allow ADUs and someone builds an ADU in their backyard, what does it do for the property value of the neighbors on either side?

Does it impact? Because we're going to tax that accessory dwelling unit because it adds value to that owner's property. But is there some data or analysis that she has about impact to neighbors who haven't built accessory dwelling? As I understand it, the council is asking for an analysis of not just the neighbors' impacts, but the analysis of whether the option of detached accessory dwelling units would increase property values in general because it produces another income-producing option for property. I'm sure that Ms. Johnson probably knows. Okay. I'm asking if that is the direction from council. I think from every facet, but council member Hall. Yeah. I was just going to say I think maybe before Ms. Johnson starts her work,

it might be great to lay out the questions that she thinks she's going to be answering and we can just make sure that those are what is indeed being asked because it sounds like there might be some confusion. Thank you. So as a matter of clarification, would it be helpful to have council members just send you the questions that they would like to have answered? That would be fine. What I have written down is the assessments, the other jurisdictional analysis, and how many accessory structures we might be talking about that currently exist. Council Member Peterson. So just to simplify it a little bit, we need a policy impact analysis. That's what we need here. And part of the policy impact analysis is the impact on assessed values.

Just to be clear also on the additional units, my question around that was I don't know what the universe of existing structures is, which is a separate issue because they go into another procedure for, if you will, automatic conversion here. So just to get some understanding of the size of that population of structures because then that will tell us what the potential is for that conversion. I think from my standpoint, it would be easiest to review something that you put together in terms of the scope of analysis to be sure that's on target. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Alexander. I want to be crystal clear on this in terms of what we're looking for. And what you covered is essentially what I had relative to real estate assessment,

existing structures that was mentioned, the analysis of trends in other jurisdictions, to include rental impacts. And so what, in addition to that, if I may ask council, are we looking for? Because I want to make sure that we're bringing this back to you. Anything else that the city manager has not covered or Mr. Foreman has not covered? Council Member Peterson. Well, if there, I think this may be covered in what you just said. If it's not, I would advocate its addition. And that is, if we have an estimate of the number of properties that likely would exercise the option for detached ADU, I think that's what's embedded in some of the benchmarking with other jurisdictions. But I think there's some localized analysis.

I think that's important information so we know the scale of that. But it gets to another discussion that then is informed by that, and that is the mechanism here, whether this will be by right or whether it could be a special exemption, because the scale of it could make those mechanisms easier or harder, just depending on scale. So the numbers in terms of potential folks who exercise the option should be a part of this. I think the challenge will probably be, or the opportunity, will be looking at other jurisdictions that have implemented that as a percentage. Because I think largely it may be difficult for us to determine that, specific to us absent an existing policy. So the benchmarking may evidence that for us to a degree.

And so I think that will be part of the analysis. If I might just add, I'm sure you're going to do this, but the apples to oranges thing is critical, because when you look at benchmarks, they're not all created equal, so you need to sort out the differentiation between these. To the degree that we're not a unicorn, I think that's part of the challenge. Okay, I figured you were on it. All right. Okay, do we feel settled? I'm looking at, do we feel settled? Do you have what you need, Mr. Foreman? Yes, we do. Okay. Thank you, thank you, Mr. City Manager. Thank you, and we will revisit this and get something on the calendar. Thank you, Mr. Lopkman. Oh, well, are you the next guy? Oh, yeah, you are, yeah, Ms. Shinaberry, who's up next?

Well, before I announce, I'll do a time check of 1024. Oh, okay. Thank you so much. Yeah. Do you want me to proceed? Yes, I think we're going to proceed. This is the last item. Yes, this is the last work session item. Yeah. So our last work session is going to be a follow-up discussion of a possible increase in the compensation and parents' salaries paid to the mayor and the members of the city council. I'm going to recognize Brian Lubkman, our city attorney, for the staff discussion. Mayor and council, very briefly, given the hour. As you all recall, we talked about this briefly on March 24th. Bringing it back just because I think because we did it late the last time, you all wanted to have a chance to think about it a little more

and to discuss it a little more robustly. But I'll remind you that the deadline for enacting an ordinance, it has to be done by ordinance. We have to do it by no later than July the 3rd because it has to be four months prior to the next municipal election, which is obviously in November. And any increase will not take effect until July 1 after the election, so July 1, 2027. And as a reminder, the maximums that this population ban, where the city resides, would be 24,000 for the mayor, 22,000 for each council member. As you all know, you're currently at 13 and 12, and those numbers have been in place since 2015. Happy to answer any questions. Are there questions? Council Member Amos? Or just share your thoughts or whatever you'd like.

