you you you I have a question. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Certainly Mayor March 17th work session of the City Council. Let's start with roll call please. Certainly, Mayor Miss Connolly. Here, Miss Downs is virtual. And I've tested audio and we'll do her motion in a moment. Miss Flynn. Here, Miss Hiscott. Here, Mr. Schneider. Here. Miss Underhill. Here, Mayor Hardy. Here. Just want to have the motion for Laura? Yes, ma'am, please. I'd like to make a motion for electronic participation by Councilmember Downs. Ms. Downs, could you please identify your remote location and reason for participation by electronic means? Yes, I'm Paul Stewart Virginia and I'm remote visiting into illness. Thank you. I move that the City Council approve electronic participation by Laura Downs in this meeting for medical reasons pursuant to the City Council's adopted policy. Second. Miss Flynn on the second. Call roll please. Miss Connolly. Yes. Miss Flynn. Yes. Mayor Hiscott. Vice Mayor Hiscott. Yes. Mr Schneider. Yeah. It's under hill. Yes, Mayor Hardy. Yes. Thank you, Council. Vice Mayor Husscott. Yes. Mr. Schneider. Yes. Mr. Underhill. Yes. Mayor Hardy. Yes. Thank you, Council. Thanks for joining us, Laura. Hope you feel better. Okay. We've got three work session items tonight. And first, we have Mary Catherine from OCOM joining us with our 2025 Community Survey results. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor Hardy. Thank you members of council this evening we have with us Adam Roblowski a Robelowski research who has conducted our second community survey. We also conducted in 2023. This survey ran with our public on the dates of March, our February 13th for a week, and a masked 400 respondents with the aim of being selected and completion rate so that we would have statistical accuracy of our population. Mr. Probloski is going to go into the results and then we'll be happy to discuss those with you. Thank you, Madam Gathering. All right, we're gonna go through a pretty good number of slides here. So I might move quickly, but please interject at any point if necessary. And unfortunately, there's no clicker. So I'm going to have to ask Cindy to advance at moments. So Cindy, if you don't mind, we will go to our methodology slide which is important to give a foundational perspective of the research. As Mary Catherine explained, we can be contacted and complete surveys among 400 residents. To put into context, statewide we might do 900 or so respondents. So for a city the size of Fall Church, it's a quite robust amount of respondents. So that's helpful. It took about 20 minutes that your residents did invest the time to complete the survey. We talked to people in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. We gave them the option. And 1% chose Vietnamese and 2% chose Spanish. That's helpful from a communication standpoint for understanding how they choose to talk. And it doesn't mean that English speakers don't speak another language or the speakers that chose Spanish or Vietnamese don't speak English. It's just the preferred language in their home. Most of our respondents came in the online format. It's just how we communicate these days, but we did have 36% choosing the telephone option. That's how they talk to us. And it's great. We have a very inclusive environment where everybody gets the chance to respond in the way that they prefer to. Of course, there was complete anonymity to the respondents. They got to respond without having anyone knowing exactly how they responded. If we go to the next slide, you'll see a very high level mapping of where respondents came from. One not doesn't necessarily represent one particular resident. It's just kind of, you know, broadly. We obviously don't want anyone household to be identified, but it just gives you a sense that it was largely spread out throughout the city. And throughout the different wards. I'm going to speak really quickly to some high level numbers, but I want to get into the slides, because I think we can have more in depth conversation about in depth conversation about them. The bottom line is people are very happy with the quality of life here, 94%. Happy with the services you provide in the 80s. Inclusivity is ranked very good. And I'll explain why these numbers are maybe better than you might think. Strong community delivering services in a fair, equitable way, soliciting public engagement, really, really strong numbers throughout. And then people do mention some things that they might want to see improved, like how much taxes they pay, traffic ingestion, street conditions. So there's definitely perhaps homework if that's a policy decision by the council. And you do also, maybe you care, maybe you don't, but comparing yourselves to other DC metro area communities, you're quite strong. Your numbers are oftentimes better than theirs. And we can show that on the next slide. Where we have comparable data, we look at other communities that you might consider peers. And if there's someone on this list that or someone not on this list that you'd want to compare yourself to, we can easily add them assuming they do a community survey as well. So you can kind of get a sense of, you know, the next League of Cities you can kind of have bragging rights, I guess. Going to the next slide, we're going to get right into the actual questions and what do you like most about living in false church? Now this is an open-ended question and so these answers are categorizations of words that people told us either on the phone or wrote down. And so you can see at the top of the list that is walkable and then small town feel, community feel, nice community, just that warm fuzzy sort of things that you might hear around town or the reasons why you all live here. What's very helpful, I think, when we've delivered a report on results that gives you the actual words that people say, the verbatim responses. And what we do is we overlay the experience of that person, their age, their gender, where they live, the language they chose. So you get a sense of their experience in life. So when you do look at that report on results, you can kind of look through those, we call it bedtime reading, because it's just fun to look through and you can see what your residents are really saying and concerned about. But here's that categorization and it's really just the, they like the place they live in. Next up, we ask them about the overall quality of life, where we have data from the previous survey, we're gonna show it to you, and you can see increase in overall quality of life, 94%, really strong numbers. We don't see these kind of numbers for almost anything in most communities, so it's impressive. The other thing I'll point out is- Have a point of question, ask, is that increase of five points statistically significant? So our margin of error is 5% plus or minus. So it's right there. Yeah, I think it's definitely an increase. Maybe a couple of points here or there, but yes, I think you have a stronger sense of quality of life here. Thank you. We also, in this case, it's not so big, but as you go through it forward, you'll see them. We don't put a value judgment on fair. Similar to us is just generally how it is. I'm not upset about it. I'm not necessarily happy. It's just kind of okay. And so if you put those together, you're essentially, you know, pushing a hundred there. And the other key factor that we look at, and you'll see throughout, is the delta between poor and anything else is obviously here, it's absurdly ridiculously massive. And what you'll see is we go forward in other cases, there's similar things we'll look at. If there's any time that their poor is very small compared to the excellent or fair good numbers This is a great place to be Next slide we we ask them where they get their news and information about the community and False Church news press They hold it in their hands and they read it That's that's great and then word of mouth from from neighbors and friends and family. And then your website and it goes down from there. The positive side of these numbers are, if you've got false church news press and you can put something in there, fantastic. If you get coverage there, you're doing great. And the family friends neighbors, that's a little bit harder. That essentially means you have to communicate with everybody to have everybody else in form. So it's definitely a, there's a need for broad outreach and communication that you can't just let up on if that's how people are getting their news and information. So this is pretty darn helpful for outreach and communications and be reference some sure all throughout the year to know where to focus your efforts. Next up we ask them about a list of issues that people in the city might be thinking about. And we ask them indicate which are very important to them personally. And these are obviously they were able to select as many as they wanted to here. And you see the value of this kind of question is there's a booking there at the top. And the amount they pay in local taxes, that's a theme because we've saw that before. The amount of traffic on the roads, we also saw that earlier, and then the condition of streets. So this is what is really personally important to them and what they want attention. You know, schools and water quality and all these other things are not to be ignored, but if you're giving a speech at the Chamber of Commerce or in front of a group of homeowners, the top three are be, you know, definitely something they'll wanna hear about. Next, on the next slide, we say that we've got a list of services that are provided by the town, by the city. And we say, please indicate which services you think are important to you personally. So services, important to them personally, and there's a big long list there. But again, you see this cascading effect where the top of that list is maintaining sidewalks and in crosswalks and traffic calming, kind of again, we've seen this mention a few times now. Parts and trails in open space are important to them. And so all those at the top have a pretty significant place in their heart to want to see that they care about them tremendously. And obviously, libraries up there and police services are up there. All those things are important to them. The next one, we take the same list and we say to them which are you personally satisfied with and you can see the the numbers are You know there's big numbers there for maintaining library services. They're super happy and maintaining your parks and trails and open space super satisfied with and you know other things that were top of the list for the other one are just up there as well. The next slide is my favorite in the deck, and that is where we show this juxtaposition of importance on top in light blue and satisfaction at the bottom. And what we look for is delta between, you know, importance and satisfaction. If that dark blue line is, you know, shorter than the, than the light blue line, that might be a place that you might wanna direct your attention to potentially address. And there's not a lot of them, or not a lot that are big or significant, but, you know, if you look down there, like maintaining streets and roads, right? It's important to me, but there's a pretty big delta between the satisfaction level. And maintaining sidewalks and traffic calming, again, big, almost true one there, between importance and satisfaction. So there's a bunch of places in this survey that you might consider homework. And this might be a central place to that if you want to find things that can be addressed that'll make your residents happy. We look at things a little bit differently on this next slide and it's not my favorite, just because it can be a little bit confusing. But if you look at the left axis there, it's satisfaction at the bottom, it's importance. And the higher those numbers on the top right are places where they're really happy and they're satisfied. So we've already said so, parks and trails and library services, doing great. At that bottom right, if there's a place for improvement, a place where you can move the numbers probably pretty significantly by investing, those are the places you could do it. And I'm not saying anything here that you haven't seen on three other slides so far, those are the things. Managing growth is kind of a new one that emerges, but streets and roads inside walks. So that's where they really are telling us over the course of these slides throughout the survey. That's where they want attention to be put. Next up, we've got a couple questions here and I explain that the growth opportunities for the city are to maintain road infrastructure, promote traffic calming, and manage growth and development. And we kind of put them into different categories here, the different possibilities. I think this is a good reference point to come back to. But I'm gonna move on to slide number 14. And we've got some other fun numbers here where general satisfaction or dissatisfaction with services provided by the city, you are maintaining pretty incredibly. And I also say you are unique in a lot of ways and you already know that. But we don't see numbers at this level in most other communities throughout the country. South Carolina, California, Texas, New Jersey, it doesn't really matter. We don't see satisfaction levels this high in most places. And I'm not, I'm not, you know, staff didn't pick me to say that. It's just really strong. And again, looking at that unsatisfied, we're never dismissing of those people because you presumably wanna address the concerns of all your residents, but that, you know, almost nine to one difference between unsatisfied to satisfied is really towering and strong. The other thing that's a little bit unique, I'll put it on this slide, is the unsure, is so small. In a lot of cases, you cases, residents don't think about this building. They don't think about City Hall. They don't think about all of you. I'm sorry if that worries you. But the fact that they are really in tune with what's happening here, and they're nobody's unsure about this, they know that they're satisfied is a really strong indicator. Next up, you're going to see a whole slew of numbers on pages just to kind of put them into perspective. Top left, we're looking at police services. Satisfaction went up just a bit. It's in the close approaching 90, 87%. And you'll see this is all throughout. Preparing for manmademade and natural emergencies, again, a strong little increase there in satisfaction, there is some more unsure there, right? They're not tracking what you're doing in this regard. So this makes sense. Maintaining streets and roads and traffic signals, little decrease there, or little drop there, 70% still satisfied, and an increase in the people that say they're unsatisfied, it's almost 30% there. So that's something we saw already in the survey and it's going to be playing out here. But what's nice is it doesn't mean that they're off the charts upset. It just means this is something we want to be addressed But still 70% are satisfied bottom left fiscal stewardship You know 60% are satisfied again some unsure just because they're not tracking your budget And then in the middle there at the bottom providing housing and human services again a lot more people that just don't know. They're not focused on that part of your work. And bottom right, you know, back way out there at 92% for what they've talked to us about in parks and trails and open space. So super, super happy on that. Next slide, we've got top left promoting economic development. 63% satisfied. And you can see one of the other things here is pretty consistent numbers throughout. In the middle of the top library services in the 90s, we call that puppies and kittens territory. I mean, you're just not going to do better. It's just people just happy and you're probably never going to have those numbers increase. Top right, managing growth, a little bit off, and you can see a bigger unsatisfied number there. That's not probably a theme that I'm telling you that you don't know about. Bottom left there, festivals and community events. Super happy with that. Supporting affordable housing. That's where you have some more mixed results. If I'm a parent here, I'm probably wondering where my kids are going to live. And so that's part of that factor there. And then the methods and frequency and how you communicate about city issues and events and incidents, 81% satisfied. Could that number go up by a couple percentage points? Possibly, but it'll probably never get 90%. It's just a really strong high number. And I didn't see this earlier, but on the next slide, I'll kind of explain it. Top left there, how you use technology to provide services. It's 66% we round up. And this is where I kind of explain, this is not an academic exercise, right? That might look like a D minus to you. But the truth is we're Americans and we don't agree on anything. So if you have 50% plus one, you know, hallelujah, if you have two thirds, it's really off the charts. It's pretty amazing. In the middle of the top there, they're satisfied with your website, the tune of 79%, stormwater flooding mitigation, 58%, little group of unsatisfied there, but still very, very strong difference in delta between satisfied and unsatisfied. Solid waste services, 84%. It's just really positive. If we go to the next slide, we talk about some things that may be a little more in the commercial space. So retail options, you're satisfied or you're dissatisfied, 80% are satisfied, restaurant options, 90% satisfied, and then moving over medical and business professional services, 73% satisfied, and then to the bottom there, Community Energy Action Plan. You've got 38% that are satisfied, only a few that are unsatisfied, but really, they just don't have context. The majority there says, I just don't know, I'm not tracking it. Next slide up, importance, we're gonna talk about importance of housing and affordable housing, environmental sustainability and the EINB. So you get high marks for affordable housing, relatively two thirds, a little bit off from previous years, but still really strong. And of course, just that angst over what happens next prompts 7% to 29% of people saying that it's, well, in this case, it's important. So affordable housing, 2%, 3%, it's really important to them. And then people who have theirs and they're OK with others, not having theirs, 20, 29% of those. How you promote environmental sustainability, 77% say it's very important to them, or somewhat important to them, and then 22% say that they're not so concerned about it, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're not concerned about sustainability, maybe they just don't think you can have an impact or something like that. And then promoting DEI and belonging, 70, you know, 3% say it's important. And a little bigger number saying not, than the previous year. And we can all conjure maybe why people might say that. Maybe that's not necessarily how they truly feel, but maybe a sense of backing off from that for a few years here. And then we asked them about the importance of walkability in a safe environment. And 96% say it's important to them. Obviously, bikeability is a safe environment. 78% say it's important 21.0 and then the having an ample and parking also big big numbers there people saying it's important to them. Next up the importance of having a reliable affordable public transit. Again big number there 26% is a number, I'm sorry, 26% say unimportant and it's just not a factor for them or they don't think it's necessary. Okay, we're gonna keep going here. We're probably about halfway through. How do you rate the city's efforts to solicit public input, engage residents and policy and programs? They say you're doing a good job, 58%. Again, if you look at the fair number, it's just not really, it's okay. You add that to the excellent and good and you're really in a strong, strong place. Only 12% say that you're doing a poor job on that subject. So, you know, certainly something that can potentially change to help them have them feel like you're doing a better job, but it's really towering number for people who are happy. How do you provide feedback to the city? And we ask Ms. Flek as many as they want want and of course the first one is they're going to email the city hall and then email us to employee and then direct communication talking to one of you all you can see where these numbers go but for the most part there's an avenue for people to get in touch with City Hall and communicate what they want to communicate. Next slide we have the, we say, ask them to rate the delivery of services for residents of all abilities and cultures and ages, kind of that inclusive approach. Are you doing that? And almost two, three, 65% say you're doing an excellent good job. And very small number of people say you're doing that. And almost two, three, 65% say you're doing a, you know, excellent good job. And very small number of people say you're not meeting that standard. Next slide, we have how would you rate the quality of outdoor parks and facilities and fields and courts and all that outdoor recreation. 