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 everyone. Welcome to the Monday, April 7th work session. And we have some special guests in the audience, which we'll get to shortly. Let's call roll. Thank you, Mayor Bizconnoli. Here, down, here, Ms. Flynn. Here, Mrs. Scott. Here, Mr. Snyder virtually. Here, virtually. Ms. Thunderhill, here, Mayor Hardy. Here. Mr. Schneider virtually. Here virtually. Miss Underhill here. Mayor Hardy here. I have a motion for Mr. Schneider to participate electronically. Mr. Schneider, could you please identify your remote location and reason for participating by electronic means. Thank you. Warsaw, Poland, Medical Mission with the refugees of Russia's war on Ukraine. We have a second. I need to do the first. I moved that I was writing a location on. I moved to City Council approved electronic participation by council members Snyder in this meeting for personal reasons pursuant to the City Council's adopted policy. We have a second. Second. It's Connolly in the second. Can you call Rolls-Indy? Yes, Mayor. Miss Connolly. Yes. Miss Downe. Yes. Miss Flynn. Yes. Miss Iskot. Yes. Miss Underhill. Yes. Mayor Harvey. Yes. Thank you, Council. That passes. Great. Welcome, Dave. Thank you very much. So we have a very media work session tonight, but before we get into the most of our topics, which is budget related, we invited special guests from COG as well as NVRC to join us to kind of share the regional kind of perspective on what's going on with Northern Virginia and the DC region. I think that's really important backdrop and context as we deliberate on our budget. So thank you to Greg Goodwin from CG as well as Bob Azaro and Jill Canna from NVRC for joining us. Why I don't know what the right order is and how you want to take it from here, but. Thank you, Mayor Hardy. And welcome to our guests. I think maybe we'd have the COG presentation first with Mr. Goodwin. And then from there Bob and Jill will provide an update from the Northern Virginia Regional Commission. I just want to join the mayor and the whole council in thanking Cog and NBRC for all the work you've been doing in support of local governments and support of the entire National Capital Region one to understand the data of the changes that are happening to the Capital Region right now and then work with communities to try to mitigate some of the adverse impacts that we're experiencing. So thank you, Mr. Goodwin. Thank you for inviting me for tonight's discussion. I, six months ago, I was in the middle of working on the cooperative forecast in which a number of our jurisdictions in the region are participating in have also been working on the activity center update as well. So it just seems like in the last month or so, so much in our region has changed because of what is currently going on with the new administration. But today I wanted to talk a little bit about kind of the data that we have been tracking over the last month and a half or so. And just to let folks know that Clark finds all this to be very important for COG in terms of kind of looking out for our member jurisdictions and just kind of looking out for the region as a whole. And the potential impact that we're seeing in terms of the reduction of federal workers within our region. So tonight I'd like to really talk about federal workers, less about federal jobs. There is a difference between federal workers and federal jobs. Workers are where people live. It's kind of the residential component of that. Obviously, the jobs are important too, but we have felt very strongly that there's a lot of information out there. There's a lot of sources. The Congressional Research Service has published a number of studies regarding federal employment, not only in our region, but among all the states in the United States. This is another relative data source that many jurisdictions and many agencies are looking at as well. And I would be the first one to say that we have just initially started looking at the census data. And we have been reviewing the census data now for a couple of months. We have a little bit of experience looking at these data sets, especially with some of the federal shutdowns that have been previously that have occurred. So we do have some knowledge of some of the information that the Census Bureau does, in fact, publish for the country and for our region. So next slide. So I really want to kind of start with this slide. This is some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in terms of at-place employment. This is data going back to the 1990s. This is the number of federal government jobs located within the MSA, not the COG region, but the MSA, which is a slightly larger geography than the COG region. But I think it gets to point across that you can look at these different colors of slices of the different administrations for the different years. And it really drives home the point of the stability that we have had that we've experienced with the number of federal government jobs in the region. And it's been fairly consistent over the last 30 years or so. Even during the Clinton years, we did see some reduction in the federal workforce in our region. And obviously during the Trump years, during the first term, there was relative stability during that period and it continued through the Biden years. So we're now looking at the most current data that is available in 2024. It will be sometime until 2025 will be available. That's slide, please. So it just seems like there's not a day that doesn't go by that we see and read and hear all sorts of information about potential layoffs for different agencies within our region. Obviously, some of the information is relatively new. We do hear quite a bit about how layoffs are occurring. Probational workers are being let go. But then there are these glimpses of good news where some people are brought back, but we never know how long that will last. But obviously for this Northern Virginia region, a lot of jobs related to DOT in Maryland, in Maryland. We do have quite a bit of a federal presence in terms of jobs at NIH and NOAA and that type of thing. But just really want to get it deployed across so that there are just so much news that just is coming out every day regarding the workforce reductions that we're starting to see. Next slide. So again, just to kind of re-emphasize, there are a number of different data sets, different sources of data. Cog is relying on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the American Community Survey. That is data that is regularly updated. The most recent data release was for 2023. There's two data products related to that release, a five-year and a one-year estimate of data. And for our work, we are looking at the five-year estimates. Next slide. So again, this is not jobs at place, but these are workers. These are the people that live in our neighborhoods, the people who live on our streets. These are the workers that that are counted through a survey by the Census Bureau. And it's, I think at the regional level and at the jurisdictional level, I think it's a very good data set that we're relying on. There is a particular table called Class of Worker, and that is the primary data set that we are looking at. And this is where this data is coming from. So just as an example, if you look at the District of Columbia, it has about 63,000 federal workers that reside within the city or the district. And they represent about 22% of the workers that reside in the district. For Maryland and Virginia we do have data sets for those major jurisdictions. We've also been kind of tracking not only the counties within the COG footprint but jurisdictions that are outside in Virginia and Maryland. Next slide. So specifically, we can kind of get down to more specific levels of geography. In this slide, I was able to pull together the three jurisdictions that I think are relative to the City of False Church. Fairfax City in Fairfax County, I included the numbers for the number of federal workers within those jurisdictions as well. The one thing that I would like to point out and I think Joy may or may not mention this, that in smaller geographies like Fairfax and Falls Church, there is a significant margin of error associated with the geographies of this. So I think it's important to kind of keep that in perspective when you look at this data. I think at Fairfax County and at that jurisdictional level, I think that number is fairly reasonable and I think kind of reflects kind of the general number of workers. So as a region, we've calculated that there are roughly 400,000 federal workers within the COG footprint. And that includes a number of jurisdictions over in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and then a number of jurisdictions over here on the Northern Virginia side. But overall, as a region, about 17% of the workers are workers related to the federal government. So that is a significant number compared to most places around the country. The Washington region has, by far, the highest concentrations of not only workers, but also at place jobs within the country. The next closest metropolitan area to the Washington region would be the New York City metropolitan area. Next slide. So there have been a number of different groups that have been doing their own work related to this reduction in the federal workforce. The Urban Institute has done analysis that if there is a 75% reduction in the federal workers, that could lead to an unemployment rate of 9.6, which would certainly be a lot higher than what we experience during the pandemic. Also would like to give a kind of a shout out to the Weldon Cooper Center. They have done a lot of research in the last month or two. There's so much information on their website. It's important to kind of highlight some of the resources that Jill and the Northern Virginia jurisdictions are able to count on. So Weldon Cooper Center is a very good partner in terms of studying what is going on. Next slide. So this is something that we have been pulling together within the last week or so. There is a data set related to median earnings. We do have this data broken out for the entire Cog region, including a number of Northern Virginia jurisdictions within the data set. Here I only highlighted, again, Fairfax County, City of Fairfax and Falls Church with an idea of when you look at these different class of workers, there is something about federal government workers. They are very well paid positions. Not only here in Northern Virginia, but elsewhere in other jurisdictions within our region. Prince George's County has a fairly high median earnings when it comes to federal government jobs. So overall, for the region, for the MSA, it comes out to about $129,000, $130,000 a year in terms of earnings. Again, I'm going to say it again that given kind of the relative small size of jurisdictions like Fairfax and False Church, there is a higher margin of error associated with these jurisdictions. So just would caution you that when you look at your number, you know that there is kind of a margin of error, whereas when you look at the Fairfax County number, because it's such a large sample, those numbers seem to be relatively okay to look at. So one thing that I did just as a, on the back of an envelope was looking at if we did experience a 40,000 reduction or 10% of the reduction of federal workers in our region, what's have the financial impact? And if you were just to multiply that number by the median earnings of 130,000, it comes out to about $5.2 billion. And that's not just for one year. That's continuing on when people no longer have these jobs. And I think that is something that is significant in terms of what type of impact will that have with spending on local economies, how are people, how are they going to make ends meet with these types of losses of jobs. So again, this is taking some very conservative numbers of a 10% reduction, which is resulting in about a $5.2 billion loss of earnings for one year. So this is it for me in terms of my presentation. I would also just say that this is the 2023 five year estimates. This data was released in December of 2024. So we would expect in December of this year the 2024 five year one year estimates will be released. I would dare say that we will probably see similar numbers compared to what we see here in the 2023 data. It's probably not going to be until 2025, 2026 is when we start seeing some of these reductions in federal workers showing up in the census data. Yeah, I think we'll pause for questions and maybe save them for after MVRC is done as well. That's okay with the council. Okay. Bob and Jill. Thank you. Thank you. I'll turn that on, sorry. And thank you for having Bob, Lazaro, and I here tonight. And we're going to go down to the Northern Virginia level for the data that we're about to see, whereas as you saw from Greg's information, that was the DC Metro, as well as the COG region. And so to begin, let's see. The first thing I wanted to bring to your attention was just the studies that were being done out there that are going to be coming your way that will really shed a light on really what's going to potentially be happening in the region. It'll have various scenarios in these studies that are going to be done. First, there's the Virginia House Emergency Committee that you probably have heard of that's doing the impacts on the federal workforce and funding reductions. And UVA, Wildin Cooper Center has been tasked by the state to do much of the analysis, pretty much all of it. But they are gathering information from NVRC and other jurisdictions and entities throughout the state for anything readily available for input into their analysis. And that will be completed by December 15th in time for the General Assembly. And that's a statewide analysis and they will be going down to the regional level, but not to the county or city level. And then for Northern Virginia, we have, I should say, the Northern Virginia Economic Development Alliance has done a contract with an entity that's performing an economic analysis for our region. And that's currently underway and will be completed in May 15th. And that data will show different scenarios, economic impacts and as much as possible, we've asked them to go down to the county and city levels for data that is available to that extent. Those will be coming and will definitely be the most valuable thing out there that will have as a resource for planning purposes. And then indicators that we have right now, some of the best ones we have are the job post in indicators. Northern Virginia's companies have been removing jobs from the job boards and that's because of the diminished hopes and fewer contracts that they now envision having with their organizations. So our Northern Virginia Economic Development Authorities during COVID built this Fairfax EDA job board, and that back in February of, what had only 45,000 jobs as compared to a year ago when it had over 90,000. So that right there shows you one of the great impacts that this reduction has already had on our region. And the scarcity of the jobs that will be out there and the competition that's going to be out there. And one thing to note is many of these jobs, the majority are not of the same skill level. They're much lower skill levels, so that's very concerning. Because it's only about 30% of the jobs that are advertised have the same skill levels of those who are laid off, so that will mean that we could potentially lose a lot of our population moving out if they can't get remote work or hybrid somewhere else. Next slide. So the fiscal issue is a heightened concern that are important to keep in mind as you're assessing things would be the safety net programs which we have done analysis on. We'll show you the Northern Virginia data for those programs. The restaurant industry is a big concern for any business areas that are surrounded by the federal government agencies. The hotel industry is quite concerned about losing their business from conferences and lower the occupancy rates, which then will affect the sales tax revenues for the state. And we've also got the office vacancies to be of concern with the GSA leases ending potentially. And for the GSA leases, many of the jurisdictions have economic development staff that are tracking all those leases in case that in case these leases do end. The data will be available and that data is being shared with the consultant that's doing the economic study. And from a tax revenue perspective it's we have to be concerned about the meals tax with the the GSA leases potentially being gone for some of these entities that would mean the property values would decrease with the vacancy rates and less demand for the office market. Sales tax declines from the hotels and consumer spending as well as the consumer spending going down because of the inflation from tariffs, and also the personal income tax losses. So if you think of that 5.2 billion for the entire MSA, that Greg was just presenting. That's not only spending losses that you'll have in the region, but also the losses for the personal income from the revenue standpoint, which is quite concerning. Next, we'll get into the data now. To build off of what Greg has mentioned, just a few more details on this issue of the various estimates you've been hearing out there. The first one which Greg showed you, the OPM report, the Congressional Research Study. That one has 145,000 federal workers in Virginia and 2.3 million in the U.S. This number, this data source OPM is what Governor Youngkin had been quoting for the longest of time and I believe is still been quoting. We're trying to get him to move away from that. That's been difficult because it really greatly underestimates how many federal workers we do have in the state. It underestimates because it excludes the security agencies such as the CIA and the geospatial intelligence agency, and it also excludes the postal service. And one other thing to note about that data source is it's the place of work. So it doesn't consider the fact that there's a huge increase in federal jobs when you consider place of residents since most people work in DC. That's another reason. This is quite underestimating what our potential really is for impacts. The next data source is BLS. There's been a lot of that out there. You might have heard of the 3 million from the USA. That's coming from this data source, which is also a place of work. This one differs from OPM mainly because it includes the postal workers. So when you can include the postal workers, Virginia then has 193,000 jobs located in the state that are federal. And then lastly is the Census Bureau data which COG was presenting. And that one is the place of residence. And that one overestimates, but is still the best representation of how many jobs are located in our region and in the state. For the reason that it does not exclude the security agencies. And it is an over-restimate, I will say, because there are some grant holders and contractors in those numbers, which are not technically federal workers. But they're included since this is just a survey, self-reporting. So just keep that in mind when you see those numbers, but when you see the ACS numbers that I'm about to present that really is your best source. So next, we have the federal contracts and grants information. Cooper has done extensive analysis and we will be tracking that to guide you all and all our members as to what data is out there for your benefit and for your planning purposes. Analysis that they've done to date stated that for the contracts, federal contractors that Virginia has that are full time and part time there's approximately 441,000 in our state. So that's about 7.7% of the workforce in our state. And then for the contracts and grants, Virginia ranked number one in the country for total funds for federal contracts. 109 billion is what they showed, which is 15.6% of the national contracts that are federal. So that's a pretty extensive amount that we rely upon. So that also shows how dependent we are on the federal workforce with that high amount. And then for the total funds per capita, they showed that Virginia ranks number two after DC. And per capita, we have approximately 12,000 fund, $12,000 for the funds for our population here in the state, which is well above the USA at 2009. So I'll now go into Northern Virginia and let you know the resources that we have so far and we will be adding to our resources over time as we do more analysis and upon requests for additional data that you all made want. We're certainly here to support those efforts. So what we have is our Northern Virginia dashboard where we have a federal monitoring section now and it has a fact sheet. It has the maps, it has safety net participants, unemployment claims and workforce data that we are continually monitoring. So I'll go into each one of those, what we have. So first is the full time and part time data for the jobs that are located in Northern Virginia. So this would be the BLS data that does not include the security agencies. This is important to look at in addition to the ACS because being that it's the jobs located here, this is a good source for assessing what restaurant impacts may there be and hotel impacts that are affected from the job, the job losses in the business centric areas. So with that in mind, Northern Virginia has approximately 81,000 federal workers located in the region. Physically working here, that's 6% of our total workforce. And for Virginia, that is less, at 4.8% of the workforce, and the U.S. is 2%. So certainly much heavier concentrations. And as a share of the country's federal civilian jobs, I'm showing here that we have 2.7% of the federal civilian jobs in our country, according to this data source. And you also see here, Falls Church City shows it has happened 2016. An important thing to note is the margins of error and how they derive this data at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which actually comes from Virginia Employment Commission, because I got questions from some of you all as to the fact that you don't believe that you have any federal employment here, other than the US Post Office. So the reason BLS would be stating that could be for a few reasons. If they have an address for a federal employment agency and they can't map it to the exact address, they will then use the zip code as the centroid. So you share zip codes with Fairfax County. So certainly potentially some of these employees may have been associated with an agency in Fairfax unknowingly. They also will just do, purely do estimates based on historical data. So if you used to have an agency here, they still may be just guessing that it's still here even though if there's a lack of data. So just understand there is these margins of error, but when it comes to the regional data, certainly is much more accurate than the smaller levels that you're seeing here with the counties and cities. And next is the resident data. So that's much higher than the businesses located here for the federal jobs. For the residents, that's 175,000 in Northern Virginia. And this data source is using the 2023 one year estimates from the ACS, whereas Greg was showing you was the five year. For the one year estimates, that is the most most current data available and most timely unlike the five year that covers 2019 to 2023. To analyze Northern Virginia, we chose to do this most timely data set, which for that, Falls Church does not have its own data. You have to use the five year for Falls Church alone, which is why it's combined here with Fairfax City. So if you want your false church numbers, which was approximately 2000, I believe Greg said, that would come from the five year. But for purposes of having the most timely data for our region, this is the best source. And as it shows, one of eight Northern Virginia residents is a federal worker. So that's a very high concentration. And of all the Northern Virginia residents, we have 4% of the share of the country's federal workforce. That's background on that. And then we'll go to the maps that are available on our website as a resource to show you first where the sheriff total civilian employments are, where the highest concentrations are. And it's showing that the inter-jurisdictions such as Arlington and Alexandria, where the dark red is, certainly have the highest concentrations because they're closest to the city and closest to all the federal entities such as the Pentagon and other places such as that. So when you use this resource, you can click on it and you'll get a pop-up menu with all the different data as shown on the left-hand side there. That's just one example, but certainly for every zip code out there, the data is available interactively. Next is the density per square mile, which is a different way of displaying this data. This is showing you how many actual employees there are per square mile in the various areas. So when looking at it from that perspective where the highest number of employees are certainly as you see not as not a lot of red but where we do have the red it's very highly concentrated and it appears just to the east of Falls Church and Arlington and Alexandria. And again, that data is interactive by zip code on our website. So next is the unemployment claims that we are tracking. That information is quite confusing and I wanted to help clarify some of the nuances of that data so that you can understand it. Because if you have seen the data, you'll know that it's showing very few federal employees laid off to date, as you'll see here in a minute. And that is partly because that many of the federal employees have not had to apply for the unemployment benefits to date because of they are on administrative leave, which is paid leave. And the severance is voluntary. And if you're a voluntary, you don't qualify for the unemployment benefits. So it's those two reasons that are really keeping the numbers really low for the country overall as well as our region. The country overall, it was 11,000 laid off according to these unemployment numbers from January to February and then February to March for the country. It was 4,000 were laid off. So again, 15,000, which is much less than what you've seen from the federal numbers that have come out by agency at all. And for those reasons, I just mentioned. And I will say that the weekly initial claims, the resources that I recommend you use are listed here. One confusing thing is that Department of Labor puts out their Thursday release, which is not comparable to the data that Virginia Employment Commission has been putting out. It's not comparable because Department of Labor's data is place of work, whereas Virginia Employment Commission is the place of residence. So I highly recommend you stick with the Virginia Employment Commission information in their resources which come out every Friday the day after. And so that would lessen confusion if you only used one source. And on our website we're using the Virginia Employment Commission's place of residence information. And so you'll see that it will match everything that comes out every Friday when you monitor it. And next, so this is our website that we have where it's interactive and updated weekly on the Fridays. Showing right now the Virginia, Maryland and DC numbers, which are quite low for the reasons I mentioned. The administrative leave, employees not being counted, and the severance of people not being counted. So quite low to date. And not really high spikes at all. When it comes to Virginia's numbers, the medium blue that you're seeing there. That's the initial claims. So the initial claims are people that have filed for the first time, their first week of employment. And next would be the continued claims. This is the one to really monitor to know whether people are actually getting employed and re-employed. As if the numbers stay high or keep climbing, you know people are struggling to find new jobs. But if it starts to stabilize or go down, then it has to be either because the unemployment initial claims are either going down or stabilize in as well as people just against finding jobs if it's stabilized or going down. Additional unemployment claims that I found very helpful was a March 15th release that Virginia Employment Commission had. It was a one time release, but I'm hoping that they will do this more often. We will be asking the House Emergency Committee, suggesting it to them, Bob, and I will be actually tomorrow at a special meeting are having, where we're going to request that they start to publish this data hopefully regularly, because this was very valuable. It's unofficial data, but it's much more valuable, because it doesn't have that lag time that the other data I just showed you had. This one is people that are still waiting to be officially approved for their benefits. And they're not approved if they have not had their wages verified by their employer, the federal government. So these are pending approval, which is much higher numbers than what was in the numbers I just showed you. And it also shows us the contractors. And knowing that Virginia only had 337 contractors apply for unemployment benefits as of March 15. That was much lower than one would expect from what you've heard in the news. And one other resource we have, actually two more resources. The other one is our monthly economic tracking report, which we're in the process of making interactive and moving it from just a regional data summary to being a city and county level summary. On a monthly basis using the Virginia Employment Commission's data, which is labor force, the employed persons, the unemployed, the unemployment rates as well as industry sectors, and the unemployment claims. That data comes out usually one month lag time, but it is the best data available for all of these measures. So what everybody's waiting for is really the April 29th to see the March data for all of our counties. So certainly by April 29th, we will have the interactive dashboard up and running for the county and city levels along with the region that will have all of this information for you. And lastly is the safety net participants. That's a concern with the federal cutbacks. And so this is just showing you how many safety net participants for the various programs we have in Northern Virginia. The Affordable Care Act has 151,000. Snap had 131,000. The temporary assistance for needy families that had 7200 approximately. Medicaid expansion had over 111,000, but that's excluding false church in Manassas Park. Whose data had to be suppressed for that information. That is everything I have to bring to your attention. So thank you. Great. Well, thank you. That's a lot of data, but I think in light of so much uncertainty, I think the best we can do is try to get our hands on as much information as possible to kind of understand what's in front of us and what we're becoming ahead in that uncertainty is something I think we're trying to plan for in the budget process. So thank you for the presentations from both Cog and NBRC. We have questions and comments from Council. Sure, Debbie. Thank you all for joining us again. Tonight we really appreciate having this lens on the regional data because we do tend to get very myopic false-terred centric. I wonder how you all look at the early, the voluntary retirements and early retire or voluntary terminations and early retirements and early retirements and things like the 1099s who've been working for a lot of these contractors who can't claim unemployment benefits. Do you have a swag or a way of thinking about, and is that an additional percentage or a couple percentage points? Just curious how you are thinking about that since you read the news stories and then this data doesn't bear out some of that. I think it's pretty uncertain at this time as to how many, how many of these people are retirees. So I think that's a big unknown and something we won't really know until we have say like that March unemployment data that comes out monthly which will give us the labor force participation rate. If that has gone down, that's a sign that maybe possibly many of them might have been retirees. Let's see, other indicators would be what can you think of other than labor force participation? I was just going to jump in on one of the data points that