Yeah. Let's see. So, I mean, I'm open and supportive of the idea. It hasn't been updated since 2015. Clearly, you know, just cost of living adjustments have been pretty rampant, and I think we all recognize that we put in a significant number of hours as well. Looking forward to hearing from my colleagues on that, but I'd be open to continuing the discussion and getting this done. Council Member Hull? I'm in favor of moving forward with this. I think, yes, cost of living is more, but I also think that the burden of hours and time in comparison to the paycheck, essentially, it's disproportionate, and I think that people see how many hours we spend up here, and this is just the meeting part, right?

This isn't the outreach in the community, the showing up at things, the preparing for the meetings. This is a much bigger job, and it's very easy to spend at least 20 hours a week, and I think that if we expect people to show up and do the best job that they can, we should certainly make sure that they have enough to cover what they're doing, drive here, and also maybe have to pay for child care or some of the other things that they need to do in order to make their days happen. So wholly support this. Thank you. Council Member Hardy-Chandler? I support it. Council Member Peterson? I support it, but I have a couple questions. I have a couple questions for Mr. Lubkeman. Based on, and I don't know whether you were able to get answers to all these when you looked into this

in terms of comparisons with other jurisdictions, but just a couple things to be clear on what we are and are not proposing here. First off, it's my understanding that we are not proposing that we extend health benefits and other forms of benefits to City Council members and Mayor as a part of the compensation agreement. So the ordinance requirement only relates to the salary. The other aspects of any type of benefits would be determined by Council policy and the budgetary process, but those do not need to be done as part of this process. Okay. If there's a will of the Council to, I mean, I know previous Councils had discussions about health benefits, for example, and some other benefits that might be available.

And reimbursements, I think, has been a discussion in the past. But this is limited to the salary. The timing issue is limited to the salary issue. Right. No fringe. No fringe or benefits. Correct. Right. Okay. In terms of how other jurisdictions handle this, is the typical practice, and perhaps there's variation here, to establish a salary and it is simply described as that, or is it to establish this as support for, I guess, the term that is out there is constituent services, which gets to the time that Council members put in to reaching out to the community, et cetera. Do you have a sense of how that's been structured elsewhere? Yeah. So I did a survey. We did look into this. I mean, we didn't do an exhaustive survey of the Commonwealth.

But as you would imagine, it's some of the larger jurisdictions that that aspect enters into it. Richmond, for example, has employees that are actually servicing the council members and the mayor. The mayor's office is completely separate there and has its own services, support, et cetera. I could find no examples in the Commonwealth of jurisdictions other than the larger ones that actually memorialize that. So the salary becomes the issue. Some do reimbursements for a certain level of expenses, but the vast majority just deal with salary, and that's the extent of what the mayors and councils are provided in Virginia. Okay. So if I understand correctly, then, based on that and based on not only my own experience and that of other members of the council,

but other colleagues, for a smaller jurisdiction, functionally, the compensation that is received is, frankly, an offset to expenses. Is that a fair description? I'll let you characterize it. I mean, to me, it's salary. It's what you do with it, just like what other individuals do with their salaries. I mean, obviously, the amount is what it is, but I assume there are jurisdictions and individuals that have different personal circumstances in terms of their use of those funds, but it's strictly salary, and it's up to the individual members in all jurisdictions as to how they want to use them. Okay. Okay. Well, so for big jurisdictions, it's either not uncommon or the norm for supervisors, et cetera, council members,

to have formal assistance by the city, assigned staff, et cetera, various forms of assistance that they then have access to. They may actually have higher levels of compensation as well at the same time as that. Well, counties are in a different category. Urban counties are in different categories. Cities are strictly based on population bans. And while I gave you the example, for example, of Richmond, I wouldn't want to characterize and say all large cities give support, small ones don't. I think you could probably find examples throughout the Commonwealth of each. Well, and part of the reason I ask is I've been asked, I can't count the number of times from people about they want to know, what is your constituent services budget as a council member?