87% are happy. We saw that as a theme from earlier. There are, I think that might equate to like four or five people who say you're doing a poor job with that. Compared to all their neighbors together. Next we have a specific question how you rate the accessibility of outdoor facilities. And 81% say good or excellent, only 2% say poor. So you are doing phenomenal there. Rate the quality of the community center and 75% say, say, excellent or good. You know, another chunk say fair. Very few people saying poor. Similarly, the accessibility of of the community center, only 3% saying poor, everyone else having a, you're being unsure or having a positive impression. Quality of the library, 91%, very small number saying poor. Accessibility library, similar numbers. Just some people just don't know. How would you rate the performance of, in the community, how would you rate the city's performance in community building, bringing people together? 62% off a little bit from the previous year, but there's a very small number of people who don't think you're doing a good job at bringing the community together. Overall, we asked them if they have any suggestions to help improve quality inclusion or accessibility to city facilities and services because we just asked them about whether they thought they were accessible. And not a lot of suggestions, right? 48% basically said nothing, but there's some things in here about transparency and engagement. You know, transparency is something that you do organically, but they don't necessarily always look for it. So I don't know the necessarily have to change anything there, but you know, there's some a few mentions here of wheelchair mobility and a few mentions of some other things. But the bottom line is, and again, these are categorized and you can read the open hands. And you might find something in those open-ended answers that speaks to you that you can pull out and really feel like has a, has something to resonate that you can actually take action on. I always caution though with those open-ended responses. One answer does not mean it's 400, right? It's that one person, but not discounting that comment, but just don't replicate that across your entire community. Next up, we've got satisfaction with the value of services you receive for city taxes. And you are, you know, bizarre on this question. I don't mean to, you know, call you out in that way, but I mean, nobody has numbers like this. It speaks to your residents and their connection to the world and their education and the business they're in necessarily. So they're perfectly aligned with the satisfaction for these. And it's also, in a lot of cases, there's question over whether oftentimes residents know in most places how much they pay in local taxes, versus state taxes, county, versus you know federal and there's kind of a conflation of all that and your residents have figured it out and have a pretty strong number there comfort level that they're getting, they're satisfied with what they're getting from it. Supporter pose slightly raising city taxes to pay for increased costs, priorities, improve services. You can see there's an increase in support from the previous survey and a decrease in opposition. Here, you're not in a majority there. And so, I don't know what the background for this was or is and if some of your contemplating, we do a lot of work on tax measures. But your numbers are coming up. They're trusting you. They believe that there's something that can be accomplished with those resources. But you're still majority up opposed. If we put a finer point down this, like we said, $5 a month, or $100 per, you know, per 100,000 parcel, or whatever that number would be, or a sales tax, whatever it might be, these numbers could change, but for the purposes of right now, with this kind of very generalized point, you're just having a majority saying no. Next slide we ask them what's the most pressing need this city should fund if there was additional monies and this is among those who said yeah I'll be subject to higher taxes and slightly higher taxes and kind of thematically because we've seen it so far, infrastructure and roads and addressing affordable housing. So that's kind of an interesting one that comes up that, to some degree, you can address. But if they were going to put monies toward new taxes, that's where they want the money to go. And so the question is if that would be a policy decision. So next up, we've got almost two thirds, say they've been in contact with a false church employee. And I'll kind of explain this that that may be coming to City Hall and going to the planning counter that may be encountering someone with a false church logo on the truck and waving to them. It could be being pulled over by, you know, the sheriff and knowing that they're paid for by their tax dollars. So I wouldn't necessarily say this is, you know, a full-on conversation always. It's my interpretation of what a contact might be, but a lot of people do. And what's really kind of heartening is the next slide. And that is, how do you rate that interaction? And that interaction is 86% excellent or good. A bunch more say, yeah, it's when fine. And there are 7% who say it didn't go right. And I suspect that you know of those situations. You probably already heard about them. You probably already addressed them. So I think you're probably doing fine there. Next, we can go to the next slide and then the next slide, because we'll talk about demographics. Our job is to match your demographics. By age and gender and ethnicity, all those things that say who you are as a community to make sure these numbers are accurate. And we've accomplished that here. This is based on census, and it's also here, we you the differences relatively small differences year over year in those numbers. Another way that you are very unique is that top right. America is what 22, 24% college. You know you're 80 plus, it's pretty amazing. And that speaks to why some people have, you have a greater understanding of some of the policy things we talked about. Next up, the next slide, we have some other demographics, like whether they have children in public school and children in the household, which number is also significantly high. And this year we asked about LGBTQ, and you can also see language there as we board, indicated, and then the survey mode, you can see how people chose to take the survey and how that might change, you know, mobileiles up a little bit. But that's, I know a lot of information. The slide deck that has all the cross-tabulated data is, you know, three times the size of this, the report on the results with all the other information in it is, I think it brought about, you know, 700 pages. And so we are infinitely available through staff, you know, sits in and just to reach out to us in any capacity to help you through this. And our goals to have this data be kind of a living document for years until you do decide to do the next survey. Anything else to add before we open up to questions or comments? I'll add for those who are listening and will review transcript in the future. The survey is located online at falsechurch.gov and the backslashes community survey. The results from 2023 are also there. We invite the public to look at both of those. Both the presentation that was shown today and in 2023 are there as well as the full deck of information where the community can go in and explore it and the full deck for this time is 1300 88. So enjoy. Thanks for correcting me, Mary Kendrick. Awesome. Well, thank you. Let's open up to questions then. Let's go first. Ready? Justine? Thank you so much for that presentation. And I hope that staff sees this presentation as well and realizes what the great job they have been doing. And I hope they feel pride in all the work that the work that they've been putting in. Not that we can't do better and there are definitely places to improve. Do you find that time of year matters from when the survey is conducted or does it not matter that much? I think there are always factors that can influence responses and their incidents that happen. There are wildfires in California. There are changes in government in this part of the world. And so I think all those things can have factors. But generally, we don't not pull at a certain time because of something specific. We tend to not call on New Year's Eve or Super Bowl Sunday or Russia-Shana, but beyond that, we're pretty okay. We don't really think it matters that much because we also give a period of time. It's usually a week or so or more where we collect data. So if there is something in there, it's okay because people have other times to respond. Great. And actually in terms of how you collect data, so you were able to match fairly well the demographic data of false church. How exactly do you go about doing that? Because to me, it sounds like then you would have to, if you've got too many men or too many kids or whatever else, you'd have to throw out some data. So we try not to throw out data, but yes, our job is to match it. So, and we're moving slowly to try to accomplish each one of these demographics. But yes, there may be a moment where we have too many Asian women who make over $300,000 a year, right? So we've got to moderate that in a bit. But yes, there may be some that are not included in this full report. Because for the most part, we're really trying to do it incrementally and accomplish that goal kind of bottom up. Interesting. So if you've contacted or gotten responses from too many women, then you might target men specifically after that. Exactly. Yes. That one too. And then, oh, I just, a couple of things that stood out to me from the report. It was funny, because clearly I'm not represented in here. If 78% of people were satisfied with the website, that's great. I'm not satisfied with the website, but I'm glad to see that our residents are. And then I guess I was shocked to see how many 20 plus year residents there are in false church. I guess, you know, I would hope that they are happy because they've lived here for everyone lives somewhere for so long unless you were happy. So I wonder if that that's used as a little bit. But yeah, that that was interesting to me. So anyway, thank you. And I'll comment on the demographics for a moment. So there were two areas in which we expanded the upper end of the demographic section. So when you go into the full report, you'll see that. It was income and the number of years you've lived in the city. And so it adds some further, I think, definition to what you just mentioned there is does they know of years you've lived here correlate with how you answer their questions. And I think digging into that's a lot of fun. Thank you. Let's go next. No, no questions? Dave? Sure. That's go next. No, no questions? Dave? Sure. That's a lot. So going to slide 11, which I think is the most useful slide in terms of services and where we need to to readjust and make some improvements. So I see a couple of these so maintaining streets and roads and maintaining sidewalks, crosswalks, neighborhood traffic calming. We know from community input that that's verified is critically important topic and we are doing some things to to rectify it, but it seems to me we didn't need to do more. And I think it may reflect as well the inability to enforce the way we want to enforce because of state prohibitions on electronic enforcement, for example. I think that may be buried in there, although this is reflected in terms of maintaining streets and roads, sidewalks, crosswalks, neighborhood traffic calming. So that's an area where clearly there's interest in more work. Managing growth and development is another key area where you have a high degree of importance and a low degree of satisfaction. I think that needs to be taken on board. Physical stewardship, this one's a little bit difficult to, it's important but it's difficult to square with some of the other points of satisfaction with the services provided. But I think that's worthy of continued focus, supporting affordable housing, another area, a long range planning. So I think this chart offers us the greatest more detailed direction about places where we can put our focus and resources in the future. And if you go to the next slide, slide 12, I think that lays out that an even greater clarity, high degree of interest, and a lesser degree of satisfaction. And again, I'm thinking that the streets and roads in sidewalks may reflect high traffic volumes in the inability to control the behavior of traffic as well as the built environment. Those are areas where I think this council has put more resources and we clearly need to in the future. And then the managing growth and development clearly indicates community concern with the way that's being done right now. So those are the areas where I would focus our work in the future and the affordable housing is another area, not in that green box, but one that's important. So those are kind of my major takeaways. And this is in the context of, as I said at the beginning, a high degree of overall satisfaction, which we all work collectively hard to maintain. But even as we do that, it's important to see where the greatest differences are between importance and satisfaction. Thank you. That's very method. Thank you, Mayherde. Thank you for this. I agree with Justine. I think staff should be really proud of what the community sees and experiences in the city. The library is high. and the interactions with staff are high. I mean, there's just so much to really say, well, we're doing a good job. We're keeping people happy. And now you can take out your bingo card and say, Mary Beth mentioned schools because I have a friend. But my first question is about the number of responses. You got 400 responses. Yes. Did you try to get more than 400 and you only ended up 400? It was the 400, the goal. I, we tend to have a handful more and then we balance to 400. So we know we, for cost measures and for accuracy purposes we really try to keep it as tight as possible. So yes I'm confident we had a few more that we had a pair off to have a balance but for the most part we're pretty close. Okay I can't believe you got so many people to answer the phone. It is surprising how people. I guess it's the way people were factoring funds. Yeah, so here's my school's questions. On slides 9, 10 and 11, there's no mention of schools at all. Some slides we, schools are in there and some aren't. So I'm just wondering on those 9, 10 and 11, it was a select all apply. So that wasn't one of the options. It was not, and yeah. Is it off? I think sometimes people, city residents don't necessarily differentiate between, that's the schools and that's the general government. They just look at all the services that they're getting. This list on those slides was chosen in 2023 by the Council at the time. And so this, the data that we're able to draw the differentiation between the two surveys, we kept it the same so we could have the longitudinal data. And the added piece from 2023 is also this was a general government survey, so we really focused it on those. Generally, that was the survey focus. Right, right, right. About the priorities and focus. Right, right. I just don't want to lose as we look at what is the most important or what are the top services. If people aren't themselves differentiating, Then I wonder if we should add it in the future. Well on page eight. So what's it difference between the page eight? What's important to you? Because that is rank in the top five? I Think that's a oh, yeah, there it is. Yeah, right. So I was saying that some it's there some places and now there places in what the the the difference between the question Unsolidate is not necessarily about the city is just issues people in the city might be thinking about whereas the questions on slide nine and ten are more specifically about city services and Any you're right. I mean the the public often doesn't have command over political subdivisions. Your residents, I suspect do. Oh, yeah. But I'll say what percentage of residents have, well, I guess it doesn't matter what. That was there. It was 30.. But you still have opinion even if you don't have. Yeah. Yeah. I actually find eight the most useful because it is that macro view, right? Yeah. So out of 30% of our residents have kids in schools, it ranks in the top five. Yeah. You know? So I think that's pretty fair. Yeah. But obviously transportation and taxes are still very high too. Right. It just tracks with that's the other thing. Nothing is a surprise here to any of us, right? None of us are saying what? I had no idea people were concerned about traffic because it really tracks with what we hear and what we say. So anyway, thank you for that. Mary Beth, can I just happen on that one? Because I guess if we, yeah, so keeping sort of the city services the same over time, like for longitudinal reasons, right? we would wanna kind of keep the list, but if we, if, you know, if there were some place else to capture education in the later slides, then you'd still need to differentiate again when you get back to like city employees, right? Who you're meaning that like it's not like, oh, I've been in contact with my child's teacher in the last month or within the last 12 months versus like someone at City Hall or another kind of city facility, the library or wherever it is. And in terms of trying to like differentiate which, but we don't actually know about. Right. One that says, I've been in touch with a city employee. It could be your child's teacher. But at least going to City Hall, how do you communicate? You call City Hall, you go to City Hall, which in my mind is City Hall. Yeah, yeah, yeah. General government services, which is what we're serving for. That's what we have input over. Right. Anyway, thank you. I appreciate it very much. Questions, comments? Okay, I have two. So again, I go with the things. I think staff should feel very proud. And this results because you do that day-to-day hard work of delivering services and improve quality life for people. So thank you for that. It's nice, remember one to know that we do rank probably the highest on the DMV, at least for the data you have. I think we should be very proud of that as well. And while that is important, what I actually care more about is going back to slide eight, are the top five or 10 things consistent across the region? So are these universal things that people in the DMV care about taxes, traffic, condition of streets and roads and schools? Or is this unique to fall stretch? I can't at the top of my head, give you the answer to that, but we do a fair amount of work here. So I will go back and look at our data and we can also look at from other surveys that are being done and give you an answer for that. Because I think that would be useful to understand is obviously we're 2.5 square miles. And so understanding how we fit in that regional context are these just universal DC area issues. Or are we unique in any of these dimensions. My second one is I love all the longitudinal stuff. So I'm glad that now we have two years worth of data. I will acknowledge I was a little apprehensive about doing it earlier in the season. In light of changes to the federal level, the fact that