I was interested in that isn't here, thinking about what isn't yet here that might help answer Debbie's question. It's also if you see increased enrollments on the on the health exchange because a lot of retirees can actually bring their health benefits into retirement whereas if you you know left voluntarily or were terminated then you don't normally carry your health insurance after 31 days so we're still in sort of that buffer period for both kind of last paychecks vacation kind kind of leave payout, and then roll over of like health care. And so how many people are either able to switch to like a spouse's health care if they weren't already carrying it, or are they signing up for the exchanges kind of at pooled rates if they're able to kind of continue health care coverage at all. So it might be another data point just in terms of whether you see Virginia market enrollments. If I could just say something, that's a great question. And Mayor Hardy knows this is a slow moving train wreck that's going to go on for months. And for those people who've took early retirement, they may not file for unemployment at all. They may just drop out of the market. Those folks, I mean, you've been working, you're fired, you're hired, you're on leave. So you're not going to see any of that until the fall most likely as well. The State Corporation Commission now collects the Affordable Care Act enrolments for Virginia, it's no longer through HHS. And I had to call them and ask them for the data specifically for Northern Virginia, because they do not have any of that online as opposed to previously at least during the Biden administration that data was available, but that is a great data point. I would like to share with you two important ones. The GDP of Northern Virginia is $302 billion. It's 42% of the state's GDP. So what happens here matters statewide. So for colleagues, when you go to VML or VACO, this matters no matter where people live in Virginia. The second is in 2022, all of the personal income tax liability in Virginia was generated in northern Virginia. Over $8 billion was generated in personal and contacts liability in our communities. And certainly false churches, a high income community would have been on a per capita basis, probably one of the leaders in the commonwealth. So one of the asks tomorrow to the special house committee is more timely detailed data from Virginia works. They did a great job during COVID and I think our dashboard and other dashboards reflected the state's commitment to being very transparent. One of the other things that we've talked about and Chairman Chapman will be suggesting tomorrow is the state legislature, past legislation that was signed that allows contractors to get unemployment insurance. But it's not been funded. So that needs to be funded. We also need to think about increasing the weekly stipend from $378 a week. During COVID, it was increased, I think, about $600 a week, a considerable increase. With a Commonwealth having a $4 billion surplus in their rainy day fund, this is the opportunity to help those who are going to be in need. So some things to think about as you talk to your legislators and others and colleagues, especially in VML in areas, oh, this is not a big deal, this is not going to hurt us, it's going to hurt everybody. A significant impact. In full sure specifically, there are 111 SNAP recipients. There are 48 TANF recipients and 118 ACA enrollees. That's based upon SEC or state data related to SNAP. So this affects a lot of families, regardless of where they live. So I would just leave it at that. And we're constantly monitoring Jill's son a great job. We rebuilt our dashboards to reflect the best data possible. And I appreciate the suggestion. And if we can find that data from the State Corporation Commission, we'll try. Thank you. Other questions or comments? Laura? Thank you all so much for coming this evening and joining us and for your great presentations. I was interested in the slide fiscal issues of heightened concern and the tax revenue, specifically meals tax because in Fawkeshurt City we've already started to see that slowing down. And it was interesting because later on we're talking Mr. Shields and Ms. Bauer will be talking with us about the budget. And one of the interesting pieces of information was all of our surrounding jurisdictions either have already committed to raising the mill's tax or are considering it. And so I just, you know, it seems to me that that's because people are more concerned about spending their money out at restaurants, but also that the restaurant industries got to be somewhat concerned about that. There are already going to be seen less people coming in, and now Males Taxes are increasing. So I do, I think we've seen that same theme here in the city. And as far as I know, we're not considering a Males Tax increase. But it's definitely something that concerns us, for sure. Thank you. As a former mayor, who's raised a Males text twice, I appreciate your concern. I would just say that we're still waiting on some data. I mean, you read the newspapers. The travel from people in Canada to the US is declining sharply. And so when you read in the newspapers about how people traveling from Europe here is declining sharply. One of the people testifying tomorrow is Mr. Carrier from the Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce, but he's also the CEO of BF Saul, which is a big hospitality organization. And he had conversations with Jill and their January, January February numbers were atrocious, and Northern Virginia's numbers caused the state to be at a negative number. So it'll be interesting to see how that's playing out in terms of hospitality and other types of entertainment taxes. Thank you. Others? Okay, well thank you. This is really sobering. I wish we were ending on a higher note, but we appreciate both the regional coordination and the data. And also, just a belated. Thank you to Jill. I remember for years during COVID, we were staring at the charts coming out of NVRC on like positivity rate. I actually have deja vu from sitting in these meetings, looking at really great data from NVRC and helping us kind of figure out what to do during the pandemic. So appreciate all the work you did back then and all the work that you're continuing to do now. And then also early congratulations to Bob for retirement. He's announcing his retirement this summer. And so thank you for both your leadership and service to the region. I think you leave really big shoes to fill in, VRC. Thank you, Mayor. I've enjoyed every minute of it. Maybe not so much of COVID, but important work. And as I told you and the other members of the commission, my end date is August 31st, but I suspect with recruitment and everything, it may press a little longer if that's the case. I'm happy to stay to make sure that a successor is in place. But I want to thank the staff and you all for your support. MVRC does important work for our region, helping localities save money, providing services to people in need. You know, our Ryan White program serves over 3,200 people who have AIDS. It's not about AIDS prevention. It's about taking care of people who have what was 30 years ago, a death sentence, but for helping keep people like you, we're worried about our federal funding for programs like this. So more to come, I'm sure, in the days and weeks to come. But thank you. Yeah, and when we're the one of the smallest jurisdictions in the area, I think we really rely on that regional coordination. And so we appreciate both Cog and NBRC in helping facilitate that for us. And you have a great city attorney who was the town attorney in person. Okay. The city was in the area, person. Terrific. Thank you all. Have a good night. All right. Next up is the capital improvements program. I just saw Caitlin Solbsu is going to lead this presentation, dash out of the room. I'm sure what that means. So maybe we'll take just a moment to transition. Like that was really depressing. I need to. It's a big break. Yeah, we need to revise it downward. But important to know, I guess one of my takeaways as we transition is we are a little insulated this year because we have local strong revenues, but I'm pretty worried about the region as a whole obviously and then I think next year's budgets are really going to be tough for everybody. Things aren't going to get better in terms of commercial vacancy rates and everything else that's dragging down revenues and say our neighbors. And if people are going to cut back and consumer spending, I think we're going to see the impacts of that. So thinking ahead FY27 makes me more nervous. Madam Mayor, I would add, and it might be very relevant to the CIP or the tariffs on a lot of construction materials and both for city, work and private construction. And it even will affect the cost of automobiles and pretty much everything that consumers buy. So, but particularly for the CIP, the effects on construction of the tariffs, if they remain in place might be quite significant. Yep, good point Dave. So, with that, Caitlin's back. Welcome. Before we turn it over to Caitlin, maybe just a quick overview of what we plan to do with the budget, because we do have an action-packed agenda as the mayor said at the right of the outset. So, we'll with a cap for improvements presentation. Then as we did with the planning commission, we're going to do a long multi-year look at the use of the Affordable Housing Fund. And Dana Jones will provide that presentation. And then Ross Littkin House would like to join. He's not formally on the agenda, but have about five minutes to talk about the EDA's contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund. And if the City Council were to reimburse the EDA, how they would use those funds. And then lastly, we'll have a discussion of the Solid Waste fee concepts. We will then review all of the budget ordinances, and Kieran Baal will walk us through those. This is a time to discuss tax rates and fees so that there's that council discussion before the first reading next week. And so we'll jump into the CIP right now. And maybe one thing, maybe just for the council to think about, and for staff to think about before we get to the solid waste fee discussion, which is item four, is for the council to consider one of the things I think staff is actually going to make a plea for is that we take a year to study this some more. That will be, you know, one thing we'll ask the council for. We have some practical obstacles to implementing this, you know, in the month of, you know, deliberation through the budget process. But you don't have to respond to that right now, but I wanted to sort of give you a fore warning that that was going to be kind of my introductory comments for the Solid Waste fee concept. If the Council reacts well to that suggestion, then we might not need to go through all of the slides and sort of repeat the entire presentation from past the past fall. It is updated, but the concepts are all essentially much as was discussed back in the fall. So with that introduction, we will now turn it over to Ms. Opsi for a review of the Capitol Improvements program. The CIP is where a lot of the action is in the budget. And so thank you for the whole CIP team. And Caitlin is our leader in coordinating all of the good thinking and innovation and creativity that goes into this plan. Thanks, Mr. Shields. Good evening, Council. I'm Caitlin Sobsi, CIP coordinator. And I'm here tonight to present to you the proposed fiscal year 2026 to 2031 capital improvements program or CIP as it's known. The CIP is a road map of long range investments in the city's key infrastructure and facilities mapping out where we're going or what's next. It's also a reflection of our vision balancing the needs and priorities of council, the community, and our existing infrastructure. So it's an exciting opportunity for us to strategically drive the city towards meeting that vision. So we'll get started. First, sort of a big picture of what we're talking about tonight. The CIP is made up of four different funds that are shown here. The general and school fund, which the six-year budget total is 51 million. The special transportation fund, which totals 59 million. And then we have two utility funds. The sewer utility fund for 35 million and the storm water fund for 3 million. That makes up the six- total of 148 million, which for reference is more modest than last year's 189 million budget. Just a little bit about the CIP notebooks, which should have been provided to you all. The sections one and two of the CIP notebook are included in the operating budget book in section 10, but the CIP notebooks that look like this are, they do have the more detailed project sheets and program information, and that is available to the public for everyone in PDF format online at the link provided here. Next, we're going to talk about priorities that guided CIP development this year. City Council, two-year strategic priorities, set a clear vision for progress with five key priority areas. We tried to sort of develop a CIP that aligned with these strategic priorities for environmental sustainability. We tied in the Energy Action Plan goals to project development, to integrate energy efficiency goals. For transportation, this CIP proposes and delivers key investments in walkability, bike infrastructure and safety. I think almost all of our CIP projects enhance city spaces and infrastructure to be more business-friendly, economic development. On housing front, per the revised financial policy that counsel adopted in November of 2024, staff was directed to develop a new long range plan for affordable housing. And that was done by the Housing and Human Services team to support the housing priorities of preserving and expanding housing in the city. That was presented to the Planning Commission concurrently with the CIP as well as the Housing Commission. And Dana, we'll talk about that more tonight. And then for good governance, we tried to apply a customer service mindset to all CIP development and delivery overall. Of course, we also used the Fiscal Year 26 budget guidance adopted by Council in December of 2024 as well. Additional priorities that we use. So every year at the beginning of CIP development, we start in the fall and we always set out some staff priorities for the CIP process ahead. And these are those priorities that we established. This year, effective and realistic project delivery is sort of a continuation of last year's effort to right resource and right size the CIP. We've been successful in starting to un-clog the CIP or the backlog of CIP projects. We talked about that a lot last year. Now we're trying to look to the future and optimizing the CIP so that we avoid any future clogs as well. We're heavily focused on infrastructure reinvestments this year and maintaining our existing transportation infrastructure of roads and sidewalks and traffic signals and also our public facilities. The community center, our parks, our trails, our rural house, etc. Multimodal transportation continues to be a priority. And as I mentioned, the CIP proposes, delivers walkability and bike and ped safety projects. And again, affordable housing, as I mentioned, the CIP and affordable housing funds are still separate, but housing human services staff developed a six-year plan for the affordable housing fund to try and ensure equity between our capital investments and our housing investments that are coming up. The Planning Commission always provides input and their priorities to us as well in the fall when we visit them for CIP kickoff and the priorities that they provided really aligned nicely with these. They also want to see continued investments in infrastructure and multimodal transportation affordable housing is a big priority for them and they also wanted to see the execution of the energy action plans. A little bit more on CIP development this year, we made some big changes. So what's new in fiscal year 26, we designed a new project sheet format. That includes more detailed schedule and budget data, as well as project benefits. We really tried to tell the story of each project's what, when, why, and how much. What is it? Why do we need it? When is it gonna happen and how much is is it? We also designed new alignment checklists on each one of those project sheets so that every project would be evaluated for alignment and consistency with the comp plan chapters. And then we also updated the equity and sustainability lens. That lens used to be on the back of the project sheets. We added a new checklist on the front that has the same previous equity questions, but also added the energy action plan goals for the sustainability lens. So we evaluated each project on those goals and objectives projects without detailed schedule and budget data, we're added to the 10 year outlook. So that's a new table that we added in section 2 this year. The intent is that those projects are identified for additional planning and development that needs to be done before we can add them into our six-year plan. My hope is that we'll be able to prioritize a few projects each year that we then staff can you know focus on and develop those projects, those schedules and budgets over the next year to be included in the next year's CIP plan. Overall, we're just trying to refine sort of the long range forecasting process, made some other layout enhancements and general organizational improvements to try to to try to improve readability and accessibility of the CIP And just try to increase public transparency and awareness overall again thinking about that customer service approach All right next I'm going to get into the funding First we'll look at fiscal year 26 only while the CIP is adopted as a six-year plan only year one is is appropriated in the budget ordinance and then years two through six are really adopted as a plan only. So this is a look at fiscal year 26. This is also why we revisit the CIP annually to ensure that we have the flexibility to respond to shifting priorities or emerging needs. In fiscal year 26 only the total CIP investment is 26.3 million dollars and you can see there what the project uses are on the left. Transportation is still a big one at 9 million but this year the sewer program is actually larger at 14 million. That includes the 10 million dollar flow equalization basin which was included in previous CIPs. It just so happens that this is the year that we have to pay for it. And then on the right side there you see the pie chart that shows the funding sources. That summarized all the different sources in fiscal year 26. The largest chunk on the right side of that chart is in gray. That is debt at 11.4 million. Again, that's predominantly made up of the $10 million flow equalization basin. The second largest funding source in fiscal year 26 is grants in orange. And I can't see, I forget, I think that's 6.09. Whatever it says, thank you. That's our second largest funding source. We also have funding sources on the bottom there in blue and yellow. We have capital reserves and pay as you go. Our local sources. We have a small sliver of green for 1.3 million as to be funded. And then we also added a color this year. The purple represents available fund balance. Use of available fund balance in the stormwater and sewer programs that we will be using to deliver projects in the CIP this year. The next slide is going to be, thank you Cindy, maybe a little bit, yeah, there you go. The next slide is the same overview of funding for the total six-year CIP. So on the left, you have the same project uses. Transportation is the largest program there at 59 million. Then in public facilities and schools and the sewer program, you have 36 and 35 million respectively. This really supports and aligns with our focus that I mentioned on infrastructure reinvestment across transportation facilities and public utilities. That's where we're really leveraging pay-as-you-go local funds and capital reserves to reinvest back into public infrastructure. In transportation, of course, we also have a large amount of grant funding. The transportation program is typically between 60 and 70 percent grant funded. The funding sources on the right side there still have a big chunk of debt in Gray. A lot of projects are included, a lot of big projects included in that. I want to be clear there's no general fund debt until fiscal year 28. The debt for the sewer utility fund is separate because that's an enterprise fund and not, the debt is not issued against the general fund. But included in that total there for the six years is the $30 million property yard for fiscal year 2029. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a minute. Also $5 million for their Roof Replacement at Fire Station 6. And then 22.6 million of that debt is for the sewer fund over the six years starting in fiscal year 26. Still, oh wait, go back one. I'm sorry. Our goal always is when we look at this pie chart because the second largest source is the grant funds and our goal always is to for staff is to keep increasing that orange sliver of the pie and you know as we continue to identify grant opportunities that we can use to offset some of these project costs. Overall this year's $148 million forecast is more modest than last year's while we're trying to balance ongoing workload and financial resources. The next slide, I'm ready for that one now. Satisfied grant funds, I want to talk about this for a little bit. This is a topic there's been a lot of questions on. Understandably, I don't have a lot of news to report right now. I think this is one of those things, no news is good news maybe. We are monitoring it very closely. We've had a lot of very responsive and positive discussion and engagement with our federal agency contacts that we work with. At this time, we have no loss of funding or holds on our federal grants or projects that has been indicated. But I do want to talk about what sort of is exposed when we talk about federal grant funds. So in the fiscal year 26 to 31 CIP, so in the proposed six year CIP, there is $46 million in grant funds programmed. Only 12.4 million of that is federal. On the right side, I have shown what projects are included in that 12.4 million. So those include bridge inspections, our annual bridge inspections program, and our pedestrian bridges at Howard E. Herman and Cavalier Trail Park. Those are both funded by RSTP, which stands for Regional Surface Transportation Program. We have a pending grant application right now for Broad and Washington Paving through the State of Good Repair Program. We have our RSTP parent fund, which is for all PED, bike, bridge, and traffic calming projects. We transfer those funds to various projects. The South Washington bus stop expansion project is included in that. That's funded through the Smart Scale program. And then Bike Share Phase 2 is also funded by RSTP. It calls on this slide because in light of the discussion we just had. So can I just interject with a question and make sure I'm understanding. So for the existing stuff on the bottom right, that stuff that's underway. Yes. Clearly, Hawks are almost done. Browsroom Multimodal is in right-of-way acquisition, bourbon trail crossings nearly done, owner construction soon. Correct. The bridge and park avenue, great streets are in design right away, hopefully we'll get started. Yep, I'm hearing you say we haven't lost any federal money, but should something happen? Like what is the exposure for the projects that have not yet started, but like committed enough? I didn't break, So 24 million is everything that is unexpended at this time. So regardless of if they're in construction or not, if they were to stop all federal payments, right now, the exposure would be 24 million. All of those projects that you mentioned, many of them are in construction, all of them are in progress and all of them are under agreement. There are also all of that 24 million is administered to us by V.Dot. I'm still receiving reimbursements on federal grants from V.Dot. I have had no indication from V.Dot that we're stopping any reimbursements that were stopping projects, that really that there's any like, impact to the grant funds. Will there be impacts to project costs? Yes, probably. But right now as far as grants, in fact, in the last two weeks, we received almost $2 million in reimbursements from V.Dot. So like that, I just want to, this is to communicate that this is what's included in our exposure. Right now, I'm not receiving any indication that we are at risk of having projects stopped or grants unhulled. Got it. Yeah. That's good news. And so for the top part, the future stuff that's not yet started, that's $12 million in federal money is in those? Correct. Right. So those are either, so one of them is a pending application which I mentioned. I actually am very optimistic about receiving that grant. The the broad and Washington paving through V. We have a few pending applications that were like for prior year. So they're not really included in this total. They were included in that the $52 million that was previously communicated to council. We had a couple like I think pending HUD requests or general fund requests. But what we have in CIP is the 24 million existing that's all through V.Dot that we're still receiving reimbursements on actively now. And then we have the $12 million for the six year CIP. And again, I've asked V.Dot about if any of those programs specifically are implicated. Or if there's any news, if there was any response from V.Dot to, yeah, any of the policy changes or the memos that have come out and nothing so far. Can I see more of these are based on reimbursements? So we expend money first and then we wait for reimbursement. That's right. So there is some risk in that model. We are submitting reimbursements with frequency right now. Okay. May I just add on the federal piece to what Ms. Opsley said, the U.S. Department of Transportation put out a guidance memo, and they specifically said if you're under contract, and that's also what we've heard from several of the EPA and HUD staff, then that's not at risk. It's the stuff that's not under contract that could be reviewed. And then the specific focus was on EV Chargers and Bike. So for the future ones, Bike and Pad may be something that gets looked at and we'll have to monitor. But as indicated right now, we've heard no messages. I think also they're looking at the larger dollar amounts, and we are not, but it could impact Virginia. So as Caitlin said, closely monitoring. Before you go on, Caitlin, I think we have other questions. And that $33.6 million state or regional funding for these grants. Of that, do you have a sense what is initially coming from the federal government? I know they're, it's not all state dollars, right? They're getting some federal grants to then distribute at a state level. We consider those state dollars. Sometimes V.O. will take, will use state grants and they have a complicated system administratively where sometimes they take state grants and they deem them as federally eligible so that they can move around federal funds if they want to. But under our agreement that we have executed with V.O. those are state funds. So under our audits, those are state funds. Yeah, for all intents and purposes, those are state funds. And then a lot of that, honestly, $33.6 million is regional MBTA money, which is not impacted by the federal outlook at all. It could be impacted by revenues, you know, regionally in northern Virginia, but we don't, it's too soon to say what those impacts would be. And Caitlin, the 12.4 federal that you're showing here, a lot of that is passed through the state, but it's not state. Yes. Yeah, it's all passed through the state very much. Yeah. Yeah. So just to follow up and making sure I'm understanding so, Ms. Mester, so the existing, those projects, I know we talked about the Sherrow Avenue Bridge in a work session recently. So those are all under contract, we're all in agreement. So we should be according to what you just said in his semester, we should be fine with the funding. Based on the letter that we got at the end of January. Right. Continuing to monitor any changes that come out of DC. Okay. I'm not putting you on this spot by any means. So it's down just to clarify, those are not all under contract construction. So those are, we have just under agreement. Under agreement, just under agreement. But, you know, several of those are not under construction. Right. Right. So because I don't know, I'm assuming, because I know we just had that conversation about Shero Bridge. So is that something that we would be cautious with? Those that are not under contract yet? Well, I do want to clarify the US Department of Transportation guidance was whether you were under agreement, grant agreement, or not, not whether you were under construction contract. So from that standpoint at the federal level, if we're under contract under agreement, they consider it safe. There's a separate stage of development, whether in design right away or construction. Right, you know, and I'm just looking at, I keep bringing up the share of avenue bridge, but that's a pretty big project. And so that's what sort of concerns me a little bit, that you know, and as Mayor Hardy said, if we pay that up and then we don't get the reimbursement or what have you, that would be very devastating. So I'm sure. Shera Avenue is completely administered by VDOT. And so I don't believe that we, in fact, like they're doing design for construction. We don't even have any reimbursements to submit to you for share out the new bridge replacement. Because even though it's technically allocated to the City of Falls Church, VDOT is doing all the contracts they're responsible for all the- That's right, I remember not that now. Okay, so you think that would help because they're really overseeing that whole project. Okay, yeah. Okay. Thank you. I think, yeah. I think it's better to have them under contract and going into construction, which many of them are on their way very soon or currently in construction. I think that to us is better because the Department of Transportation, I mean, these are unusual circumstances these days, but like always, historically, they want these projects to be delivered. Like these, you know, execute goals of the Department of Transportation as well. So for them to not fund a project that's already in construction would be very, very unusual. So, but so those would be less at risk in my opinion, I guess. but all of them are under agreement with the City of Falls Church and V.Dot or the funding agency. Thank you very much. Yeah. It's had two quick ones that are somewhat related. So I had the same question. I guess as Mrs. Scott in that 33.6 state original. So there is a portion of that even though we deem it state that is federal money that the state is dispersing or no. It's all coming from Virginia or like I think I might have convoluted that with my answer. V.D. moves around federal money in ways that we don't really have any sayover. So sometimes they fund state grants with federal funds. We don't even sometimes know that that's what's happening. That's sort of their back end thing. That 33.6 million is mostly made up of regional MVTA funds and then the rest of it is truly state grants. The federal 12.4 million, we get almost all of that through the state, through V.D.O. but those are true federal grant programs. Okay, yeah, I was just trying to figure out what could be, what could potentially be an issue within the 33.6, so that's helpful. And then I think as we think about the future, that list that is the 12.4 million federal, it would be helpful to know if we weren't happy, if we weren't to get that federal money, like of that list, which of those things do we think we would need to absorb locally? Grant funding that we would have to seek out given like safety considerations and whatever it would be. So, there might be a sublist that's, hey, this is what we're getting grant funded on, but here's what we definitely would need to, or locally if we didn't get those funds. I think a lot of the things on the list we just wouldn't do, right? But there are a few bridge inspections. I was just gonna say, I hope we've got to do it. We've been doing bridge inspections, but some of the paving we'd have