How many staff are assigned to you to carry out community events and communications and things like that? And they're very surprised when I said there is absolutely no stipend whatsoever, no support of that kind. Really, that is self-funded by council members who choose to do that. Now, there's variation, honestly, in terms of how heavily engaged council members are at that. But to the extent council members are engaged in those activities, they're really doing that individually. And they're not being supported in a formal way by the city in doing that. Is that a fair description? Well, respectfully, I think the city staff provides a fair amount of support to council members as a body, certainly.

Absolutely. In terms of outreach. I mean, there's any one of a number of activities, events, you know, recent budget workshop being an example. There's plenty of others. In terms of individual initiatives by council members, yes, I would agree. You know, again, I'm not privy to everything, but I would agree that that is generally left up to individual members. Okay. All right. Well, the other question in terms of your survey and then any conversations you've had is whether an increase in compensation. In this case, in the grand scheme of things, it's a modest increase. Certainly, we're not talking about a full-time salary or anything like that. Has the result of that where it has been done been to induce higher levels of engagement by council members with the community

and around these actions that involve carrying out their electoral duties in terms of community outreach and all that? Is there any sense for what impact it's had on that level of engagement? I have no sense on that. I would assume that depends entirely on the desires and activities of individual council members and mayors throughout the Commonwealth. I think everyone has their own personal philosophy on what they bring to the position. And so I don't think I could. I certainly can't generalize on that. Maybe there are others who could. Okay. I have certainly read some research indicating that it helps. It helps encourage council members to be more engaged and to carry out, to put more time into those kinds of things than they otherwise might.

I think that the reality of service is that if you are engaged, it is time intensive. It requires sacrifice. And I think the additional support for that is something that would probably help to attract people to these positions and help encourage the highest level of commitment. People are not in this, generally speaking, for the money. I'm not suggesting they should be. But when you are functionally having to put in a lot of time and, in some cases, other expenses, a little bit of additional help makes a difference. And I speak for others because this would be a policy that would affect future officials. That increment can make a difference for other people is sort of my understanding of how that's played out in other places.

So all that said, I think this is a wise thing for us to do to kind of, if you will, right-size this jurisdiction based on our own personal experience but based on the experience of others who are in similar situations. Councilmember Bates? So, again, you know, full-time engineering PhD student research assistant, not running again this year, definitely, and probably not for the foreseeable future. I'm not playing on it anyway, but I fully support moving forward with an increase for future councils, thinking about, you know, fellow students as well as those who work hourly jobs and might not be able to spend as much time studying or working. And, you know, 22,000, I think, for people like that can be the world's difference compared to 12,000.

And we want to make sure that to the extent that we can, their financial situation is not an obstacle to running and getting involved. So, you know, certainly I could even see going with the maximum, not wedded to it, but this is the most expensive part of the state. And, but at least, you know, I think that we need to see some kind of increase going forward. Thanks. Councilmember McQuillan? I supported the compensation increase for the school board as I was leaving and running for this election for city council, and I'll do so for this as well. And I'm open to going the max. Thank you. Well, there we have it. So if I'm hearing correctly, I'll prepare an ordinance for introduction at the June 9th meeting.

I assume at least we'll introduce it with the maxes. Then you'll have public hearing council action on the 23rd, at which time you can decide what you want to do, whether it's max, something less, or nothing at all. Yes. And I will say what I'm hearing is that people are looking at the max, and I think that is appropriate. I think people should be compensated for the value, not just even the amount of time, which is a lot, because different council members spend different amounts of time. It's the value you bring. We are the government of a city, and the people expect a certain amount of commitment and a certain amount of conscientiousness and to show up and do the job and do it thoughtfully.