we are in the winter doldrums, but good to see that we've actually increased five points since 2023, so that was great. But in terms of where the big swings were, kind of later on in the presentation, what I picked up is big swings meaning more than, plus or minus seven points or so, That was what I declared big in my opinion. Yeah, five or more. Like streets and rows went down like seven, I think. Restaurant options, up a bunch and then Valley for taxes went up a bunch. I'd be also curious whether there were other things you noticed or swings from 2023 to 2025 that we should take note of because those are things that we've been measuring over time and that's another good actionable thing for us to pay attention to. Yeah, I mean, the things that we talked about, like 10 times, excuse me, through the slides, are the things that, you know, I think are most relevant and that's streets and roads and sidewalks, traffic. Those are the things, that's what kind of my, you know, my focus goes to and that, as you said, is down, you know, nine points. So that's really what I look most likely focused on. The, in the crosstabs, there are some things in there based on all the demographics that have utility to them. I don't think really, necessarily from a policy standpoint, but very much from an outreach and communication standpoint. So I think there's going to be, you know, there's great value in that. But really it's that street and road thing that I kind of saw as being something that's I'm saying problematic, but a focus of attention that the residents definitely have. And, you know, you clearly would probably want to pay attention to. Great. So I know maybe a one immediate to do which I know I've actually seen OCOM do is actually push out the schedule and when repaving is happening. So now that the weather is improved I know that our contractors will be out repaving streets but that's something that I get asked about probably at least once a day. If I may that's one thing that and Councilman Snyder spoke to as well. Some of these things that are concerns that may be important since satisfaction don't match, often time that's a communication factor, right? They just don't know what you're doing. They don't know how transparent, how many awards you've gotten for fiscal responsibility. They just don't know those answers. So if some of that can really be, that gap can be made up in a lot of ways by just talking more about what you do well. And hopefully those numbers can shift from that perspective. Yeah, I'll add on to that. So our three highest insurers, which to me speaks to communication overall, or a lack of use, was in community energy action plan, emergency services communication and housing and human services. And so one of the things that some polling data can tell you is that familiarity increases favorability. And so when you do go to that slide that shows the green box and the services that look like there's a low satisfaction. I look at that and say that's a low awareness, that's a low use rate. And so in that, I think for us, that's an improvement and question quality next time so that we account for that. And that's for the latter half. I think for the others, the three that I named out, that's a great list for us to get started on, to better communicate with the community. And so I think those are the two differentiators as I look at the data of when it is just low awareness, overall, because it's low usage, versus low awareness, because we can write a better comms plan. Got it? Sorry, Mary Beth. Oh. I was just gonna add on the timing. I know it's a timing with somewhat of relevant, but in my opinion, the paving and streets right now, because it's that kind of when the timing of it was is we are rock bottom on a couple of key intersections. And I do think that it's going to increase those numbers, unfavorable numbers, the timing of that. Because hopefully many of those are going to be addressed between now and July 1st. So maybe I'm just being naive and optimistic, but I would think if you were gonna survey again at the end of July, that hopefully the police, the paving, would be better. Especially if we have some promotion of, if you're sure you're not being paid now, here's the schedule of when it will be, and here's paving schedule overall and that communication also to your point familiarity creates favorability there and communication creates favorability that's all thanks. Laura you had your hand up. Thank you. Thank you for this presentation that was very, very interesting and I just wanted to throughout there, I think, right here at Chakras, just talking about this. Just, we're just me, the importance of community engagement, and how we can probably work on that a little bit more. I know this is one of the things that I had to share part on, having come from the school board side of TAYN and the daily newsletter of what you had to share is when something that we're going to have some to look at and we're also looking at getting a new website designer. So I think we have a lot of council which is kind of always keep that in the world part of the whole world talking about different things. For me, age community, I think we better communicate. And you know what, that's a combination of, you know, the upgrades to the website, false church focus, what have you, maybe it's what you did at, you know, whatever was wild, and you just press about some update on what we're doing. But I do think that that really goes across the spectrum in terms of engaging in our community, both community and outward, but also receiving that impact from the community, and making sure that we can get a lot of information that people are unaware of what's happening in the city. And so I'm sort of going that out there. I'm really excited that your gathering is on our team and communityism efforts. So, thanks a lot, and maybe you should have good. Great. Any final thoughts? Okay. And I have congratulated the staff and I just want to congratulate Mr. Benton over there because here's the Fulcester's News Press. Let's see the top source of information about the city. So I would be remiss if we didn't at least note that the year and his paper is indeed a very important communication vehicle. So thanks. And can I also note just from staff's perspective, the signal that we get on a regular basis from the city council is, I believe, very aligned with what the community says in the survey. And so the city council is very in touch with this community. And we know that and we respect that. And Mary Catherine's gonna be leading staff with a brown bag luncheon to go through these survey responses so that staff can onboard this information and take this signal and operationalize some of the signal the community is sending with this survey as well. So Mr. Poboski, thank you for working with us on this. And Cindy and Americanthorne, thank you for your staff work on this. It's a really good prep as we start budget next week because it's obviously making sure budget dollars are aligned at the top priorities is important. And if I can say one last thing, that is why we move the survey up this year is because we were running mostly the same questions. We didn't need the same timeframe to prepare them and we had an opportunity to be able to complete the survey so that council and the members of the public could review it as the budget goes before you next week. Thank you for joining us. Okay. I'm ready to transition to tree canopy. All right, well let's invite our city arbor's Charles Prince to the table. And I also note that Ms. Compton, member of the Urban Forestry Council, is here in the audience. She's welcome at the table as well. We also have Gary. Well, that's the mayor's call, not my call. But I'm pretty sure that she would say that. And we also have Gary Fuller who was on the call just a moment ago and Henry Zhang in the planning department has worked with the city arborist on this proposal and I'm going to turn it over to Charles for a discussion of this. I will just note that the City Council and City Council Strategic Initiatives did have looking at our canopy regulations on your key strategic initiatives. And what the staff has brought forward is, you know, for tonight, in some respects, a decision that we would like the Council to make. And one is, decision one would be to take a focused approach, which was I think staff's original idea that we would focus on our commercial districts and look at having canopy coverage regulations at a higher level in our commercial districts. And our review of state code authorities, we do also have some room where we can make Mr. Fuller here here in the audience. I was looking for you on the teams call. We do have some some areas of additional authority that could apply in the R1A and R1B districts where we have regulated canopy coverage for a very long time. In fact, we were one of the first jurisdictions of Virginia to do so. And our recommendation is if that's the council direction that we take a bit more time to study that because we didn't really envision going into R1A and R1B in terms of canopy coverage changes and we need to study the interaction between that and storm order regulations in particular where we're requiring detention and sometimes there's just not enough space on some of those smaller residential lots for the stormwater for, you know, all the other things that happen and it's also relevant to the AD discussion. That's a bit of an introduction and so I wanted to share some of that staff thinking about that choice but if we were to focus on the commercial regulations, we would want to, we think we could get our hand grips on that pretty quickly in terms of understanding what the implications would be. Mr. Pratt. Thank you, Mr. Shields. Yeah, thank you, Council. Yeah, as I mentioned, looking at the state of Virginia has allowed us to regulate trees on commercial properties. I have a 10% canopy coverage requirement. Currently we have some minimal requirements for commercial properties for parking lots, zoning buffer, but the landscape buffers and also parking lots. The parking lots that you have the landscape buffers well. So with the future of development is going, I believe parking lots are kind of falling a little bit by the wayside. So I think this can kind of make up for what we would lose in landscape and zoning buffers. I'm sorry, landscape parking lot buffers by requiring 10% of commercial properties. This is the minimum. A lot of other neighboring jurisdictions. I have a little bit stricter regulations. I'm not exactly sure how they do that. I'm not going to dive into that too much. After consulting with the city attorney, she said that this would be a fairly quick code change to kind of update our existing code, and if we want to go further and re-cut change the code for tree canopy on other districts, I think that would be a deeper longer discussion and probably a little bit more fiscal impact than the simple change. So, that I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay. Thank you for joining us Amy as well. Questions for Charles or Amy or other staff on this. So the decision in front of us is for the scope perspective, do we tackle just commercial or do we also want to add in the artistrics? And then I guess my part beta that is is 10% to staff recommendation or is that up for discussion? So, all do we have authority for more? Well, I think Turrells would recommend 10, which, but I think maybe I would suggest that we ought to do some analysis and apply that metric to projects that the council is very familiar with that have gone through the SE process and also possibly some other commercial developments in the city. Just so you we all could see kind of what that would look like and what some of the gives and takes would be and also get some community feedback including commercial property on his feedback, even possibly even doing some of that before they initiating. Certainly seeing kind of what that canopy coverage would look like in some of the recent SE applications, which we have not done. and so we would provide some, we would need to take a little bit of time to do some of that analysis so that you would have that picture even as you initiate an ordinance. Got it. Okay. So on that scope question, I guess we can open up to council whether we want to discuss commercial or commercial and residential. Is that the first thing to tackle? Aaron, do you want to go first as the current liaison? Sure. And Amy, you know, you should feel free to jump in also. I mean, my personal view on it, and I think the urban forestry sort of view on it is while we would of course like to see increased canopy coverage everywhere and move toward that 50% metropolitan, Washington Council of Government's goal in both preserving, maintaining, increasing tree canopy. I think we'd love, I would personally love to get a commercial tree canopy ordinance on the books, the state enabling legislations very clear, we've imported those requirements. It seems like we could just import it and key it to the state code. And I don't think given community priorities and sort of what we know about the beneficial, how beneficial tree canopy is throughout the city, that in terms of community values and everything else we should be doing this. And I would prefer to get it done sooner rather than later and not take on, you know, another look at residential tree canopy and extend this into like 18 or 24 months. I think that we should be doing what we can to get the code updated so that we don't have projects that are coming in and not, you know, using additional space even that we provided in parking relief, for example, to make that space more green. So that's maybe you want it. Okay. I have some questions, but I have a question for Sally. I think there's several zoning districts this impacts. Do we need to read disclosures again for people who live in? Yeah. Aaron might have the opposite issue this time. Thank you for bringing that up. I possibly now, I think what we're asking is, are we even going to invest resources in this? So, I suppose, I suppose yes, the answer is yes. I saw that and I wasn't sure because the economic interest in it wasn't entirely clear yet, but I'm happy to say that. I'm a resident who is in a group of three or more given my zoning district who could see a reasonably foreseeable director indirect economic benefit or detriment from any potential ordinance in this area and I can review this objectively, fairly and in the public interest. Thank you. I'm impressed you have the memorized. Okay, other thoughts? Debbie? Yeah, I just, so I wasn't clear on the conversation about how we're talking about 10%, but other jurisdictions have other percentages. And I know that in our SEs, we've asked for higher percentages than 10% and we've had results where we've actually had more than that so I'm trying to figure out the balance. I don't want to lose anything. I'd like to step up the requirements to meet what we've negotiated and have built upon in our economic development areas. So I don't know if there's any more clarity. Sally or you could provide on that delta. Well, I think this would apply to by-right projects more effectively than special exceptions. Special exceptions we have the bargaining power. I understand that, but I want to bring that up as close to special exceptions as possible. I mean I know that there's seen the benefit of it in those discussions and do we have any more flexibility or why don't we have more flexibility if others have exercised that. That's a good question that would be something we have to look into. There's like Alexander for example they they have a lot more stricter regulations than in my initial review, I could see that they're allowed to have. I don't wanna see. Yeah, I don't know exactly how it's done. I haven't reached out to them to talk about it yet. But the point of this is to get by right commercial properties a little bit more landscaping than we have and through the SC, they're speaking with Keeta, Ruzu, and Zoning. We may be able to just add this to special exception checklist, a higher tree canopy, but that's something that I would discuss further as this process, if this process means forward. I guess I, the bottom line is I'm in support of including this as, you know, the bottom line for a by-right. I'd like that percentage to be as high as we think is possible while still encouraging development. And then the opportunity to have greater than that and special exception discussions because they're receiving a benefit that we wanna have a direct and corresponding benefit too as well. So I'm in support of doing that. And like Erin, if we can move more quickly on doing a commercial, great, but I don't want to forget about residential. We've been talking about at least the four years I've been on, what else we can do, and send water retention on site. And that usually leads to building, you know, planting more trees. And what can we do on that? But that requires additional research, additional ordinance changes, and it's more complicated. I know there are more options there. So I support the first separating them as great, but let's not forget about the residential side as well. So we've been talking about that for a long time. Thank you. Oh, that's Mary Beth. I would agree that I think we should focus on business first, residential second, but not residential fifth. I am surprised to hear you say that this is by right not special exception, because part of the reason this came up originally was we wanted to be able to have a standard in a special exception to say This is where you have to start and we'll go from there because it seems often that they come in kind of low and we're always talking them up so So I guess you're also talking about sort of bifurcating By right and special exception is different. Yeah, so by right would be in the code. So you know, I've had to code like everything else for special exception. That'd be something I would certainly explore with all the stakeholders in the development review committee to figure out how we can increase that if possible. So it wouldn't be, it's not left off the table. It's just I don't think we're able to put that into code Right, so when we do a special exception that we often say You need to have this kind of sidewalk and you need to have this percentage of this and so is there a maximum or a minimum percentage we can say For tree canopy Yes, and that is actually part of the reason I wanted to pursue this. If we have a minimum for commercial spaces, we can at least point to that and say, hey, you're doing a special exception, our minimum is 10%. So, make it special. So maybe they can get 15 or 16%. Okay. Or something a little bit higher, something that obviously would go through all of the conduits of the special exception. I like 10% but make it special. That's a good check. Because it seems like all the special exceptions we've done, none of them have been, like I think 12% is the least that we've had with special exceptions. They're all sort of above that already. Right, and there's some discussion there because a lot of that includes the required street skate that goes in so even though it's not on the Product Development property. It's been the street's hape trees have been included in that population and so part of the part of the study of this does go forward is I'll take out the street escapes on in the city right away and only calculate the trees that are on the subject problem. Okay. of this does go forward is I'll take out the streetscapes on in the city right away and only calculate the trees that are on the subject's route. Okay that's good I'd like that too. Yeah yeah thanks. Okay justine. Because to why it's point I would be curious I mean as this goes forward like seeing how this would would impact certain areas or businesses, I think about the rare bird parking lot. I don't think there are many trees there, I don't know, maybe there's a little bit, but so like if they were to redeveloper browns, was to redevelop and do something by right, like how would that suddenly change the calculus of what they do there? So I would definitely like to see some of that. I'm curious, because I was looking at the Arlington