to eventually get to using those as examples, but some of the rest of the pet bridges are gonna eventually need to be replaced. The South Washington bus stop is a kind of transformational project we could choose not to do, for example. So that's where a lot of the money is. A general source of ink I have is the reimburring. transformational project we could choose not to do for example. So, you know, that's where a lot of the money is. So... A general source of ink I have is the reimbursement model. And so as we start the projects, I want to be very like conscious about how much we could be left holding the bag on if the reimbursement doesn't come through. We're like, hey, we're about to start a $15 million project. It's all grant money. I think it's been fine to get re-inverse, but if not, like that's a really big thing, we'll have to make up because we'll stop to pay our contractors, right? And especially... $20 million dollar project, it's all grant money. We think it's been fine to get reimbursed, but if not, like that's a really big thing we'll have to make up because we'll have to pay our contractors, right? And especially with the contingencies, what they are and the costs, what they are, I think it's a time to really think about, what do we need to absorb at the costs they're at given the impacts on the local budget if we're left absorbing those increased costs that are unavoidable at this point. Yeah, so I think I kind of grew with Andy. We may not do a lot of them, but for the ones that we do, I think we want to stare at those numbers long and hard and say if we need to pick up the pieces like do we have enough in reserves to take care of it? Okay, thank you for the interjection. Sure. The next slide, we're still talking about funding. I think we're talking about capital reserves. Yep. This. Okay. Thank you for the interjection. Sure. The next slide, we're still talking about funding. I think we're talking about capital reserves. Yep. The six year total for drawout of capital reserves is 9.9 million. That is significantly less than last year's six year total, which I think was 18 millions over the 16 years. In fiscal year 26, that total is 2.4 million, which is also half of what we planned in last year's budget. Staff tried to prepare a more conservative allocation of capital reserves this year, and basically more evenly spread out the use of capital reserves over the six years, rather than having really large chunks be drawn down in year one. So, you see that here that we tried to sort of evenly spread out the use and also this responds to our priority of effective and realistic project delivery as well, trying to more conservatively allocate staff resources as well. Trying to make sure that we don't over-budget or we don't budget for more than we can deliver in the six years. On the next slide to be funded or unfunded, I like to call this to be funded. These are future opportunities for funding. The six year total for that is 7.5 million. These are staff recommendations. I heard some public comments and some questions about like why is staff not recommending these for funding? These are staff recommendations, but they're recommendations that are based on competing priorities across the whole CIP, which is a lot of priorities. They're also based on our financial outlook as well as our resource levels. We don't have staff resources to deliver as many projects as we had included for fiscal year 26. They're also really good candidates for end of year budget surplus to be funded through that and they're not great candidates for grant funds. Something that I've been trying we've been trying to look at the last couple of years is to be a little bit more discerning about where we apply for grant funds and what we use grant funds for. You know, historically, for example, the last line there, the traffic signal infrastructure program, that's something new. I'm going to talk about that in a little bit. But historically, we have used grant funds for traffic signal and intersection projects. It's sometimes taking us five years to do one intersection. So, and that's due to the added like complexity and review timelines and oversight that comes along with grant funded project administration. But that feels like a not acceptable amount of time to replace a master and do some ADA upgrades. So what we propose is to locally fund the traffic signal infrastructure investments through this sort of program as opposed to funding it with grants in order to ideally advance those projects faster. On the next slide, now we're going to look at some program overviews. So the first one is transportation. I'll go through these pretty quickly. In transportation, some highlighted projects I already talked about the paving along Broad and Washington that we have that pending grant for. Again, I feel pretty good about getting that grant this year and that will help sort of offset some of our paving costs that we pay out of local. I mentioned the traffic signals and bike routes. We've funded two priority bike routes from the bike master plan in this CIP. The first one will be the East West connection in starting in fiscal year 26. And then the second one will be the West Street route starting in fiscal year 28. We also have this out Washington bus stop expansion project which I mentioned that's actually started in this fiscal year, but we'll continue through the next two fiscal years. In the traffic state infrastructure investment program I mentioned. Now I got lost here. Sorry guys. Oh some project deferrals so we defer the North Washington Multimodal project to fiscal year 28 that's the 22 million dollar MVTA funded Multimodal project to sort of smooth out some of the project delivery and workload staff resources. We all- The project that's going to fix the Grashem Light permanently permanently. And so now we're saying the permanent fix is not till FY28. The Gresham light was included I believe there is a temporary fix that's in the works right now. So the Gresham light is included in the North Washington project. We're delaying funding the project until FY28. So does that mean the temporary fix can be done sooner? So we just got briefed on this today and we had been working on our temporary fix and between V. and Arlington together, the temporary fix will not work. So we believe kind of the only path is the North Washington Street Project. So they have to wait till FY28 for that fix? Yeah. And it's been three years already that they can't turn left out of their neighborhood. That is the recommended approach. If the council wanted to fund this with city funds only, we could try to do it on our own, but it's going to be several million dollars. And so it would make more sense to do it as part of the whole corridor. I guess I would be interested in what the options are for temporary fix. Like not fun north Washington with our own money, three years had a schedule. But are there options for temporary fix that we could do on our own? So it's to do the entire, all of the signals to get them all synced up together between West West, Moreland, the fire station, and Grashum, full intersection redo at Grashum. It's many millions of dollars. That's the $22 million. That would the interim fix. The 22 and a half million is from the Arlington line up to Columbia, undergrounding. It's a full. Because of the proximity of the three intersections with the Westmoreland, the Fire Station, and Gresham, the Arlington folks have weighed in and say you've got to do it all. You can't just do something at the Gresham intersection, which is what I think our team was pursuing is an interim solution. So you can't, because they're all kind of right there and you can't kind of do one without the other, both the Arlington and V.Fokes. The V.Fokes have weighed in that because of it being Route 29, it requires kind of their full review processes in the Arlington County folks who own the fire station intersection as well as the West Mourland intersection, say, you know, all three of them have to be done together. And so that was the feedback that we got this morning. And so- It is from an engineering and public safety reason is not just funding. It's the company. The engineering folks agree that you know there's logic behind kind of what Arlington has told us. So I'm hearing you say that the only temporary fix is also very expensive. It's not really a good temporary option. That's correct. So I'm hearing that the 22.5 million NVT money is available but we're pushing it out because of execution resources. So has staff looked at what other what other projects could we swap and said so that we could do that one earlier? So I wasn't aware that the temporary fix was several million dollars until just now so I would say that maybe that's something that we look at. So when we've discussed kind of a sequencing of kind of the projects in the capital plan, and when you think, and you look at kind of the, not looking at every project is equal, that the challenge with North Washington is it looks very similar to a number of other kind of, major kind of street kind of reduce in the city. So when you think of the Broad Street Multimodal projects and that it impacts 25 to 30 property owners, you have the Park Avenue Great Streets project but we're trying to work on which is 30-ish properties that we're dealing with. We've got the greening of Lincoln project, which is 40 or more properties. And again, and then, so then you think about those and all of the public engagement and all of the kind of, it isn't even just having a project manager to work on it. We just talked through our, you know, the organizational capacity to take on another project of similar kind of scope and complexity was the big driver of why we've pushed that out to FY28. Well, I'll be realistic about how many of these we can really actually work on at a time organizationally. And so, you know, I mean, we can take the feedback that we really want to kind of figure out how to pull it in, I think to Caitlin's point, but it isn't just swapping kind of that with like an intersection improvement. Like it's a lot more complicated and so that's the logic why we've presented what we're proposing with that. And we feel like we've escalated all we can in Arlington to really just fix that one local issue and not make it a bigger several million dollar temporary fix. Yes. I guess Madam Marathon. I might. All right, David. I can't see your hand raised and I didn't know to call on you. Sure. No, no, no problem at all. Yeah, I think I want to follow up and see if we can't. First of all, I'd like to analyze this in more detail than we're able to get to tonight and then I'd like to determine whether policy level outreach with either V.Dot or Ardenk and County might be useful here. So it's following up on your comments and I think others that is strong desire to try to get this responded to. Create, I think that's probably the collective will of council to try to look for a temporary option of possible because I think the aggression neighbors have been very patient and it's been three years now I think and if we're going to tell them we're not going to get to FY 28, that will be a very disappointing message to deliver. I think I would also be interested in like a very brief briefing in terms of these projects in particular like obviously greening of Lincoln. It's a go we have to do it. We have ARPA funding in it like all sorts of things in you on but even thinking about Park Avenue great streets versus like North Washington. I don't know. Yeah, I mean, look, you're saying do one instead of another, but hearing North Washington that far out, knowing that there's no interim solution, it may be worth thinking about. Are looking at, does that actually make sense in terms of order? Can we put a pen in this conversation and have more time to talk about? Are we really sure there are no more interim solutions, like including escalating it to V.Dott and Arlington if needed, and then if there really aren't, should we look at moving other projects? Then how do we weigh safety? And maybe you guys already have, and I'm just not familiar with it, and that goes to having a brief briefing But you know if it's a true safety concern on North Washington versus Park Street Park Avenue is a really It's a great economic development and the undergrounding it's an Reutification and all those things but maybe it doesn't have as much of a safety impact and how do we weigh that and making decision on what We can't or can? I'd be interested in hearing that your expert opinions on that too. Okay, anything else in this slide? I just caught that when you said, moved FY20, I'm like, no, it's in Russia. I'm in politics. I think the last thing I just want to say about this is that of course in the operating budget this year, totally separate from CIP, but very much alongside transportation. We have additional $700,000 in the increase in the paving budget for fiscal year 26 for roadway maintenance. That can also be used towards bike lanes, crossings, sidewalks, traffic signals and streetlights, et cetera. So that helps out our transportation program. Next slide. In public facilities and schools, some of the highlights I wanna talk about is one new project that we've added is the Mary Ellen Henderson Roof Replacement. We've programmed that in fiscal year 28. In facility reinvestment, some of you will remember, we always have a line item in the facilities program for general government facility reinvestment, and we always put like $250,000 in that sort of program area every year. This year we designed a developed a new approach when we're trying to instead develop discrete facility projects, instead of that general government facility reinvestment program, we think that will help with project delivery, but also communicating those project updates and in our quarterly reports and all of that. The one that will start in fiscal year 26 is the City Hall uninterruptible power source, right? UPS, I think that's what it means. And telecom room, HBAC upgrades, we also have Oak Street Elementary continuing in this program. We also have the property yard still included in the facilities program for $30 million. We did earlier this year in January have the Urban Land Institute Technical Assistance Panel that was conducted for the overall Gordon Road Triangle and what we want to do with that area that includes the future potential replacement of the property yard. And so we discussed that a lot in January. The full results of that technical assistance or the report that they will provide is due in the next month. So we did change a little bit in this year's CIP. It was $30 million in fiscal year 28. This year we put, we did $3 million for design in fiscal year 28 and we pushed out 27 million into fiscal year 29. We do anticipate that depending on the results of that ULI tab report that that may change what the property yard looks like. And I think in the project sheet for the property art, we even said a more detailed developed plan would be presented in the fiscal year 27 CIP. Once we're able to sort of digesting consider all of the recommendations from the top. I have a quick question on the UPS. Yeah, just in the conversations we've been having with Dominion about does the UPS is that from the door in and then Dominion's responsible for the door to the street when you're talking about unerrupted power? So the UPS is designed to be your bridge between when the power goes out to when the generator for the building kicks on. So it provides kind of unerrupted power for your major IT systems. Our server and our dispatch. That's internal to City Hall. Correct. And it's not Dominion related. It's not anything if they could fund to pass all the connectivity as their responsibility. And this is basically when it hits the door, that's what I was trying to say. First, I want to confirm my thanks. And the larger Dominion redundancy for City Hall is tied to the park Avenue Great Street with... the community. The community is going to be they're going to use our condiments. That's the outside. Just. OK. Next slide is going to be our public utilities. This fun sewer and stormwater programs. Some highlights in this program area. We have the sewer capacity purchase where we have purchased additional sewer capacity from Fairfax County that's being finalized now. I think that purchase price was $8.8 million that was previously appropriated in prior CIPs. We also have the flow equalization base in which I mentioned for $10 million this year. We also have changes made to the nutrient credit purchase project. This was introduced last year for 2.2 million dollars of debt financing in fiscal year 28. This year actually in fiscal year 25 we applied for a state grant through DEQ. It's called the SLAF grant. It's a stormwater local assistance fund. We applied for a 600. It's a 50-50 matching program. So we applied for $640,000 towards the purchase of nutrient credits. We were awarded that grant in fiscal year 25. So that $640 that half of will be paid for by the state. Through a grant and our plan that we presented this year and the proposed CIP is that we will apply for that grant every year from now until fiscal year 28. So that we will offset the local cost of the nutrient credit purchase by 50%. We also added a new stormwater project at Roberts Park. The next program is public safety IT and parks. The highlight in parks this year is our park master plan implementation. We'll be doing two parks this year, Cavalier Trail Park and Crossman Park. Other changes we have an increase in fire station six capital reinvestments. You'll see that in the public safety program in addition to increasing Arlington our inter jurisdictional contract with Arlington. We also have some increase in capital improvements at the fire station as well. Next slide. Thank you. This I tried to tried to capture some active CIP. None of this is included in the proposed six-year CIP that we're talking about tonight, but I thought this was interesting to capture active CIP investments. The table on the right talks about the 24 million that I mentioned of transportation that we are actively delivering or spending down technically that's 22 million I guess now because like I said we received 2 million in the last 2 weeks. We also have 20 million dollars worth of stormwater projects that we are actively working 12 million dollars in the sewer program 4 million for parks and recreation that includes the fellows property, 8 million for facilities in schools, that includes the Community Center HFAC project, 600,000 for IT and 2 million for public safety. That is over $70 million in active projects that the CIP team is currently managing. Of course we do the quarterly updates to council for the CIP and the last update that we did in February. We reported 38 active projects. I want to mention that sometimes that isn't a complete comprehensive list. We also have things like the missing links in NTC programs and smart cities that are included in that that count, that project count of 38. So a lot of work going into the CIP right now. Last but not least, slide maybe is the fiscal year 25 highlights and completed projects. I don't think this is a comprehensive list that come off. A full list of completed projects is in the CIP notebook on page 1-2. These are completed projects so far in fiscal year 25 or anticipated to be complete before the end of the fiscal year. Some pictures that I included the highly celebrated Bito's sidewalk, which was just finished up on the top there. Also that on the bottom is our urban forestry crew doing some plantings at one of the parklets that we did this year. And then also the synthetic turf installation at Meridian High School. I think that's the last slide. Maybe there's one more. Oh, that's the end. So for any public questions or comments, you can email the email address provided there, and then also, like I mentioned, the CIP full document is provided at the website, and I am ready for questions. Great. Thank you for letting us interject with questions along the way. But I'm sure we still have more. What's the start? Laura? I could just have a quick one. This is actually on the additional slide section. So I don't know if we're allowed to talk about those. But just a super quick question on that. So I'm looking at, I guess, at slide 21, Nolan Street sidewalk. Can you explain to me why some things are CIP, so that why would that not be missing link, or is that missing link It's just listed on. It was originally included in last year's CIP individually individual from the missing links program because the cost was so much higher. Okay, so that's why I wanted to ask. So there's a certain missing link is for a certain sort of price. We don't have a, I don't think we have a specific threshold, but. So I think we look at anything over 150,000 dollars would be a CIP project. Okay, that's great. That's all I have. That's the right answer. While we're on that one though, if I could add on, because I noted the Nolan sidewalk is on there, but not till out years. But North Virginia is a sidewalk that's been raised with us over at least eight years because neither side of North Virginia is a sidewalk that's been raised with us over at least eight years because neither side of North Virginia has a sidewalk. So in like Nolan which is just a missing link around the Midvale section, that one we've gotten a lot of complaints for especially because of parking from the library, Cherry Hill, off of Park Avenue. That needs to be on that 10-year plan somewhere because that's a pretty big investment. It's the the entire length of North Virginia and has no sidewalk and either side. Compared to a lot of streets that I know we're on missing links, has a sidewalk on one side of the street. on that 10 year plan somewhere, because that's a pretty big investment. It's the entire length of North Virginia and has no sidewalk and either side. Compared to a lot of streets that I know we're on missing links, has a sidewalk on one side of the street already. We're just trying to complete a little portion. So I would encourage us to add North Virginia on there. Take a look. Yeah, and that's a big cut through street for people to get to great falls. And then one of the questions I had, and I'm sorry, I didn't, I love my CIP notebook at home. On that same chart, and this is just... And then one other question I had and I'm sorry I didn't I loved my CIP notebook at home On that same chart and this is just probably because I'm new but the open space acquisition for wrecking parks What what is that exactly Open space acquisition is a project that's included every year in the parks program as sort of a placeholder for opportunities that come up for the city to acquire properties that we could use for green spaces. We typically have always included that as a placeholder in case there was like a grant opportunity that we could say, hey, this is in our adopted CIP or in our adopted plan. But usually when those opportunities come up, the council will can mobilize to purchase those properties. I mean, that's how it follows Park. Correct. Yeah. Okay, thank you. I just wasn't sure of that. Yeah, and to both of your questions, like I wanna talk about more about the 10-year outlook, because so this is intended, so like I mentioned, we wanted to get away from including project proposals and project sheets in the six-year CIP that really don't have reliable data for the project scope, the schedule, and the budget. So what we did this year was we took those projects that were kind of missing that information and that more detailed project development and put them in this list here You absolutely the council and the community Anyone can say we think these other things should be included in the 10 year outlook for consideration You can also say we think these should be prioritized know you could say you want no one to be prioritized. That's sort of the purpose of this table was to have that discussion and have that input on the prioritization because we can't do project development for every single one of these 27 projects or whatever they are. In the next year, let alone in the next five years maybe. So I wanted to get a better sense of prioritization and also be transparent that we don't have schedules for these projects. We don't have detailed cost estimates. We want to also include them. We want to keep them in the adopted CIP. So again, we can use it for grant opportunities if they come up and if we have the opportunity to do project development or a study or something like that. OK, no that makes sense, that's great, thank you. Very best. Thank you. For that presentation. My question is about the Roberts Park storm water. Is that one of our big six projects, or is that a new project? That's a new project. New. All of the big six are either completed now, or in progress. Many of them going to construction this year or being advertised this year. So that's part of that $20 million of active stormwater that we're delivering. So that's why the stormwater program for the six-year CAP looks kind of small compared to what we've been doing because we're still working on the big sets. Right, right, yeah. Right, I know we're coming to the end of those big six. So is Roberts Park related to an upgrade in the park? Or I just haven't heard of that in my memory, which doesn't mean we haven't talked about it. So I believe the team identified, I'm sorry. I believe the team identified Roberts Park is a water quality project opportunity. So as we were looking at some of the out year storm water projects, again, some of them are potentially pretty big numbers. And I don't think we've had a full discussion on what the scope needs to be. And so this one, I think the team had a better, it was a little more modest in ambition. And something I think the team had a better handle on our ability to execute. And so we prioritize this one first. There are others in the 10 year outlook that we were just looking at a minute ago that our team is gonna work on, right? And hopefully fold in kind of a little clearer plans for kind of in future CIPs. It would also supply new drink credits. So the Roberts Park project. And is it tied to any recreation and parks plan to renovate anything? So in the same year, in fiscal year 28, parks and rec had in their park master plan implementation, they had proposed Roberts Park for the same year for fiscal year 28. So we actually moved the park master plan implementation to to be funded in that year while we work through funding in future years. But also we wanna make sure that the two align. Like we don't wanna be constructing a new playground this same year that we're doing a major stormwater infrastructure. Thank you. You have others through. Erin? I've just a few quick ones. I might be doing a disservice to Re parks in my liaison role to them, but I did have a question about the $495,000 in terms of the two playgrounds, I guess, at Crossman and at Cavalier Trail. And I think it's just, you know, thinking both in terms of tax relief and building capital reserves, knowing kind of economic realities and economic hardships that people are facing right now and also the increasing costs that we're likely going to encounter. So, you know, when I'm near Crossman Park, I can recognize like why we would want to reinvest in that playground. But at the same time I go, well, you know, block away, you have Bannocker playground. And so you say like, is that $300,000 that we could potentially give, you know, find that another half penny? Or is that $300,000 that we should have in capital reserves right now going into kind of the uncertainty and sort of the budget forecasts that we have. And then I guess I'm also maybe a question for later on is we had been talking about sort of investment income and what a fiscal year 25 surplus might look like. And I guess I would be interested in whether those investment income numbers look as good now as they did last week even. In terms of what the market is doing and losses that we may have, gains we thought we had and losses that we now have. And so for me, things like the park playgrounds and even Cavalier trail knowing like that the sewer. A whole tank is coming off similar Similar to the park lit next to Quinn, does it make more sense to put that on an out year or to say if we have a surplus fund, maybe that's where it goes. If we have an unexpected surplus a year from now, maybe that's where it goes. But right now, understanding kind of the economics that residents are facing, that the city's facing, does it make sense for that to be the capital reserve expenditure? So we think that the broader prioritization and tough decision making is, I think, left to you all, right? I think the one comment related to what you were talking about, so I went out to Cavaliere Trail to see where this part, this playground is at the opposite end of that park. That's not anywhere close to- To the end of Westmoreland and the bridge. Yeah, so I don't think it would be impacted or kind of in the way or conflicting with the flow equalization basin project. So for what that's worth? I would second the Crosswind Park, because I'm sorry, that's our neighbor, and that playground equipment is old. But I think to Ms. Flynn's point, there is an enormous playground, one block away, that's three times the size. So I just don't know, you know, I know that playground equipment is old, but I'd match her if, and I don't know what, and I'm a little bit uninformed because I'm not sure exactly what the plans are. I don't have my CIP notebook in front of me, so, but I will say that that huge Arlington Park is just literally a the block away and it's humongous and lots of kids use it. And the Arlington Taxpayers' Pay for it. Justine and then Dave. Thank you for putting all this together. I'm curious about maintenance costs. It's not something that we're tracking with some of these projects? And especially maintenance costs, like we know that you had the 10 year outlook, but I don't know if it includes things like, I don't even know, like we do have in here that we're gonna have to redo the turf at some point for some of these fields. But do we have a holistic picture of all of the different maintenance needs that are gonna be coming up in the next ten decade or so? So in the CIP budget, we try to do new and one time projects only and not provide for maintenance projects or costs in the CIP. We have tracked maintenance costs related to CIP projects, especially like installing new facilities through the CIP, we have tracked maintenance costs related to CIP projects, especially like installing new facilities through the CIP. It needs some work. And so it was not included in the project sheets this year. It's an improvement that I would like to include in the project sheets in the future. Again, trying to stick with the most reliable information that we have. I want to make sure that that's what we're providing. And so that's sort of a future improvement that I anticipate working on. If I could add a plus one to that, cuz I feel like I've given that comment for eight years now, especially because we took on so much capital in the early parts of the 2015 to the 2020s. And I remember when we built the new library, suddenly we had extra operating costs and we had to fund extra hours and have extra staff. Not only is it just I think an improvement to the project sheet, but I want to make sure we factor into operating budget discussions. Okay, we're building new stuff. How much is it going to cost to maintain this? What are the utility costs of a big new building? I don't know how that connection happens today. I think a good forcing mechanism is to ensure there's a slot on the sheet so that that happens. But I am really concerned that we continue to miss those and then we end up having to find operating dollars to maintain the new stuff we built. It was included in the original project sheet format that we designed this year and it was removed because we just don't have the systems necessary to to do that for every single project. So something we are going to continue to work towards. I think the challenge of kind of connecting those kinds of operating costs in the operating budget that we appropriate once a year to the six-year capital improvements program where we're making kind of long-term investments is a little tricky, right? So