Music I'm going to do it. I'm going to go be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going to the beach. I'm going little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of a little bit more of I'm going to make a video about this. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm going to be and I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy. I'm not a bad guy. I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do it. I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a bad guy, I'm not a be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to be to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm gonna go back to the school I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not to do it. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. I'm not going to be a little bit more serious. Let me, um, a few minutes late. Let me welcome everybody to the 28th, meeting of the Fairfax City Council. If you please stand for the invocation presented by Councilman Stombries and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Please join me in prayer. Heavenly Father, we come to you in prayer today to seek your continued blessings for the city of Fairfax. We ask for your guidance as we deal with the challenges facing our city. And please help us do your will as we confront difficult financial times In addition, we pray for those who are serving our nation in the armed forces overseas and ask that you bring them home safely Please provide comfort to the families of those soldiers who have lost or lost their lives or been wounded in the service of our nation In your name we pray amen I pledge of allegiance to the high of the United States of America in your name we pray, amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the high of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, with one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please be seated. Thank you. Thank you. I'm actually joined here by Woody Witt and George Bondstein who are here in recognition of Substance Abuse Awareness Week. And I'd like to read the following proclamation. Whereas in the City of Fairfax, we believe in a welcoming community that creates opportunities for healthy life choices, prevention early intervention and treatment for substance use disorders, offer opportunities for a healthy, hopeful life. Whereas nearly three quarters of all Americans say substance use disorders have impacted their lives, it is critical that we raise awareness that substance use disorders are a treatable, yet serious healthcare problem. Alcohol and drug services of the Fairfax Falls Church Community Services Board treated 5,300 people in the F-Y-O-A and 20,900 participated in programs designed to prevent substance abuse. Whereas the City of Fairfax, we believe that the best response is to build a community awareness by bringing people together, unifying our efforts with a strong, proactive, and comprehensive plan of action, which includes proven models of prevention, early intervention, and treatment. Now, therefore, I, Robert F. Leterer, mayor of the City of Fairfax, and concert with the City Council on behalf of all the residents of the City of Fairfax. Do hereby proclaim October the 27th, 2008 through October the 31st, 2008, as substance abuse awareness week in the City of Fairfax, and urge all citizens to take advantage of this opportunity to gain awareness of and knowledge about the substance use disorders and to join together in our effort to create a healthy, happy and hope-filled community. And let me just say on behalf of my colleagues, thank you for both of you all and your leadership that you've done for our community in this area. Let me turn the mic over to you to say a few words. Okay, thank you. I just want to mention that sometimes this gets a shovel aside, but it's really important to be aware of substance abuse and maybe the individuals don't necessarily know it themselves, but if they can get some guidance and get into the right treatment programs, it is treatable and it's something that definitely is worth keeping aware of, particularly when we have more stress in times like we're having right now. So again, they have the City of Farrick Falls Church, Fairfax Falls Church Community Service Board, who certainly accept this proclamation. I would also like to introduce George Bronstine, who is the new director for the Fairfax Falls Church Community Service Board of the Alexa and Lou. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Whitt. And thank you, Mayor, for the proclamation. I'd like to say thank you for welcoming me into your wonderful area. I am a resident of the City of Fairfax and LaFord to let me hear for many years with my wife. Substance abuse and its prevention is extremely important to the community services board. Not only do we treat it but we look very forward to working with everyone around learning about how to prevent substance abuse both for yourselves and your loved ones, especially underage drinkers and underage users. So we are very dedicated to that. This is an annual event and we look forward to working with the City of Fairfax and its leaders to make sure the City of Fairfax has a very healthy population. So thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. That now brings us to agenda item number four, which are presentations by the public and any item related to the City Council agenda for tonight, but does not call for public hearing. Again, those are items that are on tonight's agenda but does not call for public hearing. First to sign up is Gene A.G. Mr. Mayor, I'm here to speak about on the center. And I'm wondering if this is the proper time, or if I should be waiting until the work session. No, this would be the time. Thank you. Thank you. I have copies of my remarks. Mayor Letterer and members of the City Council, my name is Jean A.G. I reside at 10912 Warwick Avenue and I am chairman of the City of Fairfax Commission on the Arts. I speak for the members of the commission who represent the various visual and performing arts groups in the city and who are unanimous in their support of my remarks. The members of the commission on the arts continue to be enthusiastic at the prospect of building a community center in the city of Fairfax. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to speak to you about the Sherwood Community Center. As you debate the configuration of the Sherwood Community Center, we recommend that you will continue to consider the original Hughes Group concept. That includes a 4,000 square foot performance room, which is more than twice the size of the first floor meeting room at the Old Town Hall, and a 1,000 square foot rehearsal room, both of which are required by the donation agreement provided by Mrs. Sherwood. Also included in this concept, where an 8-800-square-foot-art room and two small, multi-purpose rooms that could be used for rehearsals, for small ensembles, both vocal and instrumental, and play and poetry reading, as well as community meetings. This entire concept fulfills the desire of the City Council to make the first phase of the community center a home for the cultural arts. As I understand it, the most recent staff report of October 20, 2008 on the expansion of the performance space from 4,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet would require the elimination of the art space, which is a multipurpose room number one, the 500 square foot of the rehearsal room, which is multipurpose room number two, and the two smaller meeting rooms. This would cause the effectiveness of this building as an art center to be compromised. It appears that in order to meet the requirements of the agreement with which is sure would, which requires a 100 square foot rehearsal room, the staff proposal would co-locate 500 square feet from the separate rehearsal room to the performance area, and thus soundproof room dividers would be needed. However, since room dividers never seem to be sound proof, it would be difficult to use a performance area and the rehearsal area at the same time. A rehearsal room separated from the performance area as shown in the original Hughes Group concept is much preferred. It appears to me that under the staff recommendation there would still be 500 square feet of the original rehearsal space left. Thus, I believe I am correct when I say there will be two rooms left, a large performance area and a small room for community use. It is not possible for me to comment on the effectiveness of the larger performance area without information on ceiling height, acoustic treatments, stage design and mobility, and so forth until we can see an architects concept. We would be pleased to appoint a representative from the Commission on the Arts to meet with you to present the interest of the arts community in discussion pertaining to this facility. We ask that you decide to move ahead with the first concept developed by the architect. It follows the sense of the gift from Mrs. Sherwood and the original decision of the council making the first phase of the community center and arts center. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bonita Lestina. Hello, my name is Bonita Lestina. I reside at 10025 Blue Code Drive in the City of Fairfax. Thank you for this opportunity to present a continuation of my earlier testimony this month on recommendations for the new Stacey Seasurewood Community Center. The donation agreement between Mrs. Sherwood and the city on page six defines this community center as a place to be used by the members of our community for social, artistic, cultural, and recreational purposes. Given the limited size of the proposed building due to attempting to maintain the cost within the $5 million grant and the requirement for at least 4,000 square feet for music, singing, and drama. In my judgment, it is not practical to enlarge the performance space from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet without critically short-changing or eliminating the other spaces required for the cultural arts in the Sherwood Community Center. I therefore wholeheartedly support the City of Fairfax Commission on the Arts, unanimous recommendation against increasing the size of the performance space from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. Given the limited footprint within which we must operate for the $5 million grant, such a change would eliminate the effective provisions of space for the cultural arts as a whole, envisioned by the original first working draft. The existing proposed 41,000 square foot performance hall must, however, have a hardwood floor and a ceiling height as high or higher than the upstairs room in the old town hall for good acoustics. And the old town hall, the Byte comment is perhaps one of the most wonderful music and performing rooms in Northern Virginia. It's artists come in and they consider it as an instrument in itself. It is also a paramount necessity to provide a stage that is large enough to accommodate, for example, I give a visual picture of a 50 member course and a grand piano. You don't do that with a portable stage. That's a problem. Portable stage won't hold that much. An acceptable alternative would be the theater and the round approach with appropriate riser seating for the audience. The size and shape of the multipurpose room, the arch multipurpose room number one, is not appropriate for the use of tables as needed for artwork. With the intention of providing the most efficient use of our overall limited space, I have made the following specific recommendations. One, eliminate the hallway between the art multipurpose room one and the music and dance rehearsal room number two. This would widen the art of multipurpose room number one, providing appropriate space and shape of that room for folding six foot by two and a half foot tables in a six foot by five foot configuration as is often used for art classes and craft classes. And with those tables and with that size and shape room, we would have the capacity to have 24 adults in the classroom and more children and young people. As I stated in my last testimony, it is necessary to have at least two sinks and also a good exhaust system to remove the fumes associated with arts materials. Since we are working with a visual art lighting in the form of natural outdoor fluorescent light is paramount. The old days we had to have north light. Now we have light bulbs that are north light in the fluorescent fixtures. The flooring should obviously be very serviceable. Please provide parking space outside the art room for loading and unloading art materials. By eliminating that hallway the door can be in the back of that art room and so they can go in and out right from there and others can use it also. The music and dance rehearsal rooms should contain a mirrored wall with a bar and appropriate flooring and upright studio piano on wheels that can be moved from this larger room to the smaller rooms as needed needs to be recognized in the doorway size to move that piano around. The small rehearsal in practice rooms will work well for music ensembles, poetry reading, storytelling, play readings, singalons, plus many more participatory arts for all ages. Finally, I recommend consideration of a partial basement for the storage of chairs, risers, stage, electrical equipment, and so forth, as well as for custodial equipment and supplies, particularly in the women's laboratory. And the possible movement of the mechanical electrical rooms into a basement. In anticipation to win the second floor's build, I recommend at that time, an elevator and doorway, as Sarah will be added to the back of the building, similar to what was done to the existing Old Town Hall. Thank you for your kind attention. Thank you. Nobody else is pretty pleased to be signed up. When anybody likes to address the City Council, again, this is on any item that is on tonight's agenda, but does not call for a public hearing, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, council members, I'm Donald Lederer, 36-14 Embassy Lane Fairfax. I want to take a few minutes to talk about the proposed community center for Van Dyke Park. Designers, architects, engineers, and landscape architects who work with buildings in the area or land they are placed on usually have at least two things among several that can complicate their design. One is the area they have to work with may be quite difficult to work with either in size, location, or existing conditions, and not what would be desirable to work with. Two is the money they have to work with may only go as far as and they must reduce or cut back on exterior or in interior of the building they must design. I feel that the designers, Hughes Group and Lewis Skullion, Gjane and Inc. cooperated in a difficult situation have done good work. In locating the building and designing a basic building to meet the criteria that has been given them. If there are very few or no minor changes to be made or a few or additional additions or deletions to be made. I hope that you will give the consultants, use group architects, the order to proceed with detailed plans and specifications. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the City Council under this item? Mr. Dull. Jury O'Dull, 3920 Bradwater Street. I had an intended comment on this item, but between AG said something that seemed worthy of comment. So you talked about requirements or stipulations and posed by the donor on the design of the community center. And I just want you to do all in your power to comply with those. Less you be charged with each of contract and maybe or case scenario left, flitting the entire bill without her $5 million. I'm not sure if it's a car or bill without her $5 million. Anybody else like to address the city council? Hearing none, we'll close the gen 9 of number four. We'll go to a gen 9 of number five, which is the adoption of the agenda. So moved. Second. Moved by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen in any discussion. All in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and passed unanimously. G9 number 6 which is the approval of the consent agenda Mr. Greenfield. Mr. Mayor I move adoption of the consent agenda for agenda item number 6A consideration of a resolution of proving a submission to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority the FY 2010 congestion mitigation and air quality and regional surface transportation program funding applications. And for agenda item number 6A, I move to approve the suggested motion in the staff report. Second. Moved by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, discussion. Miss Cross. Ms. Cross. If I might ask Mr. Vistosa. If our project, are we allowed to drop projects out of what we had initially proposed? Yes, ma'am. We are. Yes. So we could, and would that delay the, the, the, the branding of the funds from in from the NVTA Oh if you drop one of our applications Right just doesn't get funded if but we would still have if we wanted to use all six million dollars on one project we could do that You want to just We could do that. So, right? You want to just- Rather than fund four projects, we could ask for- The- $6 million for one project. The- The funding is actually not to ask- Up to us. It's up to the region how they want to fund- And how much they want to fund each and every project. And they usually do it by priority. And in this case, our number one priority is the Cambridge Road Ethan Place project. So if the region does not have enough money and say they can allocate $500,000 to the city of Fairfax, what they would do is to allocate the entire amount of 500,000 to the first priority project, especially if what we are asking for is say 2 million, and they can only afford 5 million to allocate to the city, then the 500,000 gets allocated to the first priority. Unless the city council now changes their mind and say to the region, or number one priority, it's not this particular project, but this other project. Well, I'm a little confused. We have, it's my understanding, eligibility for $6,000,000,000. That's the total that you're applying for. That's right. That's what we've requested. That's what we've requested. And we could request that all for the project at North Facts. Is that right? Rather than the project's listed here. We could, but we will not necessarily receive $6 million, though. Even though this project is considerably more than that. Yes, ma'am. It depends on how much there's only a limited amount of funds that is allocated to the region. And seven or eight other jurisdictions are competing for this limited funds and gets allocated among all the jurisdictions. So if say there are only 10 million for the region, we can get 6 million out of the 10 million because they have to allocate priority funds to other priority projects of other jurisdictions. All right, I think I get that. Thank you. Here's what I would suggest we do. Mr. Greenfield, if you would just withdraw your approval, the consent agenda and Mr. Rasmus in your second, what is place this item on the floor now so we can have a discussion and then we can so move it. Mr. Greenfield, did you, hey, I did want to, is the member that sits on the N now so we can have a discussion and then we can so move it Mr. Greenfield did you hey I did want to is the is the member that sits on the NVTA you know I would be reluctant to put all of our eggs in one basket because given that we are competing for $6 million it's more likely that if we leave these priorities as we have as a council debated over the years requesting for funding, it's more likely that we might get a couple of these smaller projects funded than if we say, and I agree that that's a priority, but the concern is if we put everything toward item number one, which is the Chamber of Dredd, Eaton Place improvements, it's not likely given the state of affairs in the commonwealth that we'll get $6 million and we could, because we put everything in that one project, we could end up with nothing and that would be a shame when we're looking at doing some spot improvements and some intersection improvements at Fairfax Circle. I would be very concerned that we would go in that direction. So I would hope that we as a council can agree that we're going to leave this list as it is, that the request is for the $6 million to be dispersed among those four projects, and that we be able to move on to the rest of the agenda. We'll need a motion, maybe if you can read the motion so we can discuss it. I do do that. I move to approve the resolution authorizing the city manager to submit to the Noir Machine Transportation Authority, the FY 2010 congested mitigation and air quality and regional surface transportation program funding requests. Second. Moved