requirements. Those generally made sense to me. And so I was curious right now how we differ from what Arlington requires. So Arlington requires 10% tree canopy for anything that's business or commercial. And so that's what we're looking to do. They have 10% tree canopy for residential sites, zone 20 or more units per acre, 15% tree canopy for anything, zone more than 10, but less than 20 and 20% tree canopy for residential site, zone 10 units or less per acre. Right now though, for single family zoning, we do have 20%. So, in 10 years. Okay. Is what Arlington requires different than that? Do they not require a 10-year? They do. Can you put on your microphone Amy? Thank you. Yeah. So Arlington is different. They've adopted the Virginia code 15.2-961, pretty much in full. And so yes, they're looking at residential in 20 years, whereas we are in 10 years, which I believe is because we grandfathered that in and never did adopt the state's full code. So we've been kind of piecemealing things for the last 25 years or so. How is that effect? What is the difference there when you have ten years versus 20 years? What does that effectively change? Oh, let Charles answer that. he's much better at it. That's a really great question. That's something I've been wanting to look at since I kind of started in really understanding the different codes in the different areas. Because if you think about it, on the surface level more trees equals better, right? With a lot of our smaller units, or smaller lots, we're getting a lot of trees crammed in. And so what we're going to get is a lot of straight up forest trees. I've thought about doing the calculations on a couple of some of these single family units and seeing what 20% and 20 years would look like. But what I don't want to do is open a Pandora's Box and say, hey, the arborist wants less trees and that's not quite the case. I want more effective canopy. That would be my goal of that. But right now we just have the the commercial is a little bit more of a target for me right now than kind of examining the single families because we have a really robust single-family canopy and the trees staying, people are cutting them down and it's just looked really nice. What I'm able to do with the residential is really remove a lot of invasive trees, invasive plants, a lot of bamboo I see, get taken out on these projects and we're replanting all native trees and seeing, you know, properly spaced out, away from property lines and it looks really nice. In your judgment, would you generally say that a 20 year standard would be better than a 10 year standard? Or it's... I would have to look at... I would have to do some experiments on different size lots and different size homes as well. Sometimes we're building right to building restriction lines and other times we're not. So there's a lot of variables there. I can't really speak on that right now. But it would be accurate to say I think that the city has the 10% standard because we believe that's the more robust regulation. It results in more trees. Okay. Any year, two. Now, Charles has given a lot of important context for that. It has other consequences, but that's the reason why we're 10 years as opposed to 20. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think as other council members said, I would be fine moving forward with examining and looking at the consequences of what would happen in commercial. But I think it's strongly I think it's worthwhile also looking at residential. So not kicking the can out too far down the road on that. Other thoughts? Dave? Thanks a lot. Thanks for the recommendation. I totally agree that this is kind of a gap we need to close. Why 10% and not more? That's the maximum estate allows us to rely on. Okay I wanted to get that established. Secondly, why the 20 year and not 15 years or 10 years for the tree canopy to be established? Again, it's just the way the state rights it. The reason we're able to have our residential and a 10 year time frame is like Amy mentioned. We've had the law in the books before the state let us regulate it so they kind of let us keep it. And then finally I see that it applies to T2 and not T1 I think that relates to theal ordinance. And T, I thought we already have 15 to 20% canopy. Right, that may be a type on my part. All right. It's there in line 39 to 41. It says it. I'm going to go in line 40. that one? Yeah, that's um, it's actually an error. I went and checked this. On the, the T1's owned property, it is keyed to the Virginia Code 961. So the zoning ordinance stipulates 10% to 20% tree canopy requirement based on those um, 15.2961. So like some of the higher density T zone lots like park parkly when they went through site plan review they only needed to have 10% because they were higher than the 20 units per acre. It's the one that's there. Sub provisionprovision, two. It's the T zone ordinances keyed to this. And then as it turned out, I think because of the plantings in the right of way versus plantings on lot, even though the coverage requirement was something like 10%, only 3% of the tree canopy is actually on the lap versus in the right of way. So it's also something to kind of look at for when this comes back in terms of where you can place the canopy. Yeah, I want to make sure we're addressing that accurately. And then finally we lose a lot of of trees in both commercial and residential areas when we put sidewalks in the right of way as opposed to putting the sidewalks on the street. And I think we need to think about more and more of where we add sidewalks. do the rather than claiming a lot of trees because we have a street tree program, right? But then we also value sidewalks clearly. So I think we have to be careful how we balance that in the future and to the extent we can, the sidewalk is built into the street rather than into the areas where we've got lots of street trees. And I think that's something we really need to talk more about and do more as we lay that out. We achieve both objectives as opposed to one at the cost of the other. And then, frankly, the environmental quality of trees, I mean, of trees, it's even greater than I thought. It is just for heating and it's just for cooling, as well as the obvious role in taking CO2 out of the environments and returning O2. And we're at 48 at 48% I guess, and the region's target is 50. So, hopefully this will get us to closer to the 50%. And we don't do any action that will resolve and denigration of the amount of tree canopy. And that is one of my fears with the excess weed dwelling units on how we have to be very careful. Again, we don't achieve one objective at the cost of the other. Thanks. Okay, I have thoughts. So as your former UFC liaison, I'm glad that we were finally bringing this because I know that was often discussed for the several years. Have we adopted a false church? I'm going to start actually the thousand-point view. Have we adopted a false church tree canopy goal or are we adopting just the 50% cog regional one? That is a great question because we just discussed that at our last meeting that we thought it would be appropriate to create a resolution to pass to you all to see if you wanted to pass like a resolution saying that we want to be following COGS recommendations, so we have not as a city I think done that technically no got it so I would support that because I think I always start with the why right so why are we doing this and for 40% We want to get to 50 what are the actions because I think the data then needs to support that. As context though given that we are kind of urbanizing suburb I looked up Alexandria Street can be there at 36 Arlington's at 41%. And so ours at 48 is actually doing really quite well obviously we're greener than those and you know I'm saying that we clearly can improve all ways but just as regional context, I think that's important, because I think 50% for the metropolitan DC area includes your Loudoun counties and your Fairfax counties, which feels very different than Falls Church and your inner rings, that burps. So first, I guess I would start with, what is our goal is 50% reasonable given the context we're in? The second, I think overall, I do support tackling commercial first. That said, my question is, how many of these buy-write projects have we had that's only commercial? Because to my knowledge, we've had the Stratford, which is a buy-write kind of site plan project only. And then the Econize project, which is the top of Spring Street right now, but majority of the projects are really special exceptions, right? Have we had other? Yes, any jewelers? Was the jewelry site? The scenery. And so all of those have been very little, I guess, tree canopy on there, right? So, and so we're proposing that those would then need to meet this 10%. So a question I would have for staff is for the projects that have come through that have been by right, what are those percentages have been have they've been really far short of that 10% just to get it again good lay of the land. I did look up actually are three most recent special exceptions. So I do think that if we are talking about by right and s's that's probably too low because we've actually accomplished way better. So West Falls actually had 15% tree canopy founders wrote two at 14% and Quinn had 19% tree canopy. And obviously this is pre-built, so Quinn with TBD. But I do think it's, again, worth again, benchmarking what we see with bi-right commercial projects. And again, we don't get too many and they're probably pretty small. And then what we get on special exceptions, which are your multi-acre projects. We're actually, in some cases, almost double that 10%. That's important context to keep in mind. And if we have the ability to negotiate better than 10, again, in an SE, we have that ability. That's important to know. But overall, given that we've talked about wanting to take advantage of authority that we're getting in Virginia, we should absolutely go ahead with the 10% unless Sally tells us that we actually have more. and then we can push that envelope a bit. My third point has to do with residential. So I kind of agree with just seeing that, I would like the quote. and then we can push that envelope a bit. My third point has to do with residential. So I kind of agree with Justine that I would like the corollary to be the residential. And the reason why I think, while we can certainly tackle commercial first, I think residential is important to tackle. And again, I go to back to the data. So I looked at the amount of land that we've disturbed in commercial versus residential. So over the past 20 years, We've disturbed 38 acres of land for mixed use and 100 acres of land for residential redevelopment. So three times as much in residential. And so if we ultimately care about getting to that 50th present tree canopy goal across the entire city impacting tree canopy on quarter acre half acre by right, is it really going to get us there? So if we believe as a counseling community, we want to get to 5% tree canopy, the bigger thing to go after is actually the residential tree canopy. And again, we may not have authority to go there, but that's why I think looking at the entire city makes sense, but I'm fine for now to tackle the commercial buy-write only. But I do think that we can't ignore where the bigger impact is, like across the city, whether it's residential redevelopment that creates stormwater issues or tree can be. But I do think that we can't ignore where the bigger impact is. Like across the city, whether it's residential, you know, redevelopment that creates stormwater issues or tree canobies. That's where we have the majority issues, especially given that again the data says we're getting 15, 19% tree canopy in those big SE projects already. Right, so is that help? We're already exceeding the residential, we call it a requirement by having 20% and 10 years when the state only allows 20% and 20 years. Yeah, I guess the questions are more, is it? There's no more. So the city of Alexandria has 25% across the board, but they, I think they grant all that in. So yeah, it becomes a little bit more of a discussion about how to encourage more planting on those properties. And I think Arlington does do a few things a little differently than we do, and I'm still not clear how they do it. Legally, they're doing it through the code that they're using, but they do, I think, try to encourage people if they're taking off a certain number. If you already have a canopy on a pretty good amount of canopy and you're reducing it only down to 20% in 10 years, they try to get you to put more of the trees back that were originally on the property. If you don't, then they'll ask you to pay some money to go to a tree canopy fund, right? So there are some different approaches, but the tree canopy fund then also raises a very strange question because it's only allowed under 961.1, which is the conservation of trees and not under 961. That's not until it's still using it. So we have to say that we've looked at these things multiple talk to people, but sometimes there are ways that people are sort of creating opportunities creatively that would like to, I think we'd like to learn more about how they're doing that. But given that you think we've likely maximized authority with the 20% in 10 years requirements, if that is the majority of the opportunity, and we've already maximized that, is 50% realistic, right? Because we've been maintaining 46%, 48% for the past 10 years, which is pretty good. Again, considering the regional context we're in, so would adopting 50% be kind of an impossible goal if we can't really impact residential further? Well, I think it's, I think it's a symbolically it would be important. I think to do so we're already part of the cog and we've already been working with them for a couple decades now on these kinds of issues. I think to reinforce that the city is behind them on this whether we will actually ourselves get to that 50%, we're going to work on it, but that we appreciate that that's what they want to do for the entire region. So it does require that everybody else get up higher than they are. It may be impossible or it may take decades, we just really don't know. But I think from just from a solidarity point of view, it would be I think a nice gesture for us to tell them yes that we see this, we are with you. We will do our best to approach that. Do we know if our neighbors adopted the ones who already have higher tree canopy? Have they adopted higher than 50 percent? And not that I know of? Yeah, I think it's an ongoing discussion. I'm part of the regional tree canopy subcommittee. We've just got three goals together and we're kind of forming groups right now to come up with different strategies to achieve the goals. I think a lot of that will be analyzing what localities are adopting as their regional tree canopy. There's been some questions about some of the studies and some of the data so there's still a lot of back and forth trying to see what the results are. There's been some questions about some of the studies and some of the data, so there's still a lot of back and forth trying to sift through everything and try to figure out what is actually reasonable. So I think the 50% for us, we are at 48, so like, you know what, let's just put a 50 for them 2%, that's great. But it is a good question. and we do have a lot of streets that could use some trees. We do have some opportunities in parks to put some trees in, but we need to be mindful to keep some play space, open space fields for recreation. Under this spring, we'll be planting along the edge of our works parks. We're going to be adding more street canopy there be there. But if we can get to 50%, that's great. If we just keep right there, right? Just under 50%, I think that's great too. So maybe the way to get to 50 is not necessarily, I mean, again, we should do it anyway because it's good to set a percentage for, again, your buy, right, commercial projects, even though we don't have that many. but maybe more street trees, more trees in public spaces would help us get to 50%. Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah. OK. I do have one more. When I was released on, I know one thing we often debate at the site. trees, more trees in public spaces would help us get to 50 percent. Is that what I'm hearing? Yeah. Okay. I do have one more. When I was released on, I know one thing we often debate it besides tree canopy is actually getting targets for open and green space and how much of that should be publicly accessible versus not. I'm still very interested in that because I think that also just makes better development when there is open and green space. That's not really related to your scope, but I'm just putting out there something that I don't want to forget because that would be a good target to keep in mind whether again it's for SCs or by-right commercial projects. And they feel tied. So, yes. On that point, I was gonna say, with the by-right commercial and the special exception, I think one of the important things to look at and it's in the staff report is the definition for urban green space and so the benefits of countering urban heat effects offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating storm water. And so it would be helpful when this comes back to think not only about what is it that we can take from the enabling legislation and actually have incorporated into our code for the by-rate commercial, but also for that checklist, what is an appropriate percentage, what should be on site versus in right of way, and what should be meeting that urban green space standard versus turf or something like that. And then separately on sort of the points about residential, even outside the tree canopy, I mean my hope is that and this just came up recently too, that we could look at something like the stormwater feed credits sooner rather than later in terms of rain barrels, you know rain gardens, those sorts of programs to change residential behavior, but beyond that looking at how we calculate stormwater kind of impervious or pervious coverage. I think it maybe with the Econize site plan it sort of came to my attention and now it I've seen it a few times happen where we seem not to be capturing mature trees as doing anything with respect to storm water on lots. And so the way that we're calculating impervious and pervious coverage seems to be that we basically treat like even mature trees as just like the equivalent of grass. So that when we're doing the updated stormwater comparisons for how much a lot is for example improving upon pre-existing conditions. We're not capturing in any sort of way that there might be 13 or 15 mature trees on that lot like sucking water up out of the lot. We're just treating it as though it's a surface that isn't doing anything more than grass. And so I don't know if there's any sort of way to try to capture that so that when we're doing grading plans, you know, we are actually getting that delta more than it's reflected because it's almost a fiction in terms of what we're saying the improvement is if you're not in any way capturing either roots or like trunks of trees taking water off of that lot. If we may just comment on that, the industry is the urban forestry industry is looking at those calculations. I've seen some initial studies, but nothing that's firm yet, but they are looking at what a tree can it be can hold in terms of measuring the leaf area, how much water can retain, and also how much a tree can bring up, but right now there's no firm calculations for that right now. But yes, I do agree with you. It's set the same study that's looking at the age of the tree as well. So you're to further incentive, right? Like the size age. Yeah. Capacity. Right. And difference two with us with the city of Alexandria is they use leaf area capacity or leaf area index. So they're looking at the three dimensional capabilities of the trees to mitigate storm water. We usually kind of use the square dimensions of coverage. So there are other ways of capturing those kinds of data. Yeah. And that's particularly relevant, I think, for the phosphorus calculations, the water quality calculations, for the runoff calculations, different