And you can't really put a price tag on that, but certainly $13,000 a year and $12,000 a year does not reflect how the city should feel about what the members of the dais do day in and day out, week in and week out, all year long. And I think we need to think differently about public service. All of us ran because we want to serve the public. But personally, my personal budget shouldn't be paying my expenses. And it is. And it is. So we need to make this appropriate to what is being given in public service by the people who sit on this dais. So I am fully in favor of the maximum amounts. And everyone can vote and decide when it comes up. But people need to pay for the value they bring. All right.

Great. On to the next thing. I have to reconvene the regular meeting. It's up to me. Okay. I'm now reconvening the regular meeting so that we may discuss future meeting topics. All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council. You have seen a preview of May 26. And based on that, the consideration of the war construction for the outfall restorations will not be on consent. That will be on items not requiring a public hearing. We have also, I think, sent you a message to say we're happy to meet with you to explain that. And you'll also see staff reports that follow. So look forward to that item and talking with you about that. A consideration to approve a consortium agreement and the ERA agreements, I think, are essentially agreements that are continuing from before.

So those are largely administrative in character. Your public hearing will involve the special use to allow for keeping up to four chickens. So that will be on 26. Also, looking ahead. Ms. Member Hall. Yeah. I chuckle every time I read this. So we're having someone come here to present to us to tell us why they want or need to keep chickens. But that's a council decision on whether or not they're going to have chickens. I just think some of these codes and ordinances are really, really backwards. Like, yeah. So you know where I'm going with this. But thanks. All right. We also have scheduled on the 26th the Wilcoxon Trail Extension briefing, which we've talked about. And then we have the discussion for Code of Ethics scheduled for that evening.

Second, we're going to have a presentation from Catherine Johnson. Middle school students will be discussing for later consent the grant supplemental appropriation resolution for FY26 federal state and use of balance sheet funds for expenditures. And then you will see that come up later on consent on the 9th, along with CMR for school projects. And so we'll be bringing that forward for Providence and Daniel's run. We will have the deed of lease for a term commencing on the 1st and ending on 2029 between the city and Main Street Child Development Center. That's a re-up of that agreement. We do have scheduled at that point on the 9th noise coming back. And the Eruv piece coming up for public hearing as required.

Now, what is probably different on here for the 9th is not a public hearing on green building, but a work session to discuss both the sustainability matrix and the green building policy. So we're bringing the matrix back to you. We'll bring a discussion on green building. I think some of the decisions we've made on resourcing that office, I think, will have an impact in a positive way. And so I think that discussion will set up the council well for not only understanding where we're going with sustainability, but decision-making on green building as we move forward. That is essentially the month forward. Happy, though, to answer any questions on other items. Councilmember Amos. Yeah, I wanted to wait until we got through budget because obviously we had some other priorities to focus on.

I know I've referenced to everyone every now and then, probably January and beforehand, because we got a little swamped, about the potential for a kindergarten to college fund. I know that there was a component of that with coordinating with the state and the Invest 529 program. I know there's a number of questions. I wanted to see if there was interest among my colleagues. I know there was some a few months ago, so I wanted to just reconfirm if we'd be open to inviting Invest 529 for a work session to answer any questions about potentially setting up that kind of program. Councilmember Hull. I'm curious what conversation you've had with the school board so far. It has been brief because, so to the extent it was the email that I sent out to council and the school board.

School board, their main concern was just administration, which is why they were happy to hear about Invest 529. We could, if, if schedules align, we could also do a joint work session with the school board. That way everyone can ask questions in one space. Just whatever my colleagues would like. I think it would make sense to involve the school board and invite them to have the same presentation and conversation. I would agree. I'm open to it. I, I know you and I talk privately. There's a lot of concerns that I have, and, and none of them are about the program itself. It's about the facilitation, the kids, the, all the follow-up, kind of all that stuff as these kids grow and they move away.

