One and only you I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I'm going going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to have to go. The Sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, everybody starts to sing. Party high, ho ho, now she's singing with her sway. Sing, sing, sing, sing, sing. Everybody sure must sing. Hurry, hurry, hurry, hurry, oh-oh. Now she's singing with a sway, when the music goes around. Everybody goes to town, here's one thing you often know. Oh-oh, maybe, oh-oh-oh, sing, sing, sing, sing. Everybody starts to sing, everybody starts to sing, so now she's singing with this way. Yeah, I forgot. We're going to start. I don't have our chair. Should be back. How do we explain we lost it, Chair? Who's here? We've got our small stuff. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is. There is We have quite a long agenda tonight and a whole variety of issues, but the first and certainly not in any priority But certainly probably in terms of impact on our budget the discussion with school funding and Mrs. Miller. I'll turn it over to You all Mr. Letter Mr. Mayor First of all, I like to say thank you to everyone for getting together this evening. It is early 530 is tough for people who have jobs to make it to this meeting. And as that as Rob said, this is going to be a very long evening. And I appreciate everyone coming out tonight. The purpose of this meeting is really simple. It's to update the mayor of City Council and city staff on the status of both the Fairfax and the Linear Construction projects. We're prepared to share with you the plan developed to complete some projects deleted from the original plans at Fairfax High School. Additionally, we are also prepared to report on funds that will be transferred to the City Council as both projects are closed out. At Fairfax High School, if members will call, groundly construction moved off the site and fall. Left behind is an extensive punch list that is slowly but surely being little down. At linear, the interior space is largely completed and the school is putting the newly refurbished space back into instructional use. As the weather warms, the linear site work will move forward and at this time we are not exactly sure when that site work will be completed. At Fairfax High School, as this, when we first let this project, if you recall, the bid price was considerably higher than the school board anticipated. When we accepted Greenlees offer, we also deleted $9 million in costs. The $9 million included the small recycle hall, storage areas within the athletic department wing of the building, some minor classroom space, and considerable work to the playing field. As we are coming to the close of this project, the school board reviewed the items deleted and concluded that some, but not all of the deleted projects, could be funded from the remaining bond funds. The board reason that it would consider projects that presented two things. One safety issues to staff, students and community members, and we would also consider projects that if not funded with remaining bond money would need to be funded in the future through capital needs projects, namely the capital improvements plan. So these two objectives in mind, the board developed a plan that Super New Monday will now review. This is Monday. Thank you. And I would like to just let you know that we've gone through a thoughtful process in the last couple of months. We considered what was cut from the original bid and looked at the needs of the school. I have to tell you, I went back to my previous experience as a principal myself and when our renovation at Robinson came in over budget typically schools cut, fight work, and work on plain fields and stadium. That's very typical. And I think it's appropriate. The most important priority here is our instructional space and that's where, as you know, the absolute lion's share of the money appropriately went from this bond. However, at the end of the day, because we have approximately $1 million in bond funds remaining at Fairfax, we considered some issues that we feel should be addressed at this time, responsibly addressed by our board. And so in front of you, you have a chart that outlines our decisions related to the Fairfax High School Construction Bond funds that remain. As Mrs. Miller said, we looked very carefully at the list of things that were eliminated. Clearly, when you have $1 million, you can't go back and replace $9 million. So much of it was just out of hand not considered at all. However, we came to three large areas of concern. One is interior repairs. Actually, it's not a large area of concern. It's just unnecessary areas where we have to go in and make a couple of repairs at the end of the construction that we're not part of the bid. And that's the first spot. The second is what we're calling ground improvements and repairs and this is plain fields and our stadium. Again this work was largely cut out of the original bid. We have looked at we have some of this already bid out. We have some prices although some of it we don't and we have some estimates very rough estimates but we basically determined a threshold That is that we did not feel we should invest more than $450,000 at this time in our Stadium and fields however you can see that with that money we're addressing safety issues with our press box Equipment storage buildings some of which have to be replaced We are replacing our track and we will lose some existing storage buildings that we have to replace. So that would be again something that would be immediately on our CIP because it would be an immediate need. I have to tell you we've had major conversations about the concession stand and we took a very moderate approach. There are people in the community who would like to see us tear that concession and stand down and move it. But frankly, as we considered, our priority is the limited budget that we had. It was just not a realistic plan. And even to do major renovation of the existing concession stand was a quarter of a million dollars. So we took a much more modest approach. We would like to work with Fairfax County on some maintenance issues that are beyond what they would do and their standard contractual agreement. We have some electrical upgrading that needs to be done and we postponed as we were making these decisions. Upgrade practice fields and correct baseball field drainage problems. These are serious issues. The practice fields are correct baseball field drainage problems. These are serious issues. The practice fields are essentially unusable space at this point. We must look at our baseball field. We aren't quite sure what the drainage source of the drainage problems are. These are the kinds of things that are uncorrected over time create bigger issues. I'm going to talk a little bit about the pedestrian traffic flow signage and access at the stadium entrance. That we linked up with replacing stadium fencing, which was a large item that was cut out of the original bid. And I think that there are many of you who would agree with me that the fencing badly needs to be replaced. The leanland trees around the stadium need to be replaced. And this is a perfect time for us to correct the traffic flow problem at the entrance to the stadium as we're replacing the fence anyway. So we'd like to add to that amount that bid and see what we can do to open up that area and hopefully, and I'll draw your attention to the last item, begin to address some of our access problems in terms of handicap access, although I want to be very clear. Again, we've learned a lot in this process talking about concession stands and handicap access. We don't have the money to do everything that would be ideal to provide absolute access. We just don't have it. We aren't replacing our home bleachers. That was in the original bid, by the way. It would now cost us about $2 million. We're not going there. We're going to stay with the bleachers that we have. But we would like to at least investigate better access for handicapped individuals on the home side of our bleachers. We aren't sure what we'll be able to do there. And we would like to, as we add the fencing or replace the fencing and look at our entrance to the stadium, provide for the first time a secure ticket booth for our athletic fields, which is something that I'm most other schools have had for years and we have not had a plus secure and safe place for people to sell tickets by our stadium. So those are our stadium investments and field investment. We also need to resurface our tennis courts. That's they are in bad condition. They need to be resurfaced and we've gotten a bid from Fairfax County for approximately $50,000 for that. The last piece, the last box is the maintenance of RUB1. We'd like to work in partnership with the city and be good citizens in terms of keeping that road and that area in good shape. I've spoken with Mr. Sisson and he believes that if we can put forward $60,000 out of this bond money, then within the next three to five years the city should be able to, on its own schedule, do the work on Rebel Run to maintain that road. The removed and replaced on functional lights on Rebel Run, that's something that I've learned has been sort of a mystery problem for a number of years. Why some have remained and why some have been replaced and not replaced. Right now we have, we counted 23 lights on Rebel Run between Fairfax Boulevard and the entrance to the school. Many of them are not functional. Most of them don't match. Now again, the aesthetics is not going to be our highest priority. Our highest priority. Our highest priority is to make sure that that area is well lit and safe for our students and for others who use our building. But we would hope that we can invest some money now. Again, work with the city. I've been in contact with some city folks and at least do make some improvements along Rebel Run in terms of lighting. When you add all of that up and put in a contingency of 10%. do make some improvements along Rebel Run in terms of lighting. When you add all of that up and put in a contingency of 10%, we would be reinvesting $750,000 in Fairfax High School from the remaining construction bond funds. And therefore, we would have a surplus of $250,000 to return to the city and FY09. And that's Fairfax. Okay, thank you Mrs. Mende questions. Questions, Ms. Lyne. First I'd like to say this is great and I look forward to always working with the schools because that's one of my passions here in the city of Fairfax. And of course I'm one of the ones that would like to see that snack bar at the top of the hill or in the hill for $500,000. And I'm going to go through this budget just a little bit because we are in a tight budget year and will be over the next couple of years I think. So I'd like to just kind of understand what some of these prices are for and what they might stand for. And I'm going to start at the top of the page if that's all right. The interior repairs, what kind of repairs are those due to construction errors or those could do to things that were before we had new construction? I think the steps or combination of both I'm looking at my friend time, this is Craig as she has a long history with the building. It was never as far as I know, intended that the steps be replaced. Their terrasos steps to replace those steps would be extremely expensive. They are, however, in very bad repair. They are chipped. They are uneven. In fact, they're almost startling to look at because they're surrounded by essentially a renovated building and they are a very bad repair. What can be done economically is a hard rubber surface put on them. We've done that in our elementary schools. We've actually done that in the area, the olds, what I would call the old entrance hall in Fairfax. We have some of these hard rubber surfaces and they wear well and they're replaceable. And this would again be the time that we need to do that. Okay, thank you. I was just gonna comment, my first tour of Fairfax six, seven months ago, I'm like, okay, beautiful all around. And then the steps that I looked at for 22 years, and I don't know if it's the cleats or whatever, stand out like a sore thumb. So yes, I actually brought up the steps. Okay. I don't like to just run down to the grounds and improvement. There's $450,000 that's kind of put into a bucket. Whenever I see $450,000 in a bucket, I always think, okay, well, some of these things are in a list, but there's never an amount or a dollar amount attached to them and when I go through the city budget I do the same thing. I think this you know we're talking about contracts and there's a lot of $20,000 and under contracts that we don't see that come up to us how big is that bucket. So it's the same thing here and I so I guess I want to ask a little bit about correcting the baseball field drainage. Now if I remember the drainage was a problem before the construction. Has the drainage gotten worse due to the construction? To? I don't have a history there, but it was wasn't there. I was, I was, I know because we haven't, we haven't done, we haven't gone anywhere near the baseball field. The only construction that's been done on the field was the turf field. Right. And there, Mr. Rusk, there was some underground utility work that was done in conjunction with the addition to the wings, and that should have, but if you can answer that, I would appreciate that. I think the drainage problem with the baseball field is a continuing problem. I don't think it's one that is resulted from the construction. The reason it came up is we knew there was the problem and we were looking at doing something with the practice field which is in the northwest corner of the property which right now is unusable because it's uneven and you can't put kids on it because they'll break their ankles on up and down. So we were looking at doing the grading and completing that to add the field to the inventory and if we were going to do that we felt we could go over and fix the baseball field at the same time. I think it's a great thing to have, I just was curious to find out if there had been more damage to undo the construction, and if we could go at it from another angle. Then I do wanna ask one other question, and it's because of my, I'm not sure what you're calling the entrance of the football field. I always call it the top of the hill and some of the kids call it the bottom of the hill. So when we're talking to improving the pedestrian flows and signage and access of the stadium entrance, is that at the bottom of Rebel Run, are we going to talk at the top or both? Because both, I think, personally, need personally need work. So which one are we? It would be the entrance adjacent to the field house. Okay, at the top of the hill. If you recall, there's, it's just, I think it's a single, it's a double gate there. And someone, if it's a soccer game or a minor sport, someone sits there with cash box and collects money. But when there is, when we have football games, then people need to go into the field house to purchase a ticket and then they walk across the parking lot to go into that area. But it's just a simple sidewalk and a double gate to get in. That is what we're talking about. It does need work and I do appreciate where we're buying tickets is kind of an issue. And what kind of signage are we talking about? Is this, do we? No. It would be simply, it would be some type of a sign or maybe something that would be overhead that would that would indicate to people this is the entrance to the to the to the playing field area. As it is now most people unless they've been there before have no idea where to go. Oh, great. Okay. Thank you for that. And I only have I think two more questions here. But when we're talking about Millen gutter and Overland Rullerun, which I do think needs to happen, the city is going to share the cost, and I want to ask the city, it's going to be 120,000 or 135,000, and the school board's going to pay 60, and we'll pay the remaining, is that what we're looking at doing? Whatever the cost turns out to say, we're going to have to get you up to a microphone here. Love that. Yes, it was. I'm going to have to speak for yourself. Speak for yourself. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When this Monday and I talked, it seemed like that it made sense. First of all, city residents use that road heavily and contribute to its maintenance needs. So it seemed to make sense for us to pay at least half of it and then to add it to the city's pavement contractor so that we could get a better cost per square foot or square yard grass fault. So whatever the figure turns out to be, I'm not really sure is it 120? Is it two times 60,000? Is that what we're saying? We had 120 based on a standalone bid from our architect. Now that's I think you had indicated to me that that seemed high to you in terms of what the city would normally pay for that amount of paving. But we thought in fairness, we would put forward $60,000 and then the city would take care of this in the next three to five years. Well, there's another 250,000 being put back in the budget I might add too. But let me ask this one other question then. And so Bob, are we, this amount that is in for this year's budget, is that right that we'll be seeing next week? We've made sure that this part is accounted for. Or did we have some of it in last year's capital improvement amount? No, we'll be running improvements. I think Ms. Mundi is saying next three to five years the pavement will be put off sometime in those years and won't be next year. Okay, so it's not going to be in this year's budget coming up. We won't be looking at it then. But my worry about not making sure it's funded is that it keeps me putting out, do the fact that our budget is looking rather tight and could be for a couple of years, that this would not happen when we've done such a nice job on the schools that we don't make that happen. Since there's, this is the money that's eared for it. Okay, that's what I'd like to add to that. Before you go on, I have a follow-up. Please. I'll comment to Mrs. Lyon's talking about Rebel Run. Rebel Run is not in awful condition. It is not, oh, pavement, it is the pavement is not cracking up. There is one area adjacent to a manhole that could probably use an asphalt patch. But for the most part, it's in reasonably good condition. But it is going to, as all asphalt projects, it is going to need repair in the future and probably somewhere in the next three to five years. Thank you, Mr. Miller. I'm not saying it's awful. I just don't want it. I mean, I think that we have a stellar school. And I want to have, I mean, the road that goes up there, it looks good, but it could look and we keep it in maintenance. So thank you for that, Mrs. Miller. Before you go on, if I could just follow up just so I understand this, Before you go on, if I could just follow up just so I understand this. Is the $60,000 which if I heard her rights not going to be spent for a couple of years, going to sit in the schools budget for two or three years or is that $60,000 that can be returned with the understanding that two or three years from now. We're not really in shape to be put money aside if it's not going to be used this year. What since is included in the $756,000, but we're not going to spend it for a couple of years, what happens to that? Well, I think the school board will gladly accept those return funds and those probably will be spent for other purposes at some point in the next three to five years when the city engineer determines that the road needs to be paid that will become part of our annual paving program and then the road will be done. Okay. But are all of these funds this whole total going to be done in this coming fiscal year or like this road, some of us being set aside that will be two years, three years, four years down the road? We, well the interior repair is clear, you're going to be done immediately. The improved the stadium and fields we would, we intend to begin all of this work in FY09. The problem with the repair on a school is that sometimes you have to wait until seasons are over. So we may have to postpone some things until we have seasons over. We're having the track done this summer and we have some other work in the field. So access to certain areas may be a problem. But it is our intent to have these all out into contract in FY09. With the exception of the 60,000 for Rebel Run. With the exception for the 60,000 for Rebel Run, and I would like to work with Mr. Sissan and his staff and see what on Earth we could possibly do for the lights on Rebel Run as well. That would be better than we are now. And again, that's not an imminent need, but we concluded after much discussion that it wouldn't be responsible for us to walk away from this at this time and not put some money toward that project. In fiscal year 09. Well, again, I would be glad to work with the city on that. I think we would like a commitment from the city that if we provide money for the future that we would address that problem together. I will tell you bluntly, it's not the biggest priority to the school because lights on Rebel Run or not what health kids read. But we absolutely recognize that it's an issue that needs to be addressed at some point. Okay, Mr. Lion. Well, Mr. Mayor, may I add on to that, I, you know, when we get to the budget issues, but I think I've been talking about those lights on Rebel Run since I was elected six years ago. So, you know, in my mind, those are, it needs to be safe. We're talking about safe places for our children. And when you're walking up and down those down Rebel Run, it's dark. It's not necessary after 6 o'clock at night. So I hope that we keep that in the budget. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no other questions, but I do want to say thank you all for coming and bringing this to us. Thanks. You're welcome. Miss Cross. I would like to be clear on when the monies that haven't been expended for the school become monies that the city can draw upon. If we would decide that we had priorities in the city that were higher priorities than what are listed here or a portion of them. Well, Ms. Cross, I think I think part of this discussion is to determine the priorities among the boards to see what we need to do from that perspective. What we had proposed and what's in the memorandum is to release it at the beginning of the fiscal year, which is the visual at first. That would simply give us because we have ongoing construction and all those projects we wanted to make sure that we had coverage during that period, but once that's done, there's no reason not to release the funds. So what what we're trying to come to tonight is an understanding of what what we how we prioritize these against not only themselves, but against all the other pending matters in the city that some of this money could be used for. Is that right? Well, certainly we would like to use it for the school system. I understand. That's part of our power here, but we wanted to talk to you. We understand the city has budget issues that they're trying to address. These are things we think are very important, and that's the reason that we put it forward to you. Okay. Any other questions on the high school? Mr. Restman. Thank you. The replaced stadium fencing is at the chain link fence around the football field. Yes it is. And I've noticed that the barbed wire on the top is already down. And I'm assuming when you replace the fence that you might not replace the barbed wire. It always reminds me of a prison camp The assumption is we would not put up barbed wire. I don't recall barbed wire being there, but oh it is it was Did you climb over I think that's because the quality of the students that have gone in years past probably no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no I know. Thank you for pointing that out. I believe there are plans for barbed wire. Good, thank you. And just for the record, I was including myself in that list of former students. So, Mr. Mayor. I'm on that note and I guess I just want to make a general statement. And first of all, thank you all for being here. And I think this is this is helpful so far. I know we're going to continue here for a few more minutes. The one thing I'm thinking about and Mr. Rasmussen and I are probably more sensitive to this than most people, but I do recall the the famous fence across the street at the golf course in which I think they took the easy way out in terms of painting the fence initially. I think eventually they actually replaced it, but I guess my point is if there's ways to cut costs and do it effectively, that's also aesthetically pleasing because obviously raising the sensitivity that Mrs. Lyon has said about, you know, not trying to cut some corners here at the end unnecessarily that aren't that sort of cheapens the look of what we've invested there've invested there I agree with that but if there are some ways that it can be done effectively please explore them the other thing I wanted to just mention And getting to Mrs. Cross's point while I'm sensitive to it I I really would hate to see and I know this is going to be a very spirited discussion that this body on this side is going to have over the course of the next few months Month and a half, about prioritization. I think all of us have been sensitized by the city manager up here about where we're ending up this fiscal year, let alone what we're looking at in terms of next week's presentation for the next fiscal year. Probably the worst budget situation we faced in the city's history as you've heard already, I'm sure. So there's going to be a spirited debate and I don't want to necessarily get into it. This evening with my colleagues, I do hope that you guys are just taking a very sensitive look at all of these issues that all of us have raised from time to time about how we can do it effectively and cost effectively at the same time. So. Absolutely. I think as our clear remarks are well taken and we will do that. Thank you very much. This is one of quick, not to leave the fence. The trees, the scraggly trees are coming down. Yes, ma'am. And so then the fence, when it's replaced, will be with something similar. With the chain link. Correct. Okay. And the tennis courts were passed over. But what I would, I was, I've been overlooked and they are in such poor repair that you can't have competitions there because of all the, the things bounce. That's what I had heard. But I think that there are, there isn't, I guess, I've been told one court and I did walk where there isn't some break so that a ball bouncing would might not be true. And I played on there. There are. Okay. So I would just say. I will not make your cracks. I agree with that issue. Thank you. Moving on. The linear project, as I said earlier, will be moving towards completion. We have no intention to spend any additional funds that linear other than the contract that we have. And unless, as I said, if we once we get into site work, if we would end up with something like in this best strand in the soil, we might have to do something, spend additional money to do something of that sort. But looking at linear today we do not expect any additional expenditures at linear so that the funds that are available there that once the project is completed would be returned to the city. And those amounts? That amount is, Jack, would you like to speak to that Mr. Russ? At the present time, we're estimating about 2 and 3 quarter million that would be funds that are available at this point, 2 and 3 quarter million. We've got about 3 quarters of a million required to finish the project. So we're looking at 2 million dollars that we can comfortably assure the city would be available at the beginning of the fiscal year. Okay. I just have a comment to say, after looking at all this and the schools really are flagship and I want to commend the school board for all the hard work. This is Monday and of course your former person for doing all this work and really holding the line on the budget. To be able to come back to a city council and say wow, we've saved money. And in both buckets. And I'm not going to say it's a little bit of money. It's a lot of money. And I want to say thank you to you for your stewardship and Mr. Russ also. I don't if I've missed anyone, I'm sorry. But what a great thing to see. And I thank you all for that. And my hat's off to you. I just hope that everyone remembers on this board that that's what you all have done to show, you know, that's just to come back to the city as 2.25 without us even working together to would live down if that's what everyone is choosing to do. But I want to say thank you for that. And wish you could do more buildings here in the city of Fairfax and save us more money. So thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Man. Hi, Julie. Thank you, Madam. I would just like to also address Mrs. Cross's concerns and just to assure her that we really did look very closely at everything and this is what we really feel is really absolute. We didn't come asking for the Cadillac, but we looked at what really needs done and how can we do it most effectively and made some tough decisions where there were some things we might have liked to have done a little differently or a little more into we realize also the the situation in In the economic condition and that we're pleased to be able to give this back and Return it and make it available that that we had conversations about maybe we should hold More you know just to be on the safe side, but we felt like it would not be the responsible thing to do so we appreciate your support Alan Thank you. You should know that I will almost certainly vote no when the school board votes in this matter and you deserve to know why. This cross I think said it correctly and it exemplifies the reason this is school money. The voters in this city voted for this money for schools. It is not to solve your problems quite frankly, it's for us. In its unprecedented, in my opinion, that we turned money back when the projects aren't even complete. When we needed architect fees upfront with us, what we came to you, you did the right thing. We worked together as a team. When we wanted to bond the property, we came to you and we did it as a team. When the vids came, the linear came in high and when needed more money, we came to you. And together we worked a solution. The $2 million that's coming back from one year's $2 million we transferred from Fairfax. That's money that could make the stadium handicap accessible. It's money that with a little bit more could put that recycle haul that we pulled out in place. This is not money to make your budget budget. Well, this is full money. And where were you coming to us and saying we got a real problem, can we work something out? You sent a staffer. I don't want to bring this to your attention, ladies. And Joe McBourne elected body. And it's our money. Once we got it, it's ours. Now, I agree you need it. I think you need it. Although I'm not sure why, rumor on the street is your short. And I'm not sure why, rumor on the street is your short. And I'm willing to watch this money go away, but I think it's been done the wrong way. And you need to know that? And that's well-vote, no? Thank you. Any other board members like to make comments? I think I speak for the majority of board members when I say that majority of board members when I say that this city council and the board has worked together very well and without the support of everyone in this room, we would have still been looking at old Fairfax High School and an even older linear. We were short at linear. You did give us the additional funds and not only is this board appreciative but this community is appreciative as well. I am more than happy and I think I speak for four members of this board that we will transfer that money so to make your budget cycle easier. On this side of the aisle we don't always agree but we always agree to work together. So, and I think that we can do that. In the next fiscal year, not only will we plan to transfer every additional penny that we do not need. And it will be a quarter of a million dollars from the Fairfax project and approximately 2.7 million from the linear project. And if there's more money than that, that will come forward in the next fiscal year. We don't know exactly that amount, and we would be full hearty to pretend that we know the exact amount. Until we cut the final check to groundly construction and dusting construction, then there may be issues that come up. But we do appreciate your help and your support all along the way Because if we wouldn't have had your help and support we wouldn't have gone anywhere And madam chairman, I fully agree with that We ought to take that lead to move on to the next agenda item We ought to take that lead to move on to the next agenda item. Thank you very much for coming out tonight. We are now going to move on to a agenda. Mr. President, before I can I just ask the question. There were some things that went back and forth today about a letter that you were interested. Did you want Mrs. Nundee to share that information with you and with the members of Council now. We certainly could in the Council, not even aware of the issue, but I can make a minute to do that so that they're aware of the issues there. I got a request from the mayors and chairs of Northern Virginia to co-sign a letter of all the Northern Virginia jurisdictions about some of the various proposals that are going on regarding school funding if I understood it right. I sent that to Mr. Siss and to ask feedback. I sent it to Mrs. Miller to ask for school feedback, and I think I sent it to Ms. Mundy as well. I, quite frankly, am not familiar with the various options and alternatives that are asked for school feedback and I think I sent it to Ms. Mundy as well. I quite frankly am not familiar with the various options and alternatives that are going through Richmond to be in a position to determine whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to sign. I certainly want the council's feedback on that as well. So Mrs. Miller, if you want to take the lead in sort of sharing with us the issues and then whether or not you have any comments on the draft letter which I think you do have? I do have a copy of the draft letter and I'm going to ask Mrs. But I'm going to say first of all is that the city school board last night adopted a resolution similar to the one that Fairfax County Board of Super, excuse me, the Fairfax County School Board will send to the Northern Virginia delegation. And basically, it is similar to the letter that Mr. Letter received today that Mayor Letter received from the Mayor's and Chair's group. The issue is as long as funding for schools. There is a course as always in Virginia, there's a house version and there's the Senate version. The Senate version quite frankly is more favorable to schools in Northern Virginia. The letter that the resolution that the school board passed reflects that, the letter that will be sent from the mayors and chairs. And Mrs. Mone, did you want to add a few more comments? I did get some advice today from the Michael Malloy, who is the legislative liaison for Fairfax County Public Schools, and said that the Senate budget version is far better. It doesn't change the methodologies by which the spent marking had occurred in the past. And with the change in methodologies, Fairfax County would lose a tremendous amount of money around teacher salaries. Since we don't pay teacher salaries, it doesn't have a direct impact on us, but it has a drastic indirect effect on us and the quality of our schools. The Senate version is not perfect, it has its own issues with lottery funds and school construction funds. But given the choices Fairfax County would much prefer the Senate version, which does not change the methodologies to the degree that the House version does. And just based on what one projection is Fairfax County in the 2008-2010, my name would lose approximately $30 million in funding for the state from the state. And again, this is furthering the issues that we have as localities to try to provide education to students that in these times. So they are very much opposed to it. I'd suggest that you sign the letter. I know I'm catching the Council of Guard here as I was this afternoon. I didn't even read the letter in detail until just this minute. But are there any questions while the school board is here that we have on the issue? I guess the long and short of it is the Northern Virginia delegation. And I assume supported by the schools, as you said, feels the Senate bill is better than the House bill. In essence, while I have some issues with some of the verbats in here, which I will suggest to correct before I personally would sign it, the big issue is Senate bill versus House bill is more favorable to education in Northern Virginia. Any other questions questions anybody has? OK. Miss Lyon? Well, you know, because I haven't really read it too much. Even though the Senate bill may be better, is there something else that we can, do you see where I'm going here? House delegates, that may not be good, but the Senate one we might need to not be in favor of either. Well, because the bottom line is, is that I believe we're just three days short of closing the session. Right. So there's not a whole lot room for play. It's Alan. I think the balance been, I miss a graph has been falling this issue probably more closely than anyone. There were three versions for us. The governor's proposal and then the subsequent Senate and House Bill. The Governor's proposal heard us one time. The Senate bill will heard us one time. The House revises the underlying formulas in such a way that it hurts us this year and in the out years as well. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. We don't need to decide now on what to do, but thank you very much. We appreciate that. Okay. Mr. System just looking around the room. I know we're now moving into the discussion developer presentations on the Merriot Project 123 and 50. I don't see anybody. I see Mr. Hudson at the door. Maybe he's got a status report for us. Are we ready for that presentation? Do we need? We're waiting on one person. You're person with the presentation. Okay. Okay. Let's just see then. There are two presentations. I don't know if both of them are. Are both of them not here or they're both not here? Then should we move down? I don't know how we publicize this and whether we gave times, but my tendency would be now to go down to some topic that we could cover so we're not just filling blank time because this is a huge agenda. I mean, I'm just looking down and I want to make sure I'm assuming four certainly has interest in the community. Can we default to discussion, to equity, creek, stream, bank restoration as well? Aft here, no. The problem with that is I think I told other staff that they didn't have to be here until. Yeah, that's what I'm worried about all these items. So I'm assuming the conclusion is we better just pause is that? I think on this emergency management ordinance amendment, Chief Wilson, are you prepared to address that item or is Chief Owens on his way? I think he's on his way. I think that's really the consequence of that decision. Why don't we take, what time did we tell the development teams that the next item would start at a certain time or I'm not sure what Mr. Hudson told him no So they should have just been here waiting We do Westmore you said what? Okay What? I said to hear it before 630. Okay. We do West one. Well, yeah, the only problem is I'm sure people looked at this agenda and assumed it was fourth down and so why don't we just take a five-minute break or we'll see if it gets much longer than that then we guess we will just jump into other items. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a good boy. I'm not going to be a The Pennsylvania 6-5-thousand. Pennsylvania 6-5-thousand. The six five Today is 6'5'5". I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it The 265 00 The I'm not going to be a good guy. The goes on and on. Though life is empty more, since you have gone. You're always on my mind, though out of sight. It's blown some through the day, and all my eyes, I cry my heart, it's bound to break, since nothing matters, let it break. I ask the sun and the moon, the stars that shine. What's to become of me this love of mine? I'm going to go 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 to the beach. I cry my heart out, it's bound to grave. Nothing matters, so let it break. I ask the sun and the moon, the stars it's just. that shine, what's to become. This love of mine, this love of mine goes on. The work session and we'll go to a gin-diner number reconvene, re-agirne. Re-agirne? Okay, let's quit. We'll go to a gin-diner number two, which is the development presentation of the Marriott Project of 123 and Ralph 50, and I will turn it over to you, Mr. Hudson, to set the stage in. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have with me David Lassau, who's representing Marriott. I'll let David represent his team. Marriott is a contract purchaser of the property located on Chamber of Roe, the old V dot property, and would like a discussion of their proposed alternatives to develop a residence in at that location. So I'll turn it over to David Lasso and he's got a brief presentation. Thank you, David. Mr. Mayor, and member of the City Council seated to my right is Bonny Van Cherish, she is an engineer and development manager with Marriott. And to her right is Tom Galley, Vice President of development with Marriott. Our engineer will be joining us shortly. The proposal has been actually under discussion for probably five years as Marriott has been attempting to secure a site in Fairfax City. It would very much like to be in Fairfax City. The particular proposal is for a residence in. The existing site is the V.O.T. property. We wanted to alert you to some existing conditions that greatly influence the location and design and ultimate layout of a residence in. You'll notice it's a triangular shaped piece of property relatively small to the north is an electric easement. You must stay 15 feet away. The actual aerial utility lines are on the property to the north, and they go across Chain Bridge Road. You can see a diagonal line going across that small triangular shaped piece of property. There's a telephone easement to the south and a temporary construction easement designed to facilitate future work on Route 123 chain bridge road. The project site, you know it very well. You can see the predominant automobile use here and this aerial photograph really helps you get a quick understanding of the challenges face by putting what is a high end hotel in this location, in anticipation of future development. And one of the things we'd like to discuss with you tonight is what is that development going to look like and in particular what is the commitment of the city to the dedication of future streets in this area because those streets influence the layout of the hotel. This was the original layout you see it's data January 07 that's when we brought it in in November and it was revised again in January. But this was the first layout that we were working with. That's a relatively suburban design of a property surrounded by parking. But easel, it's got good access off of the service road on 123. But you can see that it is not an urban designed, really consistent with your draft master plan, which will come to in just a moment. The development plan, I'd like to ask Mr. Galley to chime in a little bit, and I'll just set the stage. It is a residence in, it's 150 rooms that's proposed. Would be about five stories tall. This is an extended stay product, which I think you're aware of and we can discuss that with you a little bit tonight. But Tom will tell you a little bit more about the product. Right, the residence in Brand is one of, when it merits 11 brands in the portfolio of hotel brands that we have, merit basically a brand company, specializing in the hotel industry. The extended stay segment of the hospitality industry is defined as a segment where people stay five nights plus in a given property. The resident's sitting brand for us is a brand that we purchased in 1986. It's one of our larger brands. We've got 500 and I've got 70 hotels open now in the country. If another 130 or so in the development pipeline. What makes it special is it's really targeted toward a segment of business traveler that's prevalent in the Washington DC metropolitan area, especially in the county as well as North Virginia and over in Montgomery County. I miss a lot of temporary assignment type individuals that tend to come to the market stay anywhere from one night, some folks stay as long as one is 30 nights. It's a particular property we have performed to have about 24% of the room nights a room night defined as one person staying for one night in the hotel. As I'm 30 nights plus that's one of the things that David will just a little bit later on in the amendment. Their main deraude of the people either stay somewhere between one and the 29 nights. This property we projected about 30 35 percent of the business will be one to two to three-night stay people which is what we see throughout the I-66 corridor. We've a residence in up in the Fair Lakes area as one as well as when over in the Mariffield markets we understand the market very well here. All of our in-touse internal feasibility studies that we've done on the City of Fairfax point to this is being one of the stronger, a lot of launching niches if you will that's still kind of underserved in the entire I-66 corridor if you will. The products which I think they have a little bit later on when he has some schematics of the rooms. Our very large rooms, you know, when someone says the hotel, they have him a free breakfast that they get further, room rate if you will. It's a great product for this market. We've had a great success. It's one of the brands that I look at in an urban area when I go in there to develop because it's a very high profitability for the ownership of the brands that I look at in an urban area when I go in there to develop because it's very high profitability for the ownership of the hotels and it really meets a niche that's really prevalent here in the Washington DC metropolitan area. It also works very well in the sense that people who stay here use the local businesses almost exclusively. That's really what they want. They're away from home and they want the comfort, if you will, and the familiarity and the experience that I've learned in the years of working with Mariya. They get the haircut, they'll dry cleaning, you name it, eating out. So they really do frequent the local businesses. This is a prototype design that you it's a suburban look and it's something that you see in many different locations but we wanted you to see it. This is embraced in many locations. This is really not consistent with your master plan but you do see it. I wanted you to see it as an option. This is the layout of the common areas of a Marriott residence in. It's got some meeting space. It's got a hard room where there's a fireplace and a large lobby area where people can gather. There's an eating area with booths for people to eat. The managers often bring in food. This is other than the breakfasts and the residents in Zive State. That's often the case. So there are different kinds of events all during the day. There's a pool. This one, this prototype here happens to have an indoor pool, exercise room, business area, really just a terrific use of space. This is a contemporary design, just conceptual of the hearth room and the eating area. The one that you had in your briefing package was we wanted to give you something quite different which is from Florida. So you see the really bright and bold colors in that in your briefing package, but they adapt to the surroundings. This is that floor plan. This happens to be a studio room and if you notice how efficient it is, it'll have different areas. This is actually this is not a room. This is just an area. This is the living area of that studio room with the window. That's the kitchen area. They have kitchens. Tom, and you can help me. But a lot of people, they have the kitchen. They don't use the kitchen. What the big use is people use their refrigerators to use the microwaves very much cooking. Really gets done there. We used to have ovens and at one time we took the ovens out because they weren't getting used. But I get to give someone the flexibility, but just someone who might be on temporary assignment or a family that might be relocating, or someone who might have had some kind of damage to their home, they really kind of have a place to call their own. So they aren't eating out on every meal period if you will, anyone. This is the sleeping area and in the bath area. And that brings us really to your draft master plan, the area that you see in the center and then going to the upper left portion of the page is the North Facts area. The hotel, thank you David, is Dave's got the cursor on the hotel itself that shows a five-story structure and you can see as well, that's what we've been calling new university drive coming across route 123 and then going and then going up and perhaps connecting at some point with either university drive at some angle, it's unclear. This is the graphic layout of the street grid for north facts. And once again, this is the hotel structure here. The consultant envisioned sort of the parking to the interior of the lot. This street here is what I refer to as new university drive that would go all the way over and come down. Problematic, that's where the shopping center is right now, so this design actually has the street going through the shopping center. It has two connecting streets we've been calling them from new University Drive to Eden. This one is actually two lanes, one in each direction with the median in the center, a small development block here, and then another connecting street which will show you actually go through the corner of the Marriott property. You can see it here a little bit better. This is the project site. This is the one connecting street we'll refer to as take going through the corner of the property and then this is the, almost the boulevard effect of the other connecting street. of artifact of the other connecting street. This is a design that's under construction in Springfield. And if you know the area, this is the Amherst Street Bridge. This is Backlic Road going here. There's actually a little bit of a median right there. And as you come off of the interstate, you come on to old keen male and so this would be old keen male going west. And in the initial proposal several years ago for a spring field, this is in their revitalization area. They wanted, they did not, it's what they didn't want. They didn't want a suburban looking residence, and then they wanted something that they called Main Street effect. And it's a word that's been, or a term that's been used for a while. And that essentially is the building coming out to the sidewalk, then the sidewalk, then street trees. Something of a gateway structure. So they were required of substantial redesign of the prototype that you saw earlier, which can be done. This structure has about 50% masonry and other types of materials metal up at the top for a feature here and a retail look around the ground level. So that was designed specifically for this site. It's a very tight site. That's a view from the bridge. The building actually has what's called a 360 degree facade, meaning it doesn't just look good on one side. It looks good all the way around. And particularly when you're driving over a bridge that's about elevated by at least 16 feet to 20 feet. So that's why that was real important. This is taking that concept and this is really that L-shaped layout that you just saw in Springfield where the building that would be the corner, but you see it intrudes on to this property here, which we don't own. That's also where the aerial line is located, so the building, when we try to fit it onto this site, comes close. It's a great concept, but it doesn't quite fit. It also, this one has a structure, and that structure goes under the utility lines, which is really not acceptable. And then you see as well if that street is built, how it intrudes on the site. So using that as a concept, the concept, I think, met with the staff's understanding of what the draft master plan calls for. It's very similar in concept really to what your draft master plan asked for. And then that was changed and adapted to the site. So here you see the building has been brought down. The common amenity areas would be in here. It faces chain bridge road and so presents itself to chain bridge road. This corner here would be designed so that it's attractive as you can see it coming into the city. And then also it presents itself and this is the question really. That's probably may I'm sorry to what would be the future future old new university drive. And this is the similar design, but this is if the street, imagine is dedicated. The difference is this, is that a building, first fire safety purposes, if there's a dedicated street, then the building can come really up as close to the street as the community wants it to be. In this case, it's shown to be about 15 feet from the curb line of the future street and about 11 feet from the property line. And there's a very tight site and that's important. But if there's no dedicated street, then you can't get emergency equipment in there, and you can't have the requisite size windows on the side of the building, so we would have to pull that building back, which is this design. And that's why you see there's no street, and the closest we could come to the property line and get windows of an adequate size is 20 feet. Probably could be closer to 30, but we were able to bring it up to 20. So the designs are very similar and you can see that, but they really raise the question of is new university drive going to be dedicated by the time this building is constructed. And also, you notice there's no connecting street to eat and eat. Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry, I'm just confused because I keep seeing what looks to me to be the same layout up here. And I'm sorry, I'm not looking at the staff, but I'm looking at the television set. It looks like the building is situated the same way, whether or not the new street, new university drive is there, but what am I missing them while? You're not missing very much. This is with, this is, let me go back. This is without, I agree. It looks exactly the same thing. It's very summer, but just see how close it comes to the property line. This is, it's 20 feet from the property line. With no new streets, it's 20 feet from the property line. With no new streets, it's 20 feet from the property line. Hold on, Mrs. Winterman. Right here, we can talk. Go ahead, say that again. It's 20 feet from the property line, from the face, the building to the property line. I'll go your next layout. It's here, it's 11 feet. I see, so it's an additional nine feet setback. Correct. All right, Thank you. But the building layout or the shape is the same either way. Correct. Under these two scenarios. Correct. And the setback from Chamber of Droid is not different from option. These two scenarios is that correct? That's correct. Essentially the same. And one of the, yeah, exactly, one of the dictating factors is this easement. We have to stay off of this temporary construction easement reserved by V.Dot. And the other thing we really had to stay away from is this. This is a, I don't know, it's a future, it's called a future telephone easement. There may be equipment that has to be put over here in the future, probably underground vaults. This is the concept design that the architect designed, and again, it's purely conceptual that could be put on this site. It's five stories. It's got a fair amount of masonry construction in here. Just to give you a concept that there would be street trees, a sidewalk, and really didn't go much beyond the basic concept until we know really that this is the direction that you all want to go in because if if it's not then we've got to go back and it would be quite different it may be closer to that original concept which has a lot which basically has parking around the site if you notice this in these designs the parking can be surface parking. It gives us some flexibility and you flexibility. If you were to bring at least one connecting street into this location and put it in somewhere in here, you could afford to lose a little bit of parking and put a connecting street in because the question is do you really want if you want any connecting street to lose a little bit of parking and put a connecting street in because the question is do you really want if you want any connecting street to want a boulevard and then one I guess a two lane. So this gives some flexibility as to what would happen there because there's no structure that's on the site that you'd have to contend with. It also allows the development of the site to the north. There are buildings on here now. And when that redevelopes, and it probably will at some point, this would allow for some type of structure to go and be shared by both. If you start out with the structure here, then you restrict the ability to make changes in the future. Oh, and the electric easement, which is labeled here, but again, the electric ease, these are aerial lines right here, and we can put surface parking under or in that easement, but we can't put a structure in that easement. And then finally just to conclude and we'd love to entertain your questions, the zoning code does need to be changed. Currently a hotel does not really allow for stays of 30 days or more. Your definition of hotel really is any stay less than 30 days. So we did that on purpose. And so that's, it's a quandary. But and and this hotel will have a fair number, you know, have probably 20, around 24% of the stays will be in excess of 30 days. Thank you. I assume we're now at the point for council questions. Is that where we are? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I'm chomping at the bit to jump in here, but out of respect for the dialogue, I'll take a pass and wait till some of my colleagues have an opportunity to make their comments. Mr. Sovethore. Thank you. I'm stunned, by the way. Let me, first of all, I mean, you know, one possible solution around that I'm saying is somewhat tongue in cheek is to find a location that may be all the more suitable like an existing run-down facility that's that calls himself a hotel or a motel in the city and redevelop the site I know that might be a little bit more difficult to achieve But that's been one of my biggest pet peeves over the course of the 18 years and I've served on this body and we've that's And probably a failure of this body frankly and of the economic development authority and of the bid and a whole lot of other folks who I think have missed opportunities, including us. I'll take some of the hit here as well. Let me, you know, I guess my first question deals with the issue of residents in and I appreciate your background of residents in. I remember we had talked a little bit about a residence in as part of potentially part of our downtown redevelopment project some number of years ago. Some of you did. Some of us did. Actually, I don't think I was in favor of it either. My concern had been, and it remains, I think, and I need some reassurance here about the standard and the quality. I think many of us had hopes for, I think you touched on this, but a full service kind of hotel, a hotel, excuse me, not motel, getting my definitions mixed up here a little bit. But I would like you to speak if you would just for a moment. I appreciate the business traveler and that aspect, but some of us up here are business travelers and we travel a lot and I don't usually stay at residence ends. I do stay at Mariah. So, and I'm a fan of some of the larger Mariah hotels. So, can you talk to, and I understand, I just don't want to see, I guess, something that's going to be put in place, and then this time in 20 years we see somewhat of a rundown facility. I'm going to be a little tough on you here and talk about the courtyard, for instance, that's in Fairfax County right over our city border. I think that hotel looks motel, whatever you want to call it, hotel looks very dated, and it's probably 20 years old by now 15 years old. Respectfully and I'm worried about you know as we look at a master plan and a redevelopment of this intersection in this area. That this will look dated this time in 10 years or 15 years. Well you know I think I think you know David mentioned you have the flexibility to kind of design to what you city is looking for from an exterior package, et cetera. We've done the same thing in Springfield. We have a residence in two under construction right now in the city of Alexander. We have both high rise buildings. And we've got a couple of them in downtown Washington. So I think the flexibility and the brand is there to make it as upscale or as not upscale as the surrounding environment would kind of dictate, if you will. Well, let me ask you that question. If we wanted to put conditions in place that ensure the kind of materials, building materials and aesthetics that are subjective, somewhat on the part of this body, are you willing to play along with us in that regard? We'd be willing to entertain all the conditions whatever, when you guys might want to lay out on them. That's a question we can take up with staff separately, but I appreciate that. Maybe just your year, the court. You talking to the court get up in Faroaks? Yeah, I guess it's Faroaks. It's right outside the city line around the past German town. That was really part of our learning. That property is probably 18 years old. And you might want to go up there now and take a look at the lobby. That property is a test property for all the new stuff that courtyard comes out with. The lobby there now is very contemporary, very cutting edge almost boutique-like, which is an overused term in our industry lately. But there's a very contemporary design much like you'd see in what the residents in would look like. The exterior of that property, in the old days we used to believe my five acres of land and build courtyard or horseshoe properties if you will. We don't do that anymore than much more compact than much more urbanish looking now. So I agree with you that the fixed area of that building, we can't do a whole lot about it except keep it up and a good repair, but that design's a very old design. And I'd love to take you out and show you some of the new designs. I'd be delighted. Which would really kind of, I think make you happy. Well, and you mentioned boutiques, and I know the word is overused quite a bit, but I know that Maryott has just launched into a new boutique, right? I guess you all acquired. Am I right or are you starting to? It's actually going to be a joint venture with Ian Shreger. He was founded studio 54. He was like the Godfather of boutique hotels. We did a agreement with him. We just asked it out in January to big hotel conference and we already have like nine properties under an opportunity with this site landed now if we've been in $500 a night it would it would so that's the issue it's it's a cost and you know and and he's been doing doing a full service married hotel today like we have the close one to hear is probably open fairworks was a conversion of the holiday in. You, with the kind of rates that the hotels see in the I-66 corridor, once you get off the beltway, you really couldn't make the economics work today based on a construction cost of a full service property. That's a fair point. And I understand that. I just wanted to raise it because there's opportunities for something unique. Well, the thing that we like to do is that we go into market. We try to fit the best product, not just from marriage perspective, but with the customer who's going to pay for and willing to buy any location. That's where we have all the different varieties of hotel brands. The residents in brand, the average rate of this property we're anticipating in English in $2,6 we had $140 a night, which is pretty strong for this area. The Marriott Hotel, it's Pharaoh's, gets 150 a night. The Hyatt and Fair Lakes has about $150 a night because it's all tied into the government prudium down the corridor. Right. Right. And so that's why the hotels have a hard time making that leap to getting the real big average rates that you really require is not used to build a full service hotel product. Okay. And I guess the other issue with, and I, it's just for discussion point for my colleagues, the troubling the concern I have is in you guys I think rightly have flagged it, is the issue of the master plan and the road and everything else that we've been talking about. And I think in fairness to my colleagues, I think there's some interest and intrigue around doing something in that respect. But if history is any lesson, it's taken us 40 years to redevelop downtown. It's taken us 20 years nearly to build a road that still isn't built. I would certainly hate to see you hanging your hats on a vision that frankly has not even really been fully agreed to by this body. So that's something for us to debate, but certainly even if it is agreed to, and maybe this is a question really for you know your return on your investment and how many years it takes to make up the money You know it could be 20 years till it's actually done and therefore, you know Maybe as part of that deal, you know 20 years out This is something you guys may be willing to for go. I don't know what the average lifespan is of these types of facilities, but It's more for comment and certainly to to provoke my colleagues here on the council for comments, I'm sure they're going to have thoughts around this, but my general sensing is, this is not going to happen overnight in terms of the road, and if anything, it's probably many years down the pike if at all. So thank you, Mr. Mayor. Public comments, Mr. Rasmussen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of questions. And