engineering, I think has to go into place. Okay. Dave. So part of why we're near 50% is that residential areas in the city traditionally have more trees than the required by the state. So to the extent that we have policies that encourage development in residential areas we're likely to reduce, that will reduce the tree canopy. It may still be in compliance with state law, but the fact of the matter is that the buildings are replacing the places where the trees now are that exceed the state minimum, making it even more difficult to achieve the 50% that we've talked about. So I think that needs to continue to be a concern as we adopt policies in the T zone areas as well as the residential areas, than we're an essence encouraging development that will reduce what I'll call the voluntary tree canopy. That is the tree canopy that exceeds the state minimum. Yep, thank you. Thank you. I think the thing that we all grapple with is that 100 acres that we see in our residential development is often your small, two and three bedroom homes that then maximize into the six bedroom homes that cover the 25% building limit and the 35. And that trend is really hard that's by right residential development And they often will clear cut and while they will meet 20% canopy in 10 years It is such a shame to see so to accept that we can slow that down and give people options of other things they can do with their land I think that's a good option Okay, any final thoughts? Okay, do we want to think about trees and the WNOD while we've got the forestry? Can I put you on the spot, Wyatt? So we've been informed by the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority that Dominion is exercising, well, Dominion is clearing trees within the right of way under the power lines. They do have certain rights under their easements, which are older, in fact, than the Northern Virginia Regional Parks rights for the walking trail. The my understanding is that all of the jurisdictions along the trail do plan to communicate with Dominion on this. There's a draft resolution that would be an option for the city council to consider at your next meeting. In the meantime, we're in contact with Dominion to ask that they not clear cut all the trees, particularly the low canopy trees, the dogwoods, the ornamental cherries, other trees that residents have planted, that they be spared. We have not yet had a response to that specific request, but that's what's in process right now. Okay. I'm sure we have thoughts on this, Dave. Yeah, so one of the things that they may be reacting to, and again, this is important to communicate with Dominion Power, is that the power companies have been the cause of major wildfires. It's documented. So my question is, are they adopting a general policy that really doesn't fit the particular climate and circumstances and how far are they clear-cutting? This is a huge issue now in the western part of the country. So that's why I want to make sure we get all the facts before we do the immediate reaction. Because I know that better maintaining the vegetation in and around power lines and the whole management of power lines is tremendously important. As we now know wildfires are not limited to the western parts of the United States. They're in South Carolina, they're in North Carolina, they're in New York, New Jersey, Virginia. So I think the question for Dominion is considering the exact context that we're dealing with here. Does it general policy which might be very positive in other contexts Continue to make sense here and learn from them as to what they say about that. I mean again my initial reaction is the resolution But I want to make sure that That these other factors are considered and minimized So we've been thinking that what you articulated might be behind this. So far Dominion has not articulated a very good reason why they're doing this. And I think that would be very helpful for everybody to understand if there is that context. It hasn't been communicated yet. So I think that's part of the information we do want to get. And we'll share that as soon as we get it. Yeah, at a high level, they have indicated compliance with the North American Electric Reliability NARC standard in the number. But what is that number in terms of its applicability to this area versus others? And then they've noted it's been 20 years since they performed maintenance on this corridor. That's what they're doing for safety. But what is the extent and breadth of that is the details we hope to get a little bit more on. Yeah, I think understanding the why is important and has that standard changed? Like if the standard is more rigid now, then let's understand that. But I hopefully there's a, it's an either or that you can make sure that trees and power lines don't catch on fire and you can actually have trees, especially if they're so far from these high power transmission lines. Like 20 foot trees are not going to touch these power lines. Like I just don't think they're mutually exclusive. So. The other thing is the nature of the power lines. I noticed that some of the Western utilities now are replacing wooden poles with steel. I think along the W and O D they're all steel, right? So they're not likely to come down in a wildfire context. I mean all I'm saying is the more you dig into this, the more complicated is in one sense. But I think we have the right to say we have these policies is a general standard. Does it make sense in this context considering the nature of your polls, considering the loud fire, risk here, the climate, risk here, etc. I took a bike ride to Vienna this past week, and I saw what had been chopped down, and it was really heartbreaking and shocking. And I would encourage anyone just to go out on the WNOD trail, just pass the beltway, and you'll see just this total shocking, how many, how many trays have come down. And so my guess is that it's just easier for Dominion just to cut things down. They're not you know the ones walking on the trail. So they don't see the benefit but they see the potential hazard. I would I'm wondering if there's something we can do more than just sending a letter. Like do we have the authority or any, is there anything we can do beyond just saying, please don't do this? And what exactly happened in Vienna? Did they do anything more than just send a letter and the trees came down? Were they aware of what was gonna happen? I think they were not aware and I think it happened. I think they found out about it after the fact. Now they had meetings in the winter. I spoke with Vienna. Oh, they did? I'm sorry, I've had the wrong facts on them. I'm still very surprised because they were also told there was going to be replanting, and there's been some back and forth and whether Dominion is going to commit to that replanting. So they were aware in advance. They did not know it would be so drastic, and there's still disagreement on whether replantings gonna happen to my understanding. And so they're gonna adopt a resolution tonight, I think requesting that, because obviously it's too late, it is pretty drastic. I want to see it too. And I think the replanting whether it's private or Nova Parks, if it's Nova Parks, and the agreement with the replanting will be with Nova Parks because they have the MOU. So that in some of the Vietnam, I'm understanding may have been outside of the Nova Park. Get back to the town green, so it's quite a change. The initial reply got back from Dominion today following up on these communications from Nova Parks was they're still working with Nova Parks to find a solution that supports natural habitat and environment but it's not a commitment. Definitely a commitment for pollinators and grass but not to the tree height yet. Yeah yeah because previously trees up to 20 feet tall because Charles we worked on like 20 trees that were planted last fall with Nova Parks. That was eagreement apparently now it's 10 feet tall which really I don't know if there are any trees that go to 10 feet. So it's really... No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no there is a reasonable solution that again mitigates against fire risk but again keeps the WNOD as green as possible. It's already not very green. We already tried to do more plantings. I'd advocate for a more aggressive approach than just a resolution. Is that something that COG can become involved? And if COG has to 50% tree canopy request, Can we jump onto that or not? And does the WND counts towards our foresight? the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of Yes, it's not the city. I don't want to get back to you on that one. Okay. What I use't know. Yes, it's not the city. I don't. Let me get back to you on that one. What I use to calculate the tree canopy for the city. It's called itery. And there's anyone go on there right now and you can pull it up and calculate it. From what I remember, it could be wrong. Do you believe the W-no-D was excluded from that? Oh. But it also doesn't have much to do with that. Lot of trees left anymore. No, I mean, it is all just a dogwood tree here and there. Right, and that was my memory from when we did the dual trails that we hear from a lot of people who are really upset that the greenery and trees behind their house are gone already. Seed your trees. So I don't know how much other than the ones that you just put in, right? Didn't know what you put. But other than that, it seems like a lot of it has, has already gone. Yeah. Other thoughts on this one? I just happy to work with staff again. I do think that we should be a little more aggressive than just do a resolution next Monday. Oh, okay. Thank you and to the extent urban force. Thank you very much for considering. Yeah, thank you. Thank you all for joining us. All right. Next up is the sewer capacity purchase from Fairfax County and We've had several work sessions on this we now have an agreement that we are still working on the language of that agreement. And as that work is advancing, we want to provide the City Council with an update in terms of where we are. And just to remind the City Council, we're proposing to purchase 500,000 gallons per day capacity, additional capacity above our existing million dollar gallons per day in the trips run sewer shed, the component of our sewer shed that flows ultimately to the Alexandria renew treatment plant through the Fairfax County conveyance system. The county does have the capacity in its pipes for the average daily flow and we have and the county also has the treatment capacity but the issue has been rainfall induced I and I in the flows that are associated with that and the county has sought to cap that and have the city address that aggressively. So that's what we'll brief you on tonight and I'm gonna turn it over to Andy. And he's gonna introduce our guest Dustin Devorek with Rumble Engineering Group who's assisted the city on many projects in the past and has been very helpful to us as we analyze the sewer capacity purchase agreement. So I'm very glad that you're here and Andy, let me turn it over to you. Thank you, Wyatt. Good evening, Mayor, members of council. It's great to see all this evening. It's why I was saying we're here to share the latest draft of the sewer agreement Fairfax County. With me, Dustin, Dvorak, I'll talk a little bit more about him in a second. In addition, we've got the interim director of DPW for Engineering Terror Off Online, and we've also got Baha'i-Lu Ki-Fle, who I think you've all met before, as we've talked about, Stormwater, Code Amendments. He's on our engineering team, so I'm so happy to have them here with us as well. So, as White mentioned, the document before you this evening a draft. So, we're still awaiting some feedback from Fairfax County staff on some of the specifics. But we have agreed on the key terms of the agreement and we'll go through some of those with you all this here this evening. So we've got the slump that's power on the city. Yeah. I'm just thinking. Well, we'll get there. Well, um, Got it. Okay. Next one, please. So we'll go over an overview of the agreement. We'll go through some of the key specifics of the terms. Talk about what's changed since we were here with y'all last May. Talk about some capital cost projections. Go through kind of how the city's proposing to manage kind of inflow and infiltration and then next steps. So next, so key terms that is why it was kind of talking about earlier that the key terms of the agreement provide the needed capacity that the city requires as well as setting constraints on the peak flow that the county feels they need to protect their downstream infrastructure. So the three components will go through this evening or annual average daily flow, which is the 1.5 million gallons we would have here for the city, the hourly peak flow, which is what happens in rain storms and when we have kind of extra flow in the system. And then a maximum total daily volume. So the amount of capacity that the city can send downstream to the treatment plant. All of these are our company with an $8.8 million capacity purchase price. This is half a million dollars. They're about less than what we talked about with y'all last year. Based on our review of kind of recent data and looking at our existing and future infrastructure improvements in programs, we believe we'll be able to meet the requirements of this agreement. It's next slide. Thank you. So with me, I'm glad to have some help this evening. So Dustin DeVorakis, why introduced? So Dustin's with the Bramble Group, which is a global engineering and architecture services company. So Dustin's got, we're 17 years of experience working on these kind of projects here in Northern Virginia. And he's done some work with the city in the past. And so I'm gonna hand things over now to Dustin. He's gonna provide a refresher on kind of the system and the city's connections to Fairfax County, as as the key components of the Accredion. Thanks, Andy. And thanks for having me here tonight. I appreciate it. So if we could go to the next slide real quick. Just a quick refresher on kind of where all the waste water is coming from and then we'll talk about where it's going and kind of why this is an issue. There are three areas of the city that flow into Fairfax County. There's Sistlers, which is kind of the biggest one up there at the top left. In the middle you have Tinners Hill and then at the bottom you have Seeders Lane. And these all kind of enter Fairfax County are in the general same general vicinity. But the way they get down through the county and into Alex News is slightly different. So if we could go to the next slide real quick. Yeah, go ahead. So the other side that is tan, that flows to Arlington County? Correct. Okay. Yep. We don't start by the middle. Maybe for another night. So what we're kind of showing here is the sewer through Fairfax County. And this is where we'll kind of get into it as we go through it. But Fairfax is having some issues and is planning to address some issues in the future. But you can see, so this kind of comes in that green pipe up there. Tender seal comes in the blue or sorry, yes. And then on the maroon, I guess it's the container sale. And then that dark blue is where Cedar Lane comes in. So this kind of runs along trips run next to Lake Barcroft, and then down along Holmes Ronan into Alexandria where it ends up at the tree of the plant. So similar to all the development that's happening in false church, Fairfax is going through similar development mostly in Tyson's, but they're looking at development along this corridor as well. And so, to plan for that, they have to put some kind of restrictions both on their own flows and the city's flows as well, just to make sure that they aren't impacting their customers, right? They want to make sure that they don't have sewage ending up in their residents' basements. So that's kind of how where all this is, where all this issues stems from and why there are restrictions on the dry weather flows and the peak flows and the volumes and all that. It's making sure that they're protecting their customers down the stream. Next slide. So what I want to do first, I guess, is talk about what these three components of the agreement really mean and how they're defined and what these new capacity purchase actually mean. So when we look at the average annual flow, that's really taking flow that's being metered by Fairfax County and averaging it over a 12-month period. So this includes dry days, wet days, it includes eye and eye getting into the system, but it kind of averages it out over the course of 12 months. And the graph that we're looking at on the screen here kind of shows what that represents. You can see the existing agreement, the 1MGD capacity is kind of shown in that bottom line, and then the additional purchase is the 1.5, the line at the top. And so you can see there were some years in like 2019 in 2021 where the city actually exceeded their current allocation. And those were years that were really, really wet. There were a lot of big storms. A lot of water got into the system. But you can see for the most part, you're kind of below your existing agreement. So as flows tend to increase development happens, there's additional density more wastewater. You're going to end up sending more flow into the system. So Fairfax is looking at this and understanding the capacity of their pipes. What levers do they have to kind of control what's coming into their system? So one thing they're looking at is when the city hits 95% of the new allocation, the city would be required to develop a compliance plan. And so that basically, me, my understanding of that is basically, what is the city gonna do to either stay within the existing allocation, or is the plan gonna be to purchase new allocation? If the allocation gets exceeded for six consecutive months, right? So you're averaging over a year, you end up above that line a little bit, you're below the line, but if you're above the line for six consecutive months, then there'll be a requirement to stop development in those specific shrewish heads where those exceedances happen. So one thing we'll talk about kind of towards the end is we get into the numbers, but there are specific requirements for each of those different three areas that we introduce at the beginning. Next slide. This just kind of blows this up so you can see it a little more clear, but if you hit the button one more time, one thing I do want to show is that there is a pretty steady increase in kind of this 12-month average. So this additional half-MG purchase, it is necessary to continue to develop and add new connections to the system. Next slide here. And I guess before I move on away from the annual average, are there any questions about that specifically? You may get into this later, but out of the three sewer sheds, do they all contribute to those two peaks, or is it one? Yeah, several of them. Yeah, exactly. This graph is looking at all of the net amount of flow that the city sends to Fairfax County. It's not distinguishing each of the different areas. but do you know is one contribute more than the other? Sistlers contributes the most by far, and you'll see that, I don't know, three or four sides when we kind of look at the different areas and their limits. And so the one point of clarification, so the measurement on average daily flow for the city is for the city as a whole, right? And the peak flow is where we'll get into more of the sewer shed limitations. Yeah, and so So yeah, it comes in from all three sewer sheds, but they're really managing to the top line number where they're all added. Got it. And I think you talked about this later on, but the sewer master plan, I guess I would love to see this projected out for 20 years, right? To be say based on the plan, you know, organic growth that we have in the city and plan growth, what does this look like for 20 years? So that we're not doing five year increments, but ideally do it for 20 year plans. And it sounds so anyway we'll get to that but like this but I think helpful to think further out Can you can you go back to, let's see, you went back to 2014 in this chart, can you go back to 2010? Can you go back to 2000? For the blue line? The data is not