So, I, I just, in light of the conversation tonight about the ADUs, though, I just want to say having a conversation about something is not necessarily an agreement from me to move forward with something. And I feel like some of these things just get a little muddy sometimes. So, just putting that out there. And just to reiterate, this is for information purposes only because obviously there was a lot of conversation about what's possible with Invest 529, that type of program, what opportunities are available, but also some of the potential concerns and challenges for like regulation or if people moving out very quickly. So, I think if folks are open to it, we could hold a joint work session with the school board, invite the state program,

Invest 529, and have a deeper conversation about what council would like to do. Council Member Hardy-Chantler? Yes, I support the conversation. I think it's a great idea to bring the school board on board for that and an opportunity to address any concerns and long-term impact and explore, especially unintended consequences. So, certainly support. Council Member Peterson? With the inclusion of the school board and the involvement, I think it's a conversation. Council Member Bates? I agree. Council Member McQuillen? Of course. And there we go. So, stick a pin in that and let's figure out when we're going to do it. Council Member Peterson? Council Member Peterson. May 26, item one under consent, which is going to be moved out of consent, as I understand it.

Are we expected to take action that evening on that? Is there a reason why we're expected at that time to do that? Yeah, I think it's a contract award. I think it's something that was previous in CIP, correct? And so, we will present on it and we're happy to brief you on it. It's scheduled to be acted upon that evening. These are annual projects that come forward as part of our MS4 compliance with the state. These are the two projects for outfall that are being presented for Council's approval for the contract award, yeah. What is MS4 compliance? And Dave's not here to fill the thing. It is. It's 4Ms. It's the municipal stormwater state compliance. Discharge permit, for lack of a better term.

We are doing construction for outfall restoration. What, just out of curiosity, when was this last before a council for actual discussion? So, these came before council. Not these two. These two projects specifically have not come before council. They are part of the CIP for the TMDL every year. There is approximately $100,000 that is in the CIP every year to do these types of projects. These are the two that staff is bringing forward at this time. And I'm just not familiar with this. I haven't seen the visualizations of this. I haven't seen anything. So, I'm not sure. But I know that I have received a heck of a lot of public comment about stream restoration. And the, I guess the confusion is maybe the best way to describe it over why the degree of environmental disturbance that is involved in that is something that's improving the environment.

And I recognize there's a formula involved in the linkages here with water quality. I'm familiar enough with that formula that's something that I have questions about. And whether there is only one way and one option to comply with these credit requirements and this is it. Or whether, in fact, there are other options. We just simply really haven't had that conversation. Or maybe not entirely. So, that's why I ask whether this is a decision we have to make on the spot. Or whether, I know we're going to have one-on-ones. But whether there's some way to understand a little bit more clearly the way this program is being done. Because I think the sense that I get is people would like to know more about it and what our options are.

To see whether there are options other than what they've seen actually carried out in the city. I think, you know, we'll have obviously scheduled discussions probably this week. We're certainly going to push out all the content. The pictures are very helpful for me from what I can see from the generated staff reports. And so, you'll see those too. We pulled it off consent for that reason. So, we'll do a presentation on it that night. And if there's some pause or cause of concern from council, then we certainly can deal with it that evening too if need be. Okay. That's helpful to know. Council Member Hall. Thank you. So, just to be clear, it's getting pulled off consent. We're getting a presentation on it.

I know I have a meeting held for Friday afternoon. But the expectation is that we, as a council, will vote to approve the contracts to move forward with this. Correct. Correct. Even though we don't exactly know where this is. We don't have the reports yet. But our residents have not yet seen where this impact is going to be, what the stream restoration is going to look like. I just feel like this is very cart before the horse. And I recognize that there's probably deadlines and there was budget constraints or budget timelines and all of those things. But if this is similar to what was done at Stafford Park and at Mosby Woods with that stream restoration, I would expect that our residents are going to have a lot of questions and concerns.

It's not a stream restoration. It's a restoration of the outfall. Okay. What is an outfall for those of us that are new? Like a culvert? Like Mr. Summers was talking about earlier during the environmental sustainability, the swamp program. It's the area that catches everything before it goes down into the stream, catches all the trash and things like that. Okay. It's rebuilding that piece. And it's state-mandated requirements that we manage these areas. Okay. And so just to be clear, so this is an outfall restoration. The conversation around the Daniels-run woods is a stream restoration, and that will have more time and energy devoted to it and community outreach than an outfall restoration will.