one of the things that we appropriate once a year to the six year capital improvements program where we're making kind of long-term investments. It's a little tricky, right? So one of the things that we've been working on more recently and not in the big CIP scale, but is some of the beautification efforts and trying to kind of connect the dots on if you put flower baskets in, you know, one time, and that's like a like a really great thing and we get celebrate it But then you have to fund that every year right and so connecting the dots into the right place in the operating budget so that we can do that quickly and easily without a lot of you know worry about where the money is gonna come from and so that's kind of on small scale. And then I think kind of on some of these other capital projects that are added costs that come with some of these things. But yet tying that to the operating budget three years from now is a little tricky. Yeah, I think that's sort of the problem. Because sometimes some of these maintenance costs don't really necessarily fit in the CAP. And they don't fit in the yearly budget. And so even just like some sort of like spreadsheet, which is like here are all the things, you know But you know, I even think about Just getting a heads up like you know, you have to repay or like we Paint bike lanes every five years and so that should be something that oh five years from now We know we're gonna have to do it so we need to make sure that we have money allocated for that once every five years. And so that should be something that, oh, five years from now, we know we're going to have to do it, so we need to make sure that we have money allocated for that once every five year or 10 year, or whatever it is, project. So I don't know the right way to do it, whether it belongs in the CIP elsewhere, but it would be nice to have that somehow, at least, something that we can be aware of as these things come up. Because in some ways, like the turf replacement is kind of baked in. Like, we know that that's on a certain schedule. And so it would be nice to have even a silhouist flower baskets are. I don't know, or somehow seeing things that we do have to maintain on a certain schedule. Other things, just one quick. Could you talk a little bit about the bike plans? So I see dollars allocated in two different years for the two different bike plans. What's the schedule there? What are the expectations there? So for the first bike route, west connection, we did have a some design money allocated in fiscal year 25, I believe. Fiscal year 26 funding would be a continuation of that design budget because it was not a complete budget for design. So that we have a lot of funding for the first fiscal year 26 with construction being in fiscal year 27 the following year 28 we would start design on the west street connection or or route and then the following year would be a larger amount for construction. In terms of contingency costs and stuff like, I mean, I guess all these numbers are estimates and so if we suddenly have ballooning costs, then we kind of have to get back, go back to the drawing board and figure out whether or not we can even do some of these projects. Yeah. Because I think bringing blanks in this one example where there were suddenly ballooning costs and then I have to re-figure out that project. And so that's sort of maybe an early example of things to come. Yeah. You know, there are a bunch of unknowns on the economic horizon. Do we have, I mean, so what would we do in that situation? Would, I guess, one option would be to borrow money from future years and put that to more current years, or what would be, how would we handle those sorts of things? To know me more about borrowing money from futures, what are you thinking? I was in like, trying to understand that. Oh, actually, I'm not even sure how that would work, but I feel like there have been times where we've taken money out of some other project and put it into something else or take and move money from fiscal year 28th. So with the bike projects specifically, we want to try and fund it with local funds. And that's what we've done here. And that's part of the reason why we've set it up the way that we have. It's staff resources, honestly, and the staff that we have available to manage the projects right now, but it's also the funding. So it's the, since we're trying to fund it with 100% local funds and the first project we are funding with MVTA 30%, we sort of consider those local funds, even though they are technically a grant source, really they're given to the locality and monthly or quarterly disbursements or whatever. So that's part of the reason why we've set it up the way that we have is because putting federal grant dollars on a bike infrastructure project seems like it would, and in staff's opinion and recommendation, it would unnecessarily slow the project down and increase the cost more, even more significantly and really complicate a project that should be relatively easy to deliver. So we want to stick with local funds on that. So we don't want to borrow any money from other grant funded projects and we don't want to issue debt ideally. So I think that maybe you know I would say like where what we would do is we would take a hard look at the scope of the project and figure out how to adjust the scope to live within the budget that we have. Okay. That's how I would handle that unknown in the future. Okay. Great. Thank you. That's all for me. Other CIP questions? Dave, oh, you're next. Yes, thanks very much. Two more questions. First of all, with regard to the the sewer tank, the 10 million you call. Yes, thanks very much. Two more questions. First of all, with regard to the the sewer tank, the 10 million you call for that for debt funding. What I'd like is a total taxpayer payout for that over the length of the debt. What or this 20 or 30 year debt, what is the proposal for that? Yeah, that would be typically 20 year debt. And it would be in the utility funds, it would be rate payer supported. But we can provide that full. I mean, I don't think we've run the amortization for that, but that can certainly be done. Yeah, I'd like that because the ratepayers are also our taxpayers and voters. So that's right. So it's coming out of the same pocket, whether it's in a fund or whether it's under the general budget. And then with regard to the geothermal work at the community center, is that the same contractor that did the school geothermal? I don't know. Okay, if you don't think so, but I don't know for sure. I can get back to you about answer. Okay, thanks. That's it. Debbie. Yeah, if you go almost last to get most of your questions asked before they get to you. So I only have one left on this list, which is our inter-gear-stictional agreement with Arlington 4, that the fire, I mean that's a big CIP project here and I see the listings of that. Like how much was that anticipated, I guess? I know we had some increases in cost for the labor, but were the capital expenses pretty well known or was this part of the current negotiation? We have a regular meeting with Arlington County where we tried to sit down with them and plan out what future capital expenditures would be. And so the big one is a new roof on the station and that is in the out years, so that's the process working properly. What we don't want to have is surprises come up sooner than that. And I guess that was the point I was trying to get to because of the jump in labor. I want to make sure we're in. We know as much as we can for those out years. And then I just wanted to say. There's also not much impact in fiscal year 26 for that, so it doesn't really see it until fiscal year 27. They increase in capital. Yeah. Yeah. And then I just wanted to make a comment on general on the CIP and this formatting. If I worked really hard on this new kind of layout, and I really like it because I wanted back to my questions. I could cross reference and say, what was the deal with the synthetic turf? I thought we just did the high school one. really hard on this new kind of layout and I really like it because I want to back to my questions. I could cross reference and say what was the deal with the synthetic turf? I thought we just did the high school one this year. Why aren't you know why are we doing that again in two more sets of years and I could go to the little description and find the other two and why they're going to be there and it was easy for me to fall and I like the references to the the comp plan to the lens. And I really like having the community energy action plan on there. Of course, I'm going to be the one supporting doing solar through our probably through our year and surplus, both the rural house and city. I think that 105 was listed on a two-week blended on the city building rooftop solar. So just preceding my vote for that. And just to thank you again for this. I think this is for me very helpful and a great way to cross reference the program and my questions back to an easily read digestible. So thank you for doing that. Perfect. Good. I said one other one. For this traffic signal infrastructure upgrades, I guess it on 2.5, it looks like 1.25 million of a 1.64 million dollar need is going unfunded in fiscal year 2026. And then there's more information on page 76 that shows,, the NVTA grants kind of coming in starting fiscal year 2028 through the end of the six year cycle. And I guess I'm just wondering, you know, for fiscal year 26 and 27, there seems to be a large, you know, unfunded $2.5 million. And what that when the project description is about like existing infrastructure needs, mass, arms and ADA compliance. So, so ideally I am hoping to fund at least some, if not all of that 1.2 million for fiscal year 26 through a budget amendment or a surplus. that would be great. I also am anticipating, so part of that, what that program is doing is actually deferring and deallocating some existing grant projects that we have through V.Dot and moving all the local funding into this program. So I'm hoping to also backfill some of that $2 million with funds that we take from other projects that are also traffic signal projects we're just sort of all reprogramming it all into this one project. And you're when you're talking about hoping to put funds into it are you talking about like fiscal year 25 surplus funds that you would put into cap reserves and then do a budget amendment to be able to put them into fiscal year 26 for this need. I guess I just want to know like what the actual needs are and where the money we need is so that we can have realistic conversations about like do we take a $300,000 playground project off the books because priority wise it is beneath ADA compliance and like like functioning mass arms. So what you know my guidance council will be is to look within the CIP and pull council projects in the CIP and full fund here what you're thinking about not funding something then put that something else rather than going deeper into reserves. However if the council's guidance at the end of the day is, now we want to go deeper into reserves, then you know that chart that's in the budget presentation that shows how much gap reserves are there, you know, would be helpful to the council. And I think that might just get back to my earlier question on like when we're talking about this fiscal year 25 surplus. Like how much should we be thinking about that? Like what your surplus usage list is going to look like and how much that of that surplus usage list maybe things that are unfunded in this CIP versus things that weren't funded in fiscal year 2025 that are still in a parking lot. If that makes sense. So. Yeah. Okay. I think it's just me left. So thank you. I love the CIP so bear with me. So I'm going to start with some general comments first, and then I have some project specific ones. So I want to plus one the comments about the process improvement done on the CIP. I really do like the new project pages. The one thing I would add is again, back to our maintenance cost somehow for the big stuff that, as you think, it's a good forcing mechanism. And along those lines, one thing that was done when I was a new council member is we painted all those light poles. And I know Andy, you have it on the list of things that we need to get to, but that feels like another recurring expense. Like maybe every 10 years we need to paint those light poles again because we don't want them resting and falling over. So kind of like the turf field. So there might be a bunch of other items like that that are recurring to Justine's point. It's just good to, if they are big enough expensive, put them on the CIP because then their force is us to get to them. So, kind of like the turf field. So, there might be a bunch of other items like that that are recurring to Justine's point. It's just good to, if they are big enough expensive, put them on the CIP because then it forces us to get to them and fund them and plan for them rather than, oops, we need to get to that and then having to find resources to do it. So, would encourage us to do that. For all these costs, I guess it's probably too early, but are we factoring tariffs into the contingency and if so, what does that do to our CIP? And when do we have that conversation? No, they're not factored in as of right now. I mean, our fiscal year 26 cost estimates include, really all of our cost estimates include significant amount of contingency and escalation for out years. And so we're still using sort of the standard contingency and escalation. I haven't heard any exact numbers of increases on existing projects yet. So it would be hard to to capture what that would look like. As the answer thing we need to keep in mind and maybe you will have better clarity once we know if they're here to stay and what the amount will be, but just again, their contingency amounts will have to go up. One thing I noted throughout the CIP obviously, transportation being, you know, like a third of it, a third of our total CIP, and schools and facilities used to be a big part of it. And I remember that we didn't actually have a bunch of school projects on there other than a few minor things like the MEH roof and whatnot. And so I also skimmed the school CIP because I'm a nerd and I noted that actually they had a slide in there I think is useful to include in our presentations that we are good on school capacity till 2045. Like we've got 20 years of growth planned which I thought was really impressive given how much we spent on school capital and given how much effort that took from both Council and School Board, I think that's something to celebrate that we've taken care of school capacity for 20 years. That is a good news story that does not come through because we spent so much effort for the first however many years of this solving. So that's somewhere I think needs to be included in the discussion. Glad to see the extra 700,000 in paving. we should communicate what new things we're doing with that. So I know that we have like a two-year paving schedule on the website, with like here's what can be paid in 2025, here's what's coming. But if we are putting this extra injection in there, it would be great to communicate out here or the extra streets that we're getting to because we were putting more money towards it. So we'll have more to share with you all on the 21st about kind of the operating budget transportation infrastructure money, the breakdown of what that is. I don't know that we're gonna present a road by road kind of here's what we're doing in every fiscal year, but we're trying to provide some color of how that money is gonna help us to include things like replacing the street lights. I guess this was the schedule, and then here's the new stuff that we're going to be able to take care of because we're putting more money towards street maintenance. And again, reflecting on the feedback we got in the community survey, I think the paving heard loud and clear traffic calming pedestrian safety is kind of the other big one, and I know we've making big investments there, but NTC is a program that I think has been important for the community field agency and it bottoms up process. Question. making big investments there, but NTC is a program that I think has been important for the community to feel agency and it bottoms up process. Questions I've asked last time that I would like more information on is what is the average wait time for somebody who submitted a petition in NTC and then what is our throughput per year? Like for the $200,000 we put in there. Do we get one project done in a year? Is it one big one and one light solution? Is it, is the average wait time two years? Cause I think that would help us decide is $200,000 enough. And how long is the queue? About three or four years ago during COVID, I remember we actually had this big clearing of the queue effort. I don't know, I don't have good clarity in how long that queue is, but I get the sense that people are waiting a long time. So there's more demand than supply. So we'll have more to share on NTC also on the 21st, I think as a preview, I would say, the constraint isn't necessarily dollars in the capital plan, right? And several of you have been personally engaged on some of these projects. The community engagement process of this is arduous, right? And that's the, in my view, that is the limiter on our ability to deliver those projects rather than how much money's in the CIP. So that's a great segue because NTC is a great bottoms up process. We want people to say, hey, you have to get 50% in your neighborhood before we tackle the projects that there's really good neighborhood support. I think as we hear about safety issues, we need to think about some top down changes that we're just gonna say, this is not need full neighborhood buying and we're just gonna do them. That's probably less resource intensive. Now that takes some, like, it's probably gonna, unpopular in some places, but I think finding that balance between the two is important. And so that's something I want to say, give some thought on is how do we resource that? The rapid response team, which we funded two years ago? I don't know if they're still up and going, but that my hope was some of those like top down, hey, we're just going to do it quickly. So that's more like early thinking on one is NTC appropriately funded, given the throughput and wait times people are Experiencing and the demand that we have in the queue and then second How do we think about funding some top-down things to address some of the pedestrian issues that we're hearing about and We don't have to wait for a bottoms-up process to take it. If Mayor could if I could just interject because I know the city manager heard this comment and Andy you may have been there also at the town hall but I thought it was interesting that both the former chair of the CACT and the current chair of the CACT both made a comment about the $200,000 for the NTC program and really there frustrations with the NTC program and that same hope maybe for a little bit more top down directive based on the crash, you know, data and the reports about what we could do and address more quickly and not necessarily sort of having more drawn out neighborhood input. So it is striking that balance, but I think, you know, they shared and it's interesting for me when you hear from the CACT itself who you would think would be more proponents of the program saying like no, we actually need to maybe approach this in a different way, that it might be appropriate to think about that 200,000. Yeah. And to be clear, I'm not saying we throw it in DC. I think people want to have some bottoms up way of saying, hey, I'm going to advocate for this on my street. But I think when we do a better job of looking at crash data and where there's actually accidents, like using that to say no top sound, we're just going to fix this street and make it safer. And we need to fund that approach as well. And when you've got a very limited set of people to work on all of this stuff, you know, some of this has got to pick, right? And so I think that's a good conversation for us to have. I think we're eager to do that. And can I also add, and we have picked, the single biggest thing in your budget is transportation improvements, nine million bucks, and FY26, 59 million over six years. It is the biggest thing that we're doing as an organization. So it'd be good, that's top down. That is the program. And none of them are easy. And so to be agile and sort of jump on other things, none of them are easy. Every street people have very strong opinions about, and half the people don't want it done and half do. And so that's why the CIP is so important so important. It is transformative and that's the program. And it's quite kind of overwhelming in many respects. I mean, we're tearing up a lot of streets throughout the city. Well, I think from my perspective, the important thing of having a top-down approach is of course taking course, taking in community feedback but using the expertise of the safety engineers and traffic engineers who have so much more information than the average person does. And we've talked about the ballers before in Columbia and those went up and people like, well, that makes you go down and makes you drive slower in rank. And they're like, oh, that's the point, right? They're not as attractive and people don't want to have them maybe outside their house, but they're performing the function that the engineers are intending to do, same with the road, the traffic circle, and other things that we've talked about. And at some point in time, we need to rely on our expert staff and engineers to keep us safe. And I like that from the top down approach that we're doing this for the safety of the community. So thank you. Another kind of general question. So the 30 million in the out years of the property yard, given that we haven't really, we need to schedule a debrief probably in the May, June timeframe from the Gordon Road tab to figure out, because having sat in on some of the recommendations, I have some angst about whether we're willing to commit to that given it largely is predicated on having private investment help pay for some of it and given the state of the world right now I'm just not sure that we'll feel good about things in FY28 but I think the request I have for staff is we can keep it there as a placeholder but we need to have that kind of discussion with probably all of Council on Planning Commission and what the recommendations were out of that tap before we can feel good about that being a commitment. That's my recommendation. If I can get to some more specific things. In the 10-year outlooks of page 2-7, Caitlin, are you looking for input from us on how to prioritize these things? I think that would be helpful if the council has strong priorities, you know, in this list that they would provide staff. I think that would be helpful to provide. Not knowing what some of these things are, like, $30 million for street grid realignment seems like a big, like, I don't know what that is. It's good to have a street grid, but I can't say whether it should be done or not. I guess my suggestion to staff is if we could take maybe given council priorities, the community survey, how does this stuff align with those that you all can take a cut at it because we don't have enough information on what each of these are. My only ad is again, the North Virginia sidewalk needs beyond this list. And I have an ad. I think don't we need to add the new turf baseball field on the 10 year? I think that's already, the baseball field is already in the. To replace the turf in 10 years. Kind of like all the other turf fields. We have a 10 year cycle. Yeah, it would be included in our, in that program in Parks and Rec. But yeah, that would need to be included as well. Yeah, it'll be in our 10 year, right? It'll be. Yeah, that's a good point. I didn't quite think through that mayor. All of these I will say all of these projects were derived from project sheets that were included in previous year CIP. So all of them had project sheets in the fiscal year 25 CIP that had at least a description of what those projects were. So I can work towards providing more details. This is definitely a process that I anticipated some refining. I just don't think I could personally help you prioritize this any better than saying, I don't know if this is, so maybe ask staff to help with that. That would be great. So going on my specific questions. Page 5-6 prompted a question I had about because I talked about increased energy usage at the library. In general, as part of the operating budget discussion, I'd like to keep an eye on how our utility costs are and whether there's opportunity, again, with the GoEat plan plan whether it's solar or retrofitting older buildings but that feels like a really great way to lower utility cost but that just prompted a question for when we get to the operating budget. And that came up in the ESC a couple of two different ESC meetings asking about why we keep it lit 24-7 so we can get to that. That's one on that one. Page six dash two on the park master plan. I am interested in the conversation we just had about do Berman and Crossman really need to get done, especially if we are worried. So I would like to hear from kind of Reckon Parks as well as the advisory board and how they feel about that. One kind of small request and suggestion I've made over the years. I love that we were replacing the signs and making each one pretty unique, but it would be great to tie them together with some sort of unifying, like, badge. This is the city of Falls Church, Reckon Parks, because right now all our signs look different. And I think that's intentional to give every park its own unique flavor, flavor, which is great, but people can't tell they all are part of the Reckon Park system. So that's just a small suggestion there. Well, when you look at Crossman and Cavalier, I mean Crossman and the other one, the Arlington Park, specifically as you're going through the trail or cutting through there it would be nice to, when, when and if it does get done say like this is Falls Church City and then let Arlington, because they have a lot of side. You want to sell Brandecker. Brandecker does a great job branding, and you are here on the trail, and they invested significantly in that, so I agree with you. Yeah, it's great to have individual character, but let's make sure we take credit that they're part of the city of Falls Church Park System. Page seven dash five. So this is the broadened Washington paving that we might get federal money for Caitlin, you said. My question is, why is it not done as part of the insight and founders wrote two projects? Because these are the exact streets that were touched as part of those. Did we just not negotiate for them to redo this? No. No, seven dash five, the paving on broad in Washington? It's paving only. So these segments are, so the State of Good Repair Fund, they veto providesDot provides their assessment of our pavement conditions. They do it every year and then based on those conditions, they release to us what primary extensions they have ours, which only include in the city, broad, Washington and Hillwood that are eligible to receive funds through this program. segments are, it's over almost $1.5 million of paving, but they're like little segments. It's not all one long. So I think the Washington segments, there's one section where it's both northbound and or eastbound and westbound along Washington are along broad. It doesn't go all the way up to the West Coast Church development. It starts right after that intersection and it goes down to I think West Street. Yeah, it looks like it was from west, it probably birch or so. Yeah, so it starts just east of Hakek Road and then so it's like certain it the segments don't all connect sometimes it's both sides of the road sometimes it's only one side of the road and the same thing on Washington as well that's why in the past you have sometimes passed on these funds but in this case we felt like we could really use these for towards our paving program. So my question to why it I guess is are these stretches planned to be repaved as part of those private development projects in which case we don't need to spend the federal money on these stretches. Our engineers went out to both Founders Row and brought in Washington here and these segments did not, they look like they intersect with those developments but they didn't. So like our transportation engineers inspected that to make sure that we're not paving something twice. Right. Okay. Okay. But now we're talking about this exact stretch of North Washington and FY 28 with that $22.5 million we just talked about So would we really want to repay this exact project and then two years later tear it all up for the $22 million project? My request to staff is think about the timing of this and Can these federal dollars be used for other streets that really need repaving? No. They're only eligible for primary extensions. Does that help us solve Gresham earlier? I think this is a real kind of rune-mentary paving grant and that's only for our big roads. And so maybe eight years ago we paid all, paved all of broad and all of 29 and all of Hillwood using this program and we want to do that again. Okay. Page 7-7. I have questions also on signal prioritization and the master arm stuff. How does that sync up with the smart city's work? And if this isn't getting funded till FY28 and 29, according to page 7-7, does that mean that we can't really fully realize all the Smart Cities stuff? That's the MVTA TSP grip. I have to get back to your answer. I know it does connect with Smart Cities technology. Against the Smart City technology is not putting in the TSP. So we're getting the foundational equipment in that can then capitalize on the TSP. And we've had a VTTI coordinating with our staff on the TSP part in the MBTA. So it doesn't duplicate it, but it will capitalize or leverage it. But in all the, in case it doesn't touch smart cities, but with all the BRT discussions we've had, and whether our stretch of seven can be kind of like a nice interim BRT because we could put in this TSP stuff that talks to our buses. This will not happen to FY28 and 29. And that will work with the BRT work that we're doing with NVTC in terms of the timing for that. And we do have some TSP for intersections right now that are already TSP. So the NVTC, the smart city, the NVTA, and then also with Walmata because all of the buses are Walmata are being and capitalized. It's sequence so far to work. Okay. Page 7-11, that's improvements on South Washington. Is this also the, this is one of the federal grant, it's the ones that might be at risk? Yes, this is the Smart Scale funded project. The South Washington bus stop expansion. I know that Fairfax County is trying to get a study for Route 29 and so the request for staff is actually just connect with the Providence District and FC DOT on their project because they actually recently just had a pedestrian death along their stretch of Route 29 which I think spurred along increasing the prioritization of that. So obviously we connect on 29. So. just had a pedestrian death along their stretch of reach 29, which had spurred increasing the prioritization of that. So obviously we connect on 29. So as a touch. This project was based on a study that the route 29 neighborhood group and Virginia Tech performed. Yeah, they're just going to go from Graham all the way to Hollywood maybe? I remember correctly. OK. Sorry. I was up to Graham I think. Up to Graham, yeah. This project addresses South Washington on both sides, the Foes Church City side and the Fairfax County side, from Maple and Washington, thank you to Graham, to the city limits essentially. Okay. We already talked about G you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. of hours on it, that's what we, That's what we use this for. Okay. Okay. So it can kind of be like seed money to help develop the scope for future projects. Like those 10-year projects we were just talking about. Right. It should be like helping set this. Go ahead. I was just looking at Sally and thinking about something else that she and I had talked about and I know you all have talked about as well which is when applying for some of these grants including legal costs in the grant. So I don't know if that's something that gets worked in on these. We haven't historically done a whole lot of that but I know many of the grant are structured so that you can incorporate legal costs and whether that's working with transportation lawyers or whatever the case may be for some of these projects. So just want to put that out there too. That's a good suggestion. And then I also want to plus one the rooftop solars if we have the ability to fund that from year-end money from FY25. That would be a nice, small tangible thing we can do and help with some utility costs at a roller house. Any final thoughts on CIP? Thank you for the very big discussion. Thank you all. I don't know if we're on schedule but we're at 10 o'clock and we're 2.5 hours in. Do you all want to take a break before we get to a full housing fund? A restroom break? Okay. Cheese it, break. Or, well, no, we just kept eating cheese it, so it's fine. So, it's 9.58, we'll come back at 10.05. Yeah, we're going to go with it. Okay. What right? What? Right? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. All right, everybody knows I've unmuted and we're getting ready for FCC TV to come live off of break. I'm going to give her multi-year affordable housing plan. And maybe just a few thoughts on it. Multi-year planning is helpful right now because we have sort of the big, you know, the high profile things like the NHP Homeownership Program, the Acquisition Strike Fund for Virginia Village, both funded with grant dollars and their multiyear projects. In addition, we have the CCAU program for housing accessibility for people at 40% AMI. That's a multi-year program. And we're setting aside funds now, $350,000 for future affordable needs. So those are some of the reasons we're doing a multi-year planning and the affordable housing policy that we're working on also cost for all these things. The one thing I do wanna know just, just as a technical matter, the charter lays out that we do the CIP and it lays out the rules for how we do the CIP. There is no similar provision for multi-year planning for affordable housing in the city charter. One thing to remember is that when the council transfers money into the affordable housing fund, it stays there forever. But you have to reappropriate it every year. Unlike the CIP, if you appropriate something, that project has three years to get done. So you're going to see things that maybe you think you already appropriated money for for like the acquisition strike fund. In fact, you need to reappropriate money for that every year. That's just one technical difference to keep in mind as we go through the multi-year planning. Ms. Jenny, did you want to make any introductory comments? No, I don't. That was great. Dana, take it away. Thank you. Good evening. As I mentioned, I'll be brief. So as Wyatt it mentioned, we're really excited that we're doing long range planning for the affordable housing fund now. And so we're saying we're building balances to solve future problems. So you can go to the next slide. And as per the council revised financial policies, the long range planning will be years. It's concurrent with the CIP. It has big support from the Housing Commission, the Affordable Living Policy Group. This is something that we've been wanting to do for a while. And it's even an affordable living policy goal, 16. Go to the next chart. Okay. And so this kind of is a chart that talks about our funding programs and sources. So kind of and you'll see some of the things that Wyatt talked about. So the first one, our first program that is going to be that's in this plan is the City Committed Affordable Units to CCAU program that Wyatt talked about and I'm not going to go into details about the programs because I'm going to go talk about each one after we get through this chart. So the funding source on that one is the city transfer which is annual that's part of that $500,000 that council is doing annually so 150,000 for FY 26. So I had the 26 total and the 6 year total. And so at the end of the 6 years, that will be, I couldn't really think this through because I can't see it. 900,000, yes, for the 6 year total. And so for the Affordable Home Ownership Program and the Acquisition Strike Fund, which is Virginia Village, both of those were Amazon-reached grants. Thank you, Cindy. So the Affordable Home Ownership Program was a million, $750. And so, and we are using those funds now to make home purchases and so we will have to appropriate those every year as why it said so that's why it's on the six year total. Same for the acquisition strike fund we have Amazon funds which are $3,85, which will have to be appropriated each year and then we also have the HUD grant, the Don Byer grant, for $850,000. That's also on the six year. And then our next project is the housing nonprofit grants. And the two sources are CDBG, the Community Development Block Grant, which is $230,000. and that'll be a $440,000, six-year total, and then home, which is housing opportunities made equal, we will have $31,000 annually, and that will be $186,000 total. And then we have a housing needs assessment, which is gonna help us determine needs for homelessness and community needs in general, something we've been wanting for a long time. So we're planning on using $100,000 in FY26 and that will only be a one time cost. So we have that over on that six year total. And then for the housing preservation fund, that's the $350,000 is the city transfer. That's part of that $500,000 that we talked about. And at the six year total, after putting that $500,000 in every year, we'll have $2,100,000. And then we have our cash and Loo balance. That cash and Loo is coming from West End development. It's $228,412. You can see the six-year total on that $1,477. You can go to the next slide. Before we talk talk about each one of the projects, I just wanted to give you just some background. We use HUD AMIs to talk about all of our programs. And I think most of you are familiar with this. But they range from 30 to 50% AMI, which is considered low income. That would be $46,000 to $77,000. Moderate income is $51,000 to $80,000 AMI. That's $78,000 to $123,000. And then we have workforce income. And that is 81% AMI to 120% AMI. And that's 124,000 to 185,000. And those are all four person households. So they just look at all the incomes in Northern Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. Take the area median income. And that's where we get that from. And so just keep that in mind as we're going through all of those. Those are what all so I don't have to say what chief one is as we go through them. So going the first project is the city committed affordable unit program. That one is that serves the very low income that I talked about. And the way it works is we subsidize a portion of their rent very similar to the housing choice voucher program. Properties are located throughout the city. Two years ago, we had two units. Now we have 15. So in two years, we've expanded the program, and we have over 300 households on the wait list. So that's 50% of our wait list. We have 700 people on the wait list and 50% of them are at those lower incomes waiting for units. You can go to the next slide. The next program is the Affordable Home Ownership Program. This reduces purchases of homes by as much as 150,000 for households that are at 50%, which is that moderate up to workforce, which is 120%. Our nonprofit partner is the NHP Foundation, which does the purchasing and they do improvements up to $20,000. So far we've had 10 households in the city. So 10 homes in the city have been purchased by city residents. And we have 10 more by 2027. The goal is to have 20 homes purchased by city residents. So that is amazing because we haven't had home ownership opportunities in a really long time. We need to know more about that one, like on a regular basis. Okay, that's a big deal. We just sold one last week, is it about the fact? Yeah, yeah, congratulations. Thank you. So the next one is the acquisition strike fund. And with that program, I think you're familiar with that one, that is Virginia Village. The current balance is 4.6 million. It's funded by a variety of grants, Amazon Reach, and these were in that chart. We had ARPA funds that we have expended. HUD funds, which include the Don buyer funds, the EDA and capital reserves. All of those are part of this program. It's a revolving fund and what we're doing is purchasing, consolidating and eventually develop new construction. And it will include committed housing. And right now we have five quadruplexes which are owned by the EDA. And one is owned by Wesley Housing. And and is our intention as the city to purchase that unit. So it will be six that will be owned by the city. You can go to the next. So, what shall we get in the debris? So housing nonprofits in the city. There are three housing nonprofits in the city the city and so it was the housing commissions intention to fund those three housing non-profits and we get our HUD grant funds through Fairfax County. We are a sub recipient. they get their CDBG and home funds through HUD, and then we are a subrecipient to them. We allow them to expand their territory and get more funding. We have a public process to award the funds. The outcomes include providing rent to formally unhoused individuals and providing rent resettlement assistance to immigrant households, providing capital rehabilitation to keep rents affordable to seniors and disabled residents. And those nonprofits are home stretch welcoming Falls Church and the Falls Church housing corporation. You can go to the next slide. This end, so the next program on the our slide, I mean in the program the Board of Housing Fund is the Housing Preservation Fund. So Housing Preservation is in the plan as increasing by 3% every year. It's appropriated funds and cash and lieu contributions. And the goal is to preserve existing units and promote new development. And future projects will include preserving of committed affordable units, negotiating extension of covenants for ADUs like we did at the read building, and including funds into the acquisition strike fund that programs in transition. But once we determine what we're going to be doing, we're anticipating that we'll need funds from this fund for that. Okay, you can go to the next slide. So now we're going to switch gears and talk about other aspects from the HHS budget highlights, just some updates. So the next slide. So the first one is emergency financial assistance program. wanted just wanted to let you know. So this program provides emergency rent, utility, and food assistance. And we're really taking and keeping our eye on that. We've been getting increased uses. On average, we spend about $17,000 a year. And FY25, we had $6,850 originally. We've added 10,000 in the budget for 2026. So that'll be 16,850 total. But we still feel like the current needs are outpacing the program funding. Can you pause right there and talk about how much the needs are outpacing the program funding as you see it today? OK, so just around rough numbers. Yeah, we're in our third quarter right now, and we've spent over 80% of our budget so far. And we, like I said, usually we are done with the 6,850. We are seeing that we're anticipating that there may be some federal employees coming in. We had three last month and that's going to be on top of our regular clients that come in. So, we, you know, luckily we have some realigning of funds from our contracts and some understanding that we think will cover us to the end of June. We're not sure how many federal employees are going to come in. But we just want to be prepared in case and we're going to keep an eye on it because that was just month one It was pretty much the last two weeks of March and so listening to the presentation that we had today We just want to make sure that we have funds available and we'll let you know at the end of June where we are But we're anticipating that we'll be okay speaking for myself I'd like to know what you think your recommendations housing staff's recommendations on whether that never should be for FY26. And if we're not covering that in the budget, this is as a percentage of our overall budget, spending an additional 10,000 to make sure that people are fed and taken care of is a trade-off I'd like to see in her. Talk about it now, not wait till June or not wait till the next cycle. This jumped out at me is the biggest question to ask you. And I think we look to you to say what you're anticipated. You know, if it's going to be double given this, but you know, I'd like to know what that recommendation from you is on how we could meet the majority of needs that you would identify. That and the 700 families on waiting list, like those two things to me, like when we talk about if we spend $600,000 on parks or not just to pick on the parks, but on other topics, first and foremost, we should be making sure that people who live here can stay here and people who live here can afford to to thrive here. So I'd like to see that. Just taking I'll say our average real cost or about $17,000 a year, like a thing. And that's been the numbers have been creeping up since COVID. It used to be pre-COVID. We were spending about $5,000 every year on emergency funds. And it's kind of stayed up there. I don't really know what the federal workers. I mean, we've had the three, but it could be a lot. It could be a little we don't know. We're anticipating maybe 10. So that's what we're in. But if we had 10, that would be $30,000 for the next three months. That would be over our regular clients that come in. So each person would get about $1,000 of rental assistance and we have a nonprofit that matches that, that would give an additional $500. The three people that have come in so far have been over income for our regular programs, so we couldn't really assist them with rent. So we assisted them with utilities, because that still kind of, you know, decreases the household cost. So that was something that we could do. And we're removing that income requirement for the next three months, just to kind of meet this need. But that's what we estimated 10 people over the three months, $30,000 if each one got $1,000 up to $1,000 of the system. Plus one what Debbie said, I also think that the clients you're going to see are probably different and so it's good that we're being flexible in the program. Be different than what we traditionally get as clients coming through for the safety net services. So this is your food, your rent and emergency utility helps. But you know, if Medicaid goes away, what happens? Like, are we getting that out? Like, are we getting that out? Lots of meetings, I'm going to, they're worried about the Medicaid expansion, because those are the people that this would be, and that's the largest number. Yes, and they gave us some numbers during the COG presentation how many we had in fall search, but also like, they think they said, if it's as bad as it could get, it's a 10% employment rate. Like have we seen a 10% unemployment rate in fall search and what would the impact then be on the safety net benefits that people would need access to? Like we should probably contingency plan for that big number and be prepared for that so that we can have the conversations in the operating budget or capital budget like maybe. We shouldn't spend on these things because we need to take care of these basic needs. So it's good that we're starting to think that we need more than, or we need $10,000 more, but I worry that's still not enough. I think with our, like I said, with the realigning, we've had some contracts come in a bit less than we thought. So we think that will cover us, but we're gonna keep an eye on it. The other thing you talk about is food. I mean, I've come to several meetings where food banks, like the capillary of food bank has a 20% loss because of the EDA, you know, Act Department of Agriculture cuts their fresh food so and that's going to impact food for others. They get fresh food from the Department of Agriculture too and some of the people that come in need food. So we don't know how that's going to impact because we send them to the food bank when they come in or give them a gift card. Yeah, to purchase. Yeah, final time then I'll I also would encourage us to think about outreach a little differently. Besides posting, you know, here are the benefits we offer. I just don't think a lot of people in the population are impacted will think of coming to false church for help on those things. And so if we can think about ways to communicate that hey, we are here to support you for these things. Like if you need help with food or utility assistance, like I don't know how we do that, whether it's through the news press or other outbound communities. Actually, one of the people that came, I think Mary Beth, made the referral. So I think once, they and the other two saw it on the website. So I think pushing, we have a lot of information on the website for people that have had job lost and then also the resource fairs. The Don buyer resource fair. I think there's another one in May. They have another one next week. So I think they're trying that one's a George Mason. And so I think they're trying to get the information out that way as well. And certainly we can partner with Office of Communications with Mary Catherine. She's been a great resource so that could mean the partnership between Aged and Oak. Just saying and then Laura. For the emergency rent what are the income requirements or the requirements on that? So when I talked about about the income that usually people up to 60% of AMI are served in that program but we were removing that cap and they also have to look the way our program works now is you have to show it's a one-time emergency assistance so you have to show that you're going to be able to like say if it's rent we're only to pay rent this month. If you can show that you have a way to pay next month, that's how all emergency assistance programs work. Like if you call Fairfax County, if you call Community Services Counsel, who's our nonprofit partner, you have to show proof that you have either a job offer or social security benefits or some kind of benefits because otherwise it's like we're paying that, you know, that portion and then it's you know it's going to be a loss because you're not going to be able to stay there so so that's how it works and so you said that we are able to lift that yes okay because that's an internal policy we run we take all of our policy changes to the housing commission and then have them approve it. Okay. Yeah, I guess because it's something that I was based on that COG data. A lot of the federal workers are in the 100 plus thousand range. And so they wouldn't qualify for that. They wouldn't. But even if it's, I mean, because you know, I keep talking about the families that came, but one, both were federal workers. I mean, if you make 300,000, if half your income is gone, you still can't meet your cost. Your cost burden, like, severely at that point. So that's why we made the determination. Okay, I hope so. Okay. Yeah, mine was more of a comment. It might be interesting that B is our former plan. and move it, but looking at the school side of things, you know, the Education Foundation raises money for the same exact thing on the school side. So it might be interesting just to check in with them to see if they're seeing these sorts of increases as well. So that might be something also Dana for, I'm sure you knew that, but that's also something that another resource for our people, residents of school age children, that the Education Foundation has resources as well. There are over 350 students that are supported with food and holiday gift cards which are used for all kinds of family things. We also meet regularly with the social workers, Becca Sharp and Robin, Becca schools and they make referrals to us as well. I would just chime in to say I think the takeaway from all of us then is let's increase this number, which I also very much support and we'd rather do it than say, well, let's wait and see. Let's go ahead, knowing, kind of, anticipating what's on the horizon since it is so relatively small in relation to all of our other expenses. I agree. Okay. Next slide. Next slide. You cut out of your crew. I know. I'll say clear away. I Well, I can go ahead and start talking. Oh, OK. So the next one is the Affordable Dwelling Unit Program. That program is also a program that is, I forgot to say anyway. So with the Affordable Dwelling Unit Program, we have below market rate appointments and we have arranged. Like this year is the first year, we've had 40% ADUs and they go all the way up to 110%. We have units at Western, I'm Weston Broad in Washington that have units at that AMI. And we currently have 189 units total. I mean, that's what we will have by the end of FY26. And so we've had 99 new units added to the program. That's within the past two years. Broad and Washington, we have 33 units. The alder, we have 32 units. Madera, all's church, CEO is expected April May, and we'll have 34 units. So that is a lot of units. The largest number of new units that the city has had in a really long time. We have over 700 wait list applicants still even though we have you know our close to filling brought in Washington and the elder we still have 700 people on the wait list. And we have only served priority one and priority two. So that's seniors and persons with disabilities that live in the city and live or work in the city. And just to the light. So we have 17 units that have gone to schools, employees and 12 units that have gone to city employees. And then this project, let this program also includes annual tenant recertification on property managing. And you can go to the next slide. Of those 700 wait list applicants, do you know roughly how many of those are existing residents, student like disabled, priority one, priority two? I don't have the number right. Kaylene says it all the time. I don't know what the breakdown is. But we have a lot of people on priority two. I believe that would be our largest. And we're going, we haven't gotten to priority three yet. Priority three is no relationship to the city. So you don't live or work in the city. And there have been people on priority three for years. But even though we have all these units, word has gotten out that we have these units. A lot of people have come onto the wait list recently and they are still going to jump those folks that are in priority three that don't have any relationship to the city. So I would love to get a rough estimate of since Kayley and Ernie has it if you wouldn't and mine found out that that's on. Of those 700, roughly, what are priority one, two, and three. So that. to the city. So I would love to get a rough estimate since Kaylee and Ernie has it if you wouldn't mind following up with us on of those 700 roughly what are priority one two and three so that gives us an idea of how many are in the disability fact, you know, case so when we're looking at future aid use do we focus on providing more that our ADA compliant or you know it helps us form the policy moving forward. Thank you. And Kaylene did say that because we are doubling our affordable housing stock, she actually is calling people on priority three now, which we haven't been able to do to date. So that was good news because as we talk about diversifying the city, you have to welcome people outside this. You do come live in here. But we also have the weekend really jump though, the wait list though. but I think mainly the priority three people that she's been calling are those units at Broad and Washington that are the 80% studios. So we have been going through that list trying to offer those units and so we're trying to come up with a solution to those units that are the studios that are at 80%. You can go to the next next slide. If you were going to see it on a fairly living mean... Right, she was not necessarily already here. Sorry. So the Affordable Living Policy Update is taking place right now. Expected adoption August 2025 and it outlines affordable housing goals, strategies and action plan. It's now part of the comprehensive plan. It's an amendment and we also have a new affordable housing dashboard which will be the monitoring for this plan. So you'll be able to see in real time every year what we're doing. So we're excited about that. There are 18 goals attached to it. So That is going to be pretty intensive to make sure that we meet all those goals. And my last slide is just talking about the unmet needs for FY26. And so I just wanted to talk about staffing for a second because we have a lot of work to be done and not a lot of staff to do it. So within our human services staff, we have two human services employees for all city residents and they are providing emergency assistant, case management, health services. And within that, we see about 88 clients a month, four clients a day, each client an average of about three hours per interaction Like I said pre pandemic it was about 50 clients a month so it you know has steadily increased and hasn't gone down 60% of those are emergency services 30% is case management and mental health And then the other 10% is health. And then as far as housing, we have two general housing FTEs for all city residents. And I say general because, you know, at Fairfax County in Arlington, they have housing staff that are doing a specific function, but our housing staff are doing everything. So these 9980Us, it's a lot of work. We have to prepare the covenant, the first draft of the covenant, once something a development comes online, we have to manage the wait list. People call every day, we have to call them, we have to send notice. And then we have to determine eligibility after they get off the wait list, and then they fill their second application out. We have annual re-certifications because leases are up every year. We have to check income, make sure they're still eligible. We have to monitor the projects and make sure that the projects are doing things the right way, keeping case files not putting market rate people into ADU units. And then we have this Housing Dashboard that we are gonna have to work. And then as I mentioned, the ALP has 18 goals to be completed within the next five years. And then as far as home ownership, every time we sell a house, we have to do a covenant for that house. We have to review the loan docs, we have to meet with the lender. So just putting all of this out there so you have an idea of what our needs are. So my ask in the budget is an unmet need. I know we are not funding staff, but we would like a HHS coordinator position. That would be about $70,000 with benefits and everything and a behavioral specialist for $107,000 and that would assist with the case work and mental health needs and the coordinator would assist housing and human services with a lot of the administrative work and also meeting with clients outreach that kind of thing. That's everything I have any questions. Questions or comments for Dana? Thank you for the update on it. I think longer term, you're not for this budget cycle, but it also be interesting to know how our mental health services contracts through Fairfax County, whether it's mental health, case management, et cetera how we intersect and you know, are we getting as much as we can out of those relationships thinking like how if we can't add staff this year, how do we use those resources as best as possible? Are we getting everything that we've contracted for? Did you, Sally had you say that right? that right? No, that Sally always brings it up. And it's a matter of fact. I have worked with the social workers for 11 years and talked to them about what services and how we worked with specifically, you know, mental health inpatient placement for our students who are in crisis. Um, and I know there are challenges and opportunities there. So we, um, we have a meeting as funny you said that because of meeting with schools to talk about the CSB and are we getting what we need and then we also have a meeting with PD actually next week with the police department. Dr. Bracey is going to be there, less than to talk about the crisis intervention services that we are supposed to be getting and are we getting everything that we need and then we have a meeting set up with the CSB director and this was Sally suggestion last year and so I think it was a good one and so yeah you're right we want to make sure that we're getting what we paid for and I'm doing that with all our contracts with Fairfax County. That's great because because I just required meetings with all the directors and that kind of thing. We see the dollar amount, but we don't necessarily see. And this might be the first time I've heard how many clients you're seeing a day now versus pre-pandemic. That was really interesting to me. And it also would be interesting to see how, what is that million dollars with Fairfax County CSB? What is that delivered for our residents? And are we, you know, accessing as much as we can? Well, I know they are having cuts with services and that kind of they are anticipating that with their budgets. So they keep telling us that to anticipate that. So I'm hoping that doesn't mean they're going to get less services. But but you know, it's kind of We don't know but they're anticipating impacts to their budgets and staff Is that one of the IJ contracts? Why it that we need to look at or is it? So we'll be looking We're gonna be spending most of our time on the Arlington County contracts and what we're referring to here is Fairfax County contracts So we weren't planning to spend a whole lot of time on the Fairfax County contracts But we can if the council has questions about that more that sounds like we're still going to get Charge a million dollars and probably get less services Well, I mean we don't know they're kind of the same boat as us. They're anticipating that they're going to have some cuts eventually but they're waiting to see what's going to happen some cuts eventually, but they're waiting to see what's going to happen. So I am meeting with the director after the meetings with the schools and PD, and so we'll be talking about all those things. Yeah. Yeah, I just think as all of these data collection systems are improving and processes are improving that that would be great data to be able to see, you know, how many people are of our population, how many people are needing these services, are we overstabbed? The presumption is not that we're, you know, over staffing that we're clearly not as resource, but, you know, I would just like to have some of that data. If you look in your budget packet under public, I believe it's public services. It has the breakdown of how many people are being served by our Fairfax County contracts. It's under the Human Services tab. I think it's called public services in the budget book. And they're required to give us the numbers of how many people in the city are served every year. And what's in breakdown by services. And so you can look in your budget book. I'll be there. Thank you. Sorry I missed that. Comments, right? Erin? Thank you for all this information. I know I've mentioned in the past. I'm looking at those ADUs that are coming up to sunset in the next few years. I had mentioned to Kaylene maybe during the last last year's housing report when we were talking about some of these ADUs, you know, was there any consideration, not to alarm current residents, but in reaching out to residents who might be a Pearson square, for example, and saying like these units are coming up or do you want to be on a wait list for something that may come up in of this 99 so that you have you know continuing ADU given the inability to guarantee what might happen in fiscal year 2027. So again wanted to just reiterate that request about you know just trying to have some of those conversations understanding that they're sensitive because people are members of communities, and also thinking about, you know, when we're looking at the affordable housing fund, you know, if the city didn't wanna lose those 15 and wasn't able to renegotiate something with Pearson Square, for example, what timeline should we be on to look at how could we potentially expand something like the CCAU