as reliable. So this data they have, I think it's 15-minute data that's provided for all this. Once we go back farther than that, the data that we had to analyze, it was monthly. So it's not as granular and it's not giving you as good a resolution as this. It does show though, when we did take a look at it, that it did kind of hover right around that 1MGD line. So it wasn't significantly different from what we're seeing here. And that was all the way back to, I think, 1995 maybe. So it hovered around. It was between 0.8 and 1. OK. Could you see a steady increase from 2015 to 2023? Do you have up to 2024 numbers? I don't. I think we should have, we, you know, we should have close to the, um, the full year of 2024. We do have that data. We didn't incorporate it into this graph. And so I'm looking at the blue line and it's going up consistently. I'm not reading it right that it's bumping up against the current limit and will probably exceed it at some point, but it seems to be well below the proposed new limit. That's correct. So why? Why would we want to do that? Particularly because even the projection show, an increase going like that. So why are we going as far up on that red dot, the top red dot online is we're going? Because when you add up projections for the new development coming on in the city, that we'll add flow that gets gets us. The new development is going to justify the purchase fundamentally. That's what we're talking about here. Because we're still below the current level. So we're really talking about new development requiring the change from the lower red line to the top red line, which is the 8 million. That's correct. Okay. Thanks. All right. Let's go to the next one. So this is maximum total daily volume. And what this represents is effectively all the way swatter that ends up at the treatment plant. When you're running a treatment plant, you have kind of tanks there that kind of normalize the peaks and valleys of flows that come in. Your goal is to have like a consistent flow of water into the system. So the way that they monitor and kind of build their customers is based on volume rather than the flow is coming in. And so what we're kind of showing on this graph here is what a typical storm would look like. You kind of have normal flows during, you know, one day and then it rains one day and you have a big peak. And so what we're trying to capture is, you know, what is the total amount of flow that's going into Fairfax County? And if we hit the next, we'll button there. It kind of highlights that area. We're looking at a 24 hour period of the total amount of water that's going into for a VEX account. Similar to the annual average, this is looking at a 12-month period in exceedances during these 12-month periods. The limit in the draft agreement is if it's exceeded two times in a 12-month period, similar to the annual average, the city will stop new connections and develop a plan to address. So what does this look like historically? You know, looking at the last 10 to 15 years of data, we kind of end up with this graph here, and I think if you hit the button, it'll zoom in a little bit. There is, in the current agreement, there is no volume limit. So this is a new limitation on the city. But if we look at the last 10 years or so, you can see you've never exceeded this new limitation. Even with 2019 being really wet and having really large storms, 2021, there's no kind of, there's always a risk, right? You could have an extremely wet year, then I'm pressed in a wet year But this is a very reasonable limitation, and it's one that's being kind of passed through Fairfax County. So they have a limitation with the treatment plan Alex Renew and Alexandria. They have a volume limit, they're kind of proportionally passing that down to the city. Any questions about kind of the volume limitation? They have a couple Medical plan this time. So that if you have in our last slide, right, we just had to, we did the .5 purchase. And so here if we're seeing some spikes above or above or at over at 2.5 in April 2018 July 2019. What is the risk that we are going to approach that three more, the potential exposure of hitting or exceeding three twice in a 12 month cycle, for because you start you have like more more in the pipe to begin with right and So and so what might that look like if you're super imposing the increased capacity on this chart so That is looking at flow projections right and looking at climate change and looking at know, performing a risk analysis. I don't believe that the city's performed that just yet, but when we talk about kind of that equalization tank down in Carvella trail park, that's part of that analysis as well as, you know, how exactly how big does this tank need to be? How does climate change, how does increased flows, how does that play into the sizing of that tank? And I think that'll help influence what these daily volumes could be. We're obviously experiencing bigger storms and more rain, but how is that going to increase in the next 50, 70 years? And there's another piece of this too, is Fairfax is gonna need to make infrastructure improvements as well in the next 30 to 50 years. So there's the opportunity there to size that infrastructure to support whatever the city may need. The city will have a seat at the table, but they'll also have some sort of cost associated with that as well. That's the opportunity to understand and plan for what capacity does the city need in the future. So I guess, stands to your question, I don't know exactly. It's always a risk, but just based on the last 10 years and we're kind of going through climate change, it doesn't seem like this is one that would get its exceeded regularly. OK, and I guess I only ask. And we'll get to this so I don't want to get ahead of it. But when we're talking about the terms of the purchase agreement and exceeding something like the daily volume or that 3.0, I guess I'm just interested in what modeling could we do or what modeling should we be doing to understand the risk exposure for something like stopping connections and if we approve a site plan for example and and you know that builder goes to build and then you know it's like like, well, you can't have a new connection. Like, what does that mean in terms of potential liability and exposure for the city, kind of at that moment with respect to even that project if we've approved it, but we can't actually deliver the connections that we've said to go ahead and do. And so, and so I guess that may be prevailinging for you the questions I'm going to be asking when we get to those terms given that I can't tell what this might look like with the additional capacity superimposed on top of it. You seem like you might be really interested in a sewer master play. Would love a sewer master play. Let's do it. All right. Can I go more? Yeah, I'm sorry. Go ahead. So the previous set of slides were more the total number of flushes per day. This slide is more what happens when we have those same total number of flushes plus we have a lot of rain. So they're both kind of the same. So. Yeah, so I think what this helps to take into account is let's say you have a big storm, right? And you build this equalization facility. You're not sending all that flow it wants to Fairfax County, right? You're storing some of it into the tank, some of that in the tank. But you have to get that water there somehow. So at some point that volume of water is going into Fairfax County and down to the plant, but you're not getting like these huge peaks in flow. And the last slide that we looked at, average 12 months of data, right? So it wasn't just looking looking the peak flow in one day, it was looking at all of the flows for an entire year and averaging it out. So it really gets rid of all those big peaky storms you would have, whereas this is looking at the volume over a day or two, it still got to get to the plant. So this kind of is somewhere between an annual average and that peak flow that we're going to talk about in the next couple of slides. Go ahead. All right, so the conveyance peak flow. So I'll explain this pretty quick, but expanding on what I just said, this is looking at how much flow are you sending to Fairbanks County in an instant, right, in kind of like a five minute period or 15 minute period. And the way the agreements written is it's not just, so they have meters that record flow every 15 minutes. You're not just looking at the maximum value of every 15 minutes. You're taking four of these and you're averaging together to get an hourly average. So if you click the little button there, we can look at our same storm and we can look at a specific area where the flows are highest and you're averaging over that entire period. So while you may have a flow that's really high, when you average it over an hourly period, you kind of get that red line that's kind of hard to see on there. But it's something less than kind of that absolute peak that you're metering. And this is where that peak flow limit comes in and where we'll talk about on the next slide how the different subsets have different limits. So looking back at that, the areas that we talked about a few slides ago. Sistlers, it's the biggest area, it has the most average flow, it has the highest peak flows in the proposed agreement. That's indicative of just all of the volume of water that's coming through that system. And where a lot of the developments occurring as well. So similar to the last two metrics, again, if you exceed the peak flows two times in a 12 month period, the city's gonna develop a study to try to figure out where those flows are coming from and ways to prevent them from getting into the system. That's kind of what's meant there by an inflow study. The second threshold, I guess, is if you exceed it continually, so I guess more than two times, Fairfax is going to restrict the flows coming into their system. Their goal here, and this is when we talk about peak flow, this is kind of that instantaneous amount of flow getting in. When you send all that down the line, it's going to, it has to go somewhere. And if it doesn't fit in the pipe, it's backing up laterals or other sewers and potentially getting into basements or buildings or coming out of the ground. So their goal here really is just to protect their customers and the people downstream from excess flow that could be contributing to issues. So let's look at kind of what that looks like historically. So this shows kind of, I guess what you were getting at is what are kind of those instantaneous peaks or what are those hourly peaks and how do they impact the system over a day? So we can see here the lower line again is the current limit, the upper line is the proposed limit. There are a of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state data was monthly totals so we didn't have the 15-minute yet. But for this, my understanding is that we exceeded our hourly peak flow many many times in the past, being on a game before 2014. And so my understanding here though is that at least when we do this question for white, at the average daily flow, that is something that we have a house of accountable to when we have new development, and we know that we're going to have to have increased capacity. But we're probably going to be a purchase and it's with the paint flow, because that means that we have to have a base in for something to control that flow of growing incidence and impacts happening. So that's sort of- Ms. Sand Underhill, could you put your microphone on? Thank you. Sorry. So I'll quickly repeat that. So basically, unless Cindy was that picked up or no? It was, and I just got a message. So if you could do a recap. So basically, my question was going back to the hourly peak flows. It seems like we've exceeded our limit many, many times in the past. And so when we looked at something like average daily flow and that increasing over time, we had budgeted in or had prepared for a case where we need to go to Fairfax County to potentially renegotiate this agreement and add more capacity. And that was something that we had expected. Going to this hourly peak flow, though, that's where a lot of the costs come in in terms of having to build a basin. That's sort of the bulk of the costs that we're going to face here is building a basin, but that is a, we're addressing the legacy issue here and not necessarily new development. Right, would you say that's correct? Okay. Yeah, this is all based on rainfall, right? Older systems, they're leaky or they end up with defects and I'm like holes and cracks and stuff, and that water finds ways to get into the system. So we'll kind of talk about ways to address that at the end, But I mean that's really what's kind of happening here. You have an older system. A lot of things have been grandfathered in. And a lot of that water is getting into the system that, you know, in systems that are 10 years old. It's not, you're not having these drastic peaks as much. So yeah, it's kind of a, it's a legacy issue. And, you know, false churches and the only one who's dealing with this. Fairfax has issues with it. Alexandria, Arlington, it's kind of a it's a legacy issue and you know false churches and the only one who's dealing with this Fairfax has issues with it Alexandria Arlington It's just when this area was developed These are the problems that are occurring in the region. So it's not something that's unique to the city it's just You're kind of at the mercy of what Fairfax is system can handle right now. A co-aller to that question. Because obviously you have more intense storms with climate change. Do you find that everyone in the region also has more issues with peak flows? Peak flows in flooding. Yeah. And I think you've probably seen a lot of the flooding in the news. Yeah, the water's going somewhere, right? It's either above ground or it's below ground somewhere. It's not disappeared. So yeah, a lot of different utilities in the region, they have issues with peak flows and they're grappling with the same things. How do we address this? How do we keep the water out? What do we do with water that's already in the system? Nobody's, there's not, there's not a silver bullet to address it. is kind of trying to figure out what to do for their unique areas or their unique systems. And I think the city is in the same situation. It's just... There's not a silver bullet to address it. Everybody's kind of trying to figure out what to do for their unique areas or their unique systems. And I think the city's in the same situation. It's just you have to evaluate everything and plan and look at what climate change will be and what projected storms could be and what the risk is, right? Because at the end of all this, the money's gotta be spent on infrastructure. But do you oversize something for a storm that may never occur? Do you undersize something for storms that you're getting regularly? It's kind of that risk analysis of what do you build and how much do you spend? So I'm looking at this chart 13. So we've had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, maybe eight exceeding it says in 12 years where we exceeded the current requirement. How do you have a similar chart for Fairfax County? I don't. I'd be interested in that. Number one, number two. So Fairfax County has basically given us a choice. If you exceed a certain MGD, you'd stop development, or we can spend $10 billion tear up a park and build a big, a whole wingtank. Is that basically the option that Fairfax County is giving us? And so to maintain development, we're gonna spend $10 million for a whole wingtank. So there are peak flow constraints like they're being proposed on the new agreement in the existing agreement and the fact that we've got to go back to Fairfax County for an additional purchase of a half million gallons has opened the door for new requirements to be imposed upon the city. So, but my understanding is that I don't mean to cut you off, but the tank is being built for the exceedances. Right, when we exceed, we're buying more, cracked, and then we're built, we're also then spending $10 million for a tank in the rare circumstance where the upper limit may be exceeded x number of times. And Fairfax County, as I understand, the description has said, we're gonna offer you two choices, where there are two choices. Choice number one is you gotta have these exceedances, a certain number of them. We're gonna say to you, you have to cut off development. But we've said, no We don't want to cut off development. We've instead we're going to spend 10 million dollars for a tank For a holding tank That seems to me the choice the policy choice that we're making with a proposal here So it's an honor. In addition to the policy, choose to buy more. So it sounds like... So I don't think that is an accurate statement of what the tank is for, but I also don't know if I can state why the accurate statement is. So I'm probably the least qualified person at the the table to be answering this, but I think the tank is needed. Even without new development to ensure that the development that we've entitled, but maybe hasn't been built, doesn't exceed the capacity that we're purchasing. Is that it? Maybe I'll just jump in. I mean, so we've known for a decade plus that we're going to need to buy additional capacity. It's in our CIP. It's when you have growth. You plan for it and we have. What sort of the inject into the discussion was to deal with these peaks. They want us to shave these peaks. And every one of these peaks is a name storm. Every one of them is a day that lives in every one of our memories. The big one being, of course, July 10th, 2019. But then the next one is July 11th, 2020. I mean, we remember all these days. These are so they want us to capture those peaks so that we're not surcharging downstream of their system. I do think it's a fair question of understanding our level of effort to deal with I and I relative to everyone else's effort. I think just in terms of what our ratepayers will experience to build that attention basin to shave this peak is proportionally higher than the ratepayers in Fairfax County. And I think that's just a fact, that's a mathematical fact. A $10 million attention basin on Fairfax County's scale of operations would be a $1 billion investment in shaving this peak. And so it's significant for our ratepayers. But that is what the county wants us to do in terms of purchasing this additional capacity. It is technically feasible. We've also financially modeled it about how we would go about trying to do this. We haven't done preliminary engineering on the tank. We've done some conceptual engineering. But what we would be committing to with this purchase agreement is to work to shave these peaks. And if we don't, then there are some mechanisms. And that's what you know, that's what we want to talk with you about tonight, just so everyone has good visibility about what those mechanisms are. You know, if there are multiple exceedances in a set period of time, then the consequence can be a moratorium on new hookups until we've gone through a period of time where we haven't had these exceedances. And that could either be because of nature, not raining hard, or it could be because of an engineering intervention. We're proposing an engineering intervention so that we can manage it. So the policy that's embedded here is for those few exceedances rather than run the risk of our development would be halted temporarily. We now agree. rather than run the risk of our development would be halted temporarily. We now agree instead are going to spend $10 million for a tank. And that's fundamentally the choice here. I would say that. And then there's another choice with regard to the increased average capacity. But I'm trying to get this to a policy level. What are the policy options and what are we deciding and why? And one further question I have, which has not been answered, which is what is the contribution of the mixed use development that has occurred in the last 20 years to either the maximum daily or the need for more. And I want to put a dollar sign on that. So people know this is the cost of development. So you know when we talk about the cost of the purchase and the the cost the