I think the easiest way to understand this is these are structure restorations. Okay. Like the concrete. It's not a stream. It's already there. We're just fixing it. But it's deteriorated or it's not functioning the way it should. It's not a stream restoration project. They're a completely different animal. Okay. But a stream restoration project would be treated completely differently. And have all the public hearing and outreach and community communication. Like we've always done, correct? Yeah. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. I was thinking these were similar animals. Thank you. Candidly, as we bring this forward, as you see the staff reports, and there's pause for concern. Otherwise, let us know.

And we can pivot based on that. There may be more to it than simply going in without some removal, replanning. But we're going to show you that and give you pictures. Okay. Council Member Peterson. Well, just to clarify then, the timing of future consideration of the Daniels-run woods stream restoration, is that scheduled here as a part of this? And if so, when? Because I... Okay. So is there a date certain in which that needs to be handled? I will just say that has engendered significant public input. And I would expect it would be given due consideration as we go forward. So I realize this outfall is a different animal. But when we shift it... When we shift over the restoration, it's something we'll need to, you know, be a little bit more careful about.

Thank you. For sure. Any other questions about future meeting topics? Okay. Okay. That's great. So I guess that will go on to the manager report out and council comments. Mr. Alexander. Very quickly. And I've spoken to each one of you about this. As far as the January retreat follow-up and where we are with strategic plan, performance management, and efficiency, the plan is to move forward with the proposal that we've received to do all three. We would like to sequence it in a manner where we get efficiency done initially. I think that was a council priority. Has been, I think, from the beginning of the fiscal year. I know you all have been waiting for that. So it was to move forward in earnest with that.

Right behind that would be performance management, largely focused on operational day-to-day, more tactical and less strategic in focus, but certainly looking at metrics around how we're succeeding day in and day out in terms of service provision, and then following that, laying the groundwork towards the end of the year on strategic planning and doing a lot of the data collection, community engagement around that, moving the actual implementation as far as goals, objectives, and activities into the next calendar year. And so that's how we're proposing that we sequence that work. Just wanted to make sure that we had final understanding of that before we move forward. And if that is the case, we're going to start work tomorrow on getting the efficiency study going.

Is that agreeable with everyone? Okay, that's excellent. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. That's all you have. All right, well, let's start with Council Member McQuillan for council comments. Thank you. I just want to thank everyone who joined us for tonight's meeting, the presenters, the staff, and the public. I want to thank our City of Fairfax Fire Department and first responders and staff for quick professional response earlier today at Daniels Run Elementary School. Thankful that the situation was found to be due to a malfunctioning light, nothing serious. Just a reminder of how fortunate we are to have highly trained professionals who respond quickly and calmly to protect our children.

I want to recognize this Friday, May 15th, as Bike to Work Day. Residents are encouraged to participate in Fairfax City's event in our downtown, our Alltown Square area. And I want to congratulate all of the grant recipients from the Chocolate Lovers Grant. Thank you, and have a wonderful rest of your week. Council Member Bates. I just want to wish a happy Mother's Day to all the mothers on the staff and in the community. And I also want to thank Quartzsite Thai Cuisine for their Mother's Day gifts that they provided us to give to our mothers and spouses. I thought that was a really nice touch, really nice thing for them to do. Thank you. Council Member Peterson? Well, I also wanted to belatedly wish everybody a happy Mother's Day and to say how it's hard to do enough

in terms of expressing appreciation for what our mothers have done for us. I also wanted to give a shout-out for Bike to Work Day, which is Friday. And Friday morning, there is an event that starts early. Six to nine. Six o'clock? In the morning. Bike to Work, people are biking to work. Six a.m., yes. Is it possible to ride a bicycle while you're semi-sleeping? Well, people are doing it, but there are people out there between six and nine, trust me. They're there. Well, I wanted, so it's great that this is happening, and I just wanted to add a little flavor to it because we, a year ago, several of us did a historical tour here in the city, and one of the issues that came up was what did the city look like a hundred-some years ago?