by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, discussion. Probably already had it. So all in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and at pass, she now will see. That now brings us down to item number 7a, which is our public hearings, public hearing and council action and proposed zoning text amendment to revise the regulations with respect to fences and the R1, R2 and R3 residential districts. Is this been properly advertised? Yes. Staff report, please. Thank you very much. The issue of establishing standards for residential fences and particularly for tall front yard fences has been something that's been discussed periodically in the city over the past several years. The issue has come up again in recent times for scrutiny again since several new tall fences have been erected. And this summer, City Council had initiated a text amendment to examine establishing appropriate standards for fences in single-family residential districts. This is the ordinance that we're discussing tonight. The ordinance has been drafted, has gone through a hearing process at Planning Commission, Planning Commission, held a work session and a full public hearing on this ordinance during the summer. And the resulting ordinance is included as the revised ordinance in your packet. holding ordinances included as the revised ordinance in your packet. Now fences are an important part of a residential landscape. It's our estimation that about one-third to one-half of all single-family houses in the city have some sort of fencing on their lots. And the fences provide for some very important elements that homeowners tend to value. For example, safety fences, when talking about safety and fences, safety tends to refer to keeping things in children and pets, et cetera, can provide for privacy or sometimes simply aesthetic improvements on a property or to mark a boundary. In a residential setting, fences give homeowners greater use of their yards. There's a great variety of styles and placement for fences that you'll notice if you go around the city and look at fences in yards, front yard fences, side yard fences, rear fences, fences that are open, closed, et cetera. And in drafting this ordinance, we were mindful to take into account all of the uses that homeowners tend to have for fences and make sure the reasonable use is, of course, accounted for. Now many folks are surprised to learn that the city has very few standards on residential fences. There's a building permit requirement for fences that exceed six feet in height. As far as zoning requirements, there's very very few fences that are located on corner lots have to abide by a visual clearance requirement just to ensure that pedestrians or vehicles approaching the intersection can see each other. Other than that, there's no limitation on height, and there's no distinction between different placements of fences between front yard, rear yard, et cetera. This proposed ordinance proposes some amount of regulation mostly in regards to height. Now, we've made an effort to keep the amount of regulation to a minimum in this ordinance and for two main reasons. First, there's somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,000 houses on single-family lots in the city. If you think a third to a half of them have fences and we get very, very few complaints on fence issues. So we would rather not apply a very stringent regulation to an issue that really hasn't been that big of a problem numerically for the city. In addition, the more stringent fence regulations get, the more necessary it becomes to establish some sort of a permitting or an application process for homeowners to or raptor maintain a fence. And that's something we would like to avoid for a few reasons. For one, it's very staff intensive and resource intensive. And we think that fence regulation could be better served by a simpler process that targets the, I guess, the more egregious examples of what people tend not to like. So for these reasons, this ordinance that we're discussing tonight addresses mostly height, not style, or some of the other issues regarding fences. The main features of the ordinance, and we'll go into these in a little bit more detail, the main features of the ordinance is setting a height limit for front yard fences of four feet. The four foot limit would also apply to side yards of corner lots. And this issue of corner lots really provided the most discussion and continues to do so when we were going through the planning commissions. We'll go into this in a little bit more detail. when we were going through the planning commissions, we'll go into this in a little bit more detail. For your rear and side yard standards, established as a seven foot height limit, which is noted in the revised ordinance, and also accounts for a special exceptions process, recognizing that there are a lot of different circumstances on properties in the city. We'll go through each of these in a little bit of detail. First, the front yard standards. This has been seen as really the most pressing issue in fence regulation, and particularly the issue of tall fences along front lotlines. Now, there's not a whole lot of these in the city. My guess is there might be a dozen to no more than 20 in the city. Their small number, they tend to jump out in proportion to their size because they're right there on the street. And the majority of complaints that we get about fences tend to be about homeowners who were wrecked, tall fences right in front of their house. This here is four examples of tall front yard fences. And the common complaint about these fences is that they tend to create what folks call a fortress like or a compound like environment, which tends to be not really in keeping with what folks see as being the aesthetics of the city. It was staff's opinion and it was planning commission's opinion that in front yard, in front yards, shorter fences can be functional and can be visually less sub-trusive than taller fences. Front yards are very important to the community appearance because they really create the extended open space that folks tend to expect. Again, the ordinance proposes a four foot height limit for fences in front yards. Now, for rear yards, rear yards, of course, are different than front yards. They are considered much more private and are used differently. You know, you don't see a swing set or a barbecue in someone's front yard where obviously you do in rear yards. It was planning commissions recommendation, and again, this is in the revised packet that the height limit for rear yards and side yards be 7 feet. And again, this includes side yards being up to the front building line of the house. Now, that's front yards and rear yards. These standards for front yards and rear yards appear straightforward, but there's been considerable discussion about what to do where these areas intersect and specifically on corner lots. And I'll go into that in a little bit more detail here. Now, to illustrate this issue, we can look at the area that I have here. And what we had just talked about concerning front yards and rear yards can be illustrated in the light green and dark green. It essentially sets fencing areas, an area of a property where a taller fence, taller than four feet, can be permitted by right. And for these lots, that's behind the house. Again, it's fairly straightforward for interior lots that are square or rectangular in dimension. When you get to corner lots, it's a little bit more complicated. The Planning Commission's preference was to treat corner lots similarly to interior lots, saying that the side yard treat corner lots similarly to interior lots, saying that their side yard of corner lots is essentially treated as a front yard for fence purposes. It already is for other zoning purposes. Now the reason this was an issue at all is these side yards tend to be used by people more like rear yards, but tend to be seen from the road more as front yards because they're right on the road more as front yards because they're right on the road with visibility. And this area in the red is what we're talking about, whether to consider this for fence purposes, part of the short fence, forefoot area, or the taller fence by right area. Now the Planning Commission reviewed three options in considering where to place the limits here. And all three options have to deal with what kind of setback, if any, to apply two fences specifically in this red area, going from no setback to a setback at the building line. And we'll go over these three very briefly. Each has its advantages and disadvantages. What we call option A here is really the most permissive and it says for all of this area on corner lots extending from the side of the house down to the side street that taller fences may be permitted by right. Option B scales that back a little bit and places some sort of a setback on by-right fences that are on the side yards of corner lots. Option C, and this is, again, what was favored by Planning Commission, it treats side yards similarly to front yards and says, up to the side of the house, that there is permitted a four-foot fence, but taller fences must be behind the building wall in this case, behind the side building wall. Again, this is consistent with the remainder of the zoning ordinance. And I should note, as well, one of the items the Planning Commission had considered is that for folks who have some kind of been extenuating circumstances where they really feel that they need a taller fence in their side yards, we do have a special exception process. So for properties of an unusual configuration or some other characteristic, planning commission considered it important that they be able to be heard in a special exception process through the Port of Zoning Appeals. Now, I think it's helpful to look at what these three options look like on the ground. These are two options, each of A, B, and C on the left are 12 fences on corner lots that are right up against the property line, right up against the sidewalk. The center column has tall fences that are set back to some degree from the street between the street and the house. And option C on the right are tall fences that are moved back to the building line. And again, just to keep in mind it's this option C on the right that was planning commissions preference for by-right fencing. keep in mind it's this option C on the right that was planning commission's preference for by-right fencing. Now moving on from the tall corner lot fence issue, as if that wasn't complicated enough, that deals with lots that are standard in size that are square or rectangular. Clearly in the city we have a lot of lots that are non-standard in some kind of configuration. And I'll go into that briefly because there's quite a lot of these properties out there, and we want to see how they're being accommodated. In a standard corner lot, like the one that showed here, people tend to think of the front yard as being in front of the house. The front yard from a zoning perspective actually wraps around the house and includes the side yard as well, like we had discussed. Now, on unusual shaped lots, it gets a little bit more complicated. The lot on the bottom left, for instance, is essentially a triangular shaped lot. The zoning ordinance can be interpreted, basically, to say that this house is almost all front yard. Similarly, the house on the right, which is in country club hills, is a house that's on a rectangular lot, but the placement of the house, I'm sorry, is such that again, the house is almost all front yard. Now, this ordinance deals with these types of issues in two ways. First, we take some of the more common non-standard law configurations, and we illustrate it in the ordinance exactly what is permitted by a set of regulations that tries to keep it more or less similar to our rectangular laws. And second, we have that special exception process, and that's an important safety valve for the substantial number of properties that are of an unusual configuration, and that the property owners may require something that's in excess of what we consider for a standard lot. So just to give you some indication as to what we're talking about, here's two examples of some kind of unusual lots. The House on the right is a diagonal house. There's a lot of these in the city. They give this only ordinance a tough time figuring out exactly what the front is. And what we say in cases where the house is situated diagonally is that the tall fencing area can come up to what we call the nearest point of the house to the street and extend parallel to the road to the side lot line. And that again is similar to how it would be treated if the house was situated at a right angle like a standard house. Again, the same principle can be applied to the House on the left, taking the nearest point of the House and extending parallel to the street outward. And again, we say above and beyond this, that the special exception process can provide relief in cases of unusual lock configuration. And these examples are illustrated in the zoning ordinance to make it little bit easier for folks to understand rather than having to, you know, go through all of the zoning text. Now, there is one type of unusual lot that does receive special consideration in the ordinance. There are some lots where the rear of the house faces another road. Sometimes these are called through lots. But in this ordinance, the rear lots of these houses are treated similar to rear lots of other houses, saying that taller fences are permitted in the rear lots here, even though they do back up to a road. Now during our planning commission meetings, we talked at some detail about the technicalities of measuring fence height. I'll go into this in a little bit of detail here, measuring height, which of course is the critical element in this ordinance. Measuring height for a fence is a little bit more complicated than folks tend to think. It's similar to measuring height for a building. It seems easy, but when you figure in all the odd things that goes on with fences and with topography, it becomes a little bit more difficult. How we measure it is from the top of the fence to the ground directly beneath the fence. So we don't measure it from the street, don't measure it from the sidewalk or the house. All types of fences are included as similar as far as height. Goes doesn't depend on opacity. And decorative elements, such as fence posts, are exempt to a normal degree. I think they're permitted to be a foot taller than the fence itself just to permit some kind of architectural interest. There's lots of other issues with fence heights. Some of them deal with the placement of fences, fences that are stepped up such as this example on the right here. The ordinance sets a maximum height for fences, not an average height. So fences that are stepped up in this way will have to meet the maximum height at the maximum point rather than taking an average of all the pickets. Some of the undulating fence designs which have become very popular. Lately, again, we set a maximum fence height for it rather than taking an average of the pickets and that sets the maximum, like, showing on the screen. And it's more straightforward. It is possible to get fences to meet these standards from standard fence suppliers. So it doesn't impose an undue restriction on homeowners. And one final element to the height measurement is we have added a discretion of 10 percent in fennside. Now, that means that a fence can exceed by 10 percent the maximum that we're saying. And the reason is that you freak. We don't want to become the iron-boot defense enforcement. If a fence exceed is four-foot-two inches in a front yard because the ground is washed away underneath it. And this is something that happens quite a bit. We want to be able to say, you know, that's OK. So we've built in a 10% buffer on approval of the zoning administrator if it happens to become a problem, just to make sure that we don't get on people's cases unnecessarily since fences do come in standard heights and makes it much more realistic on folks. Now, another issue regarding fence height is fences on top of retaining walls. Fences on top of retaining walls can be seen as being just a very tall fence. If you have a six-foot fence on top of a four-foot retaining wall from the street, that can appear as a 10-foot fence. There's a safety issue with this. So you want fences next to retaining walls because you don't want kids or anyone else to walk off and get injured. So what we've said is that fences are permitted on top of retaining walls. Fences will be measured separately if they're on top of retaining walls, except if the fence is built into the wall itself. In that case, it appears from the road as one single unified structure, which appears much taller. And in that case, the fence would have to be placed behind the retaining wall ever so much and not be a single structure. Now, there are a few additional items that have come up that I just want to touch on briefly. One question that's come up is whether the city should regulate plantings in addition to fences as far as height or opacity. The ordinance does not recommend regulating plantings for a few reasons. For one, landscaping really gives a softer appearance even when it comes to buffering than fencing does. The examples here are both houses on Main Street. The house on the left uses a tall privacy fence up against the street. The house on the right uses a shorter fence along with tall landscaping. And most folks tend to think that the house on the right uses a shorter fence along with tall landscaping, and most folks tend to think that the House on the right has an appearance that's really more in keeping with folks tend to expect as far as the residential nature of their neighborhoods. And there's also the enforceability issue with landscaping, landscaping obviously grows, and it's much more complicated to set a terminal hike for plain things than it is for fences, which jump low. Another issue that has come up is that of walls, whether to treat residential walls such as these, similar or different to fencing. Walls are treated like fences in this ordinance, and tall walls such as these, which run along the front property line, would be subject to the special exception requirement similar to tall fences. And that brings me to the special exceptions. As I've said before, we have included a special exception process for a board of zoning of preels review. This takes into account some of the unusual things that comes up on properties. Either unusual topography, unusual house settings, like we had talked about before, a house that would border a non-residential property. For example, a school or a government use or some kind of a commercial property, or a residential property different than a single family house. If your house backs up to a bunch of apartments, you probably want a little bit more privacy than could otherwise be the case. Could account for heavy traffic volume, unusual fence design, et cetera. And this is really an important part of the element, because once again, it acts as sort of a safety valve for unusual or extenuating circumstances. Now, some things that the ordinance does not interfere with, does not interfere with the existing visual clearance requirements that I had discussed before, would not interfere with homeowners' associations, or civic associations, if those associations in single-family neighborhoods wish to impose their own fence requirements that are more stringent than ours. Would not interfere with safety issues such as necessary retaining walls, et cetera, swimming pools, childcare, government uses, or construction sites. care government uses or construction sites. And finally, with one question that comes out repeatedly, will existing fences be permitted to remain? In this ordinance, we treat existing fences similar to existing elements elsewhere in the zoning ordinance. These fences, as long as they were lawful at the time of installation, will be permitted to remain on their properties and will not be subject to a type of abatement. A abatement time frame from the city, the thought would be expensive for the homeowners, expensive for the city and not really what's being called for here. And that summarizes the major issues of the offense ordinance. So I'd be happy to answer any questions you all might have. Mr. Grinfeld. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Foreman, thank you. You did a spectacular job. You're rarely before, so it's nice to have you here this evening. Thank you. A few questions. The first one is more I'm sure an oversight and that is I didn't notice in here the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting, so the council is not afforded an opportunity to take a look at the dialogue that may have occurred or any input from the community was at an oversight or? That was an oversight we can provide that to you. The revisions were really twofold. One was the corner lots, the tall fences on corner lots. The initial draft that came out of the planning of the City Council initiation recommended, and I'll go back here. Recommended what we call option A, being the most permissive regulation as far as toll fences and corner lots, saying that tall fences could come right out to the lot line on the side of a house. The planning commission considered that and the other two options and settled on option C, saying that tall fences can come up to the building line by right and of course with a special exception given extenduating circumstances can come farther. The reason for this is that they considered the aesthetic improvement as viewed from the street to be paramount that it was felt that folks did not like the view of tall fences being close to the road, whether it was that tall fence was in front of the house or on side of the house, whether it was that tall fence was in front of the house or on the side of the house, that that presented the same aesthetic component. Can you pull up option B, former? Sure. Option B is a sort of a compromise between the two of them and it can set any sort of a setback. Now, what we have here is a setback that's half the distance to the house. But the setback can be a set number of feet, 10 feet, 6 feet, et cetera. It can be something like this, which is half the distance to the house. But it gives somewhat of a green space between the fence and the road, but still permits tall fencing, you know, privacy fencing, other side yards to a limited degree. I mean, option, and we can certainly debate this at some point. I mean, option C, in my mind, is much more restrictive for a property owner. I mean, if a homeowner has kids, and they want to be able to use their backyard, and they want to be able to let the kids play and not have to worry about them, you really restrict their ability to use their property by doing option C than option B. And I mean, you know, fences aren't cheap. You know, you can spend a lot of money. And I guess this whole thing, I've got some other questions, but this whole thing, it seems like the real issue is front yards. Maybe a little bit of the side yard if you're on a corner. But otherwise, I mean, somebody wants to spend the money to build a fence in their backyard. Why should we want to regulate that? That's right. I just, I don't get that piece of it. I mean, the time I've sat up here, I've heard from one person that was concerned in the neighborhood that built, somebody built a six foot fence all the way out to the property line, put it across their driveway, and it completely changed the look of the street. And in that case, I absolutely agree. But if you want to do something in your backyard, I mean, this is still Virginia. We still do have property rights, and I just think we have a concern. Let's address the concern and not go too far with a lot of these other options. But a couple other questions. The special exception is through all this is an administrative process except for the appeal which would go to the BZA. This isn't something that's going to come before the Council or it is. No, that's correct. It's all administrative except, as you said, for the special exception that would go through the BZA. Okay. The other thing I would just caution you on, I think that you referenced in here, is that civic associations have the ability to regulate what goes on. That actually is not true. They have no legal authority, only in HOA in Virginia has the ability to require and supersede what a locality might require for fencing requirements because you sign those documents and they are part of your deed before you ever move into that property. A civic association is all voluntary. So I would just caution you on maybe correcting that and making sure that, you know, that process is still intact and isn't going to be included in this. Thank you for that clarification. I misspoke with that. I intended to say the Homeowners Association and the current rules would stay in place and would not be affected by this if a Homeowners Association intends to pursue this. And then the last thing, and I'm pretty sure this is, as I look through this, the other regulatory options are available for our consideration of those areas of concern that we feel we should address, but from what I can tell, or not part of what the new ordinance would be. That's correct. We wanted to give you all some kind of an indication of some of the other options that are out there and other zoning ordinances. They tend to be things that we did not feel were appropriate for us in the city, but figured it was, you know, from an academic standpoint just to see what other communities are doing. Okay. That was the purpose. Thank you, Mr. Restmossal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to go back to Mr. Greenfield's point about homeowner associations and civic associations. It may not be civic associations, but areas in the city that have covenants, which are not homeowner of association, can impose, can they not, Mr. Lovica, Leipcaman, can impose requirements on fences? Yes, again, as long as the property is subject to a restrictive covenant that addresses fences, that's true. If you already live somewhere, though, and retroactively imposing a covenant would require the consent of the property owners. Right. Right. So civic associations and homeowners in areas with civic associations do have some, if they want to exercise it, through covenants, can exercise control over fences? If it's approved by the majority of the home. Right. If it's either part of the existing covenants or if it's through an amendment to the covenants in whatever process that might be. Right. And what I just want to make sure that you can't go retroactive just by a majority vote, the actual landowner, homeowner, what would have to agree to a change in the covenants that came with home? Every neighborhood, including the HOAs, have procedures for amendments, some of them are two-thirds of requirements, some of them are three-quarter requirements, whatever the the the documents governing that particular neighborhood or HOA for example contain. I get HOA, Cobbdale's the civic association. Right. Unless there are covenants is on some properties in Cobbdale.O.A. Cobbdale's a civic associate. Right. And there are covenants on some properties in Cobbdale. Right. But if the Cobbdale civic association got together and decided that they want to impose additional restrictions on fences, for example, they couldn't just arbitrary go back to those properties without their mutual agreement and let us know that it's correct. By majority vote, a covenant. That is correct. Okay. Other questions of staff? The last question I had was it seems interesting to me that the counsel would set this policy and felt that it was to the level of that, but we're going to give the responsibility of special exceptions, which counsels dealing special exceptions all the time to the BZA. Is that a legal requirement or would wide BZA versus the City Council? And my concern is I'm not sure we want an appointed body to be dictating an issue in a variance of a council policy, whatever that may end up doing. And I was curious how we ended up with the BZA versus the City Council. I think, and I'd like to get some clarification from Mr. Lovecomin, but I think it can go either way that we can direct the special exception to the City Council. If that's what City Council desires, is that correct? Right. So why did it go to the BZA in the strike? It was our consideration here that it's more of a zoning matter similar to what the BZA typically handles. We're also not sure of the quantity of special exceptions that we would get from this. We didn't want to overwhelm the City Council with a whole lot of offensive approvals. Well, I mean, it just seems to me you struck, you started out by saying this whole thing is going to apply to a very few numbers of people, and then the people that we be applying for a special exception will only be cornered a lot of people or people with some other exception. It doesn't seem. I'm still struggling with why we would want to delegate that to a pointed body as opposed to a political body. I don't have any any problem with delegating it to the City Council. If that's the wish. As far as the quantity, the best guidance that I can give on the quantity as far as corner lots is it's our estimate that there's approximately 100 houses in the city. This is a very wide estimate. About 100 or so houses that are on corner lots and have tall fences being over 4 feet tall, closer to the street than the side of the house. Now, we came to that number just by surveying a few neighborhoods and multiplying that over the building. And they would all be grandfathered. They would all be grandfathered. They would all be grandfathered. But that gives you some kind of an indication as far as folks on corner lots and the propensity to erect taller fences. And that's just the corner fence issue. This is kind of less than did you want to? Just to clarify why we put in the draft that the Board of Zoning Appeals could hear this, they currently hear special exceptions for invariances for setbacks on the actual structure. The house, sheds, things like that. This seemed to be a natural extension of that. Any other questions or staff? Thank you very much. Harry Nama, I'll open the public hearing. Nobody has previously signed up when anybody would like to address the City Council Mr. Adele I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can do that. I'm not sure if I can There's this matter of vegetation that was raised. There are a lot of places where there's vegetation that interferes with visibility. I don't know about Virginia in California where I lived a long time before I came here. You couldn't put plants or trees in a certain distance of a corner if the height of them would have struck the vision of drivers approaching the intersection. And we have a similar kind of thing coming into play here and everywhere, but two places that I find particularly offensive because I encounter them a lot. And I have called both of them to your attention at least once before over the years are the southern entrance to Ferris City Mall. And I don't know the name of the mall by K-Mark, there's a McDonald's there. And between that McDonald's and the big shopping center to its north, in both cases, both places, there is a parkway. And the vegetation therein, often throughout the course of the year, obstructs vision creating a need to drive excessively slow in order to be certain that it's safe to proceed. Thank you. Anybody else like to address the City Council? I mean, none because of public hearing. I'll place it in the hands of the council. I'm going to ask a question here of staff before we get to the chair. If we wanted to move in the direction of option B, dealing with corner lots, the concern with front yards is no more than a four foot fence. But then we leave rear lots alone. What is the best way to, I'm not comfortable trying to do that tonight, but if staff is comfortable, we can provide that direction and you can make those changes and we can adopt the ordinance. Or do you feel that if it's the will of the council to move in that direction that you would prefer to clean up the ordinance and then come back to us again with a clean coffee for us to approve. Let me make sure I understand. You're talking about going toward option B, which is some kind of a distance halfway on corner lots. On corner lots, that's correct. Crop should be that you would apply to corner lots. Okay. And corner lots, as we noted earlier, traditionally, have two front yards. Right. This would give them a semi-side yard and a little bit of option. One thing that you'd have to determine, and we could do this and just be done, you could say those need to be set back half the distance to the plane of the house. And that would take care of option B and we could put that language in and move forward. Okay. And now how do you deal with a property that isn't a corner lot that wants to put offense in the front yard? That would be a four foot no, smaller than a four foot fence that would go back. Correct. And in corner lots you could put four foot fences all the way around. Right. I know. I'm trying to, there's three, there's three properties here. There's a corner lot. There's an interior lot. You want to have a front yard fence. And then there's an interior lot that you want to have a rear fence that you're now proposing to add restrictions. And the interior lot, you would be able to have a four foot fence in the front yard. That is from the front plane of the house all the way around the front from their back you could have a seven foot fence that's how it reads currently. I guess I would I would move for option B that applies to a corner lot and an interior lot you have the ability in the front yard to do a four foot fence out to the front of the property, whatever that Lemon egg out to the sidewalk is that yes, that would be that's currently how it reads right and then there would be no Restriction on a fence in a rear yard for an interior lot correct, so no there would be a restriction up to seven feet right up to seven feet. Right. Up to seven feet in height for rear yards of interior lots. Right. That's what you're suggesting. Yes, that's right. We wouldn't have a height limit. Okay. I mean, is I'm listening to you? The issue really deals with a corner lot and maybe an interior lot with a front yard that wants to put a fence and how tall do we want that fence to be. We really are getting too many complaints if any about what exists currently with rear yards. So if we're not, why do we want to impose a condition on somebody that says, suppose they want to put an eight foot fence and they want to landscape it. They might spend, depending on the size of your yard, they might spend $20,000 or $30,000 to do that. If that's what they want to do, isn't it their right, would they are properly? I subject it is. So I guess I'm trying to figure out the way to put a motion on the floor here tonight that deals with a corner lot issue in the front yard and we don't have any restrictions on a rear yard. You can certainly move to pass the ordinance removing all references to any limitations in the rear yard and going for option B in the front yard? I am. Okay. Before we discuss, I need to get a motion on the floor. I could just to keep somebody just so we can get a motion in seconded. Let me try to weave through this. I moved the interest of the public health safety and welfare of the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amendment chapter 110 zoning of the code of the City of Fairfax Virginia specifically, Article 1, Section 110-4, and Article 2, Division 1, Section 110-37, to add standards regarding the heightened placement of fences located on properties within the R1, R2, and R3 zoning districts, and to strike any reference to requirements for height limits for fences in rear yards, interior lots with rear fences. I'm trying to work through this here and make sure we're clear. Adopt option B that deals specifically with corner lots and to allow as required or is recommended a four foot fence for an interior lot in the front yard. And would be part of that motion that on option B it would be half the distance to the house from the property line. Yeah, that's I thought that was clear from what she just described. I think that yes, we had said earlier you could do a set limit of feet, but you know, it may make more sense. Okay. Facially damn after would you include that? I would have to make sure option B a reflux half the distance. Okay. Let's see if I can get a second. Okay. Dice for a lack of a second. We're going to need a motion, then. Mr. Rasmussen. Smaire, I'm moving in the interest of the public health safety and welfare of the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending chapter 110 zoning of the cover of the City of Air Pikes, Virginia, specifically Article 1, Section 110-4, and Article 2, Division 1, Section 110, and Ash 37, to add standards regarding the height and placement of fences located and out properties within the R1, 2, and 3 zoning districts. Thank you. It's been moved and by Mr. Rasmussen, seconded by Mrs. Cross discussion. Mr. Rasmussen. seconded by Mrs. Cross discussion. Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, let me hit two areas. Mr. Greenfield makes an important point about homeowners and property owners' rights. But I think we can set standards and controls on such things as fences to maintain some sort of control over the aesthetics of a community. And so I think having a seven foot limit on the size of the fence is reasonable. On the issue of the corner lots and as somebody who owns a corner lot home, I've been through this many, many times. And I'm never quite sure whether I'm in compliance or not compliance when I have put up and taken down fences. But I do think even though option C is restrictive, I think from the standpoint of the entire community, option C is the better approach and I would urge going with option C. Let me say Miss Cross, the second did you want to comment or? I just want to get, excuse me. I wanted to compliment the staff on the presentation. You organized this so well, it's very easy to read through and identify what the issues were. The matter of this option, AB or C, could you go over one more time for me, the option C? Certainly. Option C. And it's illustrated here. Option C treats the side yard of a corner lot, just like a front yard of any lot. Now, the reason be, it's too fold. And the complicated issue and the reason that the Planning Commission had considerable discussion and that you all have in considerable discussion is that people tend to use, as Councilman Green et cetera. People on the street tend to view those lots as front yards because they're on the street. So that's the difficulty. The Planning Commission faced. Option C said and the zoning ordinance for issues such as setbacks and whatnot. For corner lots, the zoning ordinance says that a corner lot has two front yards. So this is really keeping in consistency with the zoning ordinance, which is something that the Planning Commission had favored, and it gives way to the aesthetic appeal of not seeing fences from the street over the right of people to enclose their side yards with privacy fences. So, option C is what's illustrated here. It keeps by-right tall fences at the building line or behind as opposed to the illustrated here which brings it out a little bit farther. The by-right tall fencing area brings that a little bit farther into the side yard or A here brings it out to the street. Thank you. I would agree with Mr. Grasmson after that review. I think that probably is the most reasonable approach. I think what hasn't quite been verbalized as yet, but certainly is my opinion that we need to be very careful about over-regulation of our neighborhoods and our fencing and you name it. It's, we are not an HOA and I think we need just the basic framework of regulation and leave the, our HOAs and neighborhood associations to, if not require, suggest what's appropriate for their neighborhood. So I think we need to be very, very minimalistic in our approach to this. And I think this proposal, as you have presented it, would do that. Thank you. We have tried to be as minimalistic as we could. Now, this slide that's up here now, it just in just for the benefit of all of us who are trying to decide the best course of action here, the question kept coming up, well, what do people actually do? I mean, here we have a situation right now where you could build anything anywhere. So, what do people do? Is this new, I mean, we're in the comment council. Yes. Comments by counsel. So why don't you hold off in that and see if, is there any other discussion on the motion, Mr. Greenfield? The only thing I would remind my colleagues, and I'm the one that led the charge on this, you know, we require businesses to separate between commercial and residential properties. We require them to construct an eight-foot fence. And it can be as nice as having brick pillars and board-on-board fencing as typically what we do with landscaping on both sides, but we're telling a homeowner that wants to spend money to improve their property. And I don't, I'm not critical of what you presented to us. I think now it's in our hands to decide what's too much and what's not. My option was to try to strike a balance between where we were, what the concerns were, and addressing those concerns, but going too far and looking at some of the other things. So I just find it ironic that we really have a double standard here, an eight foot fence in some areas, and then no more than a seven foot fence and others. You know, if we want to separate this out, I can support it, but I'm afraid I can't support this if it goes forward with restrictions on fences in the back. Thank you. Any other comments? I think it's important to note that the crux of this discussion is corner residential lots. So, Mr. Greenfield's comments about eight-foot fence on commercial property are not necessarily with limited exceptions, germane to the issue that we're discussing right now. And his comment that people are gonna spend money to improve their lot, well, one person's improvement is not necessarily another person's improvement. If you're another residential owner sharing that property line and someone wants to improve their yard, but putting a seven foot fence on a corner lot, and you're the property owner next to it that might not necessarily be seen as an improvement. This is an issue that the people are going to reasonably disagree on and it's not going to satisfy everyone. I think that the efforts of the planning commission and staff to come up with a reasonable compromise approach is commendable. I can't remember how many sites you surveyed, but it was pretty extensive. And imagine, I can only imagine the amount of time it took to actually do the surveys and then extrapolate from that how many actual corner lots there are in the city and then come up with percentages, that's quite a bit of work. It's very helpful. I think the council here is spending 30, 40 minutes on an issue that the planning commission and the staff spent considerably more amount of time on it and I give a reference to the recommendation and would support the motion that's before the council. Mr. Greenfield. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to try one more time here to offer a substitute motion if I can. If we do option C for corner lots, we do for interior lots, the forefoot that I discussed earlier. In those interior lots, we have no restrictions for a rear fence. So it follows, it follows for those of my colleges to make sure it follows the planning commission suggestion for corner lots. Does not have a restriction for rear fences because that's not an issue according to the staff presentation. It allows a four foot fence for an interior lot in the front yard. So the main difference would be taking out the seven foot restriction and making an unrestricted on interior lots in the back. Correct. Second. Okay. So we now have a substitute motion. It was been moved by Mr. Greenfield. Seconded by Mr. Stombries. We'll now be discussing the substitute motion. Comments. I think I've said enough here. Mr. Stombries. I just want to point out the fact that I agree. The issue we set out to deal with was the front yard, I believe, option C, was the best approach developed. And I don't think we need to deal with an issue that hasn't been raised. So that's why second and option. Okay, so what we have is a substitute motion that basically is the original motion minus the seven foot restriction on the height and allowing it to be unlimited in the rear yard for interior lots. There's moved in second, is there any more discussion on the substitute motion? If not, all in favor of the substitute motion, vote signified by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? No. No. And it was a vote of two, four, and three against Mr. Steinberg's Mr. Greenfield four. So now we're back to the original motion. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? No. And it passed by a vote of three to two with Mr. Meyer, Mr. Rasmussen, and Mrs. Cross in the affirmative. Okay. That now brings us down to item number seven B, which is a public hearing appropriation resolution, the amount of $115,000. For the parking lot preparations at the 11 of school side, has been properly advertised? Staff report, please. For the construction of George Mason Boulevard, a temporary staging area, feeding the Fairfax County School Board requirements, was required to be constructed to temporarily house 57 Fairfax County school buses, approximately 20 of their personal vehicles, funds requested tonight are to pay for the materials and the electrical services used to construct the staging area. Questions of staff. Seven one question you said 57 is that what the agreement I thought the agreement was 50 buses. Well we met with the school board representative. They have 57 buses there. Okay, but we have an agreement, a legal agreement that captured, I thought at 50. Is that not correct? Yeah, I think the number of the agreement speaks to how many we have to relocate. If we relocate, I don't know. I'll top my head. The number that was there originally. Okay. There are not any other questions or staff. The CIS of Public Hearing, nobody has previously seen that. Would anybody like to address the City Council on this item? Mr. O'Rill. Cheerio, do you have any address? I made some margin on this item which I can't even find. If you guys bought this property from the county, the school system, whatever, so that you could have control over it, how is it that now you are continuing to use it the way you used to before? It's one thing to Develop it eventually in a way that satisfies you but but if you bought it, why isn't it yours to do with what you want? Remember some people were here last meeting complaining about the noise. Now, if they were putting up with that noise for years, I'm not quite sure why they complain about it now. But maybe they're using a reasoning now, and it's ours to do with what we will. Remember, they talked us, including some of you at the Dias, into consolidating four elementary schools into two. Complaining they did that our schools were among the smallest in the county. Well, I just heard school board members of our city say recently that now our two schools are among the very largest. Thank you, everybody. Anybody else like to address City Council on this item? Erie, none. We'll close the public hearing. I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Mayor. I'm Miss Cross. I move to adopt an appropriation resolution in the amount of $115,000 for the construction of the temporary school bus parking lot at the former 11-Oaks school property. Second. Moved by Miss Cross, seconded by Mr. Meyer, any debate. All in favor of the motion signified by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and it passed unanimously. That now brings us down to item number nine, which are presentations by the public and any item that is not on tonight's agenda. Mr. Don Letterhead signed up, I think he probably covered it under his earlier comments. I don't see him here. So nobody else has previously I'd like to urge everybody listening, especially if you go to something called a synagogue or a church, that you persuade your pastor to require everyone who comes to preside over a service this weekend before the election next Tuesday. You urge them to speak from the pulpit about religion and politics, and that your name names. By the first 150 years of our country, most of the politicians were the pastors, and they freely spoke from the pulpit, and Lyndon Baines Johnson, who didn't like being criticized by Christians for his womanizing gave us 503C. Well, 30 pastors in 22 states about a month ago decided they would tell the IRS where to go. And they got an appropriate and they talked about issues. And I'd ask you to ask your pastor, if you're Catholic, particularly, to preach on the moral principles for voting properly in accordance with your faith. There are several websites you can go to to get voting records, but in the meantime, since the liberal media won't tell you what you need to know, I recommend strongly, at this 11th hour, that you find, if you don't already. Two nins at WMAL Monday through Fridays. This plant from 9 to 11.45 am, Rush Limbaugh 12 to 3. Sean Hannity 3 to 6 pm, Mark Levin, 68 pm, Austin Hill, not quite as good as the rest, 8 to 10 PM. And that's AM630, WMAO. On AM570WTNT, you can find Laura Ingram 9 to 12. Crowley, I'm better at names. There's a woman on at 3 PM starting 3, who threw out some real bombshells playing past recordings of Obama's speeches going back 10 years proving this guy is a socialist who attends to overthrow the Constitution as well as this McCain has been saying on the campaign trail, redistribute your wealth by giving it to people who don't even pay any taxes. The, um, you can go to cc.org, Christian Coalition.org, use the letters, not the full name, or egalform.org, or priest for life.org. If that org doesn't workTry.com. There's a particular legal form about Barack Obama's book, Audacity of Hope, which when you get through reading you'll agree with the conclusion that should be called Audacity of Hate. The guy admits to studying under radicals, I don't have the name's handy, too many papers to shuffle here. Well-known black radicals and he cites them with great pride. And he hates whites. He even hates his white grandmother for complaining that the man who accosted her and took after she gave him. There's no room for personal attacks here. Can you stick to the point in terms of issues of importance in this community? to the point in terms of issues of importance in this community. The, I'm just giving you facts that are found in Obama's book. He was upset with his grandmother, not because she was upset at being accosted, but because she was frightened of the man at the cost of her. He took offense that the fact that the man was black, which had nothing to do with being accosted and robbed, as for more money after you give a dollar frequently demanded that you give more money. All right, so that it pleased the court. How much time do I have to remain? On ChristianColvician.org, you can find that Obama and McCain are listed on 16 issues, the first 14 of which they disagree on. What are they? Education, voucher, sex education, increased federal income taxes, appointing judges that will adhere to restrictive interpretation of the Constitution, further restrictions on the right to keeping bear arms, public funding of abortions, parental notification of abortions, legislation, mandate, and health care for instance for surviving abortions, granting sexual preference, protected minority status, under existing civil rights law, allowing adoption of children by homosexual. Prohibiting public funding of art that is pornographic or anti-religious tax greatest for purchasing private health insurance, allowing federal funding for health based charitable organizations. Mr. O'Pamma, is that the end of my time? Thank you, Mr. O'Dow. Anybody else like to address the city council? If you'd like to give me more time, I. Adel. Anybody else like to address the City Council? If you'd like to give me more time, I'll use it. No, thank you. Hearing none, we'll close that particular agenda item. We are now going to hold on. I'm sorry, I missed my. Now going to item number 10, which is the approval, the October 7th, 2008 regular meeting. Entertain a motion for approval of minutes. The motion. Is there a second? Second. A move by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Resmus, and any discussion? All in favor? Okay, let the record show Mrs. Crosswell abstain. All in favor of the motion, signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And it passed with the one abstain. All in favor of the motion? Signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed? And it passed with the one abstention. We'll now go recess our regular meeting going to a work session. We actually have three items. I'd recommend if there aren't any objections. We'll move item number 12c, which is a discussion on the community center up first only because I know there's still a number of people in the community that are here that have interest in that particular topic. I would invite our staff down to the table. When last the City Council was addressing this issue, we identified a number of issues that we asked for. Follow up information. Some of it had to do with leads, others had to do with storm water, and certainly the discussion in terms of the size or the layout, I should say more of the interior space. Before we go into any kind of a presentation, maybe just by giving just a quick little background on how that discussion, and I would three weeks ago within the community. We happened to be in Simuleneer and a resident from Country Club. Hells came to that particular meeting and we were discussing the flexibility of the space and certainly the need for performances and those sort of things. It was the first time that I think many had an opportunity to stand in a room of a square footage and look at it and say, okay, this is 6,000 square feet, which was the size of the room. We're really designing a 4,000 square feet, which was about a third less than the size of the cafeteria's senior linear. And I think it caught a lot of attention in terms of, was that really too small to be able to meet the spirit of the donation, which I have a copy of here, which really is in the area of performances and rehearsal space and some of the things that go along that line. So the direction of counsel after that discussion was to ask staff to look at some creative ways without diminishing the usefulness of the multipurpose rooms and some of the other functions in there. The gallery was another one that I think we identified that was still important, but to see if there was a way to have a 4,000 square foot room that had the ability to be expanded. With that, and I certainly have some other comments in that regard, but why not if I like to turn it over to Mr. McCarthy, you or wherever we're going with a discussion to see if you were able to look at some possible options and go from there. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, thank you very much with me. Tonight is Wayne Hughes from the Hughes Group Architectural firm. It's the design and engineering firm that's been hired to work on this project. We have five issues in it. If you would like, I think you want to move to the issue on the expansion of the realm. We do. The presentation will move to that. I'll turn to Wayne to talk about it. Good. to that, I'll turn to Wayne to talk about it. Good, well Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we did do that. Staff tasked us to come up with some alternative ideas that would allow the event space to be expanded to 6,000 square feet. And we have done that. Here is the old floor plan. I think the original floor plan, I think everyone is fairly familiar with it. With the event space on the left that could be divided in half and then the rehearsal halls, art spaces, meeting spaces. And I want to point out that we need to really look at all of these spaces as multi-purpose spaces. There's nothing that precludes the large space on the left being used for an art space, for instance, during the week. But go ahead and we came up with another hand here of the seating arrangements in the larger space. Go ahead. And here's the alternative plan that we have come up for consideration. And we're not advocating this plan, but we are putting it for your consideration in front of you. The event hall in Toto can be expanded to 6,000 contiguous square feet. It now has a single corridor. It's actually a more efficient plan in terms of the pure efficiency of the plan. The gallery extends the full width of the building. The lobby has been expanded a bit, again, to accommodate larger numbers of people who would use the space. We have maintained a multipurpose art space of about 600 square feet, 598 square feet on the right-hand side. And the way that we have creatively expanded the event hall is to use the rehearsal space as a contiguous space so that it would have a folding partition and it could be opened to the larger space if that was desired. You know there are positives and negatives. The costs are fixed in this equation and so one has to do trading now with aesthetic issues and with functional issues. I think this represents a very functional plan. I think one of the trade-offs, though, is the fact that in the previous plan, we had located all of the toilets, the storage spaces and mechanical spaces on the interior of the building so that the exterior walls and the windows could be accessed by the general use spaces, multipurpose spaces. Here we're going to have to put all of those service spaces, the toilets, the warm-up kitchen, storage, et cetera, on the front of the building with minimal windows. And we will design this building, so it is beautiful. I want to assure you of that, but we are going to have to study that. We have not developed any elevations yet. We haven't developed any sections yet. But if this is the preferable plan, we will devote the time and the energy to developing those. So I think that we've responded in a creative way. The building fits on the site, and it functions in terms of its site relationships, the same as the previous plan. But it is a different spatial configuration. And so we're presenting that to you as an alternative to be considered. I know you have done a lot of spaces like this. Yes, sir. I had a convention done a lot of spaces like this. I had a convention down at the Gaylord, the New Gaylord Hotel this last week where we had 4,000 people in town and the connoisse made earlier about the barriers, the walls, and how it wouldn't be sound would bleed through. We had in one section of a ballroom, we had a 18-piece band with an orchestra and three or four background singers and two lead singers, and they were practicing in the ballroom on the very next side of the barrier wall or the soundproof wall was a meeting room for about 250 people. And it virtually, there was no bleed over in the modern technology of the soundproof wall. In fact, you couldn't hear it at all. And it was on the other side of whatever it is. That technology has improved greatly, especially for the really high walls. And in terms of the multi-purpose room that's over on the right side with the mechanical and the storage and then the toilets up front. I'm sure there's probably a reason, but it just looks on a layman's eyeball about the same space. And is there not a way to move the toilets and the storage room over there and not have to mess up the windows in the front of your beautiful car? Yes, you know, I certainly would be willing to study that. And let me say this, that artistically we can make that work. I'm not going to preclude that change. I didn't do it originally because when you're placed two toilet units like that side by side, you have to get access to both from the corridor. And I felt that they were a little more centrally located, but I'm happy to do that. Happy to do that. Happy to do that. In your judgment in terms of flexibility of space and, yeah, quite frankly, when I walked down this path, I didn't really think I was being mutually exclusive of any of these ideas and was trying to find a way to create the best win-win so there could be enhanced performances. Earlier, it was a discussion on stages that would fit 50 people. And I just hope everybody has gone and looked at a 4,000 square foot space. I would just respectfully say that if we want to protect the ability to have good active performances in the realm with large stage area that this layout, forgetting where everything ends up in the thing, with a flexibility of expanding it to the five or six thousand square foot, but protecting still a separate multi-purpose. And if I'm reading this dialogue, right, I believe there's probably, is there another petition there so that you can actually separate it? And just three. Three. That is correct. Working multi-purpose rooms all throughout the day, all throughout the night, with the exception that if there was a large performance or somebody wanted a wedding or whatever, you just simply move down the walls and it sure just feels like it gives this community the most flexibility and still in, you know, protecting the performances. And I'll just say it again, anybody who hasn't had a chance to look at a 4,000 square foot room, and there's a great example, Sidney Alunair cafeteria, a minute couple folks over there this afternoon, is 6,000 square feet. Take a third of that off, and that's basically the size of the room that we're talking about. If we don't give some flexibility in terms of the mating space, And I'm just trying to figure out what the downside of that is, and I'm looking at this, I guess we, in this diagram while we kept the, we kept really three multi-purpose rooms, but certainly the thousand square