expanded pipes, which we plan for, they equal out roughly with availability fees that we've been charging. It's about $20 million each. We've collected $20 million or are in the process of collecting $20 million in availability fees. We've so far spent $10 million on running the sewer line up to the, serve the high school and to serve the West Falls development and to do the pipe bursting so that it can handle further growth in that corridor. We have a balance of about 5 million left. 4 million is still gonna to be coming in from the additional payments that will be coming in over the next couple of years. What's new is this detention basin and that's the kind of the inject into this whole discussion. And that is what why we've had so many discussions about how to finance this. And we did lay out with the council at an earlier work session, a plan by which we would do that in an environment where we keep the rates essentially rising on a regular basis with CPI, not with a large spike in rates just to pay for the detention basin. And so that's what we've modeled and that's what we think is technically feasible. Now as we go into more preliminary engineering on this detention basin, we're going to learn more and you know things could change, but those are the facts as we know them right now. Just see. So, me just continue. So I'm not asking right now how you finance the tank, but rather asking Fairfax County is basically given a choice. You may have an exceedance in the future in which case you can stop development or we spend $10 million on this tank. So in essence, we're saying that the taxpayers are going to take the cost, or going to pay for the cost for this tank in order to allow for more development in the future. That's what we're saying. I wouldn't characterize it that way. I don't know that Fairfax County would agree to the capacity purchase with us at all if we didn't agree to do something to address the peak flow. So I don't think we have a choice to say, well, we're just going to just take the moratorium whenever it comes and just live with whatever happens. They're expecting us to lay out a plan to properly deal with the peak flow. The teams looked at various different options and the recommendation, I think, from an engineering standpoint, is what's been presented to you all. So I think if we went back to Fairfax County and said, yeah, we're just not going to do that. I don't know that they would agree to this capacity purchase. And I think there's another risk here by not building the tank, is that kind of that That last you know, if you continue to exceed, they physically restrict the flows, right? Because they're trying to protect their customers in their system. That water has to go somewhere and it's going to stay in the city system and back up. So you would likely end up with a tank regardless to do something with that extra water that's still in the system and not flowing into Fairfax County. The way that I characterize it is this. Basically Fairfax says we'll give you more capacity if you fix a legacy issue. And so we've been reaching our contract with Fairfax for decades and even before the mixed use development. And so Fairfax wants us to hold up to the contract that we've previously agreed to. And so whether or not we get more capacity or not, we still need to hold up to that previous agreement that we had since I think 1978, or all the way back to the 1970s. Is one spin on that just that, and I agree with you, justine, is one spin on that simply though that the purchase agreement is contributing to the urgency of the legacy issue because the pipes are the same size and you're putting more sewage in that pipe on a daily basis because of all the entitlements and all the development that we've had. And so you don't have kind of any more space in the same pipe for the additional I and I that we're continuing to see from the legacy issue. So they're not mutually exclusive. It's fully intertwined, which is why Fairfax is saying, you have to make this purchase agreement, because, and we have to do it, because we've entitled, all of those connections that are putting us at 1.5 but it also has to be contingent on the legacy issue because you can't separate the two from one another. So it's not like an either award. It's like you've done this and now there's this problem and it's an even bigger problem and so you like have to act now and we're not going to do anything unless you do both. So I guess I would say to that you know it's totally possible that we would have to build this high-end itank regardless because we had been exceeding art flows for so long. So whether or not I mean so while they are tied together in this agreement it's totally possible that fear effects came to us and said hey we need you to do something about it, whether or not we I mean, so while they are tied together in this agreement, it's totally possible that fear effects came to us and said, hey, we need you to do something about it. Whether or not we actually had additional development. But in this case, they are tied. And I think what I'm hearing, and I think what's accurate is even if there wasn't a single future entitlement, we would still have to build this tank. So it's not a choice to stop development or build a tank. It's even if we stop development, we still have to build a tank. Is that that's correct? The, that's, I think, the spirit of it. The spirit of it is to reduce this rainfall and do this, I and eye. And it's a universal problem. And the county is saying, OK, you need something from us. It's something we need from you. And that's it. And the essence of it. And going back to the findings in part of it, what I've heard you say why it is the $20 million in fees we've collected to date will pay for the capacity purchase and other work that we've done to date, talking about financing the new tank that came up a year ago is the new thing that we need to solve. Well what we've modeled to the council is the sewer system is going to have additional revenues because there's going to be many more customers that are paying into the system. And so what we have modeled is that that will cover if we issue debt for the detention center We think we can handle that debt service because of those increased Suerfees that we just normally will collect That's the way we've modeled it and we've modeled it responsibly But we we've only done conceptual engineering on the on the detention basin and there will be more things that we will learn as we go into preliminary engineering. Can I ask one last question on that just for clarification. So are you saying, and it's on the financing piece of it, so sorry, I'm not. We'll give back to this one. Are you saying that when we budgeted for the purchase agreement in the CIP, that basically none of the purchase agreement is being funded by pre-existing users, or is that not accurate? The purchase agreement is being paid for with availability fees. So it's being paid for entirely by developer fees and the Pike Bursting project entirely by developer fees and the extension up to serve the Murray and High School and West Falls entirely by developer fees. So it occurs to me as an almost new child of you that it is a very similar model to how and why we built a new high school. We had a legacy high school building. We have legacy sewers. We have developments. We have more people using sewers and we have more people in that old high school. But whether or not we had more, we still had to build a new high school because that old one was falling apart and it was time for a new high school. And the same be said for The sewers If it's it's not working. It's not operating the way we are so whether or not we have new people we have to do something But because we have new people It Accelerated process a bit, but it doesn't force us to do that Is that a similar model? I think the analogies is apt. I think so. I mean, I tend to look at it as, you know, with any city does need to grow because you have all sorts of infrastructure that's upholding everything and just paying to take care of that infrastructure with this flat tax base is very difficult and so growth the American model is is that you do need to be there needs to be some element of responsible growth to help you renew your infrastructure. So let me follow up when I look at the City staff report specifically A and B, they tend to support my interpretation. So I think we need some more explanation of that. Number one, so I don't agree with the characterization. And number two, all I'm trying to do is we've heard for 20 years how wonderful the development is. I want to know what the sewer costs of that development are. It's a very simple question that so far I've asked and not gotten an answer to. So what in terms of sewer capacity, sewer cost to provide sewer, how much of that is attributed to the mixed-use development that we've had since 2000? Yeah, I mean that's where the growth is. Yeah, we've known, with every project we've modeled with the sewer flows from those projects it's going to be and we've known we're going to need to make an additional purchase. So how much of a cost that we're looking at tonight are attributable to the mixed-use developments? Well, I guess I would just say that all, you know, every development has paid availability fees and that's what's being used to make this purchase and it was what was used to make the pipes bigger. The unforeseen thing is the detention basin. And so that is what we've been working on on how we're going to finance that. And so that is outside of what the developers have paid for. Is the detention basin? Is the what? Is the detention basin to shave these peaks? And that's why I'm focusing on the detention. Yeah, no, and that's the problem. That's why we've been... Then we look at all the problems... Taking so much time to study this. Absolutely. That's most... That's most palatable. Right. But I do think we ought to look at the key framework terms, or as follows, terms sheet with Fairfax County, A and B give given different impression. Thank you. All right. Dustin, please continue. Yeah, thank you. Let's look at, sorry, we've talked about kind of the three things that are going on in the system. Or the three limits that Fairfax is looking to oppose. Let's look at real quick just kind of what's going on in Fairfax's system. And so what I'm going to show here in the next couple of slides are hydraulic model runs that Fairfax is done looking at their system and looking at how much water is in their system and what their system can accommodate. So this first run, and if you click real quick, I think it'll blow up a piece of this so I can kind of explain what you're looking at here. What if you kind of the black lines, that represents the pipe, right, the pipe that's underground. The blue line represents the water level in that pipe, and then brown is ground. So what we're looking at on this slide in particular is, you know, the current agreement, what if if the city sending flows that are within the current agreement and Fairfax has whatever flows they already have in their system, where does that water level lie inside all these pipes that are downstream of the city? And so what this slide is showing is that as long as the city is within their current allocation, the system operates is intended. So let's look at the next slide and look at what happens when the city asks for additional capacity and proportion to kind of that dry weather, that average daily flow allocation you're looking to acquire. You can see on the left kind of on the upper end there, that water level is far outside the pipe, right? It's up close to the ground. And while it's still underground, you know, we have to consider that people have basements, right? And there may be parking graduates. I don't know exactly what's along this line. But for Fairfax County and for their residents and the way they're planning and looking at development, this is excessive to them. They can't accommodate this. I'm assuming that they're holding kind of their flows, whatever they've planned for the next 20 or 30 years. But you know, when the city is sending kind of a proportional amount to the dry weather flow, this surcharging is excessive to them. And so that's why when we look at the next slide, we have this kind of reduced peak flow allocation that Fairfax is put in the agreement. This is kind of the acceptable level of surcharging for them, what they feel their system can accommodate based on what their flows are and what they're planning for their flows to be. So the point of these couple slides was more to say, you're not necessarily getting a proportional amount of peak flow as you are kind of that dry weather flow, but this is the reason why. They're looking at what's coming and they wanna make sure that they're not putting sewage and people's basements or out in the ground. Can I make one point here? And it might be, it's probably got a more macro planning for the city point on this, because I think you're answering like the peak, the tank wasn't foreseeable. And I guess, to me, it's sort of like, well, is that really a good enough answer for what's foreseeable and what isn't foreseeable because it seems like our modeling and our availability fees and like, you know, what we were asking for costs seems to be holding everything constant. This is the additional thing we want to put into a system that isn't otherwise expanding or changing. And so it's what we need going into the same infrastructure and it's what the cost is going to be to us without taking into account like what that means going into the system for everyone who's around us attached to that same system. And so if we're doing like foreseeability analysis going forward, whether it's stormwater sewer, you know, thinking about when we talk some of on these sites, like well things are getting better, but it's still an overarching issue in terms of what the infrastructure is and there isn't holding, that it may be signaling that like those force seeability studies, we need to be doing like a better job with our partners earlier to get out ahead of cost that maybe should have been more foreseeable than we, than they actually were to us. And I think that's a fair point. And it's a, I think a good partnership point, but I do want to make it clear that we'd have many years of discussions with the county about this purchase. They knew it was coming. They wanted it to happen. And late in the process, they said, we haven't done it yet, but we'll do this conveyance system analysis. So this chart came out of analysis that they did in May of 2023 after we've been talking about this purchase agreement for many years. So we didn't know this. And it's a, and what is also important to remember is that in terms of the average daily flow, they had always been conveying to us, we have the capacity. capacity, we don't foresee a problem. And it's really when the peak flow was injected into this, which I believe is because, you know, if you look at that chart, those historic storms were still in recent memory. And so that changed people's thinking about rainfall induced, I and I, I think, and that's how this got injected into the conversation because of those years. So on that foreseeability point, I think the staff reports at the current agreement dates 1978, which is before some of us were born. And you're saying that we only talk about peak flow starting in 2023? No, there's been a peak flow metric in the agreements in 78. But the need to solve it though. But the analysis that shows how the system is handling it is done in this chart. Now I will say also, I'm not aware that basements actually have been over flowing downstream. That happens in the city. It has been presented to us that this was a problem of property damage. It was really a problem of a modeling situation. Now, that is what has been conveyed to us. And our normally sewer agreements, like just renewed or how do they work? Because I guess in my time, I've only been here nine years, but do they get renewed on just an ongoing basis or what's the frequency where this would have been just in perpetuity? Once you agree you don't want to 1978, it's until you... Yeah, I mean, the time you would take normally take a look at it is when it's time to buy some additional capacity. I guess to that point you're moving forward looking forward in terms of partnership and development and you talked about a mass mom saying master but a sewer plan overarching like presumably Fairfax County is doing that when they're making the decisions on how they going to fix their eye and eye and where they're going to put tanks and how that's going to impact the overarching system and how do we link into being part of that master plan so that as things are accelerating and climate change if they continue to accelerate at the pace they're going to, we really do need to plan out for that 10, 15, 20 year, making some assumptions that these things are going to increase in volume and frequency. So I guess the statement is just that I really would like to see us figure out how to plan moving forward with them. Obviously, we have some hurdles to get through first, but I think that part of that discussion and contract negotiation is how we move forward with having those conversations too. That's another plus one for the sewer master plan. We keep talking about Okay Please continue. Okay next slides and So we'll go through this really quickly so we came last came talk to you all in May 2024 So I wanted to highlight some of the key changes the first one I actually got wrong when I put together the slides in the staff report, the addition of the maximum daily flow was in the report from May 2020, so that's not new. And Dustin I think already covered kind of what that is and why we've got it. The other changes were related to the conveyance capacity. That's what we've been talking about with Fairfax County, you know, kind of over the last year. The milestone, stone dates given to the city have all shifted out of here. I think with the exception of one, but they've shifted out to allow us kind of some more time to implement things in the account for the kind of dragged out negotiations we've had. One of the key things that we were talking with them about back in May of last year was this kind of idea of stopping new connections in the city if you exceed any one of the individual sub-sheds and we kind of push back and said like that just isn't going to work for the city. So they've pulled back on that. So now it's kind of by sub-shed. So if you exceed in Cedar Lane, then you've got, we're talking about taking actions in Cedar Lane, then you've got, we're, you know, talking about, you know, taking actions in Cedar Lane specifically and not the overall city. With Sally's help, we've been working on a definition of new connections with the county. So it's basically I think kind of the intent is new connection would be anything that adds additional flow that wasn't there before. So if you have single family home that would get Turned over and the new single family home would be okay Building an apartment building would not be okay that that kind of thing and then you know The option for the county to install flow control device You know if the city was unable to get its stuff under control and we've covered that already So can I ask quick one on that one? Sure. There wasn't anywhere in the staff report as far as I could tell, like an indication of what's involved in the county installing the flow control device or like what the price would be or who absorbs that cost. And so do you have any sense of that? So Dustin, do you have any thoughts on that? So I think it's kind of like one of those methods of last resort, right? There's still too much flow coming. We have to do something. My guess is that the county would likely pay for that, right? Because they're limiting the city's flows and protecting their residents. It's an infrastructure improvement that they deemed necessary. I think as far as, so in the negotiations, we've kind of gone back and forth on who would pay for it. You know, I don't have a good sense of like what's something like that, what kind of project that would be. Do you have like, it wouldn't, I mean, we're