And I asked the question about bicycles, and it turns out bikes were a really, really, really big thing in 1900. And here's just a little excerpt. By 1900, cycling was at the height of a massive nationwide craze in the United States with over 1.1 million bicycles produced annually, et cetera. There were 300 firms producing bikes in the United States. That's back in 1900. So it was a very big deal. And then there are some very interesting historical parts of this to tune into. One of them from the Smithsonian, same era, how the 19th century bicycle craze empowered women in changed fashion. So there's a lot going on with bikes to think about, and hopefully the Bike to Work Day will give us even a little bit more background on bikes

and why they're so important here in the city. But this has been a big thing in the city for well over a century, so I'm delighted to see us celebrating it. Thank you. Council Member Hardy Chandler? Council Member Hardy Chandler? Apologies, but I just had this image of you riding one of those old school bikes with the big front wheel. If you show up Friday, you'll see. Yeah, I appreciate mentioning Bike to Work Day. Even if you do not feel like you're athletically inclined or capable of that sort of challenge, depending on how far your work is, I was challenged to Bike to Work and was surprised how wonderful it was to do that and really encourage people to try that. The other thing is I'm very excited about some of the collaboration members of the community

are doing to come together for a small, limited kind of pilot youth sports forum just to have conversation, find common ground, have healthy discussion about youth sports and who we want to be as a city in that regard and where we might want to go. So more to come on that. Thank you. Council Member Hall? Thank you. Oh, sorry, very loud. Yes, we were remiss last week in not wishing the mothers a happy Mother's Day. Council Member McQuillan and I spent the pouring down rain at the old Glory D.C. game. That was fun. It was actually a really, really good game. It was a lot of fun, but it was very, very wet. And I was very glad that my husband made us go back home to grab our umbrellas as it started to spit a little bit.

And I was like, but there's no rain on my phone showing. And it rained almost the entire time. So it was great. But I also, I know we've discussed the Bike to Work stuff, but I did just want to remind people of the 27th Annual Antique Car Show, which is on Saturday here at City Hall from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. My husband and I were talking about how old antique cars are, and he was like, oh, they've got to be really old. And I was like, I think, like, it's, you know, something in the 2000s now is considered an antique as far as Virginia goes. So not sure how old or how new we'll see cars, but looking forward to it nonetheless. And one thing I probably should have brought this up earlier, but I know previously we had discussed maybe consideration of changing the August recess

to a part July, part August recess, maybe starting sometime after July 4th. I recognize that is not going to happen this year, nor would I ever expect staff to change any of their things at this point in time. But I did think that maybe it was a conversation to have for later, mostly because our kids are back in school in August already. And I think sometimes the timing of these things is not great. So if you could, as council members and the mayor, think about maybe going after July 4th or, you know, a week or two later, and then a couple weeks in July, a couple weeks in August, and kind of smoosh it together, that might make more sense. But I am also very curious what existing current staff members think about that,

if that's something that is open for discussion as well. So thank you. Council Member Amos. Also giving a shout-out, late Happy Mother's Day to all the mothers. Shout-out to my mom and my suegra. I am doing a bit of merchandise representation today. I brought my clean Fairfax water bottle. If you're not familiar with clean Fairfax, I do a lot with litter prevention. They were actually some of the main advocates for the plastic bag tax with Fairfax County, if you're not familiar with them. They wanted me to specifically mention to council that they have this nifty water bottle, which also comes with another top that you can unscrew and turn into a coffee mug. And so they would love to meet with you all and get you all a water bottle.

And you don't have to file it as a gift. It's under $10. There you go. I will be pulling up to Bike to Work Day on a scooter. I was told by staff that was okay. So thank you, Chloe Ritter. Greatly appreciate that. And lots of events this weekend. See you there. Yes, there are a lot of events coming up. Thursday, George Mason University graduates. It's a huge class. Every year the class gets bigger that they graduate. But the main graduation is Thursday, followed by the different degree celebrations. I'm very pleased to have been asked to be the commencement speaker for the College of Science on Thursday. Saturday, last year they asked me to be the commencement speaker for the Sheriff's School.

So I don't know. It could be a new gig. I don't know. We'll see. It's not stand-up comedy, but who knows. Saturday is the anti-car show here. Asian Festival on Main is Sunday. And another Old Glory rugby game also on Sunday. So there's a lot going on, something for everyone. And I hope to see you all there. And with that, I'm going to adjourn this meeting at, what time is it? 11.01 p.m. on Tuesday. Thank you. Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour Pour