program? Because I thought that Pearson Square AMIs were something at 60%. Yeah, those are at 60, so they wouldn't be at 60%. So, yes, so if there's something we could do or some sort of policy or where we look at where we look at what would, what would, you know, moving those ADU so to speak to, um, 455, 10 or hill or to Northgate, like, what would that look like if we had to potentially try to rehouse or subsidize it a CCAU level so that we don't lose families who are in those ADUs where they to sunset. So I just given that that's a fiscal year 2027 date. You know I want us to be thinking about that now in terms of possible uses of the affordable housing fund and what those costs might be so that we're positioned you know, in two years to make a decision on that or next year to make a decision on that, knowing that people are gonna need to plan and we can't just like suddenly have market rate, housing costs on them. Definitely. So that was, I think that was all I had, but thank you. Thank you. Other thoughts, questions? OK, I have two. So can we go to the slide on the housing preservation, either the one that shows all the different buckets of money or the three things? I mean, so the three things under preservation is the fields, Pearson, and then Virginia Village, right? That's how it gets a preservation. So I had a similar question to Aaron, not necessarily how we're going to solve it, but for each of those, we need to know how much we need and when we know how much we need to preserve them. And for Pearson in particular, there's probably a bunch of different options. We can negotiate with the owner. could just move them elsewhere and subsidize kind of like a CCAU like I don't know what all the different options are, but sooner than later, we need to talk about how much that's gonna cost. Yeah. And is the housing preservation fund enough to do all three things or how would we prioritize those three areas? So not something we need to use tonight, but I think since we are now doing more long range planning for affordable housing, I think that's an important conversation to target that preservation item in particular. And so we're talking about options. The second thing is that we haven't talked about our unhoused population and that's a growing need. I think just anecdotally we see that there's more people I think in the point in time survey that COG does I think we're seeing increase on house population across the DC area So we need to Do something about that. I don't know what that is I'm sure that Lezzlin and team probably deal with increased cases there too. Yes, they in Dr. Bracy's also worked with her as far as the case management piece. And they, you know, they addressed that it is taking, I mean, those three hours per person, those, you know, those take a lot more time. But we are working them. But yes, we have seen an increase. I had things escalated to me last. During the warm months when we don't have our hypothermia shelters, as the weather warms up again, I'm anticipating that you're going to have more interactions in the community. And people are going to escalate to the police, are going to escalate to HHS. I don't think we want to criminalize being unhoused. But when we get complaints about what they do when they're in parks or in front of homes, and it's a really difficult situation to solve. And our local post office now is locked at night because of a unhoused person, you know. And so we are sure to fill those impacts and just how can we support that population? Yes, I don't know whether it's a people having fun kind of discussion, but somewhere we should talk about that sometime. Well, we have a survey. We have a group in the city and PDs a part of it because they have an outreach officer. And so they go out together him and Leslan and work with people. And so I mean, we had an incident last year where there was a large concentration. spoke to folks that were affected and the businesses and residents and we were able to kind of mitigate that situation, but I mean it's the type of thing you don't know and Leslie Talks to a lot as a matter of fact she has offered three Homeless residents housing this year that were eligible to receive housing the housing was on the table from Fairfax County And they they didn't want it. I mean, you can't make somebody go into the housing. You can only present the options. So that happens a lot as well. So, but yeah, but we are working on that. I think the good news, bad news about having more parks and places for people to aggregate and congregate is that as those more months are coming there, folks are spending the nights in our parks which is an ideal for them or for the residents. So I agree and the needs assessment. And that's one of the things that the needs assessment will find out. serving on the Arlington Community Justice Board. This is a... And that's one of the things that the needs assessment will find out. You know, serving on the Arlington Community Justice Board. This is not surprisingly a huge regional thing and they are criminalized in Arlington County. So if you go to the bathroom outside because there are no public bathrooms, you could be arrested and then you go through jail and then it's a cycle and you're released and you still don't have any place to be. There's recidivism and this is one of the main topics of conversation with the CCJP right now. And it's thorny. Okay. Any final questions, thoughts for Dana? Last one that I meant to ask earlier. the needs assessment, how does that relate to the affordable living policy? So we're going to see the policy come back to us and I thought that part of the policy was a needs assessment or planning for needs. And so timing wise, how does this needs assessment and fiscal year 26 factor into the policy that we're adopting? Well, this is a recommendation of the policy. The needs assessment is one of the recommendations. So that's why we have it in here. Okay. It was originally called a homeless needs assessment, and so we're expanding it to make it a community needs assessment. But we're trying to get a handle on that, is there an actual expansion of homelessness by how much, like, and how is it affecting us? Because we have homeless that come here from Fairfax County and other places. And so the shelter actually is the one who asked us originally for this needs assessment. And they going to participate so that's why we have it in here. So this is heavily geared towards an unhoused needs assessment. And it was talked about with the ULI tap, Gourmet Road, you know, whether we're doing that, whether we're doing what we have building it out, is there enough need to build more beds? Is there a need for a day shelter that kind of thing, you know? It's the chicken to the egg Got it. Okay Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you with E to A. Before we get to solid waste, we're inserting or continuing. Sorry, that's not the Jesus. I know that's only crumbs. Oh, okay. Thank you. You can go home. You really do. I don't know what I'm going right. Okay. So just as a quick introduction for this. So with the Virginia Village acquisition strike fund, the City Council put in 1.9 million from Capper's serves and the EDA put in a 925,000 dollars of its funds. The source of the EDA's money historically is that came from the drive from the proceeds of the Pedalinic property which was sold in 2015, 2016, for the Harris-Teter building. I've provided a memo to council that lays out some options for the council's consideration on treating that $925,000 for the EDA, returning it to them, either in chunks, all at once, or not at all, and variations on the theme. And tonight, the chair of the EDA wanted to describe for the City Council, I believe, if the funds were returned to the EDA, what the EDA would intend to do with those funds. And so that was the purpose of tonight's briefing. And like a whole lead up and just took the air right out of it. Well, you're going to talk about what you're going to use it for, which is the excess. Five minutes, probably. Five minutes. Yeah, actually that's why I prepared remarks to just keep some guardrails in this presentation. only have two slides by the way and this is the first one. So that's right, yeah, it's prepared, you guys. Oh, I don't know where the third one is. Anyway, thank you. have two slides by the way and this is the first one. So that's right. Yeah, it's for a period. Oh, I don't know where the third one is. Anyway, thank you guys for your patience. I think I was supposed to be here a few weeks ago but I had an impromptu vacation for a week in a Nova's intensive care unit so glad to be out and I will say truly, it's good to see all you guys. I'm not sure I would have said that before. I have experience. I'm just kidding. So, as wide as Mitch, I think last month, he circulated a memo about Virginia Village and the funds. But let me start by saying that the EDA has been very proud of the collaborative partnership that we have the city and staff housing in the endeavor to preserve affordable housing in Virginia Village over the last four years. And I think as most folks here are well aware, the partnership that we had with Wesley Housing in that pursuit, who played a central role, you know, that relationship has dissolved, resulting, I think, in kind of a reorientation and a rethinking of how we pursue that affordable housing development at Virginia Village or if at all. And the EDA is continued to remain committed to assisting the city and staff with that development. And you'll see that in part of our 2025 work plan. So in the past is why to mention a major source of our participation in the Virginia Village Endeavor, with contributing a little under a million dollars in the EDA funds to acquire additional properties in an effort to promote the broader assemblage of what had been envisioned. And it was always intended, at least in the EDA's mind that that money would be returned in some way. And I think that was initially, not I think, I know it was initially contemplated through the refinance of the loans associated with the project that would in turn recapitalize and and refund that money to the EDA and Without that $925,000 or some portion of it the EDA is really left with very little funding of a little under I'd say about a hundred and thirty thousand dollars some of that which has already been committed as part of our 2020 Void work plan and then of course the meager transit occupancy tax that we receive on an annual basis. So given the current circumstances surrounding our collected plans for Virginia Village and the fact that we're now in need of funds for our 2025 work plan, we've raised the question again with why it is to how we can secure reimbursement for those funds. And as why I did mention, you know, there's several different reimbursement options, all with various merits. And while past opinion with the EDA may have been to just ask or demand for that money back and one fell swoop from budget. Sir, plus, or CalPRO reserves, I as well as the EDA feel that such a demand is unnecessary given the circumstances. Our preferred option out of the three that were outlined in that memo, which we feel is fair and tenable for all parties involved, is to do the following as it relates to the $925,000 contributed by the EDA. One, transfer to the EDA, the remaining $400,000 in unused percolate CIP funds that went unspent by the city. And as you recall, the EDA had worked with Andy and city staff to develop three separate percolates, the final percolate, which is in the alley of South Washington, which has been put on hold indefinitely. And then the remaining balance of that $525,000 would, that remains in the acquisition, I'm sorry, the remaining $525,000, the balance of that would remain in the acquisition strike fund. And truthfully, the reason being the EDA just does not have a place to spend that money. And so as opposed to asking to perform some financial gymnastics and make some unnecessary decisions, it doesn't make sense for us to demand that money back at this time. But in order to solve for our planning and revenue stream, which is always nice when you're putting a budget together, we have asked for a return on those funds to structure it effectively as a loan with what are we consider a mutually beneficial interest rate, which I think why it is proposed, which is I think a hundred basis points over Consumer price index, which is fair. Basically that results in about $25,000 per year in revenue. So effectively treating the $525,000 that would remain in the strike fund as a loan to the city and just asking for a nominal amount of interest in return, which again will help us from a planning perspective. And so while the EDA feels it is justified in this request, nonetheless, we still felt that it would be beneficial to council to see for you to see where we plan on deploying those funds to the benefit of the city and business community. There is a plan to spend that money. So, Cindy, one of the final slide of this presentation. Thank you very much. One thing that you will see here in contrast to past years, our EDA will be refocused on delivering economic value to our city through a thing more tactical endeavors. We have spent a considerable amount of time as an EDA and EDA over the last decade focused on big projects. But I think it's both, it's time both in terms of real estate market cycles and business life cycle that the EDA focuses on delivering initiatives that drive economic impact to our existing businesses, the number of which has grown substantially over the last 10 years. And additionally, I think it's more important now than ever that we do everything that we can to immerse ourselves in every possible effort to drive sales and growth in businesses, for all the businesses in the community, not just street level. And what you'll see here in our 2025 work plan, I have asked all of our EDA members to own and champion specific areas of our work plan as opposed to it being this kind of large nebulous ownership across the EDA and to work with staff so we can leverage our collective efforts to drive, I'd say, as much maximal effort are said outcome as possible. And so while this is not a formal year in review presentation or a work plan presentation to the council, I'm still happy to answer questions. But first and foremost, as Chair of the EDA and on behalf of our members, I am respectfully requesting that you honor our collaborative partnership by committing to recapitalize the EDA's funds, which it gladly contributed in years past to advance a council, city, and committee initiative when we look forward to continuing that collaborative partnership going forward. So thank you. Thank you. We have questions and comments for us. And just one thought for the council's consideration is that I think it would be an opportunity to resolve this with the budget Approvals on May 12th if the council are ready to do so I just want to say Mr. Lignan, thank you for the partnership that the EDA has had with the City Council on this It has been thorny. It was another word I heard. It has been quite an odyssey and I appreciate what the EDA has put into it as well. Thanks for taking it. A lot of brains, a lot of thought, a lot of cooperation and collaboration. I appreciate that. Thank you. We're not done. No, no. Can you just, oh, sorry. So the 440 roughly would be, this is all intended to be spent in 2025 and then the 23, 25, whatever the income annual income would be the following to these. Yeah, I would say that this is where we're looking at allocating money for 25 But I think some of these projects are going to last beyond 25 and then the ongoing revenue. There are special projects that come up things that request that come in some cases from council members that the EDA takes on. But outside of a very meager amount of transit occupancy tax that we get each year, which we effectively build up a reserve. We don't have really any meaningful revenue coming in, we can continue to build future budgets on. Right. Yeah, I just wanted for everybody's clarification. I'm understanding what we're doing. Yeah, we spent a lot of our 40 and then you only have $25,000. After that is like a big gap in that. So spreading it over a couple of years or. It's going to take some time to build up a reserve until and unless you know the council decides to reimburse the EDA for some of the additional funds that have been committed. But again, these larger projects I think will take a few years and we'll build a budget with the money that we have. It's just the way that it works and we'll do the best we can. Thank you. Thank you and thanks for kind of giving some concrete suggestions or insight into what it is that you would do with the money. I think obviously in light of the budget, a lot of these things are supportive of businesses. But my hope is that with the money, you're also nimble just like during COVID relief, we're going to have businesses that are heavily affected by whatever economic recession that we're going into. The area generally has been more recession proof in the past because you've had a better federal government support further region during recessions and that's not gonna be true going forward. And so just thinking about whether it's bringing back things like the YIFT program, like I don't know the returns on that and those sorts of things, but you know, thinking kind of what the COVID era relief looked like and whether this funding can go towards those efforts over the next, you know, a couple of years because the money will be more in your budget than it is in the city budget. And I think that that's a fair point. We're obviously planning based on the information that we have and the information that we had at the beginning of the year, but things continue to evolve and change. But I know that collectively the EDA members are always open to reallocating money, even within our work plan to solve for some of those, what I would consider kind of crisis issues. And so while this is the plan things do change and if there are alignment and interest and things that we need to do to help support our businesses because of what I would have called a black swan event but now seems to be a daily recurrence then we would certainly do that. questions? Am I hearing general consensus with the reimbursement proposal that White shared? Yes, I would support it. I'm in support of option three, I believe it was, that you're describing. I'm also going to give you any money. What's that? No, option three is the money. The one you just described. Oh, the one you just described. Oh, my God, I'm absolutely losing. I don't know what number it was in his memo, but I certainly hope it wasn't give us no money. Yeah. Okay. Let me be clear. I don't know what number it was in his memo, but I certainly hope it wasn't give us no money. Yeah. Okay. Let me be clear. I support what you just presented. Does the May time frame work with EDA planning purposes? Like if we don't get to it till... That's fine. We expected that, which is the reason that I wanted to get in here before the entire budget was baked. Yep. The other... I had mentioned the May 12 budget vote. It could also be done in the last budget amendment and that would actually make the money of it about a month faster. So that's maybe actually a better way to do it. Because it wouldn't go in fact until the fiscal year of July 1st though. If we did it with the budget vote. If you did it with the budget on May 12th it would be July 1 if you do it with a budget on May 12th would be July 1 if you do with Budget amendment would be soon as you adopt the budget amendment May is a kind of what you expect it'd be great. Okay, so if we get have staff figure it out that'd be great Thank you all for your time. Appreciate it. Thanks for being patient with us and coming at the end Except we are not quite at the end Okay, anything else on this one before we move to solid waste? Well, she's weird, it was a little bit over here. You guys won't be here. Good, I'm much better. Only he doesn't have a microphone. Only he don't have a microphone. That's fair. Okay, so we have solid waste fee concepts and we have Lonnie Marquetti, our solid waste coordinator on the phone. Lonnie does a great job every day taking care of our customers who receive curbside service and the entire city with all of our solid waste programs that she does a great job with that. We do have Andy here at the table and he's been working with the team to sort of update the presentation that the council got in October. I didn't get some comments before this meeting from some council member saying you know it is a long presentation and it does have information the council has seen before and if there is a desire to sort of get to certain slides just to have a discussion about those we could sort of cut to the chase if that is the desire and it is late at night. I did start this meeting off saying that we have staff has some concerns about implementing this in time for the coming fiscal year. We can talk about that. Another treasurer's on the call as well. She's dialing in from a conference out of town. And she's been trying to think this through just from the administrative ability of the bill. We would need to prepare an ordinance change that we have not begun drafting on. There's a couple of the things that we would need to do. But maybe I'll just keep making any of those sort of comments after the presentation. Maybe Andy and Lonnie, like if we were, what is the council's desire to kind of go through the full presentation which we could do or to, are there certain points where to get to. I did compare the two decks from what we looked at in October versus now. There are a few numbers that are different and I think it's mostly because we took out the leaf collection and so the numbers look a little different and we refined a few other numbers in there but so I don't personally need to go through the whole deck again. I guess for me what's changed from October is I remember leaving the October October work session, I think Laura, you were then is that we were kind of like split we're like hey, we want to do something But we couldn't quite figure out what to do since October every time we've talked about solid waste and composting You've had various members of council say hey, we really need to solve this And it felt very unsatisfactory to just leave it out there as a hanging issue And for some of us for 10 plus years, right? And so this felt like an important time to bring it up again to figure out whether it's feasible. Obviously, operationally, we want to make sure it's feasible, but this has been long discussed, I think, by many members of the community and certainly people who have been here longer than I have probably have heard the public comment. In my opinion, this inequity issue only gets worse. As we add more multifamily and more condos to our housing stock, I think this problem gets harder to solve each year. So I just want to keep that in mind. So my preference is probably not go this whole thing. Maybe pull out the new things for staff to point out to us. And then we can talk through those options and operationally whether we can do it or not. How does that sound? OK. those options and operationally whether we can do it or not. How does that sound? Okay. So maybe- Did you want to start? Sorry. Yeah, no. Why? Maybe let's start if it's okay on slide five. So we'll skip over the first couple slides you all have seen. This is the one that was different when I compared it with October to now. The October one had 1.1 million because it had 250,000 for the LEAF removal service, which frankly is mainly a single family in town home offering, but I could see why you want to pull that out, but maybe you guys should talk about why that's different. One, what this stands for is we're using our contracted costs with ADS. So the costs that are directly related to the curbside service. We, that's what we were trying to do. So let's get right at the cost associated with curbside service. The, any other cost is going to involve staff and in truth, the staff served the entire city. And so Lonnie and her service, she serves commercial property owners with recycling programs, the recycling program, you know, all the things that we do. And so this is going to focus right in on that curbside service. That's the rationale. Got it. So it's $950,000 baked into the tax rate now. That is, if I remember the presentation later about roughly a penny and a half. That's correct. So yeah, if you jump to slide seven. So, you know, this is kind of straight up $310, you know, kind of annual fee per customer. This is kind of what would break down kind of the net impact for various different property values in the city. One thing that I thought was not here and I had to reference the five year outlook is what our total housing stock is. So we have 7,000 total housing units, 3,000 of them get curbside, the other 4,600 are multifamily and don't get curbside. That is our, according to the five year outlook, that's our 20, 25 housing stock. I think that's helpful information. People to keep in mind is that right now that 950,000 is spread across 7,000 households. In this model, if we move to a fee, you would only divide it by the 3,000 households that get the service. That helps set the stage, I think, for what the amount of problem is. And I think you could say, you know, the 950,000 that spread out over the entire tax space. And so every, if someone comes in and buys a cup of coffee at Starbucks and plays the meals taxes, they're covering a portion of that $950,000. I mean, because in truth, it's covered by all tax revenues. But your math, you know, does track as well. The reason there's the difference between the fee, the tax reduction and the fee is because of there's a large body of people paying the tax and a smaller group of people will be paying the fee. So I obviously this chart bothers me and you know the people with the lowest property value are going to have the have that impact. You know and speaking of someone who has a big family and has a bigger house, I mean, is there any way to, I don't know how you could do it, but I don't know if it's a percentage or something, but to me, that just bothers me. Could we go back to the cost of solid waste? Because I thought about that too. Which is why I think there's that variable pay as you throw. Because that would be a more equitable way that if you make that. Frankly, I would be happy for our household to pay more of our share to help cover people who are on the lower end of that property value chart. That pie chart of the cost of breakdown of the 950. So if I remember correctly, it was 60 some percent, 64 percent, is the actual service of going door to door to door to pick up your trash? Like the actual amount of trash is the tipping fees, right? So the cost involved in providing that service is waste management or ADS. Remember we used coming by each building or each housing unit and providing that service versus the actual amount of trash that I'm creating in my household. So that made me feel a little better that like it's not necessarily that I'm a household of five and I probably have more trash than someone who's, you know, an empty nester. Because that's the same amount of work whether you're going to an empty nester's house versus a household of five. And that's what's reflected in the cost. You know, two thirds of the cost is that actual service versus the amount of trash that household generates. So if you jumped to slide 10. So to so this was kind of a scenario that the team came up with to reflect a variable rate that if you had two bin options for households in the cities to pick from, like what the fee might look like. And the fees aren't that as dramatically different as you might think for the reasons the mayor is talking about, like a lot of your costs is fixed, whether you show up to the house, whether there's a 35-gallon bin or a 65-gallon bin there. So you can debate, it can be a lot of your costs is fixed whether you show up to the house, whether there's a 35 gallon bin or a 65 gallon bin there. So you can debate, you know, it can be a policy decision on how you want to make those reads different. There's analysis and you got to predict how many people are going to pick each one to be able to cover the total cost of the program, which is makes kind of doing a model like this tricky, but that's some of the discussion staffs had on how we could potentially structure something like this and it gets it I think the mayor's point about you know a lot of this is the fixed cost of just showing up and for at your kind of curb of your individual home. Yeah. Something that makes this chart look particularly regressive is the fact that anytime we do a tax cut It has a bigger there's a bigger tax cut for the homes that pay more in property taxes And so that sort of like any tax cut we do is going to Is going to have or property tax cut that we do is going to have that effect. No, I not understand that, but I'm just, those high obviously those more expensive houses can afford to pay more, you know, and I don't understand, I'm making assumptions, but I understand that point, it's still bothers you a little bit that. Yeah, I think I've struggled with this for the same reason that Laura is articulating. And that's the sort of we think about tax and tax policy is sort of redistributive. And so when you then say, well, we're going to remove this service and there may be reasonable justifiable reasons, right, for doing so, that you do see that net impact and it looks so stark on those households that are much more, you know, below the median household value. And so that's where I'm struggling with it as well. You know, also recognizing that the variable fee isn't really, may not be justifiable in terms of staff resources for the size of the city. And also the like the bins, you know, I don't necessarily like we don't produce a lot of trash. We use the composting system a lot. And it's like, but I don't necessarily need a 35 gallon bin. That seems wasteful to me. I'd rather put my one trash bag in a 65 gallon bin and not produce more plastic to get a new 35 gallon bin. So I also just don't want to like have to replace everyone's bins to get to some proxy. So I don't know if there's a way, and I don't know if other proxies are better. If there's a way to do something based on like square footage of a house that makes a variable rate. Or if there's some way that you institute as we seemingly are authorized to do a reduction or deferral or an exemption so that if you do have such a stark net impact on property values that are that much lower than a median income, that people have some relief for way to seek relief when you're suddenly adding a $250 fee in three months that they've never anticipated and may not understand why is this even showing up on my tax bill when we haven't been having the conversation even though we reasonably have had condo owners coming to us raising this concern and for the condo owners, you know, I do want to say I appreciate the concern that they're raising I think more recently there's been some more statements about you know being doubly charged for things and I don't't think it's doubly charged for things, I think, as the city manager was saying that you're talking about the entirety of the tax base, paying into kind of something that the community realizes of benefit from writ large. But that being said, yeah, if you are a $400,000 condo, like $60 of your overall taxes is going toward residential curbside trash pickup or $120 of your overall taxes you're paying if you're an $800,000 condo or going towards curbside pickup. And so I think, you know, I want to have a better sense of, you know, if we were to move to a fee-based system, like what does that look like? What does enforcement of that look like? What are the questions we're going to get from people about that? And also, I think it raises questions about what we're doing with the composting at all. I think that seemingly it's been taken off for fiscal year 26. But I do think that it would be hard to then introduce the third been and charge a mandatory fee for composting. Like I don't know that we could legitimately do that as opposed to keeping it a subsidized program if we decide to continue with a subsidized program like reducing, like