foot room became twelve hundred square feet if I'm reading this right. And then the other multi-purpose room for art, which would have a hard wall on it, I can't make that out. Is it 500? It says 598. But again, you know, if we move toilets up there, we move the art space down to the front of the building, we can change that. So we kept the warm-up room. We kept the enhanced lobby and the gallery. I'm guessing, and I'm not comparing them. The only thing we lost were the two small, whatever it was, 300 square foot rooms, is that what's missing. That is correct. And the other downside, just for a minor downside, is the warm up kitchen and the storage spaces are across the corridor from the large space. They work contiguous in the basement. But again, if there's a way to move that space over to the right side, you could put it in. No, that that that now we're no we're pushing down below. At some point we have to draw the line, but talking about where the mechanical room in the 600. Yeah. Why would that just out of curiosity? Well, I think because I think that we're going to have a very difficult time getting the toilets to work over there. If we start adding the warm-up kitchen over there, we're starting to really upload that side of the equation. But again, you, I'm listening. If there is a preference here between these two plans, I want to hear that. We will continue to work on it and make it the best possible situation we can. Well, let's see then just for discussion purposes whether or not the first option had fixed walls and 400, a 4,000 square foot room with a 1,000 square foot multi-purpose room versus some configuration of a more flexible space. And let's get some comments. Mr. Greenville, ask a question for Sharon. I'm imagining it's probably cost-per-huted, which is why you didn't look at it in the first place. But would there be no ability to do a small basement that would just have all of the mechanical and electrical underneath place? Not very large, just for access. We are absolutely at the maximum budget limitation. And that's fair enough. And it's a brilliant idea. Let me assure you, it really is. And I wish we were so constrained. We're dealing with a fixed budget. And you're asking me to do things that violate that envelope, and I'm duty bound to you to, it's a brilliant idea. That's what should happen in the best of all worlds. But we are right at the absolute maximum budget limitation. Bernard, thank you. Mr. Respond. Well, I realize we are, we have given you a really horrendous task of doing something with the amount of money we have. But when I look at things like patio and maybe there are some other things in here that we could do without. We may have to do without those things. Well, I was hoping we could do without them We may have to do without those things. Well, I was hoping we could do without them and go towards the basement. We may have to make compromises that we don't see yet. You're talking about when we price it out. Yes. I mean, we are at the inception of the design right now. And I've been dealing with an architect who's done this now for close to 40 years. And it's a progressive situation. And so I just can't emphasize enough that we've got to keep the envelope. How we play the Rubik's cube inside the envelope, we can all work on that till we're for a long time. But we've got to keep that envelope at 12,000 square feet. Is that good, Stefan? Is that option of a small area and a basement, if you will, for mechanical and electrical? Is that a $50,000 option? Oh, I'd, I'd, you know, we've got to provide access to it. We've got to have stair covered stairs. You know, I, I, I don't want to put a number on it right now. I, too experienced to, to flash a number out. Not going to do that. I'm too responsible. In the vein of making sure you continue to be responsible, perhaps you can put your thinking cap on and go back to your office and take a look at it. It's a $30,000 option. You know, can you give it? It's only for mechanical and electrical. I would imagine that you could do an exterior stairwell and have exterior access only to minimize your option. Just be happy. Just be happy to look at it. If I could, one of the reasons why we also worked and Wayne has worked very hard to try to come up with a quick sketch. And really, that's what this is. There's a lot of details that need to be worked out. It's mainly driven by the timeline, which is also one of your questions. Based on the initial schedule that was put together by the Hughes group, we are, as of today, one week behind on the schedule to move this forward. Mr. Erwin. Well, but can I just jump in there? I mean, certainly in talking to the family as I have. I don't think they created a timeline that was meant to imply don't pass, go, don't collect $200 as long as the project moving forward. And I think the spirit of this is to make sure we do it right. And we not just rush into it and quite frankly, if it costs us another two weeks to do that, I would be the first to make the phone call and be happy to do it. And I'm very confident in saying that that's not a- I just wanted to share that with you. I do agree with you. I don't want to push the intent is to push the timeline back and to push us off our mark. I mean, what we do here, I mean, we've been very thoughtful in discussions to deal with our middle school, our high school, our police station, city hall, everything because it's going to be there for 40 years and we want to make sure we do it right. You've got one opportunity to do it right. We know we're not going to be able to build the building that, you know, maybe the needs dictate and we're going to have to do this in a face to approach. So given that our parameters 12,000 square feet and a budget of $5 million, I think a couple extra days to make sure that if that makes more sense and you pick up an extra multipurpose room or whatever gives you a little bit more flexibility because now you've got that mechanical and electrical downstairs, I think that was time well spent. I'll stop there. Mr. Reissman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Another question. On the alternative plan that you presented tonight, what are the dotted lines? Those are the roof lines, the hips of the roofs. So I just put those on to make sure I'm oriented to the exterior design. And do they do anything to preclude a second story? With this design? Well, let me say this. The second story issue is we put a cost before you. It's approximately $200,000 to go up in the future. It is a problematic situation. I've said this very candidly with all of you at public meetings. The fact is when you decide to do that, you've got to take the roof off of this building. You've got to take mechanical systems that are gonna be up in that roof structure away, and then you've got to add on. So it's a problematic situation. If you were very clearly, I pointed out that the Herndon Community Center, we did something very similarly. But there I pointed out that it is a contemporary building with a flat roof and no mechanical systems involved. So it would not preclude adding on a second floor. Okay, if I may follow up on that. That was your question. Is there any, there is no difference then between what I would call option A and option B for the interior versus the roof line and expansion. Well, let me say this. We're going to have to redesign the exterior. We haven't done that yet. And so I can't speak to the design, but in terms of the functionality, you are correct. Okay. Oh, this is a cross. Just following up on Mr. Reislison's point, I took you sort of at your word or at least your picture in the first iteration. Yes ma'am. In the performance hall we've got a curl, not curl. A vaulted ceiling. Right. Thank you. That would be acoustically pleasing as I understand these things. That is correct. For performance. That's correct. The very issues that we've talked about. In this second iteration, what kind of a ceiling are we talking about? Well, I'll tell you, the issue is not related to the spatial configuration. It's related more to the potential for adding on to the second story. Exactly. If we decide together to add on vertically, that is going to limit to a degree the ceiling height that we're going to have to play with. We did intend to use that trust space to create that offer, that create that vault. Now, there's another way to do it. And that is simply to take the floor to floor height and simply increase it. But that adds costs all the way around the building. We're not counting on that now. So we've got to go through that analysis. We haven't received direction yet. If you direct us to proceed with this plan and to proceed with the potential for adding on vertically, then we've got to analyze that. We've got to redesign the elevations and look at the cost implications of all of those things. I frankly much prefer the first version of this. Part of, I think it's absolutely essential that we have a performance hall with the vaulted roof and the necessary acoustics to make it. I mean, what is the point if we don't have a room that people can enjoy and hear what they've come to listen to. I'm not convinced that this is the second iteration is going to be desirable in terms of that factor. It is a different proportioned room. Exactly. If we should design this second room to be acoustically as fine as the first room to design. Then we're limited to this little portion here of the front part of the building. That's really the only place that we can expand up. I'm not clear with you there. Well, if we say the roof and involve the ceiling and all of that for this larger performance and that would preclude you adding on in the future. Yes. Yes. Vertically. Right. So all we're talking about then for vertical expansion is this portion of the building. Well, you would not do that. You would not do that. No, we would not. No, that would not be cost effective. If I could just to make sure at least what I want to make sure I understood, Liz, in your response to Mr. Rasmussen, there was no difference in the ability to go up between option A and option B, whether the ballroom was 4,000 square feet or the multipurpose room ability with a wall to go 6,000 square feet. Are you saying that there is a limitation? We want the ceiling is going to have to be redesigned. The ceiling will have to be more of a ceiling like this as opposed to the coffered ceiling. We're not going to have that vertical space in which option? And the second option? In either option. Right. That's my point. There's no difference between the layout of the 6,000 square foot room I'll say with dividers or the 4,000 hard room. It makes no difference on the discussion in terms of acoustics and the ability to go up. Correct? Well, there's going to be, you know, but we have to analyze the effect on the elevations, the height of the floor to floor. So, you know, there are considerations. It's not a black and white decision here. Could I ask? Going to another point. If I did all the math right and counted all the the. Let me try to answer you clearer than that. I'm trying to work through it. I'm trying to be as honest as I can with you. If we decide to add on and we go with the vertical expansion in the future, I would I'm going to reiterate what I told Mr. Rasmussen is that they are equal. They are equal. They are equal. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead Miss Cross. All right. I don't know how you get there but the let me let me try to explain in section in the building section in order to develop a reasonable floor to ceiling height. It's going to be much more difficult to have that vault which takes up a lot of space. If we decide to put a structure in there that accommodates a future second floor, put a structure in there and put mechanical systems in there to accommodate that, we're going to have to have a tighter plenum space. And that's going to mean a ceiling very much like this. Now, in terms of acoustical performance, they're going to be relatively equal. We can design the same layout panels, the wood layout panels, perforated panels that we use for acoustic treatment, in this format as we do in this format. So I have to be recanted in saying that they would be equal. They would be equal. In terms of acoustic performance, yes. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Another fact. Now are we clear, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Rasmussen? I'm clear. Okay. All's we were talking Mr. Mayor? Mr. Rasmussen? I'm clear. Okay. All's we were talking about is anything to do with acoustics and ability to go up. Yeah. What I'm hearing is there's no difference on the impact of that. That's an issue all to us. Yeah, it's a cost. It's a cost. Regarding option A or option B, which is all at the point I was for anime. Okay. The first iteration of the building, I think if you, from your illustration, the mayor of the tables placed in that room would hold about 275 people at the round tables. I don't know that. I have the numbers. I have the numbers. It was, and the original scheme, was 272, and in the revised scheme, it's 336. And that includes the entire scheme. The 336. Thank you. Thank you. You have banquet, thank you. Correct. And based on the fact that you might have 336 people in this room, I see no coat room, and I see limited laboratory. Well, actually, we expanded the laboratory space to accommodate that number, but you are correct. You see no code room. Okay. And how would that affect the parking out front of the room? We are once again, the parking out front is fixed, and an agreement will have to be reached with Fairfax County on utilizing the site of Jason for expanded parking. Okay. I'm with Mr. Greenfield on a curiosity for sure about a half-base for this building. Just to be able to put the mechanicals downstairs and retrieve that space for use above. And I, well, we haven't reached a point. Are you gonna take a sense of the council or ask for a motion there? I think we've been trying to operate by consensus, but yes, we'll have to ask for a sense of, if we maybe can get all the questions out and they may we'll go back and start to separate them because there's a number of very independent decisions we're gonna have to go through. Here. And I think that that would be a welcome task for you to give us. And I think before you could reach a final decision, you should see the difference in elevations, the difference in heights, etc. And so that all of these questions that each of you were asking can be answered in an empirical way, not in an antidote way. How long would that work on it? So you know, I mean, whenever our next meeting is a the week I would say it about two weeks. When is it? Could it be ready for our next meeting on November the 11th? Yes, it could. Absolutely. OK. And I would just say, and anybody who would like to go down, and I certainly would be thrilled to lead a field trip to go down to a hotel like the Gaylord, who's got belt-in stages and sound walls and space and see the flexibility. I would just urge everybody before you weigh in on 4,000 versus the flexibility of 6,000s, make sure you've gone and seen a similar size room. It 4,000 sounds like a lot on a piece of paper. I can just tell you, it's not much when you go physically look at it. And I know I pulled out the diagrams on the Gailord and I know they have plenty of 4,000 and 5,000 and 6,000 square foot rooms so it would be very easy to go down one day if anybody has certainly has that interest. But yes, Mr. Smasen. Q. Could I ask another question? Please. Is there another possible variation of the theme which takes the original theme of 4,000 and expands it this way? You'd have to offset the entrance. Yeah. Wait, that was the main reason I didn't do that is it would destroy the symmetry of it. However, the police station is an asymmetrical composition. So, you know, we may want to consider that. Be happy to consider that. Okay. Because the one thing I don't like about the option B is it just lays everything in front kind of in a way, But that gives you the ultimate flexibility that, ultimate flexibility. Yeah. Thank you. OK. Yes, Mr. Meyer. I just want to make a couple of comments. And that is I'd like to remind the council to consider not just the size of this room, but what is the purpose of the building? This is to be a community center. It is not necessarily, even primarily, an event center or an event facility. It is a community center. And community begins is created first in small groups, whether it's in a neighborhood or in a building or church or any place else. And the I think that there in the I don't want in this discussion to lose sight of of the concepts that were incorporated in your first option. Because if you look at the first option, yes, it would be nice to have a larger area for performance. But what you have in the first option is the ability to do more differentiated programming in the building. Other activities can occur at the same time that a possible event is going on. I think that we recently noted the demise or the loss of the two meeting rooms. There is a very critical shortage of meeting rooms for community groups in the city. We had those rooms at the Old John C. Wood Center for Scouts and 4-H groups and any other groups that might want to meet. And we lost those when the building was torn down. And the attempt to at least include two meeting rooms in your first option, I thought was very positive. So I would like to remind my colleagues to remember some of the discussion that occurred by the citizens that our last meeting about the different kinds of uses of this building. When you put the predominant amount of square footage for one large room, even though it can be divided, it precludes other options for the room and for the entire building. We're not going to be able to get everything in this building, but because we can't get everything, it doesn't mean that we have to devote the building only to one thing. So once we start trying to be Philip Johnson's from the diast. We could wind up not optimizing and striking a balance between all the different constituencies in the city. And what happens when we start throwing ideas at you and sending you off to do this, to do that, we, as well intentioned as that might be, this can kind of spin out of control and we lose sight of the core objective of why we're doing this and all of the work and the thought and the public input that's already gone into this. And I do believe not only is it a physical symmetry in the option one, but it also represents a balance between different groups that want to use this facility for different purposes. And the building will be used from early in the morning until late at night in a variety of different ways and different times during the day and different days of the week and the weekends. So I would encourage the council to remember that and keep that in mind as we as we consider these different options. Okay so as I understand it between I kind of think where we are as we've obviously got option one to really understand understand option two, you're going to put together the next two weeks, some elevation, some sections. You're also going to look at the possible. Basement space. Basement space. And as well as moving the toilet spaces up into the right hand side of the building. Okay. We have a bunch of other issues here. We need to just turn through if you would take us through the other options there, the other issues that we're gonna have to deal with. You know, and maybe this is it, but the other issue, we know this is it. Go ahead and take us through it. Any other questions, please? Yeah, the other issue is lead certification. The, there are a number of different levels of lead that we can achieve. The basic level, we just completed Fairfax County's first lead building. It's a lead certified building. It's a fire station number 40. And the lead certification, basic lead certification is about $130,000. It's not a big item. We think that from a civic responsibility and a environmental stewardship point of view, this is a very good thing to do. But again, this is in your hands and we have verified these costs by the way your planning staff has verified this with Fairfax County and we feel very confident that's a good accurate number. Now which is you said 130. This says 95 to 100. No, let's see here. Yeah, the certificate. Total additional cost will be 190,000 for lead silver or $130,000 for lead silver. I was looking at the slide you had on the slide. Yeah, the slide basically is if we build with the intent for lead certification, not actually achieving the base certification. So that's 85 to 100,000. The additional cost would be- The additional cost is to register it with lead, go through all the paperwork, all the commissioning, it's all the additional costs. So if you did the lead from start to finish, 130K. 130,000. Thank you. That's- Where was the, you just threw out a number of 190,000. Thank you. That's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, with lead certification in mind, but we aren't actually, which gives us environmental correct. And that's the number that Mike put on the table at 80,000. Okay, so if we do that, that's 80,000. That's correct. That's correct. Well, if I could just you're using a number 80, the slides is 85,000 to 100,000 to 100,000. That's a good range. Yes. What I'm saying just to eliminate as much confusion as possible is that the lead certification at $130,000 is a very good medium range policy. Mr. Stommeries. range policy. Mr. Stommeries. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir. The cost that we're dealing with to build this facility is not just up front, but also over the long haul. Yes, sir. Of running and operating and paying for. Yes, sir. Is there any way to quantify the savings that we may achieve by building higher expense in the beginning, but savings over the long run? The mechanical issues and the mechanical efficiency is an empirical piece that we can give you. But that's just one piece of the overall lead certification. And I will try my best to develop a number for you when we present it to you next time. Thank you. Okay. And if I could, you know, just to follow on that, we just had the opportunity to open a new business in the downtown. And while it's not lead certified, it is clearly environmentally friendly with recycled carpet, with lots of natural light, with fluorescent lights that are appropriate, or at the right height, to do everything that gives you the same achievement with bamboo doors, you name it, everything that you could possibly do that was environmentally friendly was done in that space, and it is remarkable, but it was not lead certified because they were moving into a building that was already built. So what are some of the options to get us to the same result but maybe not blowing us out of the budget? Well, I don't think in a building, you know, a building this size is an $80,000 issue to generate those kinds of efficiencies and to utilize the same materials you just spoke of is percentage wise not a big hit for this size project. But let us try to show you what that payback would be. And let us break down the costs for you. We'll break down the fees, the commissioning, everything else that goes with it. And what do you think of the work? Is it a three-year period, a five-year period? Oh, no, the commissioning, everything else that goes with it. And what do they work? Is it a three year period, a five year period? Oh, no, no, no, no, it's much longer than that. That's a much longer than that. 20 to 30 months. Yes, are exactly. That's okay. Thank you. Well beyond the typical seven year mark. Right. Miss Cross. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think that I'm as interested as anyone else in making a good decision here, but I think we are continuing to kick the can down the road and we need to come up with a decision so that you can go forward with your work. I think this council should give you a yay or nay on which option of the building we prefer so that you can go ahead and we can begin addressing some of the other finer features that will be incorporated in this building. I would urge my colleagues to come to consensus tonight at the very least on the configuration, the first one that you've given us or the second one you've given us. I think we know enough at this point in time about the needs that this building is intended to serve and whether which one of these each of us feels is most capable of achieving those goals. I would ask that the mayor I would ask that the Mayor hold the council and let us give you the leeway to move forward in your planning. Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Cross. We're still right now. We can come back and recap everything. But to have the full picture, we're still now discussing the lead portion of it. Is there any comments, thoughts, questions on the lead portion of it? Mr. Stombries? Mr. Stombries? Yes, I do think we should build to some degree of lead certification, because I believe it will be its cost saving over the long-run for this day. And as I understand it, between now and the eleventh, you can get us with that projection of what that project is. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Next, third issue. The third issue is the stormwater management alternatives. This is a no cost issue. We did pre-ear instruction. Go back and analyze three different configurations of stormwater configurations and have concluded that a bio retention basin which Mrs. Cross advocated is a very the most cost effective and most environmentally sensitive approach to the issue. So we really don't think that a decision is necessary there. But again, if someone wants to address it, it's either doing that or holding water underground in storage tanks, and that's a problematic issue from the get go. So I would recommend, well, we have recommended that we proceed with the buyer retention basin. It's perfectly sized and it'll be just beautiful out in front. And then the issue four is the larger performance. The whole end before we go into that. I know Mr. Mayer, this was one of your issues. Is that sufficient information for you on that? I appreciate you asking, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I would go with what's proposed by the architect. Thank you. Okay. And the last issue again? Yeah. The last issue is the larger performance banquet space. And we've had our discussion. No, the other issue is vertical. Ah, well the two, yeah, the two operative issues are the vertical expansion and the larger performance space. Those are the two key issues. I mean, we can wait just a little bit on lead, honestly. We can show you the data, we can come back to you and modify things. The configuration of the building, as Ms. Cross has said, the configuration of the floor plan and the configuration of the building show is very critical. But I cannot speak for you. I speak with you. Okay. We're bypassing the vertical issue, which I guess- No, I said it's critical. Okay. So the discussion on this is whether or not we want to spend the extra up to $200,000 to leave the option of going vertically one day. Is everybody, you know, we're going to, we are going to have to make decisions here sooner or rather than later. But is there any other information? If I remember right, we've given the staff that direction. It was 100,000 the first time. It's 200,000 now. But is there any additional questions or comments on the vertical option? Mr. Greenfield. One question. If we want to expand, yes, is it your professional recommendation that we should go up or out? I'm going to, I'd like to respectfully demure my professional opinion. It, I don't know that, you know, I don't think I'm in a position to make that decision for you. I think I've expressed myself previously about the environmental impact of going vertically. I've expressed myself very clearly about the logistical issues of expanding vertically. And so I think I've given you enough information to make that decision. I don't have a decision. That's not my decision to make. I'm not okay. Well, but one of the things is for, go ahead, please. I'm asking you to make a decision for us. Okay. I'm asking you your professional opinion, which will aid us in making the best decision whether it is up or out. Okay. That was all. Frankly, as I think that is a decision that has to be informed, not just by the building shell, but has to be informed by a projection of future needs, alternative sites. So it's very difficult to put all the weight of that decision on this building shell. Can I just take it one other difference? The one thing that strikes me that we haven't seen, I know originally when we were doing the 32,000 square foot building, you gave us some basic dialogues, but if we said to you, could you between now and the 11th, just show us if we doubled the size of the building, but instead of going up, we went out. What that might look like on the footprint of the property or is that? Is there something that exists that we've seen that we can retrofit? I don't think we did do that at one time. We did. We showed a horizontal expansion. Okay. And we also showed the requisite parking that would be necessary to do that. And several people remarked that they felt as though it was just over capacity that we were pushing the site to going out. Well, I mean, that's what we need to do is to get that information to the council because the decision that needs to be made strikes me as if we don't like the option of going out. Yeah. Then the only option for expansion is up or the decision that we don't want to expand it. Right, exactly, precisely. And that would lead to a set of analysis of A, what would these future uses be if we're capable of determining those at this moment? What will they be in five years or ten years from now? And number two, what are the capacities of other facilities and other sites in the city? Mr. Mayor and Mr. Rasmussen. Given the constraints of geography on this site, and the requirements of the donation, there is the possibility that we would take a more strategic look at our recreation programs in the city and say, instead of having a concentrated community center all in one location that you could have satellite locations that would have differentiating programs in different parts of the city. And different uses. Different uses. Now, my question to you is one of a, I'm envisioning if this facility as it was proposed in option one or A or what do I want to call it, existed today and it had the structural components in it to the $200,000 structural components to add a second floor. Would you not, from your professional opinion as an architect, conclude that you would be essentially rebuilding the entire building? Yeah, I said that earlier. I tried to be clear. I said that the going up, no matter what we do, is going to be highly problematic because of the architecture that the city of Fairfax wants desires and should have. To take that roof off, close the building down, take that roof off, reconfigure the mechanical equipment, and then add on a second level is going to be a very ineffective costly way to expand in the future. From my perspective, it would be very difficult to construct a second story on this building if it existed now and make it appear both from the inside and outside as if it never had just a one-story configuration. Because when you have this brick facade and the windows and the portacos as you have on this drawing here, you will lose all of those architectural elements. Absolutely. You'll just be simply essentially rebuilding the entire building. It's a very intimate design. And that would be lost. And so I'm now, I initially thought, well, at $100,000, put it in there and it'll give you the options. But at $200,000, given more thought that I've had on this. I am thinking that if we wanted at some point, who knows 10, 15 or 20 years from now, whether the Willard Health Center and the Bell Willard Education Facility will still exist or by some good fortune the city might have options to take those properties that we could do something different. Well, it could be something that it doesn't even have to be a contiguous addition. It could be the development of a series of buildings that creates a very intimate set of spaces that serve very definitive community uses. I mean, in 30 years from now, or 40 years from now, the existing police department may not be there. It's not exactly. You know, I'm being... I'm not going to answer that one. No. We're not going to be here. So what I'm saying is we ought not to lock ourselves into saying, oh, we're going to put a second story on there, or not. But I'm questioning at this point, the price point of $200,000 for something that is appearing to be more problematic and may not actually give us a facility that we would want. Now, when we first met you and you made your presentation back in June at Ironic Lake Police Station, you had given us an overview that you had substantial experience in designing these kinds of facilities in the past. Yes, sir. So when Mr. Greenfield asked you that question, I was very pleased that he did ask it because your response isn't something that's just related to this project but it's the cumulative effect of your experience over many years. And I noticed that you chose your words with some precision when you first began your presentation this evening and said that you are presenting option B without recommendation. Now I don't want to put you in a difficult position because you're a client to the entire city. But in all candor I would conclude that option one was your best proposal given all of the input that you'd receive from all the stakeholders on this project. Yeah, but I'm not trying to put you in difficult position. Well, thank you for not wanting to do that, but you are. And, well, I mean, it dollars a lot of money. And if I need to get it right, I don't believe that it is my professional position to say anything about that. My professional, my position is to respond to the city about that. My professional, my position is to respond to the city's demands, and that's what we are attempting to do in the best professional manner possible. And I am not here to assess need or appropriateness. I'm here to respond to you. All right. Well, we do appreciate you. Thank you. Professionalism and the skills that you have brought to this respond to you. All right. Well, we do appreciate you. Thank you. Professionalism and the skills that you have brought to this project to date. Thank you. Can I just see on the, because there's nothing more that's going to be provided us on the decision of the vertical expansion option. And in respect to Mr. Drummond who's not here, who certainly has some strong duplines, I'm sure on all these topics as well, is there a consensus? I think Mr. Meyer, you're articulating and don't want to put words in your mouth that we're not at this time build the option of going up. Is that not that I wouldn't want to? I just don't think that it's worth it at this point. Is that a consensus that's different direction we gave before or is that still an option? We want to kick the can to view somebody's words or do we want to do provide feedback? Mr. Restmusson? Just a couple of comments. But I can't imagine a scenario where we would go out on this property. There's just too many problems with, I'd love to do it. I'd love to have an all one story, William. But there's too many problems with trying to do that, I think. I don't see that we 30 or 40 years from now, we would expand this building vertically. I mean, horizontally. So, unless something really changes, like we get the Bell Willard Center, or we have some other facilities around the city, it limits our options down the road. And while I hate to spend $200,000, if we're not gonna use it, I just think it would be the wrong thing to do because it for then it really does preclude adding a second story. Even though the second story would cost more money because it would take off the, have to entail taking off the roof and redesign the mechanical. So I think that in a $5 million project, it would probably be good insurance to include that $200,000. That's my view. Any other thoughts on that? It sounds like there's no consensus I'm assuming is there. We've got one on each side now. Is there anybody? I mean, this is a work session. This is not a decision making. We need to respect Mr. Drummond's input who I know has some too, but Mr. Stombries is that. I agree with what Mr. Rasmussen just said. Leave the option open at this stage. Ms. Cards. Mr. Rasmussen. Ms. Greenfield. Would you like the next two weeks to kind of work through it and see what Mr. Gummins? I'm one that certainly initially articulated a position of maintaining the option to go up. But what concerns me is you go up and you completely change the look of the building and you've got a very well-designed building right now. I don't know what's going to happen in 30-40 years, so in some respects, you know, my colleague suggesting that we spend the $200,000 to go up. That's unfortunate that that number has doubled. But the other thing I would throw in there is not just, and it's not in this slide that is on our screens here. It's in the similar report. It's not just $200,000. We lose another two months. Oh, yeah. Because you redo everything. And so we are pushed back to probably not. Again, we decided earlier that we want to do the right thing. And so injecting time into that argument is a tough one. Well, let me say this. It will change the look. And if you remember what I said earlier, I said, I think that, again, my professional opinion would be that this would be a very difficult decision to make without seeing the impact, the visual impact that Mr. Grangeville is talking about of doing that, of increasing the Florida Floor height and seeing the difference in the design of the building. Then by the, let me ask our follow-on to your comments. And by November 11th, you would have an option, a visual option for us to look at. Yes. Then I would propose we wait till it. OK. Well, that's where we're probably going to head on all these things, because we're going to have to get a consensus and we're down one. But you've got three to, unless I'm miscounted, you've got three to go I miscounted you've got three to go up and we've won the wait and another one to Right, which is why we should probably wait Okay, so we've got that action item to come back on the 11th We've got the basement addition to come back on the 11th. We've got the elevations to come back on the 11th As far as we know Mr. System is the 11th of full got the elevations to come back on the 11th. As far as we know Mr. System is the 11th of full houses terms of the council. Is there anybody here that's not here on the 11th? Okay I assume Mr. Drummond didn't say anything. Okay have we covered all the various? Yes sir? Points. Yep. We haven't covered which floor plan. Well we haven't covered which floor plan we Yes, sir point. Yeah Well, we haven't covered which floor plan we haven't covered if we're going up a level We haven't covered if we're gonna add a basement and mr. Drummond's not here So I would suggest to be able to make all those good intelligent decisions. We wait till the 11th and get the more information that is outstanding If there's not any objections with that Let's move on to the next slide. Thank you. It's very much. And some feedback on what would a lead state of the sort possibly? We got it on. Got it. We got that. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We'll back up to 12 A, which is a discussion of the potential backup line of credit to be used as a contingency for the period during the fiscal year when the city's cash levels are at their lowest. Staff report, please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members, Council. This item relates to a discussion on a backup line of credit to be used as a contingency when the city's cash levels are low. And what I'd like to introduce the city treasurer, Mr. Maloney, to start our discussion. I also have with us Kyle Lux from Davenport and companies, our financial consultant that helped us with the details of this. Cash flows, we have the city flow of income, spiced dramatically as I'm sure you're aware. We get real estate tax both in December and June. It's always been difficult with a large portion of your revenue that comes in in the last two months of your budget. This historically has been true. We've been able to get by some of those low cash periods based on monies we had in other funds, such as the downtown fund, the open space fund. Those funds have now been spent in rightfully so on good projects, but that now leaves us in a position where the general fund could experience shortfalls. And generally those shortfalls are going to come in April. As many of you know, we have a large school payment at the end of March, which depletes a lot of our cash. And then there is a law between March and the influx of money from the regal state taxes. And that's the period that I think will experience those cash flows. We were somewhat not quite sure enough to need money, but short this year. We had enough money to cover it. But in this budget year, we won't have some of the revenues we did last time. So I feel that we need a line of credit to cover budgeted expenses and particularly payroll when it comes up. We've talked with SunTrust who does our banking and they've given us very favorable rates. So we're comfortable with that and they're willing to do the loan. So I'll leave it open to questions or Dave has anything to add. Excuse me. The one thing I may add on, we have a diagram on page three, which is our estimated cash flow just to give everyone a little bit of background. We had taken our major revenue and expenditure categories and we had outlined those by month and basically came up with a monthly cash flow to give you a picture of when we actually do experience on an annual basis, tight cash flow. And looking at that diagram you'll see in the month of April, our cash for the general fund typically is at its lowest point. And the reason that we want to go forward with a lot of credit is if we do run into any unforeseen problems. We have a right now an estimated cash flow or cash balance of about $850,000 by the end of April. And we'd like to have a line of credit to protect us against the possibility of that cash balance being reduced below not only $850,000, but actually going below zero. And so that this diagram just gives you an indication of what our cash flow looks like and tells you what the need may be in the future. I have a couple more things. Let's stay back. Of course, the line of credit would only be utilized if we need it. The line of credit also is for one year, it is under the 10 percent debt limit, anything under years, under your 10 percent debt limit. It's based on future revenue, which is real estate. It is renewable every year by counsel. In other words, what you're voting on tonight is not perpetual. Each year that Certainly if the financial picture improves, which we hope it will, but it will be two or three years. If there comes a need, a time when we feel we will need it, of course, we won't come back and ask for it. There's no interest or any fees paid on the line of credit. We're going to have to come back to counsel. So we're doing it now in July. we won't come back and ask for it. There's no interest or any fees paid on the line of credit until the money's borrowed. The interest rate is liable, liable plus 96, which is a very favorable interest rate. It's fluctuating. Whatever liable is, liable is the rate that's used between banks. So the rate is favorable but flutzing. So anyway, we think it's a very proven financial business thing for the city. Mr. Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Greenfield. Mr. Maloney, thank you for the presentation. And can you tell me if the use of the line of credit would have any impact on our bond rating? No, it would not. It's under a year. Anything under a year is not considered long-term and will not have an impact on the bond rating. Thank you. And secondly, I understand the need for the line of credit and particularly in April. My concern is that I understand you need the flexibility to meet your cash flow needs. My concern is that this line of credit will be something that could be considered to utilize for additional expenses outside cash flow needs. And I'm willing to support providing you the flexibility you need for this line of credit but I am very opposed to using this for additional spending and other items that may come up just that the counts of the sides that we want to do I think we need to live within our means and this should not in any way be something that allow us to create additional spending that we're not planning for. Mrs. Cross. I concur with Mr. Stump, on this, this has been my greatest reservation about the line of credit. It's just awfully easy. And I was wondering if the council and maybe Mr. Lugkin, Lugkin, can come on this, too. Can we stipulate that this line of credit only be used to cover payroll? Well, in terms of line of credit, I mean, I would imagine you could set up policies for how the line of credit would be used. But I think the line of credit in terms of setting it up is a completely separate issue. But the Court of Mr. Hodgkin's on. Kudminton, one thing. In the ordinance, it says the line of credit is used to pay budgeted expenses. So that would be somewhat of a benefit. Saking that there to, in those situations where we are not able to meet the payroll because of the difference in tax income for the city. That you perhaps would have to come back to council for any use of those funds other than the payroll? Would that be a return? Well, I understand what you're saying that that would present some concerns and the fact that we say payroll because that's a million dollars every two weeks. But there are vendor checks that do need to be paid, and if we run into problem and we're only paying those vendor checks, coming back to Council would of course delay that whole process. So I am somewhat lazy of putting restrictions other than budget expenses on it just for the flow of payment. But I'm a little lary of just using these for vendor checks. Vendor, I mean, I'm sure that there's some flexibility there with the vendors, unlike what we have with our payroll when we need to pay our people, or we need to pay our people or we need our people. Well, certainly you can, can, to some extent, hold vendor checks, but, but, during a mind that they're probably in the same financial situation way, our they perform services. I understand that, but it's usually 30 days. Well, we usually don't get them until 30 days. It takes time to process them through. By the time a check comes in, it's processed through payroll. The check-down comes down to me to pay. It usually is two to four weeks easily. Most vendors are net 30 days recognizing that by the time it gets through the process and the check is actually cut, it's more like six weeks. You know, a vendor's not the bank either. It's unfair to- I appreciate- I truly appreciate where you're going and I think that there's maybe policies that we can put in place that will address the concern, make sure that we aren't spending beyond our needs in using this money to pay for things that we never should have done in the first place. I believe that there are council policies that we can establish to do that. And if we want to ask the task the budget committee to take that on and bring that to the council at the November 11th meeting. I'm very happy to demonstrate some leadership in that area and get that done. I would welcome that very much. I think we need to tread very, very cautiously in this area. And it is principally, almost exclusively my feeling that this money should or the availability of this money should only be made should be used for our payroll and that other uses for the funds would have to be brought to council. And we meet every two weeks. So I can't imagine that you're not going to have Some kind of ideal whether you're going to be able to pay our bills pay our people in a 30 30 days. Oops fan. Sorry I'm just really really want to be cautious and are using this this money And I think we would obviously I I feel the same way, and we would be. But I do have some concerns over restricting it just to payroll. If we need to pay vendors, and again, keeping in mind that vendors are in kind of the same position we are, they've done the work, they need to be paid. If those bills come due, certainly we can delay some, but they've been through their 30 days going through the process. So just delay that? No way for your people to project Mr. Maloney that you've had a bill that's payable and you're walking it through the process of payment, but you know it's there. You know that it's come in. You know the amount that's due. So it goes through the process, but you have that information from the day the envelope's opened. So you know what the expectations and the draws are that are going to be necessary on our phones. And I'm not just doing that. We do know that, but when that process is done and the bill needs to be paid, I agree. From that point, when we reduce the line of credit, it wouldn't be in the beginning. It would be that we've run them through the process. We know what's coming and we know that they're potentially, hopefully not, but potentially if we don't have the funds, that's when we draw on the line of credit. But we know from the beginning when those bills are coming. It's just there's only so much time if that bill goes through the process and hits in perhaps April or early May when we don't have the funds, it would seem to me appropriate to pay it as long as it's met all the other expectations. Well, I've expressed my concerns and I would really welcome our budget committee's input on this so that we have a policy in place as we go forward. Mr. Eskossel. Thank you, Mr. forward. Mr. Resma, so. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mollon, you mentioned an ordinance. Do we have a draft yet that we can take a look at? Yes. Yes, we do. We have a draft of the ordinance. Matter of fact, we're sending it back to Bond Council with our comments, but we do have a draft. Okay. Could we get that now so we can start taking a look at it? Here's my concern. And maybe it's somehow we can get in between the issues that Mr. Greenfield raised and Mrs. Cross raised. I think Mrs. Cross raised a legitimate issue about how we use this money. And I think that's very important. And Mr. Greenfield responded by saying we could have council policies to control that. Well, what we've seen is council policies don't necessarily mean a whole lot, because we've had council policies that we either violate or we change pretty quickly. And I'm really concerned that this money, I don't know that limiting it just to payroll is the right way to do it, because I understand that cash flow is a, our needs for cash flow are greater than just payroll. But I am concerned that we limited to current operating expenses authorized in the budget, not for capital items that we may just dream up that we want to go out and buy an acre of land someplace and we'll get a letter of credit. We can use this line of credit to do that. I'm really concerned that we have a really tight control over this. So I think I'm coming down somewhere between my two colleagues on the right over here and this, and I, the way I'd like to see the ordinance so we can have some extra time to study this. Thank you. If I could, that is something that we can email out to the council tomorrow and to let you know what we have in the ordinance now and it can be there is room for flexibility. But the ordinance does state it is for working capital items that have been approved in the budget. So it actually is following, I think, the line that you're suggesting. It's also, this is basically a tax anticipation note. This isn't an ongoing financing. This is something that does have a dead end every year. And the anticipation of the taxes are basically what's covering, almost being used as collateral, is the real estate taxes that we'll collect in basically May and June. Our issue is really March and April when we have large payments, namely the large tuition payment for the schools that occurs in March. And we don't receive literally half of our real estate tax revenue until May and June. So, what we're looking for is actually temporary cash, very temporary when needed to actually cover that deficit in March and possibly April when the real estate taxes come in and May and June and that's the way this is structured. So it is a very temporary borrowing, if any borrowing at all. And this is something that we will have to come back to council every year, because we plan on doing this on a fiscal year basis. So it will have to be paid off by the end of June each year. So that's not, so we will not be able to use it for any permanent financing. It has to be paid off in a very short period of time. If I could just add one other item, getting back to the thought of using it for payroll, one of the problems with having such a narrow definition of what this could be used for is actually how do you track what expense is being covered by the line of credit. For example, if you look at any month, you will have a payroll expense from between $2.8 million and over $4 million, but that may be based on, that may be out of expenditures of over $15 million. And so if we need $16 million in that one particular month, how do you, the problem is really determining, well that was shortfall. What does that apply to, does it apply to payroll, does it apply to debt service, does it apply to the school tuition contract? From a practical standpoint, you really can't limit it to that. And that's why we do have, in the ordinance right now, specification for it to be operating capital for budgeted items. And certainly we would be able to look at it over, it actually says budget at expenses, but if we need to tighten up that language, we'd be glad to do it. The intent is budgeted items. The intent is shortfall that occurs in a normal course of doing business, as opposed to any additional expenses being added to cover it. Mr. Asperson. One last item, it doesn't really relate to this issue of the line of credit, but it relates to our cash flow. I know that the city county school contract called early payments, and I should know this, but have we ever raised the issue with the county of making them monthly? We actually went through when George Stepas here. We actually went through the county and this goes back eight years ago and smoothed the payments out. We have now a quarterly payment, which is actually paying after the fact. Obviously, a June payment is into the school year. Monthly would not necessary alleviate the cash flow problem. It wouldn't be paid anyway. Up at that point in April's going to be short anyway. The contract we worked out with the county was a smaller payment in September, larger payment in December and two equal payments in March and June. And we actually got them to take it somewhat after the fact at the end of the quarter. So it's favorable as it stands now. We could look into going to monthly, but to be honest, we don't know how that's going to solve our eight-hour cash flow problem, because we'd still, the same amount we'd paid by March now that whether it's monthly or quarterly, I would say. And if I could just add, if we did go to monthly right now, we have a very favorable payment plan in that we pay quarterly after the fact. If we went to monthly or my estimated cash flow, a positive cash flow of $850,000 in April would go down to almost a $3 million negative if we did change to a monthly as opposed to a lot of that. Thank you. Mr. Muloney, just listening to this dialogue and discussion about the policies and the controls. I have to believe in it. My understanding we're one of the few jurisdictions certainly in the region or maybe even in the state that doesn't have a line of credit in place. I have to believe all the jurisdictions that have one have policies in place. I have to believe all the jurisdictions that have one, have policies in place. I have to believe their elected bodies share some of the same concerns. Have we gone through and in this draft ordinance that you all have drafted? If we've gone and asked, you know, for effects county and Alexandria and Arlington, and false, all the other ones that have a similar method of doing business of what their policy is. No, we have not. Now, the bond attorneys reuse and Richmond deal with various localities. Right. And I know Kyle Luxembourg is also when our has dealt with some of the companies that have them. Well, none of the government has a specific policy on how it's used. I think we can from a tomorrow bond council, the language of kind of provision that's set up under the code of security standpoint. I'm going to guess you're going to have to come to the microphone. I'm sorry. I just see people winking and waving at me here. And we can from this tomorrow bond council, but the provision is set up under the Virginia Code. I think it's going to be pretty limiting in how exactly you can use the money in terms of only being for budgeted expenditures and operating type of things that have been budgeted. So I think from a legal standpoint, you're saying your state provides that oversight already? Yeah, yeah. I mean, from a pure legal standpoint, I think you're pretty restrict and how you can use it. But we'll confirm that tomorrow as well. And that would obviously be information to share with the budget committee as they kind of wrap their head around this. Any other questions or comments at the stage? If not, thank you very much. You shade it. Next item is a discussion on the request of a resident 9999 Main Street to remove the swimming pool from the city owned property. Mr. Mayor, each of you all have had an opportunity to visit this city own property? And it's the resident at that location is dealing with a swimming pool that is some 30 plus years old, it's in poor condition. She would like to kind of take that swimming pool out of service, fill it with third, how were they do that appropriately by taking out the bottom of the pool and so forth. And she has asked the city for permission to do that since it's city owned property. And so I think we just need a decision, yes or no. Council, feedback? decision, yes or no? Council, feedback. I know for those in the audience this sounds like a in the 90s to the city of Fairfax. It might be interested in one of the dialogues and discussions we were talking about as some day it might be a wonderful art studio sort of thing as an asset to the city. In the meantime, the deed calls for the agreement that as long as I'm going to mess up the name here, but as long as the lady talks, Ms. Cox, who lives there now, is living. She gets to stay there. And then when she passes away, the house and the property reverts for the city. So that's the reason we're talking about somebody's swimming pool is whether or not since the city owns the property, we're going to give the Mrs. Cox the permission to tear up the pool, which is an asset of the property in Philadelphia with dirt. It's my understanding that if we decide that we want the pool fixed up and returned to use, it's about $40,000 is that correct number? 30 and 40. Between 30 and 40. And that would come out of the city's coffers if that was our decision. So we're talking about restoring the pool to the 230 or 40,000 are allowing her to remove it and fill it in with her. Excuse me. No, Miss Cross. I move that the city approve a demolition of the swimming pool. This is just a work session, I don't know. All right, I recommend that the city reach consensus on this and recommend that we give our okay for the demolition of the pool. On the basis that it's no longer in proper condition for anyone to use, the pool is much too small to consider for public use down the road and I am sure that Mrs. Cox wants to take care of this before the winter months and I recommend that we give her the okay. Other comments? Oh just a point of clarification. She would do this at her own cost. Correct. To remove it, that is the sit to fill it in. The fill in it. Thank you. Is there a consensus, concern? Mr. Reiss, I must say you look like. Well, I hate to lose the asset because it really is a very nice pool and it's a real asset to the property. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that when the city finally does take a possession of the property to use it, that we would unlikely find a use that would, where the pool would be an asset to it. And so I'm not sure it's, it pays for us to put 30 or 40 thousand dollars into saving it now. So I, I think I end up agreeing with Mrs. Cross. I have a question for the, for Brian. Brian. Is it responsibility of the occupants to under the terms of the gift to pay for repairs to the house and grounds and maintain the grounds? Technically, she is required to maintain the house and grounds. The issue, I guess, the instant issue we're dealing with is the liability issue. I gather it's the cost is too high for her to be able to afford to do it. So we would have to take care of it because of our insurance issue if she doesn't. But ultimately yet, her responsibility is to tenant the property. Anybody want to jump in or miss Greenfield? I hate to get rid of the asset. You know, I think you can repair a pool and bring it back to current standards and it's maintained properly and covered appropriately during a winter and the last another 20 or 30 years with minor maintenance. But the issue is $34,000 right now and given where we're headed over the next several months, I don't see where we have that additional money to put towards fixing the pool and being able to carry it forward. Mr. Mayemar, is. Domberies, any comment? Are you okay with that? The other reason I'm asking is we're down one person. This is a work session. So I'd like to try to get at least four. You're okay with taking it out. Okay. Real locked in. Real locked in. Real locked in. We're okay with her taking it out. Mrs. Sisson. Sat. Good enough Reluctant with reluctance were okay with her taking an out of the system sad Good enough direction. I'm sure she'll reluctantly spend the money Okay, we're now down down in number 13 where we can be in a regular meeting We have no closed meeting. It's my understanding Mr. System Mr. Leckman We're down to comments by the City Council, Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to call attention to and let all the residents of the city know that this a week ago, the Fairfax High School recognized its teacher of the year as they do each year. It's a joint award from the PTSA and the administration of the school. This year, Mr. Eric Kenny, it was selected as the teacher of the year. He's an English teacher and the coordinator of FFX High School's AVID program, which is a program to help college ready students take rigorous courses and help, particularly those students who have high potential but may not have thought about going to college to go to college. He is also one of 25 teachers across the United States selected by the U.S. Department of Education as a national teacher ambassador so I want to congratulate him. I also want to call attention to all the city residents that the schools have reminded their families and I would call attention to this to everyone else as well that in the morning now it's becoming darker as children are heading to the schools and I would encourage Our residents to exercise caution as they're driving in the morning Thank you very much Mr. Rasmus no comments Mr. Greenfield Thank you, Miss. Ranger's two quick items. The first is just to give everyone a courtesy of letting you know that the number 11th meeting the Budget Committee will be coming to the Council with a series of recommendations that range from changes to the Budget policies and guidelines to the calendar next year for adopting a budget and then a few other items that we are planning and providing direction to the city managers, along as the council can curse for that. David's okay. The second item was late this evening because I was asked to attend the perception for fall for the book. That is a literary festival that one of the individuals that brought to the city of Africa years ago. This year they had record growth, over 20% growth in the program, had over 11,000 people participate and that was recorded on campus events so that does not include any of the activities that actually took place in the city of Fairfax. It is one that I hope we will continue to support. I think it is a great opportunity for our young people. And it is yet one more nice function that I think has done well for the city and brings a lot of people here and we certainly had an opportunity with our new downtown to bring some people to the downtown that haven't been here before and their plans discussed tonight to be able to expand that to utilizing more the downtown village. So I just wanted to pass along the strong support from the board and those that were in attendance this evening that they very much appreciate the city's support. So with that, Mr. Mayor, have no further comments. Thank you, Mr. Cranefield. Ms. Cross. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would urge the council to go ahead with the meeting I missed. You talked about a 5013C to receive, to the organized to support the Sherwood Center. And if all of you can cure, I would like Mr. Lough Loughmann to go ahead and move forward with that so that we can perhaps raise some funds to support the center with equipment and all the things that will be needed for that center. The second thing I wanted to miss questions. I assume you're looking for some direction there. Mr. Sisson, is that is that appropriate role for the city to play or is that a role? I don't know how we did it. I assume it's a similar thing to what we did with HFCI and possibly is that, is this, go ahead, feedback? Well, I think it's a reasonable thing to do. I know there are extensive administrative tasks in getting that taxis certification. The city possesses that anyway and anyone who wants to donate to the city can certainly donate tax-free status without taking those steps. So I don't, I mean, we can take the extra step or or not. I think at the end of the day we can segregate those funds anyway and advertise it as a tax-free donation. So there really isn't any advantage to formalizing the... If you'd like us to look at it formally, I think there might be some advantages depending on how this is structured, you know, for the use of the funds. It's a slightly different situation than the HFCI, but we can look at that very quickly very easily. Come back to you if that's the will of the Council. That would be great. The other thing in this too comes under the dreaded title of kicking things down the road. But at our last meeting before our recess in August, we discussed first night. And there was great interest on the part of several members of Council to reestablish that event. And it was agreed at that time that they would use the month of August and come back to us in September with some assurance if not guaranteed funds to support this event from the community. And so far, and we're nearly into November, there have been no guarantees of any private monies to go into this event. I think that we did the altogether appropriate thing when we did first night to celebrate our centennial, bicentennial. I think we were okay to do it for the end of that celebration. But we are in different times now. And the council has appropriated $15,000 from money that had been previously agreed that we would use for promotional activities in the downtown itself. Those monies have been deferred to use for the first night event. And I think we're on the wrong track here. I think this sends a terrible message to the community that we would use $15,000 of city money at this point in time when we are struggling to make every budget that we can possibly make to say nothing of what we're facing in the next budget year. I think it's just the wrong message at the wrong time. In another year when things are much more prosperous for us, I certainly would love to see us do it again because it is a nice event for families, but it's not the right time. We don't have the support of the business community to do this. And we're getting now first of November and this is an event that's going to take place on the 31st of December. Even as good as our parks and recreation people are, we are not going to have a real quality event with such a short time to plan it. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Cross. And I certainly under my opportunity for comments and councils will be happy to enthril to share and update on how the dialogues and discussions have gone. Obviously, the council did discuss this two weeks ago. There was a vote taken to authorize the action. Assume what you're suggesting is a vote of reconsideration that would require either Mr. Stombries or Mr. Greenfield, who was in the infirmative Mr. Grumman's not here to put a motion on the floor for reconsideration. Just Mary, I thought this took place in a work session. No, it was a formal vote on a regular city council meeting. It was an agenda item. Yes, no, it wasn't a agenda item. It was a vote taken. Okay, fine. So, if there aren't any other comments, Mr. Stonebeer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to respond to that, I, you make a, Mrs. Cross makes an excellent point about the timing of the situation we find ourselves in. You know, just in response I would make is I was in a meeting with some of our merchants who are in very desperate times and they are coping with the financial situation we find ourselves in here in Virginia and in the country. And the $50,000 that we set aside was to promote downtown, the downtown area. And I think we are seeing some significant success. The merchants testified to the fact that the good work the staff are doing here in the city are bringing increased traffic down there. But first night where you have potentially where we've had as many as 6,000 people in the past or we could have as few as a couple thousand would certainly in my mind qualify as an excellent promotion of our new downtown area. And I just believe that while it is times are tough, new year's eve families in the city are going to be looking for a place to go. They're not going to sit home. And if we provide an opportunity for the venue for them, I believe that they will come and enjoy the city. And I think it will be a beneficial thing. So I would just say that I think what it will take is a redoubling our efforts. We have a short time frame, but I believe, you know, difficult times require extraordinary measures and I support redoubling our effort to make this happen and have it be a successful event The greater concern I have is if we start if we lose one business downtown It is a there is a domino effect That really has a negative impact on our local economy and I just I think we as a council and we as a city should do everything We possibly I'd like to be able to say we left nothing on the table in our effort to promote our local economy so that's you know I but I do believe you're making very valid points and we just respectfully think we should go forward. I'd also just briefly like to talk about a subject that's very important to me and that is recycling in the City of Fairfax. You know, next month, the Virginia recycling rates are released by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. And last year that had good news for the City of Fairfax, the Commonwealth of Virginia statewidewide Average for Recycling was 39.38.4%. The City of Fairfax actually had a higher recycling rate of 39.4%, which I'm quick to point out was higher than the county of Fairfax counties rate of 35.3%. This is higher than most, however, some of our other jurisdictions like false church have a rate of 51%. And when you realize that according to EPA, 75% of our trash can be recycled, but on national average we only recycle about 25%. There's significant room for growth here in the city. And I think our number one tool for improving the recycling rate is greater public awareness than more people understand. You know that we are placing a priority on this residential and commercial the more that they will participate. I will be looking at our statewide numbers coming out next week and comparing the local jurisdictions and I will ask Mr. Sisson. You know three things that come to mind that I like to see do is, hopefully we can get some consent on the council. I think we should take a look at our code and see if there's some areas particularly on the commercial recycling requirements side, where we might make some changes to be in conformity with other jurisdictions about requirements on commercial recycling and place the proper priority on that. I'd also like to see, as a discussion point, I'd like to see us potentially, I would certainly be in favor of setting a goal or a policy for the City of Fairfax of having the highest recycling rate in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I think it is within our reach and we might as well set a goal for ourselves that we can attain. And benefits of recycling are not only that it's good for the environment, I'm very excited to have learned that as a result of changing our contract with some of our residential bin carriers, we will save the city and I believe Mr. Hodgkins, it's $60,000 a year. With the same level of recycling service, which can be utilized as a recurring cost that is, I'm sure we will gobble up eagerly and recycle that funding very well. And, you know, when you talk about things that, you know, if you recycle one aluminum can, it saves enough energy to run a TV for three hours to produce the week's Sunday's paper cost 500,000 trees. Every American recycled, if they just recycled one tenth of the newspapers, we would save 25 million trees in a year. And every month we throw out enough glass bottles and jars of felba-gine skyscraper. And when you learn about the more you learn about recycling, the more you get excited about it. And I'm just, I look forward to working with the city to push this issue and our colleagues. I hopefully we can develop some consensus on that. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Tom Prase and your leadership in that area. As soon without ejection, Mr. Siss and your work with Mr. Tomonberies and we'll try to move that dialogue forward. With our any other comments, I just have two quick ones. I got a letter, maybe everybody did, dated on the 22nd of October from our friends at the Lamb Center who made a presentation to the City Council a couple of weeks ago and they've taken the lead of setting up a task force that has representatives of the Lamb Center, the City of Fairfax and Fairfax County. And they are setting, they're going to be hosting a meeting in November to try to bring those coalitions together as they outlined during their presentation. And they're asking for two members of the City Council to participate in the process. That first meeting, the next meeting is on November the 13th. I know Mr. Drummond has been sort of our appointed person to certainly work in that regard. And I would, I did not get a chance this afternoon to talk to him, but I'm fairly confident that he would still like to serve in that role and that leaves one additional opening. And I would just like to see if there's any consensus or a volunteer for somebody to fill that position. Mr. Myers willing to do it? Is there any objection to that or anybody else want? Okay. So Mr. Drummond and I don't think we need a motion, but Mr. Drummond and Mr. Meyer would be appointed to those two positions. One other quick thing. I noticed and Mr. Greenfield actually brought it up during the presentation that we had on the fences that the minutes from the Planning Commission were not attached. We had a fairly spirited discussion about the importance of that some time ago, it was probably a couple of years ago, and the Planning Commission is a advisory board to the Council, and it's always very helpful to be able to read their minutes and see what their deliberations are and read their comments in the testimony. And it seems like we're getting away from that, and so I would just like to ask Mr. Siss, and if we couldfocus our efforts to make sure that when recommendations come from the Planning Commission and Actions take in that those minutes would go along with it. I'm just the last thing, just I'll try to make this positive because I feel that it should be positive certainly as we move forward. And I would urge us now that we are moving forward, that we all try to get on that ban wagon and that is the first nine activities. I personally participated in probably three or four meetings of the downtown merchants that group did a great job. I believe in reaching out to the downtown merchants. I know I sat in one meeting where they assigned all the downtown merchants that were there, other merchants that weren't there in the entire downtown, the new and the old, and they personally went and reached out and talked to them about their activities. And certainly first night, I know Victoria Cakery has been anticipating the meetings, the owner of the religious store. I don't remember the name of it has been participating in the meetings. But it's been a very, I think, very supportive and exciting deal. And they feel strongly, and quite frankly, I wouldn't have made the recommendation that I didn't support it. If they didn't feel so strongly that a major focus on first night and leading up through the December holidays was not important to them. Just to kind of give you a quick outline at least how I see this thing kind of coming down as we move forward. In the $15,000 in the discussion we had two weeks ago was the city would be building the bond fire. The city would close the roads. We had a very lengthy discussion about that at the last meeting and in an effort to focus it in as a close geographical area is possible. And quite frankly to keep the cost down as possible, we had Main Street open for fall festival. The recommendation was to close North Street from East Street to Chamber of Road and University Drive from Main Street to the opening of the library parking lot and to focus all the activities in that area. I had a meeting with staff today to kind of get a feel for in a more streamed down look and insurance that we could meet and provide the needed services on the bonfire. Certainly the police services, the closing of the roads, and making sure that we could stay within that $15,000 Mr. Assistance, my understanding the staff's going to refine those numbers and get something to us in the next couple days with the spirit that we will find a way to stay within those numbers. Out of all the businesses that are coming, I think so far at least there are eight commitments from the businesses to provide entertainment that night. The concept is that all the various businesses that are willing to do it higher professional entertainment for their establishments and then be willing to donate at least one hour of that entertainment to a quote public square where we would have the city's band standard, whatever it's called, that's probably not the right word, but mobile. Yeah, Shell, entertainment shell, so that we would have public, public entertainment. Pacer's shoes is very excited and has done tremendous work in the last two weeks. It's going to be organizing a, I think it's a 5k I think it's about a three mile run they're very confident that they'll get a thousand to 1500 people in it with the exception again of the road closing that will be done entirely if they're expense the marketing the organization the functions the awards and they are taking the lead on that functions, the awards, and they are taking the lead on that. It's my understanding that the spotlight of the arts has agreed to do a, Mr. Sisson, what was the word swing dance event at Old Town Hall that would be open to the public. I know I'm forgetting some things, but and then I had a very good conversation with the president of Kimco this afternoon and I wish I'd had a number I could report to you By tonight, but I will have that number in the morning and I'm hopeful that Kimco will be donating a fairly sizable financial contribution to making the event successful as well and without quoting a number publicly I'll have that number and certainly email it out to everybody as we move forward which will allow us to expand the events successful as well. And without quoting a number publicly, I'll have that number and certainly email it out to everybody as we move forward, which will allow us to expand the entertainment. We're also talking on the carriage rides, not to absorb cost in that into, we've already reached out to providers of carriage rides where they would basically come in for a fee, a reasonable fee, charge families who want to go on a carriage ride and the downtown area. So basically we'd provide the venue and the people, but it will be a totally at the cost and the risk of the carriage ride providers and I'm optimistic that that's going to get worked out. So it's moving along nicely. Obviously the city I it's my understanding will be running a promotion in the city scene that we're doing it. In the process of reaching out to some of our large clubs who have very good mailing list and fact ones that were very instrumental in the success of the first year and getting their support and communication. I know the merchants are pulling together money under their marketing funds to develop marketing material consistent with our policy. They are willing to hang a banner over Main Street where they would print the banner at their cost for the city to hang to promote the event. And so the progress is moving forward. I know I'm very excited to sitting in it. I know they are placing a lot of weight on the success of this event and bringing attention to the downtown area and stay tuned and hopefully it will be another successful event on first night in the downtown area. With that, I have no more comments on entertaining motion for adjournment. Second. Second. It's moved by Mr. Greenfield, seconded by Mr. Rasmussen, all in favor of the motion signify by voting aye. Aye. Opposed and a passionate. I'm What do you rather? Is your room clean? Is your homework done? You have to walk the dog. What do you rather? Any red-diver screwdriver will be able to do you. Feel like the world is passing you by. What didn't you rather come the world is passing you by? Come to a place where you can hang out with kids, your energy, play games, watch movies, and just have fun and we promise no nagging mothers. Come join the fun of the hot spot team