maybe our city public works director needs to address is the temporary construction easement on 123. What is that? And why is the temporary construction easement affecting a permanent construction project? Here. You can just come down. Keep walking down. There you go. A temporary construction easement is typically just during the construction part of the project, and once the construction is complete, that easement typically no longer exists. Okay. So, it is, is it, it's for the widening of 123 then? I'm not sure what the temporary construction easement is for. It's, I understand. This is the wide thing of 123. And you say that inhibits you from moving the building. Excuse me. We can't build out it. I'm sorry. I'm't take over the throw. I can understand you're not building on a temporary construction easement, but it isn't that something that could be negotiated with V. Well, I've tried to negotiate with V. I don't have similar issues and it takes about a year to get through their system. But yes, the answer to your question is yes, you can negotiate with them. It may be we wouldn't want to come, you know, you may not want the building any closer to a chain bridge, so it may be a moot point, but if your desire was to move it further there, we would immediately begin to talk to them about that. Okay. They really do. If it was, if this, if that was an option, it is an option. It's just very difficult to work with them. My second question is, in residence ends construction, do you consider underground or structured parking at all? How many? We, you know, we, we, we were first structured parking, if we do any kind of parking facility answers, because in a cost involved, they really drives the overall project cost. You know, we prefer to do surface parking. It's much more convenient for the customer. You know, a lot of times, they don't like parking garage, especially female travelers. You know, so we try to keep the parking space as close to the engines of the hotel as possible. Okay. Third question is, and this relates back to the point that Mr. Silverthorn made about how the building would look in construction material. You mentioned fair amount of masonry construction. brick, cement, true masonry products, no trick involved there. The facility in Springfield is required to get to your point, which is there were requirements in the design. The design that you saw was the was the preferred condition. The colors were preferred. The materials themselves had to be approved by the county and they were. And so that were used to that that happened to have 50% some people actually wanted it to be a little bit less. They didn't like so much brick, but other communities would prefer more. But there's a variety. The building in Alexandria, which is, I'm gonna say about nine stories tall, is probably. Yeah, I think that's all brick. All brick. All brick. One last question, if I may. And this may be something you don't want to answer. Have you approached any other surrounding landowners to try to combine parcels to make it bigger? I believe attempts were made with the office builder to the north some time ago and were just no response. With the McKay family, yes, we've had multiple discussions with them about what their plans are. And you could see just by looking at it, you could see if you could even out all of these blocks, but they're just not in a position to go forward right now. Okay, thank you. And the shopping center, I should say we've spoken with them as well. Miss Cross. So, um, we're have you been in discussion at all with the ownership of the Exxon property? No. in discussion at all with the ownership of the Exxon property? No. I have a concern. I would concur with what Mr. Silverthorn, Mr. Scott, had to say about the potential construction of that roadway through what you called new university. I would be very surprised if that ever occurred, but what I don't want to happen is for the construction of your motel to limit the opportunities for developing that corner lot. As I know you're aware, this is a an entry, a gateway to the city. And for that reason, I think you'll find that we'll be looking very hard at your design and expect that it will be something impressive and noteworthy and not just the average residents in, if you will. And I would encourage you to, if you have not, to talk with the exon folks about that property, it would be terrific if we could just have Maryott all the way around that corner. The intervening property is Fudrockers that. That was good. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I guess I had you further down the the street there. And the city on piece of property as well. On the other side. As long as we're on this slide or maybe there's a better one, can you go over the access to the property? I understand from approaching from the south going north that that's an easy easy in with a right only coming out. But if you're approaching from the north, how do you? If you're approaching from the north, you would come in, make a left at Eaton and then come into the service road right here. Okay. Eaton is just off and I'm going to go back to the area. Back to the there. You come in here. There's a left, there's a left turn lane dedicated left turn. Make the turn and then you'd have access right in here. I mean, there's no question there's benefits to a fully functioning street grid. But these buildings here, these low are these buildings here on, you know, these low-rise office buildings are, they seem to be fully leased. There was the dentist sent their assistant to the last partnership meeting and they've spent several hundred thousand dollars fixing up their space. They like this space and they use it well. Now maybe a redevelopment of that site might not be a tear down in the future. It might just be putting more building on the same site and fixing it up. And that's one of the benefits of having a shared parking structure. If you had a parking structure in the future here, this owner might be able to fill in this area here. I've worked on parking structure in the future here, this owner might be able to fill in this area here. I've worked on at least two or three developments in other communities where that's exactly what was done. Surface parking as the density is allowed to go up a little bit right now by right. It's only 0.5 on this site. That could happen. Okay. And the last, what's your timetable on the project? Several years ago. But the timetable is this is, it is under contract. We really need to file the preliminary site plan and the general development plan just as quickly as the engineer can draft it so three weeks. We know we need special exceptions for density. This is greater than 0.5 FAR, the coverage is different. There's a number of inconsistencies with your bulk regulations. We'd like to get those approvals by the end of the summer and then shift into the design for the site plan. We only have it under contract really until early December of 08. So we've got to have the zoning in place and then have the site plan, the administrative end of things underway by the fall. Thank you. the administrative and of things underway by the fall. Thank you. Ms. Winter. Thank you, Ms. Winter. I would like to be more affirming to you in that this is a basically a blighted area. It needs help. And you have to start somewhere. You have been at every bid meeting, I think, the last year. So you are actively involved in this community. You are actively involved at looking at this space and trying to make it work. You're original drawing with the building in the middle and the parking around. And it's probably, that's the standard boilerplate. What you've done is looked at what came out of the shred, idea, and said, okay, how can we look ahead 10 years, 15 years, whatever, and really make this space work. You've placed the building on this difficult spot with the idea that there may be a road go through. There may be two roads go through. You've looked at how you can work with your neighbor. So if there is movement to the north of you, you can see the building is moving to the north of you, you can share parking. So, you're already being a good neighbor of looking into how you can make this building work successfully for you now, and with your neighbors in the future. So, I commend you, and thank you very much for this. Thank you. Okay. Let me make some comments that I couldn't. I know you're looking for direction and I certainly appreciate you taking the time to come out early in the stage and partner with us and have this dialogue and it is greatly appreciated that you're willing to do that. I will also say I appreciate the fact that you all have been working on this for some time and have sort of followed the master plan process and respected that process, and I know that's greatly appreciated as well. I want to talk a little bit in the bigger scope first on the master plan, and then I'll make comments if I can on yours. You know, when the master plan came through the process, it had some very important components to it when it came back out. The first was, first and foremost, the consolidation of parcels. I know you and I have had, as a group, had an opportunity to talk about that. I have spent a great deal of time talking to many of the landowners, looking at analyzing the ownership structures, getting a feel for the likelihood or no likelihood in terms of that consolidation process take place, which I think we would all say if you look at the master plan, was a key component on quote, the sinners or nodes or whatever terminology in the creation sort of a town center concept, which personally I think is great and very, very, very exciting. The second key component on this and creating that look, and I know one that you took a lead on was the internal road system and the road system that the City of Fairfax had talked about for some time and is a key component in where we move forward. The third component certainly was the creation of the town center and all the details that went along with that. The force component was sort of the concept of a new zoning approach to things and I think the terminology was bulk plain or I may have had the wrong terminology. I know we used several different ones on it. And the last quite frankly was moving the buildings all to the front onto the main road systems. The council sort of looked at that and we kind of came up with what I called an abbreviated master plan that we put in a document that tried to support some of those concepts, which is now out in the community and creating dialogue and discussion in the debate. And I've had the opportunity, I'm sure there have been more other than this, to participate in least two fairly active community discussions within civic associations on the master plan, and I look forward to it. I'm sure my colleagues do during the course of the next several months for a whole bunch of reasons, a lot of discussion in terms of that development. Is I look at that and look at the things that I personally, and these are personal comments, feel comfortable within the master plan and what I never really could write wrap my arms around with which is where I really want to focus my comments on. But here's the reality of where we are and this is a dialogue and discussion. I know some of us had collectively and individually the likelihood in any kind of time frame that would have any impact in your project of consolidating the very complex ownership structures and lease structures and site structures. I can't imagine anybody would even put that into a category of even close likelihood at least unless somebody knows something that I don't know. The internal road system and the route 50 improvements, quite frankly, was a very, very important part of our vision that really just suffered a major, major setback in the last week with the Supreme Court ruling on the Northern Virginia Regional Transportation Authority, which was going to be our major funding source. Now, I think we all have hopes that somehow the state will get their act together and figure out a way to replace that. But if I'm reading those tea leaves right, it's going to be a state solution with a state control process and not a local solution with a local control process, which really takes away from a very good portion of our master plan in terms of us being able to control the outcome of the route 50 quarter in the internal road systems and some of the things that quite frankly without that stream of money are a great thing to put on a wish list. And I certainly would put it at the top of mind, but I don't know the likelihood of that happening at any time in the near future. The one that I wanna focus on is the last one that I put forward and that's moving the buildings to the road. I think if we had the ideal scenario on the master plan that certainly made sense, it's the one from day one that I was the least comfortable with. And it's the one after listening to an awful lot of dialogue in the community, as late as two weeks ago during a civic association meeting. And I think it's the one that I have the most trouble on. I personally, and I know my colleagues will disagree with me as strongly as I agree with this statement, and I look forward to that dialogue in debate in the community. I think it's not consistent with a much abbreviated master plan in the sense of community and small town atmosphere that we have. If it was going to be done as a component, which was the key to the master plan, I've been trying to get my head around that and have been open to that, but that's not the reality of where we are and it's not the reality of what's going to take place on the consolidated and the bigger block that we're talking about. I for one would prefer the suburban design to use your phrase that you all did way back when it was your starting point. What it does is it use landscape to buffer the sense of place on the building. It uses parking spaces to buffer that sense of place on the building. And I am not comfortable with a vision short of this master plan, which I don't have a sense of confidence we're gonna be able to pull off in the near frame, where you basically put the road as close, the building as close to the road as you can and go up four or five six stories. I don't believe the community is going to support that. I fear that if we start there and get that built that the entire master plan concept which I'm very supportive of will fall apart. Having said that, I want you all at least to hear from me that I am very excited and supportive of your project. I think I agree with Mrs. Winner that the V.O.T.S.I. has been blighted, is blighted, and without something in today's cost coming in there, it will continue to be blighted. And I have no issues at all with your proposal, your hotel, your concept. I wish it was a facility hotel. I know that's not where we are. I don't know of one that's standing in the wings that would step in if you all didn't. And so I want to give you at least from my perspective a big check of support in moving forward. I would just say with two caveats for myself personally and one is I do not support the concept of building five stories upright on 123. I do not think the master plan is going to be feasible for this location for a variety of reasons. I don't think it takes away from your project and going with your suburban design, which is what I consider the city of Fairfax to be. And so I want to say, make that right up front and I did, I think, individually when we had an opportunity to talk and I certainly want to do it publicly as well. The last issue I will just say in your letter of February the 26th where you talk about, you would like for the building to be five or six stories and 60 to 70 feet. I'm speaking only for myself, the five foot 60 foot limit in the City of Fairfax to serve this community very well for a long, long period of time. We are not going to be able to rewrite our zoning ordinance before your project. I do not support abandoning the five stories 60 foot vision. I worry about if we do it in one location without a total rewrite of our zoning ordinances, that trend will start and I don't know where that trend will start and I believe this community is concerned about size and scale and placement of the building. And for those two reasons, I would urge you and I'm probably in the minority up here on this but I would urge you to pursue the suburban design which I think could be a brace by this community and I would urge you to default to the five-story or 60-foot limit which is our current zoning ordinance and not build and spend a lot of money and design on the 70 foot structure. Having said all that, I understand that's my individual perspective. I know you're looking for some concrete direction tonight. And so I'll just put that marker out there and again encourage you to move forward. I hope you become a member of our community and I certainly would embrace that and do everything I can to make that happen within the spirit of the comments that I made. Those were big comments, so I certainly would welcome my colleagues if they want to jump in and Mrs. Lyon, you did not you did not, and then I'll go back, but please. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My sentiment is, I do look forward to having a gateway facility. I know my husband is one of those folks that travels around the world and stays in places for anywhere from a year or two years and commits home. And maybe it was home for a week or two and then back to the same location. And so I appreciate that this type of facility is very important. And, you know, we travel out to see him and at some of these places. And we like to have a sense of home when we go there too. So I, for one one happen to understand the reason for a building like this. I prefer to say that I am concerned about since we do have a lot of motels on our Fairfax Boulevard that has a lot of folks that are going to be there for years and years. And I'm hoping that there is some way that we can get insurance that the viso tell would not accommodate that. I, for one, would like that. The second thing is I never really heard anything when you were talking about the building itself is any of green materials. Green building is huge. It's a big deal these days and I'm hoping that you could come back to this body with how you're going to accommodate that. I'm not going to put you on the spot this evening and ask you to bring that right up. But that's one of my things that I would like to see. Even though I only have a couple more months left on this body. I'm hoping this body will carry that torch for me. And I too would like to say that over the last six years I have supported buildings less than six stories. I even would like it lower than five. I've always gone to lower is better. Sprawl? I don't love sprawl, but I know you can get a nice hotel or motel in that spot that would sit nicely at a lower level. So those are my comments since Mr. Mayor, I'm following your comments, but I do hope that those things can be looked at. And welcome to the City of Fairfax. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Cross. Well, you had to know that I'd be back at you with sort of a rebuttal. I do favor construction up against the road. I think there are ways to articulate a building so that you don't get the feeling of a canyon or a visual barrier. I think five stories would be adequate. My concern is, as you are well aware, along the 50-court or we have car dealership after car dealership after car dealership huge amounts of space that are impervious. It's my feeling that if you put a parking lot around the exterior of this and recess the building from the road with parking lot, we're just going to have something that resembles very much like another car dealership when you're all, when all is said and done. And I don't think that's the look we want. I think the, bring those buildings to the, to the road with, you know, an accommodation for street trees and walkways and that sort of thing is a very pleasant look and I would hope that you don't abandon your plan to site the building up against up against the roadway and put the parking behind it where it's not visible. There just isn't anything attractive at all about a parking lot. Thank you. Other comments? If not, thank you all very much. And we look forward to continuing the process. Hold on. Real quick. Mrs. Winner. I would like to add on to my first comments. I think if we're going to have some change, you are willing to take the lead in a change along that one 23, I would continue to go with a sighting that you have, not this one, but the sighting that you came back with where you could have shared parking with your neighbors just north. Also I have been a proponent of the lead concepts if you could bring some of that in. It's going to be a flat roof put a system on the top so you can have some marine water collection to get around you know some of the surface parking. But yes thank thank you, continue on. Thank you. And just so I understand, I think what you're suggesting is the plan that Mrs. Crosse had with the building on the road. The first one, yes. Great. Thank you very much. Just to let you know where we are on this, this has been presented to us as very conceptual. And so we haven't really done a terrible lot of scrubbing on this. We as a staff are struggling with exactly the same thing you are as a council. We have a master plan that has certain concepts in it. The master plan isn't adopted. And frankly, I'm not even sure that the master plan contemplates the master plan version of this because I think if you'll notice that the master plan has probably a little bit better more substantial setbacks and more public space associated with these with with with development at this location and and it's also showing it, I think, is a four to five story, not a five to six story building. I honestly don't think that there is a way, frankly, to meet all the requirements of the master plan, no matter how a standalone hotel is developed, or hotel is developed, be it a full service hotel or a extended stay hotel. And so we have as many variables that we're trying to work through as well as you. And I would say that I would actually like not to pick either A or B, frankly, but to try to find something that meets the requirements, the range of requirements and recommendations that we've heard tonight if there's a way to do that. And when this project, if this triangle ultimately does redevelop and everybody's right, it's not going to redevelop into the foreseeable future, probably not in my tenure here. But try not to preclude 10 years from now, 15 years from now, whatever, that there might be an opportunity to come back and do something later. So my own preference would be to try to find a hybrid and taking into account the everything we heard this evening. Thank you all for coming. Thank you. Okay, that now brings us to gen item number three, which is the developer presentation or proposed development at the Stafford Track West of Plantation Parkway and Fairfax Boulevard. I can close that. I'm assuming we're probably going to have to take just a quick second to switch PowerPoints and switch teams of people, but if you do it as soon as possible, that would be great. Mayor Mascar, may I raise another issue while we're transitioning? Is that a yes? Mr. Sisson, I had inquired yesterday, and I don't know if we're going to, and I was told by staff yesterday that the the reservoir is now back up to almost full almost normal overflow capacity. And if it's not you're shaking your head no I was told it was very close and I was close. No really well then I have an email to track record here to prove this. All right I will. The question is is then will you keep people in a prize either through the city scene or through other venues because there's still a lot of confusion out there as to whether or not this is something that needs ongoing attention because we're no longer. It's always been voluntary, but and I understand that but people, I think that want to do the right thing by voluntary standards. Don't really know what the message is from City Hall. If I could just take a quick moment. On the city's website, it still does number one. Number one, we are under conservation. Can you let the manager speak please? Thank you, I was asking for him. We were getting a lot of complaints about the signs, so we're tapering off the use of those. They were a lot of them were being pulled out thrown in the streets and so on and so forth. But our reservoir is still only half full. Half full, okay. I just got that notice today even with all of these rains. And I think it will come back nicely over the next two or three months. But we still are express, want to be cautious. Well, and that's fair. I just want to make sure, and because, you know, the website, the people that have raised it with me also, you know, a lot of these people don't visit the Internet. I mean, let's be honest. So I just think that city scene is always our best vehicle. And I don't know if it's been in city scene lately I looked at the last two issues I didn't see anything But just keep us both will be in there in the next one. Thank you. Just keep us posted I appreciate Okay, are we ready That was filler time so please come on up Mr. Hudson you want to set the stage and we'll go from there. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have with me Jay Donigan, Jay Donigan companies. Mr. Donigan is prepared a conceptual plan and would like to have a discussion with the City Council of the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state, the state drive. Again, it's a retail, low-scale, retail development, approximately 25,000 square feet, and I'll turn it over Mr. Donigan for a description. Thank you, David. Good evening, everyone. Nice to be here once again. I appreciate the opportunity before you tonight. I'm here with Frank Watkins, who I think you all know. Good friend and architect for 25 years or so that we've worked together. Jenny Hornback, another good friend with Walter L. Phillips, our civil engineer. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. I am the contract purchaser of what I would call the Stafford Property here at Fairfax Boulevard in Plantation Parkway. And it was my hope to present to you tonight kind of concept drawings of a proposed single story, multi tenant building, which would have restaurants and specialty retail. And as part of that development, there's a potential for a free standing building as well. That could be a financial institution, it could be a restaurant. But as reflected on this plan, it does show essentially a bank layout with a drive through. The bulk of the property would be developed, as David said, low-scale, low-density specialty retail. And maybe the simplest way to describe what I'd like to do would be to describe in the context of Fairfax Marketplace, which is nearing substantial completion as we speak. I would envision it to be of comparable quality. It would be every bit as nice, I can assure you of that. And the nature of the development and the mixture of tenants, I think, would be very comparable as well. You know, really that in a nutshell is what I wanted to describe. We can show you what Frank's put together, a little PowerPoint presentation. This is the, what I'll call the NCAP unit up here on the screen, want to give some character to the building. These are just concept drawings and it can evolve from here, but I think that gives you a sense of the kind of quality, materials, and mass that we're looking to develop here. I believe you're familiar with the property, but a substantial portion of it has floodplain and where respecting the floodplain area completely, the layout itself would be within the area that we believe is developable without any var know, altering the existing floodplain. As I described, this plan itself shows a multi-tenant single-story building, roughly 20,000 feet or so, and immediately adjacent to that is a small free-standing building. And to put into context, at the corner corner separately owned is the service station. I believe that's mobile and behind that is an existing 7-11. This is a kind of a better look at the proposed building and configuration. Perhaps more of interest. Here's the proposed building elevation. And I can let Frank describe this as well. But I think what we're trying to do as we did at Fairfax Marketplace is really have the massing broken up with attractive individual buildings and with that one I'll turn it over to you Frank. Sure. I'll just caution anyone who's looking at the large monitors they're stretching out the all the drawings so the building looks a little longer than it actually is but the goal here is to do kind of a main street character building of variety of materials, a variety of shapes, breaking down the mass of the building, very similar to what Jay did at the Fairfax Marketplace building. Very similar to the level of materials, the level of detailings could be the same. In fact, the next slide is probably good to look at, which are just some photographs of that project. And we would really be doing very similar character there. And in this proposed project, it's a little bit different because we've introduced the turret at the end of the building on the right side of the building. There's the round feature that will be in stone. So, you know, it's not a copy of the other building, but will be very in character and quality. We've taken the liberty as I notice of calling it full of our marketplace at Fairfax. That's up for grabs as well, so. Okay. Let me open it up for dialogue dialogue and discussion within the council. Mrs. Winner. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. On your, on like the aerial plant, it's, it's, there appears in this drawn up on the monitor that there is a pass through from the mobile station to the said property. Yes. There is. Okay. So people could come off a plantation and go directly over. Yes. That is, I have received a verbal assurance of that from Mr. Stafford. Okay. And I think it's to be that it will be doable. Okay. Do you, you look at that as a plus? Okay Second thing how many parking spots are there proposed to be because there never seems to be enough You know you get good properties in they get a lot of People coming to get those goods and you don't have enough you know. Good news bad news. Yes, right. This and it's a concept drawing so it really hasn't been engineered with it. You know, it's well over 100 parking spaces. Parking ratio seemed to fit. We'd have to watch the mixture of restaurants here to make sure that the parking is adequate. Okay. The the Fairfax Fairfax Boulevard that you are in presently under construction. I voted no on that one because it was at a hub. This is not at a hub, it's in between. And there isn't a lot of business along that. So I would, I think this is a nice project. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. So I would I think this is a nice project. Thank you. That's for. Oh. Well, Mr. very well. Well, and I was going to ask the staff and I don't know if, if, um, because you, you, you said some things at the end of the last presentation that talked about timeline and I, I don't know timeline here. And the only reason I'm saying it is because, you know, I'm, I'm cognizant of the fact that my timeline is short, serving on this body and I don't want to, well, I think these are constructive and important conversations to have. It's sort of silly for me to say too much after I thought about the last comments, aside from the quality and construction and so forth because I'm not going to say too much after I thought about the last comments, except from the quality and construction and so forth, because I'm not going to be here to be part of the approval process irrespective of what I say. I guess my just, can you answer that question? I mean, I'm assuming this is not going to come before us anytime soon. I'm meeting is it a year process like the last one was, or is this something that we're just going to see in the next four months. I think the normal process would be six months after the application's filed, the council can ascribe whatever priority they like to this. That could be sped up. It could be slowed down, actually. Our set goes. So really it's up to the priority that's described to it by council. With the caveat that we only have so much capacity for bandwidth priority number ones. Yeah, I get that. Well, and I certainly will defer to his honor in the chair to make that decision. The only thing I'll say then just as a generic comment. I like what I see. I think there's a philosophical debate that this council needs to have or has been having actually over the past year or two, dealing with how we want to see the court or redeveloped to either as part of the master plan, which I talked about earlier, a bit, or just in terms of nodes and connectors and everything else that Mr. Donig and your well aware of. The only thing I'm going to say just on the surface because I do think that this, hopefully this sentiment will carry through to whoever's serving on this body and the next council is that you do quality work and I think Mrs. Winner spoke to that and I just like to speak to it as well. I mean, you have popular locations that attract a lot of customers which, of course, raises other challenges in terms of traffic consideration and circulation of parking and everything else. But that from my perspective is can be a good problem to have if it's managed correctly. So I just want to, you know, just weigh in here just generally that I like what I see obviously the devils in the details and it's probably for the next council to resolve. But I'm glad that you're continuing to do business here in the city of parapherics. Mr. Restwaster. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of questions. If the freestanding building is a bank, would you subdivide the property? It would be my preference to do that, but not a requirement. And just to be clear as far as I know, I'm the- Can you just swing that a little closer? Sure. I had said that it would be preferential, particularly in the financial market that we're in right now. Capital markets, as you know, are fairly turbulent. So I think it would be prudent to have it subdivided. It would be nice drawing preference. With respect to it being labeled as a bank, I understand the package that I authorized to be sent out had a bank on it. We do not have a commitment from a bank. There is a lot of banks in the city and they have helped underwrite a lot of the retail projects not just in the city but in our metro area. That demand is waning. Frankly, there is no commitment for a bank at this point. I would like to thank there would be in the future but I wouldn't want to represent tonight that there is a bank at this point. I would like to thank, there would be in the future, but I wouldn't want to represent tonight that there is a bank in hand. Have you had any discussions with the owners of the two adjacent buildings about improving the appearance of those buildings in conjunction with your project? Conceptually yes, but there's no commitment by them to do that. It would be nice to have it integrated. I think we've had that discussion in other parts of the city and I think long term that would be my objective as well Do you have plans to donate the flood plain to the city? It's the first time that's come up. We could certainly I don't think it's available and if that was something that made sense, I think we could certainly talk about that. Talk about it, but that's not a commitment. So the first time I've heard about it, maybe you could describe how that would work. It would be part of the approval process, is that? Well, as we've had with other developers, is it? It's your microphone on. It doesn't sound like it's resonated. Yeah, I guess it's fine. Okay. The, you know, I think the staff can help you with this. The previous developer of this, who had a proposal on this project, planned to donate the 12 acres in back that's floodplain to the city for parkland. I would hope that anybody who develops that would certainly do the same thing. Okay. I think the overall size of the parcel is a little over 12 acres. So about eight acres of that was floodplain. It's not available and I believe that a portion of it was used for density calculation and open space purposes in the last application, but it is unusable basically in terms of development potential. Two more points. One, the idea of a cut-through from your project through the 7-11 gas station site to Plantation Parkway is going to, I think, raise a real firestorm in the community. That's a really bad intersection already with people coming in and out of three major operations, the 7-11, the gas station, and the CBS. We now have a ball field with access there. People are going to be going in there, probably dropping off people, maybe even parking in some places in there, putting people over to the ball field. If you start putting 20,000 square feet of retail customers coming through there, I think that's a real safety hazard. putting 20,000 square feet of retail customers coming through there. I think that's a real safety hazard and I think people are really going to get up in arms. I respect that. I would have thought it would have made it safer to be honest. I think folks in the community coming out will now have to come out on if you don't have the inter-parcel access. You'll have to come out onto Fairfax Boulevard and then pull into the development. So certainly, at first blushing from my experience, I would have thought it would have been a safer condition. What I would like to have the traffic people take a look at that and give us some advice on that. Which leads me to my last point. You've not wanted to meet with the community up until now. Are you prepared now to meet with the community with your plans? I have been, we've been working on this concept plan and elevations and I think we're at a point now since we're here publicly that we've always been open to meeting with the community. As you know, I think the time is probably right. Okay. Good. Thank you. This cross. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Dungan, you have a very attractive project here. And I would encourage you to go forward, however. I'm going to get you with my argument of being up against the road a little bit and concealing your parking behind your buildings. It seems to me that if you just pull it forward you're going to pick up parking that you wouldn't have otherwise and you wouldn't have to look at it from highway. I do know that that means that you have to put a little more effort into the facades on the back side to make them attractive shops for folks to visit. But I would like for you to explore that option just to make the presence of this attractive, even though it's very attractive. the parking come around by and I'll try to address that Frank and I talk a lot about that and I think first I'd like to say that as far as the Dressing up the rear of the building that that's really not the issue. I hope you accept that That wouldn't be the concern. I'd want to do the right thing. I think I I hope you accept that. That wouldn't be the concern. I'd want to do the right thing. And I think bringing it up on the street in the context of what's around this area, both on both sides of Fairfax Boulevard and immediately east of the property, it would seem a little bit out of place, I think, in terms of just at the end on the road with nothing else. There's not enough critical mass in this area where it's ever going to fit in a larger context there. I think that is just something that we've struggled a little bit with, kind of anticipated. There might be some thought about pushing it up against Fairfax Boulevard. And that's really the primary thing. I'd say secondly, it is very close to the road. I mean, this is about as shallow a site as I think I've ever worked with. And I think from that standpoint, the building essentially addresses Fairfax Boulevard in a really meaningful way. And I think with landscaping, as reflected at least conceptually some streetscape and pedestrian pathways I think we could really do a nice job and hopefully get some of the benefits I think you're looking for. You persuaded me on when we talked about marketplace that it was going to be okay for it to be far further back from the road and as attractive as it is, I wish it were up against the road. It's going to be a great little shopping center and certainly the businesses you've attracted to are going to be very popular, you've been a leader in design, and I would hope that you would take a chance, maybe here, to see if possibly it would work. And then we can say this is a very successful shopping strip here that's up against the road, parking's behind it, and then we can use your project as the example. And I appreciate what you're saying, and I don't want to dismiss it out of hand. I would say this, and I know this is outside the context of tonight's hearing, but with respect to Fairfax Shopping Center, for instance, which will be a topic of another meeting. of tonight's hearing, but with respect to Fairfax Shopping Center, for instance, which will be a topic of another meeting. I'm sure, you know, I think there is an opportunity perhaps, and it's all in the exploratory stage in terms of how that property is redeveloped, whether it's more or less configured the way it is today, or it's brought to the road and part of a mixed-use project. But I would say this, that is in an environment where you have much more of a critical mass. You have eaten place and there's too office buildings that essentially are adjacent. And I think that the character's a lot different than it is right here. And I think that's meaningful. And while I want to be a leader in design, I appreciate you saying that. I honestly think this want to be a leader in design, I appreciate you saying that. I honestly think this would not be a place to do it whereas I think there is an opportunity to do it just west of here. Okay. I will be so excited when you bring a design to us that's up against the road. I'll be so thrilled. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Well, welcome again. Nice to see you. I will miss you. Yeah, that's okay. This is the thing I want to talk about. And that is the open space that Mr. Esperson had discussed earlier. I am absolutely for that except that I don't want cost to the city for us to maintain that open space. That was one of the issues I had with that the other large piece of building we were going to have on it last two years ago, I think we discussed that issue. And one of my issues was that if you did donate that open space, which I hope you will do, that if there is any maintenance that has to be worked out with that, that you would be able to do that. That would be one of my caveats on that, so it wouldn't be a cost to the city. That happens. And the second thing is, is to go along with the parking here, I do happen to, like like the location of the property as it is now. I'm not sure that if I were in the development that I really want the parking behind. I think we need to see it. I think people will come in, do their business and leave. So I happen to like this particular time that you want right up to the street. And I have a question for staff on this just a little bit and that is this. David, I'm not sure that when we're talking about the slow lanes down Fairfax Boulevard. Right. That this would ever be able to accommodate a slow lane because we're already wide here as it is. Right. So it wouldn't, it doesn't seem feasible to me that we would push this property close any closer. It would be, it's feasible just to leave it as it is because we wouldn't be using it for a slow lane. Is that right? The draft master plan doesn't contemplate a slow lane coming up this far. Right. So with respect to where the building goes, I mean, they're really two reasons for building to be up on a street. One is to help conceal parking. And the second is to sort of facilitate a street scape that encourages pedestrian activity. To the extent that there won't be a lot of pedestrian activity at least along the Fairfax Boulevard corridor here, meaning there may be considerable pedestrian activity coming from the north and the subdivisions walking down to this site, but probably not east and west along the corridor. The pedestrian activity becomes less of an issue as far as I'm concerned. And there are additional ways to conceal parking besides moving the building. So I think we basically we just try to find the best site design and try to go from there. An example of that would be actually another project Mr. Donigan is done which is up on I call it the Harris TTeter Shopping Center. I probably shouldn't, but I think you know where I'm talking about. That's right. Okay. And one other thing I'd like you to consider, and that we had talked about in the last one was, you know, a little bit of that green. If there's some way you can retain water, build with materials that are more green, I'm hoping that we're, I'd like to be this instead of Arlington being being the number one area that does that Or they're thinking they are I'd like us to be a little bit more Mindful of that. I hope that you take that now. I would like to see this coming to us before you know I leave council would like being like nice to vote on something like this. Thank you This winter, okay, I'll to Nice to vote on something like this. Thank you. Ms. Werner. OK. To add on to the park idea, the eight acres is a staff question. If the present owner holds on to it, they have to pay taxes on it, right? Right. And so I would propose that you keep it so that we get some tax money off of it and that a proffer be that we can have a trail through there connecting the east and west and that the city could use. Rather than the city take on the responsibility of the entire green space that we're able to use the green space. And then the idea of lead compliance. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Winter. If I could just a couple of comments and I will tell you I'm going to be very intrigued about this process and how it unfolds and certainly would encourage you and look forward to participating in a community wide and certainly with the entire surrounding communities outreach and dialogue and discussions. We try to get feedback and I guess my comments are going to be more again as I did earlier be sort of a bigger picture comment and certainly Not intended not to be specific on it, but just maybe to frame some of the issues You know as I look at the history of this property. I've never been more confused On a piece of property in my entire life if I go to the Comprehensive plan to guide My thoughts on it it clearly has very specific verbiage that this is the most beparkway and most environmentally sensitive develops should take place on that and all the verbiages that are wrapped around that. You go back whatever it was, 10, 12 years ago, and the last approved piece of concept on this was for, and I don't know the right way to describe it. I wasn't there, but a put put go off amusement sort of center activity that got approved by a city council, but just never got built. Fast for it more recently in the last year or so. Probably on the other extreme was the proposal to build the four and five story residential condo Project which I did not support and thought it was too intense and do as I said here right now Many of us at the end of that said okay if we're not going this way and trying to pick up on the lead of the community Try to look at the species of property as an open space initiative and suggest that we ought to go back to the community on some sort of a non-binding referendum in terms of including this in our open space initiative which we didn't get support for. So now here's your project. Sort of looking at both extremes and if this body or future bodies doesn't support it as open space and doesn't support the more dense development as I outlined, then this feels kind of right. I don't know how else to describe that as we try to go forward. What I don't support is sort of a legislative process that sort of sets up to keep saying, no, no, no, no, to anything. And the hopes that everybody will eventually disappear, and that becomes the way that we legislate with this property is, assuming that's not a process that's followed, and why I'm going to be so interested in the community feedback if we dismiss the two extremes, and I view them as the two extremes that we've been through, not that I don't support one of those, but assuming there's not the will of the body to do that, then a low density, single-level, retail consistent with economic vitality, the Lehighway quarter, sure feels like that's something that makes an awful lot of sense. Not commenting on the placement of the building and the road connections, and I certainly get all that, I certainly do believe and would encourage you to talk about consolidation. It's easy for us to say up here, and as I've learned, it's really difficult, if not impossible, if you don't have willing participants to pull that off. And I certainly understand that as you go forward. And I think all is weak and ask is you make a try and a sincere effort to open up those dialogues. And at the end of the day of the work, it works great. And in the end of the day of it doesn't, I don't know how we hold you accountable for that. So those are my general comments. I would encourage you to get out in the community. I'm gonna look very much forward to the community dialogue. I think it's gonna be careful as an elected body that we frame those issues for the community. And there aren't a whole lot of them. Open space, high density residential redevelopment or something whether it's residential or retail that's of a lower density that sort of moves the issue on. So I'm not giving you feedback on your project other than consolidation is certainly an important thing. The quality of the project is certainly an important thing. The landscaping of the project is certainly an important thing. And then community feedback and aggressive outreach I think is going to be a very component. And I just hope that those in the community that are here listening understand at some point in time, one of these options has to be either a body has to say collectively we support it as open space or we support it as high density or we support a more low density, lower impact project like this. But at some point in time we're going to have to address those issues as certainly responsible leaders and property owners who have rights to develop property and all the things that go along with it. With that, let me thank you again for your time and energy and your interest in the city of Fairfax. It's always greatly appreciated and we look forward to partnering with you in the dialogue. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I'll see you. Okay. I guess we're going to make another quick switch here and the next discussion is a discussion on the future use of Westmore School. Could we pick any more more complicated theories of agenda items and topics for tonight if we could, but. That's why we chose a special evening. Yes. Special minutes. Mr. Stinysum, you're assembling a team here and will... Mr. Mayor, I think it's just kind of one man show here for some of the introductory comments. I would just say at some point in time, and I don't want to miss all these dialogues either. We're going to have to take a short break or I'm going to have to take a short break. But I don't. I appreciate that. Are you ready, Mr. Hudson? Or do you need a few more seconds? I'm not. I'm not in. Oh, okay. Oh, it's just you. Oh, okay. Please, then go ahead. Looks like we're ready. There may be aspects of this that might should not occur in this venue, but That's for the council to decide and so far as as disposal of property or the redevelopment of property, but I would just introduce the topic in this manner we do have a school that is Has been leased now for about, I guess, a year and a half to a tenant. We expect there will be a vacancy there at some point in the next few months. And so the council has talked about what is the future use of that that property and we've looked at a couple of things one is to Leave the school as a school and look for another tenant there is We've discussed it's use as We've discussed its use as soccer fields and maybe looking at the possibility of shifting from the Stafford site to the Westmore site. And we've also, at least from staff discussion standpoint, talked about the potential of selling the property for redevelopment. The property is valued at about $5 million. And so we are looking at in the near future, taking some steps at least on the staffer ballfield side. It was going out for the bids. So it does call into question what is the future of the property, the, with the coming vacancy there, at Westmore time seems to be right for some dialogue and discussion about the future use of the property. Well, and thank you, Mr. Sissin, and I do think this is all appropriate for certainly public discussion and feedback, and I know there is a huge amount of interest within the community as it should be on the future use of that. I think in fairness to the community, and I will take the blame for this not being shared with the community sooner after some dialogue that took place and reference to the existing tenant and what to do. And I think the spirit of the dialogue that has taken place on the project was to ask staff to at least go out and start a process on, is there any interest from other parties for future lease? I think if we're framing all the various issues that certainly make sense from the budget process that we're going through that we all know is going to be a tough budget and having a revenue stream, if that's the preference of this body certainly makes sense and going out and finding out what that interest is certainly seems like a deliberate part of and should be of a due diligence in terms of where we go from there. And this council has asked staff to do that. I should of in my capacity as mayor made that announcement and shared that with the community and didn't but that's the purpose of this work session is sort of get all of the issues out on the table and I didn't understand that it was moving quite as quickly as it did but that's no excuse for for that lack of dialogue in the public. You know, just framing the other issues as we move forward, the residential redevelopment is not one that I think we've had collectively as a body. I don't know how the community is going to feel on that pro-orcon, and I think that certainly is an interesting approach for some sort of residential development. And I think we ought to at least talk about it as a body, although we have not up until this very moment, and I want to make sure the community understands we have not, as of this moment, and I for one, would be led by the community in terms of their feedback from that. And the last issue is the issue that I think got framed a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Rasmussen, when we were talking about the community made a presentation, in this case, the Westmore community to the City Council, and said, gee, if you can't work it out with the existing tenets that they would like for consideration of tearing it down, turning it into a community park and asset, and their willingness to consider the incorporation of fields. So I think in fairness, those are kind of the three issues that we ought to frame our dialogue and discussion on. The one on the RFP for the lease is already in play and we ought to kind of make comments and thoughts and statements. I will say for the benefit of the community, I know my colleagues already understand that. This is a very unusual in the process in that whatever this body does takes five out of six votes. When you either lease or you sell community property, you have to have a super majority. So I think that's fairly important to get out as the community follows this dialogue and that sometimes guides consensus just in itself. So with that, I'd like to open it up for feedback and dialogue on the various options. And maybe there's another one that no one's thought of yet that somebody would like to share for the good of the order as well. Ms. Winter. I think it's important being that that property is so far back into the neighborhood that we are cognizant of not increasing traffic through those narrow roads. the idea of making it a totally ball field or a substitute for maybe some of the fields that have been proposed or in our in process of being looked at up off of Fairfax Boulevard, it would increase the traffic within that neighborhood a lot. And I don't think that would be acceptable for the, for the, for that neighborhood to have that much increased traffic. The idea of selling it for residential, it would have to be low density because those are, it's a low density neighborhood. But what I would maybe, if you, to consider of maybe not selling the entire area, but making sure that maybe one, an area for one ball field stayed. And that the mixed use of sorts, you know, like a mixed use of trying to get a win-win. But if it was sold and it was high density, the traffic into your little neighborhood would be horrible, or it would be substantially increased. So I think that needs to be addressed. re-renting, do we want to be in the rental business? From what I've seen since being on council, it's very difficult to get a good renter and one that will stay in just about any facility that we have. I would be probably more prone to looking at selling or selling part of the parcel. But after outreach to the neighborhood as well, but increasing the traffic back into that area so that I would have difficulty with that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. For the comments, thoughts, feedback, input. Ms. Cross. I too am conflicted about whether the city should be in business of being a landlord. We certainly have not been too successful with this property. Although I must say that we had a very good arrangement before the current situation. I think a lease of the property is a possibility. I would want to be very, very careful as to who we lease to and require the documentation of financial position and make certain that they are on very solid ground so that we don't have a repeat of what we currently have. Without an awful lot of proffers, I couldn't favor that. It would be a real imposition, I think, on the current neighborhood, I think that two would be almost suffocating for them in traffic and other issues. And I really hate to, as I said, I'm very conflicted about this, but rather than having a property that generates income for the city, which would be the case for making a case for the sale of the property or the lease of the property to demolish the building and put in athletic fields is going to be a continual drain on our resources as those facilities are maintained. So I'm interested really in what everyone else has to say about this, because it's a real conundrum in my mind, and I'm very conflicted about it. Thank you. Mr. Rasmussen, thank you, Mr. Mayor. It seems to me we got several conflicting problems here, but one of them that comes down to is our current financial situation. We've all said that for the next two or three years we're going to have significant financial concerns, which says we ought to maybe try to lease the building if we can find a good tenant. Or go back to the idea of, there's no question that the Stafford Ballfield is a single most expensive ballfield that we have planned to construct in the city. And maybe we need to take a look at, can we forward to spend that much money for one single ball field and see whether we could do something different with the Stafford site, I mean, with the Westmore site. It seems to me the bottom line that it makes no sense to sell it. Particularly in tonight, we've held out the possibility of gaining open space on a piece on Fairfax Boulevard, the Stafford site. If we're holding out the possibility of acquiring that for open space, why would we want to spell sell other city space? It just doesn't seem to me to be a good thing to be doing. That we ought to be holding on to that land no matter what, and try to figure out how we make the best use of it, given our financial constraints for the next two or three years. Other comments? I will, if not, let me just jump in here. And you know, as we think through this, and I've had an opportunity to sit in and some of the community dialogue and discussion that they've initiated on their their own as they've looked at this and as they should look at it. You know quite frankly if it wasn't for the budget situation we are in. And as I have always tried to do and try to find that win, win within all the related communities in the City of Fairfax, I have to tell you it's very intriguing to me. And I should also say, I'm just not a big believer that cities should own surplus property. I never have, I think I've expressed that publicly, privately, and every other means that I can. I don't know one of my colleagues throughout the region as we talk about that everybody's Achilles Hale seems to be surplus buildings, and it's for a very simple reason. Leasees, for whatever reason, look at cities differently, and they push issues that shouldn't be pushed, and they gamble on issues that they can gamble on that wouldn't just happen in the private industry. And for that reason, I've never seen, I was thrilled when we took down John C. Wood, and I personally think it's very intriguing to take down Westmore because let's face it, it is such an old building that if whoever we get doesn't invest in it and love it and nurture it like we would hope they would, it's going to fall apart incredibly quickly. I might, one caveat on leaning toward the sort of solution of the budget concept is we thought we had that solve now as a revenue source and we don't. So that's not been as compelling to me as it might certainly seem to those who haven't been sort of following this process on the surface. Looking at then what to do, I do agree with Mr. Restmussen in terms of I have always felt that we ought to keep on to every ounce of open space that we can. Short of a residential redevelopment, and only if the community embraced that. And I don't know I haven't been involved in those discussions in the community, but it is very intriguing to me if there is a way to do it. And I don't look at it as a cost savings. I look at it as how do we solve a whole more variety of issues if we could do it in a timely fashion. And I think we've made a commitment to our sports, our friends with the FPYC and others on time schedules and bringing on additional fields, but it sure seems like if we could do that in an expedited way, even if it just costs the same and address the concerns of the community over in that neck of the woods that did a wonderful job in expressing new viewpoints, embrace the feedback we've already gotten for the Westmore community where they've said, tear down the building, turn it into a park, and yes, we would embrace a field. I don't think their concept was a sports complex, but a field to balance off another field. Sure, just on the surface seems to feel like it might address a multiple of issues. I think it's safe to say that we've already heard from staff quite frankly that if we did that, it wouldn't be a cost savings. We've already spent, I don't know what it is, a quarter of a million dollars on Stafford Design. I'm sure there would be some concern in the users of that future used in terms of how much more time would we lose if we looked at another location. And so to me, it's not a motivation of saving money, which I know we're going to be in the spirit pretty soon in doing. It's a motivation on dressing to community concerns as I see it in two different places in the community, resolving a surplus building that I think is going to create a dilemma for as long as there's a surplus building. Unless the ideal tenant surfaces with the right financial statements and some sort of a short term solution that could address some of the budgets. And I know it sounds like I'm all over the place, but I personally would like for to see us pursue the tearing down in the school, the discussion in which have to be done quickly with all the engaged parties about whether it doesn't make more sense there, which I wish had been in play early, but it quite frankly was not because we had a tenant with a long-term lease on this property. And so for all the right reasons, that wasn't in play when we walked down that series of options. And I think it's important that we get that out in front as well. So my preference would be, let's look at it for a community asset, pervillion, playground area, tear the building down, and then consider it as a possible alternative to a soccer field somewhere else in the city. Mr. Sovathra. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As I said earlier, I've been hesitant to speak to these longer-term planning issues because it's really not going to. This one's fairly short. That's why I'm speaking. And I do think that there's an opportunity, or there could be a splitting of the difference here as well. You know, it's interesting. I hadn't quite heard the somewhat unanimous view that a field made some sense. There's still a little bit of a difference, I think, of opinion on whether or not it makes sense to do, to tear down the building at this stage. But I'll just remind people in the council, and this goes back, and I'm sure it's in the minutes almost over 10 years. When we approved the new elementary schools, I actually thought that the best idea we had at the time was to take both of the other surplus elementary schools, tear them down and use the money to pay off the debt of the new schools. I lost that battle. I didn't admittedly pursue it for very long because I think there was some logic to keeping green acres in particular at the time and then finding a longer term lease arrangement that was pretty good for a while as Mrs. Cross spoke to with Westmore. However, I'm just trying to think out loud here that if there is a solution for a ball field and we can let the next council decide the issue of the future of Westmore, is that something that's a reasonable solution to get us to get us moving forward here this evening? I just don't know. I mean, I'm throwing that out. I mean, it seems like I've heard at least three or four people up here say that they could support a ball field. And I know there's no cost savings and as long as we don't lose substantial amounts of time, it solves other issues and I'm not re-addressed those here this evening, but we all know what they are. And I'm looking to my distinguished colleague on the left, Mr. Rasmussen, he might have a thought of you around this. Well, but if I could to just to frame the issues, and I think we're going to need some more feedback from staff, not necessarily tonight, but if I remember the dialogue on citing of a field at Westmore, which we did go through a process to do. The current site with the existing parking lot to support the school building was only big enough for sort of a miniature field. If I, there was a tree that would have to be taken down, but it wasn't a full regulation field, which I think is what we approved over on the Stabbert just what I take is that correct and is that fixable if we left the building and we left the parking lot potentially a large baseball field. It was only conceptual on using a GIS system. So, well, could I see if we could get a consensus? Maybe we've already directed staff to go out and start the process to see if there's anybody interested in leasing. That's ongoing. That process has already been started. But what I would like to suggest, and we're going to have to do it fairly quickly, as we team up with some stakeholders as well, but a, look at it, and I got to believe it's something you can do pretty quickly, That is there the option of keeping the building, keeping the parking to support the building, and a field of the same size and magnitude of what we approved over on. Stafford. Or what would that facility look like if the building came down and we then replaced it with a field. And I don't know that the community started laundry list, but I'm going to assume they're going to want some playground equipment and some play area that they now have, and I can't imagine they're going to want to lose that as we move forward. But can we get a consensus that those are the three options that sort of are servicing? But if you had a question, go ahead, Mr. Sov. I'm with you on the three options. Let me, but I was a little unsure of where all of my colleagues are on the issue of turning down the building, aside from Mr. Rasmussen. I know we have the- Well, all I'm suggesting at this stage is we get some background on all three options. One is what would a part slash field slash community asset look like without the building and cost and the field there? And I think you've already started the some of the costs because you didn't analysis on staff and versus green acres. The second option would be, is it possible to keep the building, the parking lot, and the field similar to Stafford? And then the third would be the least option which we're already pursuing. So, at least, at least, Lisa, Lisa, I know, Lisa. Okay. I got a lot of hands going on. Mississin, did you want to jump in and then? I just want to suggest, do we have to have an artificial turf field? Maybe just a natural turf. We can save a lot of money. Yep. Okay. Well, and maybe you can give us those options as well as we move forward. And the other reason I'm thinking we can do the sooner rather than later is we've already started some of that dialogue and you've done it. But before you comment, if I should, I've got a lot of council hands. Let me first start with Mrs. Winnie. Any clarification on the ball field? If our ball fields in this area in lieu of the ball field at Stafford. Personally, that's what I would support. I don't know. Because I will not support that. Okay, that's fair. I will not support that. I have so much. We have so much. Sure, there's enough money to do both, but. Because if you look at what is going out so far, what has been put down, and it is, it's quarter of a million dollars, I believe. I think that's great. And if you're looking at the three, there's three turf fields, the two over on Draper and the one that is slated at Stafford. Can you say turf, you mean artificial? Artificial. Yeah. We got the pricing, I believe, because we were doing all three within a non-popular, non-busy time of the year. And we were able to tag on to some other projects. So if this is pushed off, not only will we lose that quarter of a million, I believe, if I understand correctly, we're going to lose even more money. Stafford, I mean, on the draper, those fields will go up in price because we're going to have one less. It just is a huge quagmire. This is going to be a lot more expensive in my estimation than this first blush. Now I also go back to 50 is a major corridor. There's going to be traffic going in and going off of it, going in and going off of it. If we were to put this complex in this small bedroom community, they're going to have to go from Main Street through the entire community to get to ball fields. So I cannot go with a major complex back in that in that neighborhood. I just want to make sure that all streets are all curvy streets. Now, there's also, there's the county is right behind too, where there's a pocket street. Is there any, the idea of connecting through the county there? I don't know. It's all full. Hold on if you could please. Still, the gavel here. Are you doing making comments? Okay. Just a couple things. I don't want to get too bogged down here. I think what we're trying to do is to frame the issues and then get staff to give us some thought out, not kind of off the cuff comments tonight. But a couple things. One is just so we're not using phrases that I don't think are consistent with what we're talking about, a major complex Mrs. Winner is, in my viewpoint, we can agree to disagree, is not a single field with a park asset and a community asset. And I think it's, unless I misunderstood the feedback we got from Westmore during a public hearing, was consistent with their directions, but instead of us assuming that it's going to be more expensive and we're going to lose timing, I'd be willing to bet if we went to the firm and said, we're still going to build three fields, but maybe there are going to be different times we could work that out. But let's just frame that issue. We're going to ask staff, assuming there's a consensus, to address Mrs. Winner's concerns on, let us see what it looks like. What is a cost? What would be potential layouts? This is not a decision making night. This is sort of framing issues for the benefit of the community, getting as much information as we can, as quickly as we can, so we can make some edgy educated decisions on this. At the end of this whole dialogue, quite frankly, it may turn out we lease the space and we move on, but I think we need to, it sounds like there's a consensus to get as much information as we can in front of us as quickly as we can. Let me see if there's any more issues that we want to make sure that Mr. Restman is going to say. I just want to clarify one point. I'm not necessarily against tearing down the school. If we can lease it to a good tenant, that might be my preferred choice simply because it would give us some revenue. But if we can't lease it to a good tenant, then we probably ought to tear it down. And and we and maybe the decision as to whether to build a field or not may have to depend on that, and I'm certainly willing to entertain that. Absolutely. This cross. Yeah. This has been a big help for me. My biggest concern is that this property should not be draining city resources. I don't think we're at a point in time that we can afford to take on any other long term, long maintenance, those sorts of issues. I think my first preference here is for leasing the property. I would ask Mr. Sisson, in the advertising you've done, have you put a cutoff date on that for those interested should be? No, we have not put a cutoff date. Well, I think we should establish one, and then I think we should take those parties that have expressed an interest, give them an opportunity for presentation. In the meantime, Mr. Recardi can prepare the necessary figures for demolition and construction of a field and playground equipment and that sort of thing. And then we actually have some dollars and cents tax for making a good decision on this. That's where I am. Well, can I just follow up on that? What is the best way if we want to set a deadline or if it didn't go out that way, how do we sort of put that genie back in the bottle? Is it as simple as whoever's expressed interest at some point in time you tell them there's a date certain of something comes in after that. Right. So be it. We'll just tell them, we'll establish that timeline and tell them they have to meet it. I think we probably, if nothing else comes out of this, we ought to probably give that direction tonight. I don't, you know, I mean, obviously this is going to be a budget issue and we've got all kind of other complicating tentacles depending on what we do, not the least of which is moving full speed ahead on staffer, but what is a reason time that we should put it on it? Is it, it's been out for two weeks? So if we put another two week deadline on it, I know you had said that you were encouraged by the number of folks that had at least informally responded with two weeks be a reason time that I think I think it would be. We've had one group who were really the tour of the facility fell in love with the facility, but their student base is some 10 or 15 miles away and they said we hope that building has never torn down in another time and place. We would move in there in a heartbeat, but so they're not interested. We've had two or three others who probably have been interested in touring the facility but in a lot of phone calls. But how many of those will mature into serious interest? It's anybody's guess. Would it be reasoned in for us to put a, I'm just picking a number, but two weeks so you could get back to the people who have contacted the city. I don't know if we need to run another ad with a deadline or whatever you would suggest, but it seems to me at least there's a consensus that we can't just leave this thing open in it for a whole bunch of reasons. And I do, if I could make one other comment because I don't want people, if I bring it up two weeks, saying why didn't you tell us two weeks ago, but as you all recall, that boiler in that facility needs some attention and we're taking a look at it now as to whether or not continued maintenance will do the trick or if it needs to be a new one. And so those can be fairly expensive. And so, you know, we're in that gray area where if we spend a lot of money, we ought to plan on leasing it for a good long while. And so that's just another thing that complicates the discussion. And if I remember the dialogue in the border boiler two years ago where we thought it might not last it was not a cheap right investment. We spent about 20,000 on it to keep it running and but it was you remember the ballpark. 300,000 if it's a new one. But it was, you remember the ballpark? 300,000 if it's the new one. Well, and we can't, when we're adding up the cost of this, all these options, we can't ignore that. Exactly. Mrs. Winter. I remembered one more idea. The idea of selling the property for use as a senior housing. Since when I ran for office way back in 2002, that has been a recurring need in the city is someplace for senior housing and be it that it would be in a low density, it would be, I don't know, but that is quiet. You wouldn't have a lot of traffic back into that area. You could probably still have a small ball field, park like and make it a park like setting, but open it up for senior housing. Thank you. All right. Well, and I assume unless it was a city run, senior housing that the RFP didn't limit it to just schools, is there just that, is there anybody interested in the building? Is that correct? Correct. It could be any use. So- I mean, to tear the building down. Could renovate or tell it- tear the building down and put up, say to the art, new senior housing facilities. Be it small houses or- Thank you. Okay. Well, I hope the biggest benefit that came out of this dialogue is that we're at least framing issues in front of the community that I have all the confidence in the world that we have several interested and very aggressive and very well-organized community associations that I assume we're going to listen to this dialogue and debate and give us additional feedback as we move forward in this dialogue. Mrs. Sisson, I think what we've got is a consensus on get a deadline on the RFP so we can see what the interest is or lack thereof, which is going to drive a lot of the other options, it sounds like, but also at the same time pursue the options on field with building, field without building, and cost related to it, of similar size and magnitude to whatever was being designed and built at Stafford. Okay? Thank you. All right. Well, this five at least is not quite as on your edge of your seat as some of the others are, but five is the discussion of the acting Creek Stream Bank Restoration. Mr. Sisson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. David Summers will bring his team forward. Mr. Summers, Director of Public Works and will introduce the topic. I have here today a city engineer Peter Mellard and two representatives from the consulting firm of ArcaneK for a presentation. As you may remember, it's back in June 2006, we had some significant rains, which caused some damage and erosion to the stretch of Agatine Creek, council directed staff to evaluate the creek and we now have a report to present. We now have a report to present. Well, good night, Freedom Alert. We have been instructed by the Council to hire, hire a firm to review the damage to the Akitin Creek and we did so when we selected our K&K and they have completed their study and they are going to present their study tonight on the Eurone Genetic Place from the heavy storms in 2006 June 2006. I'm going to turn to Michael Wittemist Seth Brown, who is going to present the study. Thank you very much, Peter. Before we get started, I did one first thing for Council for giving us the opportunity to present this information, the results of this study, and also thank the city for the relationship we've developed and the ongoing work that we're continuing with the city as well. And we understand that informal work session, so please chime in with any questions. We're going to try to be as brief as we can be years we need to be, but still be effective with discussing the results so far. Let's see, here are a brief overview of what we'll be talking about. The first we'll be talking about. What was the project about? Talk about a project description. And a brief discussion about the technical aspects. Talk about the results of the technical work as well. And also we broke the areas down in the areas for restoration that we were targeting into priorities. And we've got those listed right there. And we'll discuss that in greater detail. And all of that culminated in a five year plan that is I will discuss as well. I will also discuss previous restoration work that has been done in the city and I'll also talk about funding sources and how to go from here at this point. And I will say that we worked collaboratively with the city, with David Summers, with Peter Moulard and with Adrian Friedman as well. So this is a collaborative program that we've put together. So what's the project about, as has been discussed already? As has been discussed already, the, this is, it came out as a result of the June 2006 tone events where between 10 and 12 inches of rainfall fell in this area over a two to three day period, which affected not just this municipality, but streams throughout the whole region. So we were tasked to go out and look at the status of the streams, look at the stream banks, see what condition they're in. So we did that first of all by going out in the field and taking pictures of every set that we went to, you'll see a series of pictures that we go along. We tried to tie in both the number if you seeing the upper right hand corner there with the mapping that we've provided in the report, as well as some type of description identifier at the bottom. And we also assessed the stream's potential for a bank erosion current and future. And we did this through a nationally recognized protocol called the B-Hide, the bank erosion hazard index. And you can see that that figured lower left the screen shows some of these features. But what it is, you go out in the field, you look at the stream banks, you look at different parameters. And it all adds up to a certain score for that bank erosion potential. And that can come out to low moderate high, very high in Wiltalk. We'll show you the results of that in the next slide. We also, while in the field, we also looked at the feasibility of actually doing restoration work, looking at construction access, looking at impacts to utilities and whatnot as well to see how feasible any kind of restoration would be. From that we developed prioritization as we discussed and finally the plan was developed as well. The results, three major results came out of this. The first is that stream conditions reflect a bell curve distribution, centering on the high erosion potential. And this was adjusted for urban conditions because if you look at urban areas, a lot of them, a lot of the banks are on the high and very high in extreme end. So we try to put this in an urban context. Some were very low and moderate and a lot of those were filling areas with that, were previously restored. Another result was that there definitely are unstable reaches that are impacting citizens and that's something that we really focused on as we worked with the city And there is a varying feasible. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, yes. Oh Miss winner In this slide here. Yes, that house Yes, so close what how long long is the stability of it? How many years, if nothing's done before that house falls into the creek? How many years before that? Yeah. If nothing is done restoration wise, because the, you can tell it is definitely being challenged. I agree. I agree completely. Okay. I'll say the first, okay. Okay. I agree completely. I'll say the first thing to notice in that picture is that there is no vegetation, no serious vegetation, it's only grass and it's cut right up to the edge of the stream bank. So it's left unprotected. I will say that if there was some type of buffer left in place, some vegetation, that you can see on the other side of the the bank that would definitely slow down the erosion to say how long that would take to actually impact that house. It could be five ten years it could be the next major event that that scours out that area eroded out or is it city land that the erosion is only in city land. this jurisdiction have are in that same issue. And that might be something that Mr. Somers is going to have to look at. I mean, is this one house or are we looking at a dozen houses where their property? This isn't the only one. I was right. The magnitude, I think David might have a better response. Exactly how many. You can see on the map we've got should up there all those red dots in that map are areas that we got citizen concern input from the city and we and we did definitely incorporate that in with a plan. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I Think we've covered everything on this. Yeah And it's fact is you know, looking at prioritization that the top thing we did look at was citizen concerns. We know that that's a major priority for the city. We also looked at, if I could just mention one thing, before we got started, we had a file of letters from people who were concerned because of exactly what you were saying. And we gave that whole stack of letters to Arcane Kay. So they were visiting all those locations. Yeah, and that's when we were out there, we definitely documented what the impacts were and what the concerns were about. And we did incorporate, like I said, in this prioritization plan. We also looked at the previously restored areas. There's been quite a bit of restoration already done in the city. We wanted to visit that as well and look at spot fixes because that seemed like it's a good bang for the buck type of solution and we'll get into that in a little more detail. And of course we wanted, and since we looked at bank erosion severity, we wanted to include that with a fireization of course and access as well. So citizen concerns, we've discussed that already, there's six areas that were highlighted already and again a lot of this came out of the June 2006 storm event and you can see them right there and a lot of the concerns were localized flooding, which makes sense, having to do with this event, as well as debris, like tree debris, what do you debris, as well as impacts to property and nearby infrastructure such as fences, that type of thing. And again, going, you know, let's talk about getting banged for the buck, that's why we want to look at spot fixes at previously restored reaches. And I do want to say that, you know, considering the magnitude of the storm, that was a storm that was very unusual for the area and considering that the streams out there that had been previously restored really held up very well. And in fact, the areas that were considered the most stable were in areas that were previously restored. But that said, there still are some spot fix restoration that we've identified and incorporate in the plan. You can see that we've listed out four specific areas. And I guess some are near some areas that have been discussed tonight already. Not only did we talk about or focus on spot fixes but we looked for full restoration opportunities. Again, the city's head of the curve has been head of the curve in this since the mid 90s and we wanted to at least look into the ability to move forward, moving this program, keeping that momentum going. And again, we've identified four areas and you can see in the map right there where they're located and one is in near the Stafford area that has been discussed tonight as well. And one thing to notice is that up and down stream of all of these areas are areas that have been restored. So we're trying to basically close the loop on many of those. And that gives you, again, as far as environmental benefit that gives the best bang for the buck when you're looking at full-restory. And you can see there's a couple pictures of the North Ranger Road area during construction and after. And again, I just want to emphasize how progressive the city's been in terms of restoration over four miles of restoration has been done since the mid-90s. And that's something that not many other municipalities of any in the Northern Virginia area were involved with at that time. And one thing to keep in mind is that this is a young, this is a new type of science and engineering and a lot has been learned since the mid 90s as well as we've gone along. One specific area that we want to look at because we know that there has been citizen concerns in this area is the the Ranger Road area. You can see the strip that we're talking about is between Fairfax Boulevard and Ranger Road near the Greater Lane area upstream of Plantation Parkway. It was designed in 1999, constructed in 2000, so it's eight years old, nearly eight years old. And we went out and visited this site recently, and we did see some of the vegetation is missing. Maybe that's because some of it didn't take initially, which is not unusual for these type of projects. Predation, deer coming in and foraging on these. That's not unusual as well. You can see that there's some plantings that pictures down the lower left and the upper right. You can see local areas of bank destabilization. Again, this area did not come out to be in the extreme or very high bank erosion potential area. So yes, there's spot fix that I need to be done in these areas that we would recommend. And we've identified and included that in the prioritization plan. So we talked about all these different aspects that have gone into and of course we want to put some numbers into it. We looked at a five year window and we're looking at about a code of a million, $280,000 for annual budget. That includes design fees as well. And that would get you close to a sense of a mile total, over 4,000 linear fee, total restoration, a majority of which we focus on the light restoration spot fix. Again, we wanted to focus on getting the best bang for the buck in that instance. And again, we graduate down to moderate and in full restoration. So we're talking about 1.4 million in total over this five year window. This line is here. Great. This is a nice presentation you have here, but as I went through it in grants how much money do you get in grants? Okay how much money do you get? How much money can we take off of that? I see. One point five million that we could get in grants. Yeah I would say it's grants are competitive it's something that should not necessarily, you should, the city shouldn't look at that as a sole source or a majority source for funding. How much you're talking about maybe each project you might look at, maybe 30 to 50,000 per project. Okay. So usually how these grants work is you come up with a 30% design, something like that, to show that you are actually interested in doing this type of work. And then once you do that you submit this grant application and you so you kind of put your foot forward at first they look at it they say this looks like it's going to be worthwhile and then there's a matching in many instances. Okay thank you. What would happen if we did more of a seven or a ten-year plan? To stretch these costs out a little bit. Yeah, that would be fine. That wouldn't change a whole lot. Other than I guess of costs went up, but costs are pretty high as it is, so I don't think they're going to go up a whole lot more. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Mr. Wessom. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is for Mr. Summers. Do we know whether the Daniels run watershed, took a lot of damage in the O6 storm? From talking to Adrian, it has not. We didn't look at this in our study because of the feedback we've gotten from the friends of Daniels Run and other groups along there. We were hoping to work on these other areas first to show how these would come out before we went after the Daniels Run section. Well, I don't know. An assessment of damage, I think, doesn't need the approval of the Friends of Damage Run. Maybe what we do with the assessment, certainly we need to discuss with them and all the people who are involved with the Daniels Run. But we should not just ignore it because some people don't want to do anything. We need to have an assessment of what was their damage from the O6 storm. And I would urge that we do that. Mr. Runner. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, the idea of looking at the Earth as being a very dynamic living type organism that shifts on its own without direction. You know, the stream as its beds have changed over the last 100 years quite a bit. It's just that man decides to put a house or something in its way and now we're trying to stop the earth from moving. The spot to that end, the spot improvements is that going to just encourage more erosion and another 50 feet down because it's going to butt up against where a lot of action has happened and the dirt has gone away, has gone downstream. So you wind up taking that spot and reinforcing it so that it doesn't fall away anymore, that water then is going to bounce off of there maybe onto an opposing bank down a little further. And hence you continue the erosion in a different pattern. Granted I do believe we need to shore up some of these areas that people are losing land and stability of even homes. That needs to be done. But in doing so, is there any way to look downstream to say, to determine what kind of reinforcement should be done to maybe lessen further erosion down further, so that we're not like falling over ourselves over the next, you know, 100 years of, okay, we spotted there and now we're going to spot there and maybe that's what we need to do. First of all, you're exactly right. It's a dynamic system. It's a complex chaotic system streams. I mean, and I will say that in the past, I think the reaction is, Van, let's throw some something very hard to reinforce this area. And there are occasions that's completely warranted. Yeah, and so you have to look at it, it's case by case by case side by side to say what will be the impact of this. With that said, there are, and like I said, this field is still fairly, it's an ascent field. It's just, it's, and we're learning new techniques all the time. And so the more, the first thing that we would want to look at, or we would recommend, would be to use the most natural solution that will still be stable. And so that should reduce what you're talking about the bouncing out of the moving the problem elsewhere downstream type of problem. So that's definitely something that we have learned over time to see. And you can see it in some of these streams, not just here, but throughout the whole area. You know, and if we could, you know, kind of proportion the cost out maybe further on a longer timeline, it might be good. Sure. Technology will improve. That's true. The stream will continue rolling. We're learning as we go along, definitely. And it will save an annual, little annual money. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Definitely. Any other... and I apologize. I excuse myself for a few minutes and I may have missed some of this, but if I did just stop me and I can get caught up either by watching the tape or asking questions offline, but it doesn't feel like it's been that long ago since we complete it many of these sections. I know it may have been started in 2000 or whatever but I distinctly remember spending a lot of quality and extended time with the residents in the community walking these streams and and striping out trees and having community dialogue and all of the and some of them in some of these very exact locations that you're highlighting It was a project that went a long time without being done It was a fairly expensive project if I remember right they got started and now 8754 years later we're talking about spending upwards of 280,000 a year and I'm $1.4 million and some of that is in the exact same areas that we started to work in. That would lead me to ask the question on, you know, at what time does this get solved and at what time is it not a good expenditure and And are we now just started a big dark hole that we're gonna keep pouring money down because the more we do it the more it has to be fixed and Every time there's a storm we lose what we did and and I quite frankly I'm a little confused on that whole process Mayor you might I think you were out of the room This is meant to target just the areas that were sustained severe damage back during the flood of06. I mean, we had a huge almost, I don't know if it was a 75 or 100-year storm at that time and a lot of the work that the city had done in these cases that you point out were severely damaged. So now we're coming back and saying this is what this is what has to be done to repair those areas. I'd just say for me I get that I understand that and this was a project they'll say it again that went for years and decades without being done a lot of community feedback and we had a storm and boom we're now spending another $1.4 million and $280,000 for nature's work and I just you know there's nothing to prevent a storm two years from now of 75 year proportions in fact I think there's supposed to be a flash blood tonight. So with over an inch of rain in a very short period of time. So I'll just put that out as a marker. It doesn't need any feedback at this point in time, but I would just question in today's budgets and setting priorities whether or not this would rise to that. Well, what I think we can do as a staff is come back to you in the weeks and months ahead to make some recommendations about how to integrate it into our annual budget process. Is this 280 in the current budget process? No, it is not. It is not. We can. Okay. It's tough to fight mother nature. It is. It's expensive. Okay. With that, thank you very much. Appreciate your time. We're now going to forge ahead to the discussion on emergency management ordinance amendment. Assistant. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chief Owens is prepared. Memoranda on this topic and I think this one will go pretty quickly. Thank you, Mr. Assistant. Mr. Mayor, members and council, good evening. This is a carryover from your previous meeting where this item after having been introduced was on your most recent meeting agenda for public hearing. It was during that process that a question was posed relative to the state required designation of the position of director of emergency management for the city. The provisions of state code currently allow either the chief elected official or the chief administrative officer of the jurisdiction in this case of city, either one now to serve in that capacity. So the question was posed should council take a moment to pause, have that discussion and give staff direction on how they want this ordinance crafted to then move forward for the public hearing to be completed. What we have provided you is a draft of the ordinance that is marked up with sort of either or language that would let the council either maintain the current position that the city manager is currently designated as the director of emergency management or in fact shift that responsibility to name the mayor to that position. And I assume that's a segue to comment. Yes. You know, and just and I know I'm going to turn this over to Mrs. Cross because I know this was her issue but it just strikes me since this is somewhat involving my position. Your position? Oh, your issue too. I'm sorry. Mr. Well, you know, I decide out of mind. Well, no, I think the fix was Mrs. Cross's initiative of two weeks ago, but whatever. I'll give everybody credit. Everybody's initiative. You know, what strikes me, and I wasn't involved in the conversation that led to the pause two weeks ago, but the sure seems like there should be some balance. I know my comments when I read it the first time in your first presentation is an almost felt like the council and for the mayor was not only not part of it but almost discouraged to be part of the process, the other extreme and the city manager, the other extreme to go somewhere else. And it just feels to me like there should be some balance. I personally am uncomfortable with the city manager serving in the lead in that role, but it sure seems like there should be some balance, some role for the elected people and not just verbites. It says you can show up if you want to, but you're really not welcome. And I think I expressed this comment to you the night you made the first presentation. But with that, Mrs. Cross, did you want to sort of chime in on some of your thoughts and concerns? Well, I think it's two different things. I think the first issue for us to decide is sort of the succession of who makes the decisions in an emergency situation. And then following, we can have a discussion as to the appropriate role of the elected officials in an emergency situation and where they should be, what they should be doing, what specific role they might be assigned or whether it's just, you know, sort of watching over the shoulders of those that are, you know, immediately involved. But I concur with you. I think probably the logical person to handle emergence to be designated as the director of emergency management would be the city manager with the assistance city manager as the alternate or the successor if the city manager isn't available. That I appreciate that this duty involves a lot of preparation and even a trading regimen, right? You need to be trained to do this and I think that probably is out of the scope of the elected officials. a series of presidential directives specifically related to homeland security requirements that has really ramped up what the ongoing training and certification must be now for people that hold these positions. And most of the communities, and as we've called our neighbors, they have in fact, left it to the Chief Administrative Officer to fill that role because as a staff position in the expectation that they would meet those requirements is certainly in play. It would be my recommendation, then Mr. Mayor, to designate the city manager as the director with the assistant city manager as the successor in the event that city manager is not available. Well, I think we can get to that point pretty quickly unless there's some objection, but I will just say that sure seems to me there should be some compromise here. I appreciate what the staff did in response to Mrs. Cross, but you gave us two extremes. Either the city manager or the mayor and I guess my only point would be somewhere in this document I think it should say in consultation with a mayor in the City Council or in partnership with it doesn't mean that they shouldn't the city manager and the deputy city manager whoever shouldn't be the point person and maybe that verb is in here I missed it. It is. It does in fact require that the body of the City Council confirm the actions of the Director of Emergency Management. And if I could just sort of walk you through a scenario, they provide that the Council be convened as soon as it is possible and not later than 14 days after a state of emergency exists. And it is in fact to use the policymaking authority of the council to verify that the conditions warranted a declaration of emergency is made by the Director of Emergency Management in this case, if I'm hearing correctly, it will remain with the city manager, where that information and all the details could be righted to the council and there is in fact a legal requirement of the state code that the council must then act to confirm. And the other thing that I would say is that either Orr Mr. Mayor is in fact the latitude that the state enabling legislation gives to us. It used to be and gives to us. It used to be that for a city they specifically said it was the city manager. And for a county they said it was the chief elected official. And for the life of me and Ms. Cross and I had a phone conversation, I could never understand the distinction why between the jurisdiction it was one way or the other. The code now says it can be either. And so is certainly the judgment of the council as to how you want to proceed in that matter. And I think we're comfortable. I'm just reading the council we can move on. Okay. All right. Thank you. That now brings us to item number seven, which I think is a segue to item number eight. And so we can forge through this pretty quickly. Mr. Mayor, before our chiefs leave us, I wanted to tell you that I was having coffee out in the county, not over the weekend. And sitting there, enjoying a cup of coffee, and I had a jacket on with the city logo on it and felon X to me said you're in the city and I said yeah and he said well I'm firefighter in Fairfax County he said I just want you to know that the city fire department is the best there is there you go well thank you for that did you get his resume yeah I said well when are you be joining us? He said, oh, I've got 30 years in. Well, you know, and I certainly take that on behalf all the members of the fire department as a compliment. And it is really to the credit who are folks who are out there on the street every day providing service. And they're just second. Oh, it was totally unsolicited. And I thought, wow, that's terrific. Good, great feedback. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay, I move the City Council convene and close meeting in section 2.2, 3711A3. The Code of Virginia discuss acquisition and deposition of certain more property for public purposes. All council members in favor of the motion, please signify it by voting aye. Aye. All opposed. And we went into a close meeting at 9.05 pm. Can we just stay? I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. 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 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 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 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 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 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 a little bit more careful. I'm going to be to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to be a little guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna to be a little bit more careful. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna go back to the old town. I'm gonna to do it. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna to do it. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go. I'm gonna go back to the place where I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna to do it. Thank you. 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 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 a little bit more careful. I'm going to do it. 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 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 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 a little bit more careful. I'm going to be a little bit more careful. I'm here I'm going to go 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 to go to 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 a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I love you. 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 a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to go 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 to do beach. Music I love you. 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 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 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 a little bit more careful. I'm going to be to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm going to the next station. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be a good guy. I'm not going to be the guitar. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to be able to do it. I'm not going to 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 a little bit of the same thing. I'm At 9.25 p.m. the city council included its closed meeting and discussed acquisition and deposition and publicly held property. I move that each of us certify that the best of each council members knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempt from the open meeting requirements in the Virginia of Freedom of Information Act and only public business matters identified in the motion convening the closed many were heard, discussed or considered. All council members in favor of the motion, please signify by voting aye. And I would like to just sort of report actions that came out as this discussion. The discussion was framed around the future use of the Levin Oaks property, which we put on the market for RFPs, which was the intent of the city to purchase it and to flip it as soon as we can so that the city would control the future use of that particular property. The city did receive three bids during that process, Walnut Street Development, George Mason University, and DR Horton. And the Walnut Street was for luxury townhouses, George Mason University was for faculty housing, and DR Horton was for single family homes. At the Direction of Council, we've asked staff to notify the Wallnut Street development that they're proposal will not go to the next round if I can use that phrase and that we are going to open up a series of dialogues with George Mason University and DR Horton to continue the dialogue and the processes we move forward. With that, I believe we are done with I actually don't need a motion mayors get to adjourn work sessions all by their loans. I didn't either but it's it gives me goosebumps when I think about it. We are now done with work session and so we are adjourned on our work session.