moving to a fee-based system and its entirety. Wait, did we say we can't add a third bin somewhere? I thought that you had introduced this year's budget not including a third bin. That's correct. If we went with a fee kind of and everything is back on the table again, but it is not in the budget as presented. Yeah, I mean my point for a in a fee-based system, I think it's very difficult to impose a mandatory fee. Then solely on curbside people saying you have to pay a fee for composting when we then don't require buildings to have composting. So it's its own issue of like assessing costs that people could question whether they should have to bear if their mandatory costs imposed on them by the city. So like I think it's a isn't it just like would be a bundled solid waste fee and we offer trash recycling and compost. You don't have to compose if you want, but as a flat fee for everybody, $332 if you get the solid waste service from the city. You don't have to take the third bin if you don't want. I hear in Arlington since they moved to a year ago, it's been very popular compared to their opt-in program when they piloted it. Should we go to the composting slide just to talk about it. Dave, can you have a hand up? I do. I've noticed from the staff we're in absence of data on another alternative, which is to include the pickup once a week as we have for single family home. another alternative which is to include the pickup once a week. As we have for single family homes once a week for condos and then once a week for all multi family housing. So for me to make a decision here, I need more data and I need that other option fleshed out in as much detail as we fleshed out this option. And I haven't seen that so far. So I make that request again. Oh, I should also add that I requested an additional option or at least information on an additional option that may be somewhere in the middle of that so that the city wouldn't be. In the business of doing the pickup itself, but I was wondering, I know we can't do tax credits, but what, you know, a payment to affected buildings looks like if you take a penny and a half on the assessed value of the assessed value of that property and what the taxes paid are, what a penny and a half looks like and whether the city could essentially make a payment to an HOA to offset the cost of what the HOA is paying in the. So let me just say that I need that data and I think we should have that data is another option there are two ways to achieve equity the one way is to take services away from everybody and make everybody pay another way to achieve equity is bring other people into these basic services so I'd like to see that other option flushed out before we make a decision on this issue and it has not been so far flushed out by the city work city staff work. I think there are a couple slides on that so maybe we talk about what the compost one looks like and then we can get to those slides to answer Dave's question. I don't think they answer the question. I didn't see the data in them. That's why I'm raising it right now. Thanks. So maybe let's go ahead and jump to, and these are my old glasses. So I think it's slide 15. So Lonnie, I think you know this info best. Can you take a minute and walk through 15 and 16 for us? Talk about it. Of course. Sure. So again, this information is essentially the same back from October of last year. The information that Mr. Snyder is asking for, I believe he wants to see some type of a table breaking out the costs of, you know, size dumpsters, what the annual cost would be, and we can provide that. Again, this work was done back in the fall. So I have not reached out back to to American disposal to get accurate today pricing. What that said, this particular item, if we were to bring it in house, to, I guess, topics I would like to touch on is the first. City of Alexandria does offer services to quote-unquote commercial buildings, but they have it written out to where it essentially is just four units and lower. And no other locality offers just any type of commercial dumpster services just out of their general, I guess, city county services. But serving certain condo units, as I mentioned before, or as Mr. Shields had mentioned, we would have to amend the ordinance. This would essentially address, excuse me, equity concerns. And I would have to work with property owners or property management groups, HOAs, to kind of build a specific type of level of service that is essentially within our power and that would obviously meet the building. The challenges in that same token would be, we are very limited to what we can essentially provide just based off of our contract. As I mentioned before, this is not in our contract and it is essentially it would have to be in a amendment. There would obviously be a cost increase. And as I mentioned back in the fall, there are three buildings, Falls Plaza, Madison and Park Plaza, or Park Towers, excuse me, that fall within the 100% residential buildings. Condos with mixed use, they're total of six. And apartments, 12 plus the 13, and then you have all the commercial properties that would also fall into this. Next slide please. This line essentially gives us a overview of what each building could potentially cost us annually. Each building can range, again, level of service, what they're currently providing their residents in the building, frequency, et cetera, can cost anywhere between $50 to $40,000 per building. Dumpster sizes that are within our contract are four and eight yard dumpsters. And again, we break down the eligibility. Do we want to only service just owner-based condos of no commercial at all? Or do we want to add in mixed use condo buildings as well? As I mentioned, the mixed use buildings are going to be a little bit harder to manage, mainly because of the fact that you have one dumpster or a dumpster area that services that building. So it's going to be hard to figure out what refuse is coming out of commercial buildings and what refuse is coming out of residential. So I think as we talked, we talked about this over the last week, I mean, for those three buildings, we come up with a number of 15 grand, 20 to 20 grand a piece, you know, a lot of you get kind of more accurate numbers, but that's the kind of money we're talking about. I think the challenges we've talked through, this is every situation is different. I think some way we made a reference earlier. Well, we'll just offer one pickup a week for everybody. Well, way a lot of these buildings are laid out, like, there's sort of size dumpsters that can't wait and just get trash picked up twice a week or once a week. so they need to be picked up more often. And then some include some services for the residents that we don't provide to the city and some adults and every one of them is different to the service. You know, also a little bit open to door to other challenges and, you know, we'll do these three buildings and then what happens when the next building owner comes in as well. If you're doing it for them, you're on the risk of the line continuing to move and getting more complicated. And I think that's where we've got hung up on it. So let me just follow up. I appreciate that, but there are also complications to moving with fee-based service, a lot of complications. So, just the unfairness of moving to the kind of fees that you're talking about. So I do want this data, I think it's a central so that we can really make an education and an educated decision on which of these options we're gonna go to if any. Can I do that out of all the jurisdictions that aren't fee to Alexandria that might offer someone to select service to their multi-family buildings? I think what I said for buildings with four or a few units. So nobody else in the redness of hauling trash from their condos or next-use buildings, is that right? Yeah, I mean, there are no models that we can point to, if anybody else that would be doing this, and some of the conversations we were having about it this a year ago, to explore that line of service, we need a lot of time to do that and a lot of effort to do that. So I think that's one of those things where it would be good to have a vote of council to direct us to study expanding into that market before we spend any time. So you're saying, so why you're saying that an individual council member doesn't have the right to ask you for data so that fundamental decisions can be made that are going to affect all of our decisions about options and have them move forward. Is that what you're saying? Yes, it is. Well, I reject that. I'm not prepared to vote on this until we can flesh out through the true options We've been presented one. It's obvious that some people support that I Am making a request as a member of city council that we have Relevant data to make the decision Thank you I think it's relevant that there are no other jurisdictions in do this There's probably in there are much better staff, bigger staff than we are, right? So I think that's important data point. And no one else has gotten the business of hauling trash from their multi-family buildings probably for a reason, probably because it's complex. I think it's a lot of question. So I'm wondering in terms of if you're looking into the, or just to go, we're about to talk about our mechanics. Yes, I want to get back to that too. Can I ask my question? Yeah, go ahead. With your mechanics, then, how would we set that up? We'd actually wrapped into a flat fee that we would charge, or is that something that would require a lot of extra funding? And so we'd have to come up with funding in our budgets. So I think there's two paths, like this gets folded into the fee conversation. And I think the one slide we looked at previously had like some extra $22 fee, you know, that we, I think we calculated would be. We wanted to implement that just in kind of regular course of business I think we estimated as an additional $55,000 in annual operating costs. So that would be an operating budget for next decision for next year and then there's a one-time cost of up to $175,000 to purchase new things. So one time, $175,000 investment in then $55,000 a year. We go on 65. I'm sorry. There's a slight 14 more on that. Because the one that shows the compost speech will, if you may be sorry. Well, I had it up earlier. In March, we just approved the new compost crew new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new new. Compost crew also services our drop off facility behind City Hall. And then they also pick up from city facilities as well. So I deducted that to just kind of flush out just the 77 for curbside. 77 is worth 582 households. And Andy, you just said it was 55,000 or so for the entire city to get a third in 65 65 6 less than that so the calculation where that comes from is upon upon the the board so you know an estimate for the additional pickup per home so we've already got AES doing a you know, our waste place pickup at folks homes in the city. So this would be the additional cost and asking the tip fees. So that's your net new operating costs and you subtract off what we're paying on the complex goods subsidy and that's your net new cost to the city 65,000 not 50. So can I just ask on the on the net impact slide? So the earlier one that was if you take if you take everything out of the if you decrease the tax rate and then you implement a fee for service for curbside does that mean that the net impact of these numbers is whatever it is plus 22 if you had three minutes. This live shows 208. Yeah so it is right so we're talking about three times so it's up to 332 instead. Correct. This gets more complicated we in the two variable, you know, the two variable options, but if you can, I think that's a section that's, I think that gets my question about if it were a loss, right? And then maybe you don't create, and the equity issue, but I think that you're imposing a mandatory $22 composting fee. People now that's above what a $310 fee. So it's not your full wash. We're saying we're going to impose a mandatory fee on just curbside customers now when we can't impose the same thing on buildings. So I mean, I'm just saying if you wanna be concerned about an equity issue, we now need to be concerned about the reverse equity issue that you're telling people they have to pay $22 per service day might not want and that you can't actually compel buildings to provide. So I just want to be able to build things, I guess, I think all the family buildings can't get our composting service. They're just. Yes, so I just want to make sure that I understand so that $22 fee that takes into account the $65,000 and the $65,000 that we're talking about. Or is that just $65,000 divided by your $36,000 customers? It's just your manual cost. Okay. So we still have to come up with the $175. That. OK, thank you. Actually, thank you. Thank you. We're about to. So there are a lot of variables here that we are discussing and all of the good ideas. And I would really like to be able to do something like this. My fear is that this is way too complicated to implement this current budget. We can't. That we're all, everyone has a different idea of what we could do and is that seven of us are confused or trying to wait because on how we're going to switch to the public and for weeks to get into the budget. So my question we need to do, an actual study, like we did with the, when we did, Properly, as our property test reveals a vapement, we really sat down at front of the numbers and looked at different things. And then the GeoDate class was involved in the NICI here in. And each side member, a community member, who really weighed and looked at all the ways that the assessment and the engagement would affect different people. And how it would affect different people. So I feel like that. Because we have so many questions and different ideas, and this dresser's idea, and how other communities do it, and all those kind of questions that really worth some true study instead of just work session today. Well, someone from, if you do a study that's managed for me, he should be looking at, if you're opposing a compost fee, you're actually improving your community energy action plan by re-reactioning what's going into the landfill. There are other costs that, if we are agree, we've stated we're going to hail these goals by reduction in greenhouse gases. All these other things by 2050. 2040. That's a cost that we're going for another way. So throw another factor in there. Oh yeah, I'm not disagreeing. I'm not questioning the value of an organic bin. I'm saying that you're going to get questions from supportion of 3,000 herb site customers is to why there's a mandatory fee and assessed against them and only them for composting services. Because there are the only ones that can get us composting services. Just like how the reverses right now are multi-family buildings can't access solid waste. So we're not charging, we should charge them, right? If we're only offering composting to the single family in town homes, it's just part of the solid waste fee. Yeah, Laura. And so in a mirror how do you and I talked about this and I've heard from several school board members who are concerned about how this has been an effect revenue and the revenue share. So is that something that we would also need to really look at? Because I know that the schools, the several of them reach that to be a little bit panicked that this could really hurt. or they rely on that one-time funding for buses and what have you. So you're smiling. So I're smiling. I don't think it's a matter of that. Why it's not that? The school's in line with it. Oh, really? It's not the way to do it. Okay. So if there was a reduction in the tax rate, I would come out of the traditional principles of revenue sharing and a fee traditionally would not be in that. And so it is something that we would want to think about and see if there are some solutions to that. It wouldn't feel there. Just bring it on the tax and we would hold them harmless. I mean, it sort of goes to your point of it is, it is common. Of course, I agree with the piece of it's not fair for people that you came for a service. They're not receiving a cross-I agree with that. But the devil has admitted many many details of this. And I think maybe a word you've heard with environmental also, some school rucks. And you know, Mayor Hardy and I talked about working with environmental also some school rucks and you know, and they're hardy and I've talked about just community. We're never, the communication piece on this is gonna be so critical because it's very, very convenient and trying to help residents understand why the changes could be made if we make that change and just couldn't hurt a little critical. I don't think communication side I have also things important to communicate to the residents that we're listening to, where there are inequities, and where we can improve the process. There's new jerseys and cutting-migod. As we continue to add multi-family, how multi-millions are apartments, we're different types of housing, how are we making it, how are we making a policy that moves forward in the right direction. So I don't want this to be a conversation. I don't want to be, let's do a study. We do a study for a year and then, oh, it takes a year to implement. So then there's another year and we're the next 20 years, and we're just having, remember, John Council then, still discussing it. So if we go this direction, I just want to make sure we are setting a timeline and, what is the policy goal we're trying to accomplish and what are limitations or opportunities. That's why I'm also still interested in getting an answer to my question about if there were payment to an HOA as like an interim solution. It's not a tax credit, but it is essentially. I mean, the thing is to solve for that problem, right? You take it from here and redistribute it, you keep it the way it is, you make a credit to whatever you recall. Justine, I guess the bigger context for me is that we, you know, we can see these numbers up here, but we're also beyond these numbers, we're also going to have a property tax reduction. So the overall impact to a lot of homeowners is going to be a lot smaller than these numbers that we see here. And so given that, my concern about pushing this off to later years is that this is probably the last year that we're going to be able to give a tax break for the foreseeable futures. And the last year that we have development coming online. And so it's going to be much more difficult to do something like this in the year of years. So I would be a favor of, I guess, my question right now is, If we were to move forward with a flat feet, is that none of the complicated different size bins, nothing complicated about how this would be implemented, just a simple flat fee that would be added to the bill, would that be something the treasure would be able to implement? So the treasure is on the call. Um, Jody, do you want to speak to that? I'm here. I'm here. Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. The stadium for us. I'm sorry. I think the lines on the trees. Okay. Um, yeah. So I would say that based on my, can you guys, can you hear me? We're trying to get rid of one more way. There's a big echo across the TV. So someone's coming to help here. I'm trying to just to put this comment on this. Based on my recent experience with adding the CDA charges to the west end property. The. I had to work with munison. It's taken us almost a year to get those charges. I'm going to go ahead and see what's going on. I'm going to go ahead and see what's going on. I'm going to go ahead and see what's going on. that I had to work with Munison. It's taken us almost a year to get those charges added and to go through all the data analysis and the programming that we needed to do to be able to add those charges onto our bills so that we didn't have to add them manually. So I would think based on that experience that we would need almost a year. I mean, it may not be a year, but I definitely don't think we can get them added in time for this December's, you know, the FY26 real estate bill. Because we have to have those ready to go to the printer by about mid-October. Pardon me? Just some. Thank you. Jody, so with the West End project, though, that like was that a fix? I'm talking about it, we just did a super simple $310 fee across the board for people and single family properties. Would that would be sold take nearly a year to influence or without be simpler than what you did with the West West end? It would it would be simpler yeah it would be simpler I don't think it would take as long to implement if we're talking about one fee like you know part of the problem that I was thinking about as if we had the gallons and the 65 gallons and you know then we have to find out you know which property has which size bin and bill accordingly you know for that that certainly complicates it but if it's the same fee across the board yet that simplifies it. I. I mean, that's where I still. I still I still would be a leery of getting it done by this December's bill. Just based on my experience part of that's because Munis is slow to work with, but also part of it is our, you know, the resources, the lack of resources that we have in the office. So, you know, it's competing priorities, right? I just, I just, I would want to talk to Munis first before I could commit to that. So that's like hard-booted in our bill. We don't get to control. Like in the middle. Yes. What's hard coded in the bills? I'm sorry. I'm having trouble hearing. Yes, adding this adding. Everything that we do with the billing has to go through Munis we don't really have the IT support in house for that. Does that answer your question? I mean, I would think more to similar option of kind of flat being early. and I do feel like we would pick a can down the road for 10 plus years, and it's really a good year's solve. I mean, I know that we're all like a lot of not to be prolonged problems with actual solutions, and then feel like we want to, we've heard from residents over the time, certainly one where, again, the off to disgrace, like as we have more normal family and condos to the hard solve each year. So while we have some people in 3000 households that will see a bigger impact, if this is the year for the impact we've had, it does make the impact a little easier to solve. And compared to all the options that staff have done, I'm actually exactly good job giving me the data I'm one you know as well today like I think it's not pretty straightforward Given the options that staff for them. I actually adapted a good job giving me the data. I'm one of you know, as for lots of data. I think it's actually pretty straightforward. Given the options and the pros and cons of each. The communication parts of the one, require more explanation to make the average person understand how it's changed for them. But actually, you've done a good job to laying out the options in the doctor, and maybe I thought about a lot more since the doctor over there. I think that's actually pretty clear given what he presented to us, what the person has gone to be charged. I'm not sure whether further study in the next conference. I would also be in favor of moving forward or doing your best to move forward this year. I think that this, as we've heard from many residents, this is been going out for decades. This is a year where we could potentially actually do something and also acknowledging that people that live in condos actually have even lower property values tend to have lower property values in the single family homeowners. And so from an equity perspective, even though this seems quite as progressive as we'd all like, it's still a fairly progressive solution. It's all for the 50% intensity that it's not all of the only. Could you go to the slide that has the jurisdiction of yours? I know to answer this,. Revenge budget, yeah. For the budget Q&A. Turns out the assessed value may be something. What percentage of residential? Yeah, so I'm not sure we would have had that in that. It's a very budget kind of thing. Like, I don't think it's something like that. Like our, like the look guys, the look guys, all have this more on the agenda than once. The public economy guys, we're really, we should keep it like in the better, but not something like the differences are how the mess has changed. And when we're now, we do have a small family, where we've got something in my family and townhouse. And so it's just things, And here, let it happen. So we are different than the direction of the right hand hall, as we're. I'm going to put. So we are different than the direction of the right hand hall, reserve. And we're getting a really great deal. Blonde and you're going to be having to go shootings. We have three and a minute, then. That'll allow you to come here and do five and round. And I'm like, you're going to be having to go shootings. If we have three and a minute, then that'll allow you to come here and do five and round? I just want to make, I mean, I just want to, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, turns out that I think we were talking about something like the tax rate looks like a 3.14, 3.6 percent increase when you're looking at all homes, but I think that when I looked at the budget Q&A and looked at the whatever it was, median assessed value for single family homes and towns that it turns out to be a 5-3-quarter percent increase. So you're talking about for a median home of increasing their taxes. It's your with the 50, including by $750 plus like the additional 25 dollars and utility increases. Like a lot of it was like, you know, maybe even home value increases of some of like the and we'll also be reading your dot orders to you. Just a moment. I mean even the volume increases of some of the almost paid $100.00. Given that it's getting late, I think that we should maybe take a straw out to figure out what the best options are to give staff some direction. And I would say that the two new options and my view that we've discussed are the two new the moon, do a floppy and try to push for that this year or take in your study and see what maybe comes up and I guess, kick the can. We can't. I don't know if there's another option. It was widely discussed, but it seems to be that it's been made to. That's exactly not recommended getting in the middle of ultimately and ultimately. That is correct. I mean, here's what that business would look like. If we're going to address the equity issue, we'd be offering, you know, our multi-family the service for free, and it would be an opt-in service. And so from a budgeting perspective, we have no idea what we're getting into as this, it would be very difficult to manage. And now, and if the council didn't direct it, we studied that, we would need time to interview all of them and try to assess what service they would want. And then we can have some sort of thing where they would commit to do it. If they were offered, then we'd have a budget number. It would be a big budget number. And so there's some obstacles, I think, to that business model. Yeah, no, I'm just not even going to send them. The names that I've been telling you, Yeah, so the audio sound from the room is really deteriorated. Jody, have you had some issues with that as well? So it's been very difficult here in the last discussion, not from my system, but apparently there in the room. Yeah, I mean, you're trying to jam this now. I think we ought to ask single family home owners how they feel about it. Because what you're doing is you're removing a service and charging them a fee, which exceeds any value that they get from a from the tax reduction regardless of what the single family home is except when you get up to the very, very highest level. So, you know, I this is not been adequately discussed in the community or making a significant change. I will tell you that we're moving the past has been a very controversial issue. And I'm concerned about an inability for all the citizens to really weigh in here. We've heard from some multi-family housing, which I'm concerned about that obviously, but we've not heard from single-family homeowners. And I think they have right here that you're trying to jam this at this point. So I think we need more debate about this with fully fleshed out options. I think that's fundamental fairness to the community. Otherwise, in the name of equity, you're actually pursuing an inequitable process. So I just, I did concerns about this and I think we ought to, you know, I don't know. There's not been a significant amount of community discussion to make a fundamental change like this. And then furthermore, not only are you now charging a fee that exceeds any benefit in terms of the tax reduction for many of our citizens, but you're now mandating services, the composting that they may not want. So it seems to me it's a double hit on a certain amount of community to benefit another part of the community, and that will simply serve to divide. I don't want to do that. What I want is a legitimate public discussion about that. And the only way to have a legitimate public discussion is to ask our city manager to do what he ought to do as part of his job, which is collect. And it's not all that hard. Just call the saying that multifamily housing, how much are you paying? What are you getting? And that will give you at least some sense about how I move forward. So I think this is a fundamental issue with transparency and fairness for all the community, all the community, not just selected elements of the community. So that's my fundamental difficulty with this entire issue right now where it's going, how it's being jammed, and how there needs to be a much more thorough public discussion of this that is being talked about as a process moving forward. Anyway, those are my comments. Thank you. I'm not getting services you're paying for when you're paying for the cost of removing trash from single-family homes curbside. I mean, it's a different shifting cost. It's a different, and I understand that concern about adding cost to that. But we're not, I mean, we're asking people who receive the services to pay for the services they're receiving. And we're saying, if you're not receiving the services, you shouldn't have to pay for the services in this instance. So I don't think that there's a fundamental, I don't see that. I see it's a fundamental way of saying you're paying for what you're receiving. And while there may be some building technicalities and some other things that we have to iron out, I don't see that. I see it as a policy discussion on how to do that. I don't know the history of what other things you're referring to with regard to charging additional fees. If it's stormwater, I think the stormwater has been done by your percentage of your permeability on your yard. And I think if it costs more to receive, to get your track to move once a week, we should be paying that cost. It should be subsidized by others. And I also have a strong belief that pushing on composting and making that available to everybody is absolutely going to do it. I just look at my end of one. I don't pay for compost right now because it seemed like, oh, well, you know, I don't necessarily want to do another fee. You can do it myself. And I'm an example of, well, if you told me I had compost, well, then I got a bid delivered to my driveway that I would be composting. And I think that behavior will be changed by us. That might have to be someone that's pushed out and not pulled in. I'm not familiar with the data from Arlington, but it doesn't surprise me that the uptake has been significant. So I also think that this is something discussed as a community. Geez, for a 20-plus, forget the woman's name has come in and said she's had public comment for 29 years about the same topic. I don't think it's 38 years. I don't think it's a new topic. I don't think it's something that hasn't been discussed in public. But I do think the communication of it and why is really key. I'm still supportive of moving forward with something. I also think that we as a body are creating policy and then our experts and staff should be figuring out how to implement it. I can't tell the Treasury office how they should be implementing it, but we can set policy to say if you're receiving services, we should be charging you the cost of the actual services. I also don't think, you know, I think that on the composting, you should also be paying for the composting, not necessarily subsidizing that. If it costs $25 per household to compost, and that's what we should be charging, moving forward. Because we've done a subsid think for a number of years and it seems to take that up so far. So I'm really sorry, bye. I like it, it's giving that we're midnight, we still need one more item just to do the straw balls that's that, some direction. So to start and maybe we can go around, I would be in favor of moving forward this year with a flat fee and seeing what we can get done and hopefully seeing if the treasurer's office can implement it. I would not be in favour of that because I feel like it's too rushed and there's not enough community engagement in it. And if we're going too fast, we're gonna make mistakes. And I think it's really important. When we went from everyone had their own van and then there was the little green van, there was a whole rollout and plan for that. And I feel like this is, we're not quite ready for that. So I would support doing a study in the tradition of the General Assembly, to a J-LARC study, local Lark study, and figure out exactly what we should do incorrectly and get community engagement with that a long way. I would like to do something this year, Flatfee plus composting. Sorry. I would, what she said, did it. And I'd like to wait a year and also get additional information about what we might be able to do for the lowest sort of medium value homes with any potential relief in terms of what this flat fee would't be asked for that, but what's still like to determine as an interim solution, whether we could do this sort of payment to H.A. even if we can't give a tax credit. So I would like to see what those numbers come in as. And I agree with my, this is very tough because obviously for all of us it's tough. I, you know, I see completely understand the inequities in people paying for services that they're not receiving. But I, you know, I feel that there's a lot of, you know, staff is indicating to us that they're worried about implementing this the correct way. I don't feel comfortable on the school side that I really understand how this is going to impact the schools. Having been on the school board, I know that that revenue share is important for one time expenses. that I would also want more information about that. But I also understand what Mayor Hardy is saying that, who knows? that revenue share is important for one time expenses. And so that I would also want more information about that. But I also understand Mayor Hardy is saying that who knows when we'll be able to get this kind of a tax rate to cover that. So I don't know. I guess I'm in the middle of it. There was anyway that we could move a little bit faster. Maybe try to get the data we need and get it done this year, but I wouldn't feel comfortable until we had some more questions answered. So I don't know. It's a non-answer. Yeah. Yeah. Where directions stop? Maybe we could just see if there's why it maybe we could take a there to sort of you could go through your notes and see like are there can we get some of this data, you know, and our Jody's virtual so, you know, maybe we could revisit this. What not? Just one more time. I do agree with Mayor Harding. Like I do think it's going to be hard. Who knows? You know, in the near future, be able to do it depending a half. But I agree with Ms. Connelly too about the communication piece and making sure that it's all communicated. So I think, you know, if we were to do it this year, we really have to move fast and get all these questions answered. So I don't know, maybe we could back and maybe you could follow up with us and give us, because you have a planning to data solve this too. And I'm just thinking something, but this reference to like a penny and a half and doing it this year, not having an opportunity. Like, isn't the penny and a half, like we're just talking about the penny in a half would come off in a year. The penny in a half is in a tax break. It's totally unrelated to going from 1 to 1 to 1 to 1 to 18. And a half, the penny in a half is just representation of $950,000. And then a tax year regardless of what year. And part of two and a half taxes is just for referencing like you would have an overall tax burden reduction. But you were paying more so I think I think I would have an overall tax burden reduction. We would pay more. So I think I know that. You reduce the fine doing that, and then you're increasing it by whatever somebody is telling you where you live. But you would have to process it in a year where you've seen your reduction area and seen your increase of net sales. Yeah, I guess it would be a increase than it would. if you have a tax increase and you have a tax increase. I guess we're using the word reduction differently. Because I would be using the word reduction differently. Because I would be using reduction in terms of what a flat payment would be. Like, that's increased. The rate is decreasing. But people's taxes are increasing because of the system. It says no. So I guess I'm just saying. We're talking about increase in the overall environment. I just want to lose that and then this one and a half pennies would be a one and a half pennied regardless of whatever tax rate you were at. Correct. But in this year we represented a four-point total tax rate decrease and if you're in a condo multi-family building you would not see see any fee, and you would just see the four-cent cut. If you're single family in town, you would see a four-cent plus $332. And so if you don't expect future tax rate cuts, making the change that much harder is you don't have the first two in the sense to help make it easier to handle. That's why the timing matters. If we're only getting more multifamily content to come online, they will have further success in family town into the number of being not a chartered outcome. That's why the timing matters now. Operation link, I guess I asked a question for Joe. I never never stated that it was a flat fee in response to just this question. That was easier to implement. She would also want to call me in to be sure. Like clearly, that's definitely really well. Like this is our project from Paul's perspective. We wanted to hear, apparently, you know, is that feasible if we wanted to put the flat fee model by the end of the year because Bill would go to the center. but I'm guessing that you all recorded that through the fall. And so that will you, if Laura's directions could be taken a couple days, I think about it in time to be investigating whether that would be a woman by the end of the year. If it was just a simple plaque fee. Yes, you asked me. But that would be one of the things I asked Laura is if it's feasible. that it's feasible to or is it feasible actually get it. Otherwise, you don't need to talk about that anymore. Okay. I think I would say yes. You can talk to me. Right. Yes, yes, yes. Right. In mayor, just on the straw polling, I don't think we got everybody. I know. I'm sorry. Day. Yeah, so I think there's an asymmetry of data, and lack of critical data to explain to the public the different options that are available to deal with the so-called equity issue. And in essence, you're asking single-family homeowners to pay more for the same services. That could raise a contrary equity issue. There's not been adequate discussion of this, and I will tell you prior experience for taking away services and charging fees as only occurred after a very lengthy community discussion, which has not occurred on this issue. I mean a real serious community discussion about options that are fully fleshed out. That has not occurred. I agree that there may have been some advocates over the years, and I respect that, but this has not been the kind of discussion that is raised to the level that some council members want to raise to. So I think you're making a serious mistake by moving forward in this way at this time on this issue. So just record me is not supporting that approach. Thank you. Got it. Any final thoughts on this? I'll check back in a few days. If possible. So just maybe it's, I'm clear like, what are you expecting from staff in a couple days? Operation like we just left the event in the year. Laura, I think we're going to point out the school's just understanding how it's going to impact the schools and the revenue sharing agreement. So that look that's more I think Mr. Shields and Ms. Bowel. All right, but I will say to council there's going to be a hundred more questions and you're going to come back to us and say, So can you get, you need to answer that question. And that's just the way it's going to go. And so one thing I would like to do will answer what questions we have tonight, but we could also draft up the scope of work for a study group So that you can start to get your head around kind of what that would be because I think you can tell there's some passion around even what scope of work would be. And I think that might be something that could be handled timely. And then that's the signal that we're moving forward in a concrete way and get people appointed to work with staff on that. And we can put some milestones on that and turn that around. So we can deliver. I would like to take away from this meeting also the task to draft that up so that you can start to think about that. Okay. The other fear I have is that commercial properties are going to start to say like, you know, a restaurant, standalone restaurant. We want to know why they're paying the fee and still, because they're paying property taxes. They don't get to their employer. They don't get to their employer. They do, they pay the taxes. The same as a condo owner does. Under the flat fee, I think all the business community. They do, they do. They do is? It would. Yeah. Because I saw a couple different things there from Lonnie. Some were mixed use, some were just residential. That's what we got in business, sort of, that I don't think that's the staff recommendation. I thought of it. Now. Anyway. So BlackPee against single family. And only people get served in 30,000 people who get served. And the other seven out of 10. Is the BlackPee arrived at by dividing the cost of the service by the number of? You need to be on the microphone. I don't have a microphone. Thank you All the members are on the table. Thank you. So can I just summarize that I'm clear. So it would be figuring out what the, like how we might do with school sharing agreement. If we were to move forward with the flat fee, if it's even possible to implement in units, and then I guess figuring out what maybe a scope of work might look like for a year long assessment of this. We can lay out dates so that it doesn't have to stretch out for a whole year, year But it would be the idea would be it would be implemented then with the next budget But the decisions could be made in advance of that So I guess it would be three three things but I guess in terms of the the school Revenue share I would say that would be probably be something that council would need to discuss how we'd handle that it probably wouldn be, I don't know, staff unless staff would come up with a proposal for how we might handle that. No, that's it. I'm saying, like I just would like to hear from our experts, Mr. Shields and Ms. Bawa, how they would, what they would recommend it. And just simply with the impact, I don't even know what the impact is and really understand it. Do you Does that seem a little more direction than October? Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So next on the agenda, we're going to. Thank you, Bob and Joe. Thank you, Johnny. That's right. So we do have the ordinances just to make sure the council is aware of kind of what those ordinances look like and what they say and get a turn over to you. Yeah, save the best for last. So okay. We still want to hold it under. Well budget. Good evening, Mayor Hardy and members of the Council. We have for you four ordinances and the intent is that we bring requests first hearing of these, first reading of these in the next meeting on the 14th and then followed by two public hearings on April 28th and then May 12th. And we're gonna be advertising the tax rates, so that's why we're bringing these ordinances. The first one is the budget ordinance and that requests appropriation of funds for general fund, the utility funds. Other funds like affordable housing and cable fund and then school funds and CIP. And their attachments to this staff report, which includes the budget question and answers. We are trying our best to address all the questions in person as much as possible, but all the ones that have more analysis and tables and charts we have included those from the prior meetings and any of the emails we have received so far. And also the attachments include the city managers presentation, the PowerPoint, and the whole budget document along with council strategies. As previously discussed, the affordable housing and the CIP have been discussed with the Planning Commission and the Housing Commission. So that's one ordinance than the ordinance number three. So that was ordinance number two. Ordnance number three is for the real estate tax rate. No, the tax rate ordinance, which has all the three rates in it. One is the real estate tax rate, which is proposed to be advertised at $1.18.5, 1.185 per $1.18 of assessed value, which would be a reduction of 2.5 cents from the current rate, which is $1.21. And previously discussed also that would have an impact of $400 to a median homeowner and the value being a median house, value being a million, 22. And this would be reflected in the December 2025 and June, 2026 bills and each penny on the tax rate is $630,000. 630,000. The ordnance number, so this ordinance also includes, sorry, personal property and machinery at the rate of $5 per hundred dollars of assessed value that is no change to the current rate. And the third piece is the personal property for vehicles at $4.80 for every $100 of assessed value and that's no change from the current rate. Ordnance number three is, sorry, Ordnance number four now, is a 2.7% increase to the stormwater utility billing rate, the current rate is $20.77 and it would increase to $21.33 per per 200 square feet of impervious area. Again, this goes into effect July 1 and it's built twice and with the tax bills average increase of $10 per household Ordnance number per year Ordnance number five is 2.7% increased to the city's sewer rate from $10.86 to $11.15 for 1,000 gallons of usage and that would mean an impact of $14 increase average per year. And also an increase of 2.7% to the availability fees. And just want to note on that there was a request that we consider doing a drainage fixture unit that would apply to residential new bills. We haven't put that into this ordinance. And the reason is that typically you go kind of all one way or the other and either you go all DFUs or you go the charge per house. And so we didn't see a lot of models for the mix. The commercial is DFUs just because commercial can be really small, it can be really huge and so there's this scalable way to get the fee. So I just wanted to acknowledge that there was some discussion of that, and that's not in this proposal. One other element of it is just the administration of it. For the commercial ones that do come along, it is a lot of staff done just to calculate the fee, and so there was some concern about that on the residential side as well. I'll be happy to answer any questions about that. And that concludes my report. Yeah, those are all the four ordinances. We've been in the office of Interst Disclosure. Yeah. We've been in the office of Interst Disclosure. Yeah. The City Council is discussing the FY26 budget for the City of Falls Church. I am an employee of the False Church City School Board, which may be affected by the proposed fiscal policies. As a result, I am in a group of three or more people who may realize it reasonably for a Cable Director and Director of Benefit from the proposed ordinance. After consideration, I am reluctant to participate in this transaction because I'm confident in my ability to participate fairly objectively and in the public interest. What do you all think about the one that you just wanted to discuss? Can includes my report open for questions? Just needing, I just have a couple questions. Maybe this is for the Q&A document, but I would be, I'd like to see what other jurisdictions have their car tax. My understanding is that they did raise their car tax back to the $5 range. The other thing I'd like to know is going from $4.80 to $5.00, how much additional funding would that bring in? My rough calculation was that it could be $100,000 to $200,000. And over time that can be a significant amount of money for road paving. And I'm deeply, deeply about how far we've fallen behind on on road paving and our road budget so I would be in favor of raising that back to pre-COVID levels either this year and if I don't have support this year then I'd push for it next year but that's something that that stood out to me. Well, we'll include that in the next Q&A for Monday's packet. Thank you for bringing the chair on the Q&A with, you know, we're talking three over five or 10 year average on increase in the budget categories, that is entertaining and population and never cease in schools. One thing we talked about, do you also add to that, stepping levels, increase three, five or 10 year? Number 10. And it's school number seven city. We know it's out of schools. We need to get that data from the schools. Yeah. That's kind of the last story that I think of the expense side, you know, with these increases in population, and that are one of the things in how we get out of town. Because I think we had a lot and we kind of both more of that. And then I didn't search that. So I think that's important to see that over time, three, five, 10, 10 approaches. Thank you. The math, I think, is like 20% increase in staff for three years. And then they give you the catch up, though. And then we get another 10, and then we see I guess it's a question, which I will do as well. But my question is just about the retiring of the Mary Ellen Henderson debt. I know that that was modeled in as we discussed different, you know, other debt coming up. And you don't have to do right now. I was going to submit it as a question, which I will do as well. But my question is just about the retiring of the Mary Ellen Henderson debt. I know that that was modeled in as we discussed different, you know, other debt coming on, taking its place. And how's that working? Is there additional debt taking its place? Is that contributing to the two, that our ability to drop the tax rate because Mary Ellen Henderson is off the books? How is it playing into that model that we discussed when we did the high school? It's that easy. Is that really the mid- and slight that we had in CIP that was a slight there? If you pull it up. Yeah. So what it essentially is is going to pay for the high school. And so for the Meridian high school debt. So with the West Falls project, kind of a whole idea is we're using the capitalized ground lease payments to cover about two thirds of the debt service for the high school. This capitalized The maintenance payments are in&M 526 in the tax yield to stepping out to take its place. But we always have kind of known that there's going to be, you know, come some years with the tax yield wasn't quite there and the capitalized lease had fallen off. And so the Mary Ellen Henderson debt is essentially a bridge Until the tax yield comes on Okay, and the tax yield will come on because we have that payment in the old pilot agreement where we plan kind of how those Increments step up right right there's something in here which I can't find so I'll put it in a question That just made me wonder a little further about that, but thank you for that explanation. Other questions? Why in the New York City, when I just stopped repinating, I actually thought it was an all-in-one team fight. I didn't see that in here. Well, I guess that looks a part. No, I haven't done that in my tenure here. Yes. What is it talking about? So it is equivalent to, I think, an Arlington advertised a penny higher than the manager's recommendation. So it's to give the board some flexibility as you get through options. That's what that's about. But the other approach, you do have the revenue contingency of 500,000. We would recommend you keep that whole, but then you can make cuts in other parts of the budget and make adjustments as you traditionally would. I said that's given the organization we had at the start of the night meeting and the way said, if anyone had been able to report cutting, like, you think, when we're all South, we cut out rather than trying to increase tax rates to more revenue. That doesn't make sense, but... I think we've been providing, like, a thing with a real staff, we've been providing a good tax rate for more revenue. That applies to one of more nots. I don't think we go higher than all the T5 in light of that. I don't think we're going higher than all the T5 in light of that. Okay. So I guess we know more questions to be carried. Perfect. We're ready to go. First reading online. Great. Thank you. Okay. We're going to get more soft. Right, so I'm just coming out. So the last item is we do have Mary Beth Avedesian, who is here with Hoffman Associates. And the request is just a preview of a request on Monday night to refer an amendment to the voluntary concessions to the Planning Commission. And it is to change the VC that relates to the Grocer. And's the Grocer that has assigned lease at West Falls has assigned lease for Set number of square feet that is slightly below What the voluntary concession is for the grocery condition? and so That's basically the request. There is a graphic in your package. It shows where that square footage is and how it'd be treated as a retail bay going forward, retail service bay, and that's the issue. It would be referred to the Planning Commission and then it would come back to the City Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation on May 12th. Do we have questions for Mayor Dath or why? It seemed like this was not revenue positive for, I mean it seemed like this was a benefit to the city To allow this to happen as then we wouldn't be losing out on tax revenue So I generally would support that as long as it's written that way 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'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm it. That's right. Hoffman has agreed to a higher yield per square foot. And so the net fiscal impact, at least from a model perspective, is there is no negative fiscal impact with this change. And it does allow this additional space then to go forward and be leased. Do we have any information on what we go and do we have any information on our purpose space? It is a service use that is planned as opposed to a pure retail use and I miss have the no service. Now it's a retail service use. So Mary Beth is still with us. I thought maybe she'd fall asleep at her at computer terminal. Thank you for doing it. With her questions? We were asked what the new retail would eat with that extra $340 per piece. Well, we don't have a tenant yet, but we've been negotiating an L.I. with a tenant that is a pure service use. So this particular VC, the way it's written, there's a graphic in your packet that shows the square footage that was carved off. That's not the graphic. It's a little bit later. It's actually a separate graphic that shows the comparison of the before and the after. There you go. And if you go to the third page, you can zoom right in on this. This is the spaces. There you go. So the original VC assumed a grocer that was about 40,000 square feet in size. The current grocer, the fresh market, did not need that large a space. They said they would pay the same rent, whether they took the whole space or the smaller space. That would be more efficient for them. So you can see right next to the fresh market, to the left of it, there's a space called A1-105. It's about 6300 square feet. And with the way the VC is currently written, we would still have to lease that square footage to a service tenant generating at least $400 a square foot in rent. With the way we have modified and asked for you to consider modifying this, the fresh market will generate the sales that are needed as though you had a grocer encompassing that whole space generating $400 a square foot. fresh market will generate more than that so that you don't have a negative impact on your financial model that would presumably then free up if you approve the VC would free up the carved off space to lease to any tenant that we could get to take it. And you can see it's a challenging space. It's an oddly shaped space. It's deep. It doesn't have a lot of storefront. And it doesn't have any venting to the roof because the restaurant, excuse me, the fresh market took all of the venting that was intended for the grocery use. So it really is best suited for a service use. We have L.O.I.s that we've been entertaining. One that's kind of getting some traction. I can't discuss it yet, but it would not produce the $400 square foot because it would be a service use. But that being said, you would still generate an accretive text revenue off of this. They'll be rent that this tenant will pay and that rent will go into the calculation for the assessed value of the property. And the alternative is that stays encumbered with the service use is I will probably not be able to lease it to anyone that I've found so far. So there is no accretive value by that space being left encumbered by the VC as it's currently written. But at least, you know, while you may not get the sales tax revenue from like a grocer or from a restaurant, it would still generate rental revenue that factors into the assessed value of the property and therefore the property taxes. Okay. It is one question about the layout. Does it mean that the I think in some other layout slides, they've showed that there was an act grade entrance to the fresh market and then the corner entrance to the fresh market. So does this does the act grade entrance remain or does this mean that there's only the corner entrance to the market? There is there are two entrances to the market one is If you look to the right in that box they say there's a lower level and that is a vestibule Thank you for putting the cursor on that is a vestibule that's right at the corner of HACOC and Route 7. Once you go into that vestibule at grade you would take an escalator or an elevator up to the level of the store, which is above that level. You alternatively could if you stayed outdoors and walked from that corner up towards the bank. Thank you. That's good. There will be an accurate interest because the grade rises. You will get up to the level of the second floor, which is where the fresh markets other entrances located. Okay, that's great. That's great. I just wanted to make sure that the A105 wasn't wasn't illuminating the second floor, so to speak, street entrance that's not at the corner because I've had some concerns about the slope of the sidewalk, you know, when it goes from the second floor entrance, so to speak, to the corner. And so I want to make sure that people could still enter the grocery store from that street without having to go down that sharp slope to the corner entrance. They absolutely can. A-1105 will have its own separate entrance at grade. by the time you get to that at grade entrance for the fresh market which you can see. Trying to describe it. There's a little white area in front of where you've got the management office and the public station public police station office. There's a that's a ramp that's right right there you'll come up to that. You'll come up to the. Thank you right there. And you'll that that's a walkway into this lighting glass doors that will take you into the grocery store. You'll be at grade there and then the a one one. One of five will have its own entrance directly into the store. Thanks. Yeah. Hey, we're going to have just a one question. We're actually a little bit. Where's the parking for this? Is it parking in garage? Do you two? No, the parking is directly underneath. So if you look at that. yes, if you look at that fresh market entrance over at the corner of Hacock and Route 7 on that lower level, you can see there's kind of a beige area right to the to the left of it. That is a parking garage. So this has got one level of parking below the store. They have dedicated 120 dedicated parking spaces just for the supermarket. And then there's a little extra parking down there that will be for some of the residents of the Alder and a little bit of retail parking. That's general retail parking. Some of it is encountered by the Sierra and Sierra in Contata who need some drop off pickup spaces for their kids and the parents that are dropping them off. But otherwise, everything is for fresh market is contained right underneath the store. So you'll be able to drive in, park your car, go out through a sliding glass door into that vestibule at the corner down there, and then take the escalator up or take an elevator up. Okay. Thank you. And that was going to be the same way with the other grocer too. The same configuration. They just didn't need to expand all the way over to the left side and take the rest of that space. I had to while we have a mirror that I think the last data I got from Nolan and the quarterly community was that I think between April and May all the transportation improvements were scheduled to be done that still the case. It's it's more like May and June we've had a few things happen with a few things that we still need to rely upon V.D. to give us some final guidance on and Dominion power to provide some power to if they if they keep to our schedule, then we'll get done towards the end of May beginning of June with the traffic work. So we're hoping that that will happen. We really talk about tonight, but when we were looking through the original deal terms and then why together this one day for us, I was reminded that phase two is coming up on us. So whenever we want to talk about phase, we're all ears. Thank you. Thank you. I will bear that in mind. I'm not prepared to talk about it tonight. Thank you. fun journey. My pleasure. See you soon. Okay. I just don't want to do a schedule. We'll see. Just playing back. People were like, we should just do it as far as when they need. Okay. If there's nothing else anywhere,'re adjourned. Yeah. Thank you guys. Good morning, Dave. Yeah. Have a good rest of the night everyone. I'm impressed. you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you 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. you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you Thank you. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you 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. you you you 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. you you you 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. you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you 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. you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you 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. you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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 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 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you 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. you you 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. you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you 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 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 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. you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you 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. you you you you you you you you you 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 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 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. you you you you