not talking about millions of dollars. You're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to install something like that, especially on the area that they would install it. In terms of, you know, looking at the tank or any of these other, these capacity purchase costs, it's around there. That's what I was wondering when you said sizing a tank, I wanted a sense of what a flow control device costs or what's involved so that it's no way. Basically like a little concrete wall. Okay. You know, it's not a lot. Okay. Anything else? Okay. So I think we've covered most of this really quickly. So this is kind of our anticipated capital cost projections. This will be in the CIP. You know, that went to planning commission and it you all will be seeing. I think the one, so let's see. The one thing to mention we haven't talked about is the Fairfax County Alex for new capital contribution at the bottom. That's kind of an annual cost that we paid through Fairfax County to upkeep the Alex Renew plant. The contributions increase due to the increased capacity that we're purchasing. These are projections. And historically, the amount we've actually paid each year has not come in as high as these numbers. So for example, in 2024, I think the projection was 1.4 million, and we paid in the end a little less than 500,000. So that's not guarantee that that happens in the future, but I think this is conservative planning on their part and this is all baked into the kind of the sewer financial projections will talk more with you all about in April. And we, and was reflected in the speculation. Thank you. Okay, we'll go next line. All right, so I'll kind of go through this quickly because this talk is going to be a little bit more complicated. I don't think we know of anything substantive at this point. speculation. Thank you. Okay, we'll go next slide. All right, so I'll kind of go through this quickly because this talks about kind of the next set of slides is how are we controlling the INI getting in the system? You know, what are some options to do that? So first we just need to understand real quickly what INI is in flow and infiltration. Infiltration is water that in, kind of seeps through the pipes more or less, right? If you have cracks, if you have holes, that's infiltration. That's water that kind of filters through the ground and gets in. It takes some time to get there. It's not occurring necessarily at the same time that the water hits the ground. Inflow is different. Inflow is, you know, think of a storm drain, right? That water is getting directly into a certain amount. The storm drains and the sanitary system are connected, but Inflow is effectively, as the water hits the ground, it's getting right into the sewer. So just wanted to lay that out there real quick because there's different ways to address those things. If you go to the next slide, we'll talk about dry weather weather wet weather flow and why we need these and how we're measuring I and I. So the graph here kind of represents what a typical flow in the sewer system would be during a day. And we need to establish this because this really looks at kind of your baseline conditions. What is the flow in the system when it's just kind of that sanitary flow? When it's just flow that's happening during a typical dry day. So when we go to, when we go to the next slide, we're going to look at how do we measure I and I in its contribution. So the first thing that we did, you know, on this previous slide, we looked at dry weather. So what so what we do is we take that dry weather and we kind of replicate it every day, right? So we're establishing our baseline. And then if we kind of cycle through this, we look at, you know, what's the flow in the system when it rained? And we need to be able to compare the two. So we can do that on the, oh, and there's our little peak flow we talked about about earlier But then we kind of overlay these two and we're looking at the difference and that's kind of the last little thing here It's that blue area that we're concerned with right that's water that we don't want in the system You do even when you design a new system you do plan for some I and I But you're kind of measuring that to determine whether it's excessive, right? Is this too much I and I getting in the system and do we need to do something, do our infrastructure to address it? And I think, you know, based on everything we've talked about tonight, there's a lot of water getting in the system more than was it originally designed and planned for. So let's go to the next slide and talk about where that's coming from or where potential sources of that are. So we have public sources and private sources. Public sources, there are manholes, there are pipes in roadways, you know pipes in the right away. And again that's aging infrastructure. It could be maintenance issues, a manhole lid broke, and now it's just open to whatever water wants to come in. This is stuff that the city has direct control over and can address through annual CIPs. On the private side, there's also sources and understanding where those are and what the magnitude of that is, becomes important when you're doing this planning. So on the private side, you have leaky sewers coming from buildings into the sewer in the street. But you also have some legacy connections that may still exist, downspout some pumps, driveway drains, right? Before there were treatment plants, and before there were these regulations, the goal is to get water away from the house. And if it went underground and it was gone, that was great. But now that we've got climate change and all this extra water getting in, this becomes a real problem for the system. So one of the things to look at is, where's the water coming from, and what is the magnitude of public versus private? And I will not having looked at the city system. Generally, the private side is much smaller than the public side, but it may be something worth considering as you kind of work down the line and into the future. So what are some things the city's doing right now to address that? One is the I&I control program that started back in 2004, I guess, and is a 30 year program. So that kind of looks at different areas of the city kind of going through programmatically and kind of tackling each different area and working through the system as a whole. Sticking cameras down the sewer, trying to determine what the defects are, doing flow monitoring to figure out what the flows are in the system, and then designing and implementing rehabilitation. So for manholes, you can kind of see on the bottom right there, you're kind of coding the inside of a manhole to keep the water out. You're putting these inserts just below the lid to prevent it from coming in through the lids. Sewers is kind of similar where you're lining the sewer to stop the water from getting into the sewer. And so far, over the last, I guess 20 years or so, about 65% of the systems been rehabilitated to some degree. Over the last couple years, about two miles of the system have been rehabilitated at about $700,000. And that kind of magnitude of spending's, what I want to say, not predicted, but planned for the next five years in the CIP. More specifically, in Cedar Lane, if we go to the next slide. This is all within the last four, three months or so, three or four months. Forty manholes have been rehabilitated to keep the the I and I out from getting in. And this is one of the areas in the agreement, but one of the areas that's kind of contributing relative to its size, more of the I and I getting into the system and into Fairvax County. So what was done here is they kind of evaluated all those manholes, applied a grout to fill in whatever cracks there were, kind of stabilized things, and then installed a cementitious liner, which is that figure there on the left. It's basically concrete. It provides some structural stability and holds it out. And then on the right, you have an epoxy, which is like a plastic paint kind of thing. But that's really, that epoxy's really what's keeping out the eye and eye from getting into the system. And then what's not shown on that figure at the top, there's a little portion just south there that's actually in Fairfax County that the city is responsible for. That's kind of the next phase of the Seerling project is to rehabilitate that portion of the system. If we go to the next side, we'll talk about everybody's favorite topic, which is the equalization tank. Sorry, can we go back to the first slide? Yeah, sorry, go ahead. So given that some was more recent but some dates back 20 years, is there way to measure how effective that's been? Yes, so in an ideal world, you would have what's called a control basin. So let's say you break up the city into 10 different areas, you would do flow monitoring in all of those areas, figure out what the flows are, you know, when it rains, how much water is getting in. And then you would go through and you would rehabilitate nine of those areas. And then after you finish that, you do flow monitoring again. So effectively what you're doing is you're measuring, you know, what's the difference in all these areas that got rehabilitated versus the one that didn't. And you can determine whether or not your rehabilitation was effective. Because the challenges, and we've run into this, well, I've run into this personally with other clients, is you go in and you meet or an area, you rehabilitate it and you meet it again, and it shows this huge reduction in eye and eye. Well, the problem is it didn't rain, right? It was a drought or whatever happened. So you don't really know what you kept out of the system. So that's kind of why that control base and becomes important. But to answer your question, yeah, you can do this. If you've got data pre and post construction, you can make some assumptions about how much you kept out of the system. I guess have we done that? And is it worth doing? We've done it in targeted areas, the Hillwood area in particular. We had just what was described. And I was done about it. It was after the 2014 tropical storm Lee floods. And we do have a data set from that. And but we also right then, were in the midst of a lot of staff turnover, because we were selling the water utility. And so I think a lot of that in-house knowledge went to Fairfax Water, because they managed our sanitary sewer system. So we're kind of picking it up again. I think we first talked about this one. The idea of the basin was introduced like a year ago, right? Was are there other things we could do to limit the I and I so that we don't have to create the big tank? Sounds like we've been doing a lot of that for 20 years and it's probably worth measuring whether some of that has helped. Sounds like the tank is still necessary because to capture that amount, I don't think you can slow down enough upstream and I'm seeing you. No, I don't think so. Nobody, the amount that you would have to control, I don't think anybody's seeing those kind of reductions, when they do this I and I control, they're seeing maybe 20 or 30% reduction in their I and I volumes. You all need like a 50% reduction, right? And it's in the time frame that Fairfax is asking for it, it's not really feasible. Okay. Continue. Equalization tank. So I think we've talked a lot about this. I don't think I really have any new information here other than sizing will be determined this summer. You know, I think you talked previously about a half million gallons, three quarters, and a million gallon tank. I think there were a couple months away from determining that final sizing and that, you know, that looks at kind of climate change risk. The risk of those exceedances occurring twice in a 12-month period. That evaluation becomes really important when we're looking at the final sizing and moving into design. But the other thing too is the tank provides a lot of flexibility in the future as well. It not only allows for the development to occur now and to continue to occur, but it also allows you to have options of where to put flow 20 years from now. If infrastructure in Fairfax County changes and it is upsized and can handle all these flows, well now you can do something else with the tank to promote development or promote additional flows somewhere else. So it's not just solving the problem today, but it's allowing flexibility for the future. That reminds me. So we haven't talked about the forced main that the Quinn project is offering, but where does that provide us flexibility? So, um, so provides the opportunity to redirect flows from the central part of the city to Arlington County where we do have additional capacity. And so, first and foremost, it eases the decision for the Quinn development project, but also is being sized to allow additional flows from that part of the city to be sent to Arlington County in the future. Otherwise, which sewer shed would that have gone to? It all feeds into the tin or hill. OK, so not so necessarily though. Correct. OK, that's the one that we thought was most get risk. I was thinking it's because it's where 80% of the cities kind of flows to Fairfax County goes. I think it's like 80, 15 and five, or I'm gonna get the numbers a little wrong. So it's the 15% it connects in with the Sistler's sub-shed right across the border in Fairfax County. So I think it does, it does help. It does help us. And it provides the flexibility for future decisions in the city. Yeah, the tanks located to be able to control the kind of the biggest volume coming into the system. It doesn't get all of it, right? You can't control Cedar's lane. Yeah, Cedar lane. But it's the best place you could put it. Okay. So we'll go next slide, Sydney. So, so there's three future actions we've already hit on, you know, a couple of these I think as we've gone through, but three future actions which we haven't started yet, but I think, you know, I think, you know, kind of internally our team all agreed like, are things that we intend to do in the future, the first being the sanitary sewer master plan that it sounds like everybody's kind of supportive of. I think, you know, more robust planning document partnering with our neighboring counties to, you know, plan out future, future builds in the evaluation of the current system and the improvements that are needed. The goal would be to do one of these and then get on a regular cycle of updates every five years as the city evolves. We put a lot of effort into the public sector, inflow and infiltration. We do believe we'll need to eventually look at private property, inflow and infiltration reduction. And so some of that is doing an analysis of where we think the opportunities to reduce those private property I and I are and then review the city code and then look at ways to incentivize property owners to make those changes. And then finally, a future capacity purchase. So as I was just talking about the Quinn force main, I think we'll provide the city with some options in the future. We've projected an additional capacity purchase in the CIP that you all see in FY 30. And but we've left that kind of agnostic as to which county we might buy that capacity from so As we kind of talked about a bunch tonight, right the Fairfax County system has conveyance system limitations so either that Downstream infrastructure has to be made bigger or We've got to do some some some substantial progress in how we manage our peak flow to be able to approach Fairfax County for an additional purchase. I think on the Arlington County side, they've kind of shared with us that there is treatment and conveyance capacity in the county available to support additional capacity from the city. It's a topography challenge, right? For us to leverage more Arlington County capacity. You got to pump it. And the Quince Force main will provide us some flexibility, but we were even talking about, could you pump some from Sistlers over there and it's not simple. With the elevations and stuff of the city, but it's something that we can work into. So, next slide. So, it brings us to the end. So, kind of we've gone through each of the kind of main components of the Fairfax County Agreement for average annual average flow, hourly peak flow and the maximum total daily volume, I think, you know, with the existing and future infrastructure improvements and programs that we've talked about tonight, and based on our kind of review of the historical data, we think the city can, as a plan, should be able to meet these requirements. So, happy to take additional questions and comments and feedback from you. Thank you for indulging us with peppering a few questions throughout so who's got more? Sure Sorry, I have a couple on the cedar lane one because I thought in the purchase agreement that was one of the earlier sticking points and I guess We now have dealt with that somewhat by isolating the subsets, but it still seems like with the MGD and the peak flow that we are getting, like that Cedar Lane's an issue because it's at like 0.07, but the peak flow goes up to like 0.5 is the allowance because maybe that's where there's like a lot of the I and I problems. They've over allocated, you know, peak flow capacity to Cedar Lane knowing that we've got a historical issue there. So even with that over allocation, we still have a problem. And that's why Dustin was going through some of the work that Bahailu's actually been kind of facilitating in the Cedar Lane subject for us and very recently. So that's where we've been focusing our capital investment to make some progress. Yeah, no, that all makes sense and I appreciate that and I guess I was just confirming that some of those, that like we need to do a lot of contingency planning around that subject in particular and that we're starting to see that reflected more in the purchase agreement than was previously reflected and I guess I'm still wondering how much Fairfax has committed to given that they have a lot of property and that subshed of doing like their public improvements for those manholes as well. There are manholes. So that work in the Fairfax County portion of that subject belongs to us. So the additional work that Dustin was referencing is work that Bylo's working on now. OK. OK. And then I guess the representation may be that Dustin made might be different than what I had previously understood. And that may have been my miss hearing things at one time or another. Maybe we are an outlier that the I and I flow issue tends to be more on the public infrastructure side than the private homeowner side. Because I had earlier understood that our Cedar lane subshed issue was potentially more of a private side hookup problem or technically illegal hookups than the public infrastructure piece of it. I think I was probably making a global assumption. Probably if you look at the city as a whole, there's probably a majority of it's coming in from the public side unless it's been public responsibility for that sub shed is hours. And then it would just be the same way, like, having a public side, unless it's been rehabilitated recently. Seater lane, I'm not intimately familiar with, but yeah, that could absolutely be the case where there's a lot more on the private side coming in the public. It's not unheard of, but just as kind of a general rule, most heard of, but just as kind of a general rule, most of it tends to come from the public side. Okay, so then the public responsibility for that subject is hours, and then it would just be the same way. Okay, so then the public responsibility for that sub-shed is ours. And then it would just be the same way like how much fear facts could affect their private homeowner, decision-making, or as those houses are redeveloped into newer single-family homes, you would hope that that problem would go away over time. Yeah, yeah, be reduced. I think two thirds of the homes in that sub-shed are in Fairfax County. There's one of the things we were kind of, you know, I think this is the kind of delay over the summer kind of on how we would deal with that and why we've landed on the terms that you also tonight. We're tackling the public peace first because we've got the control over that. I think, you know, once we've done that and see the effect of it, it becomes an incremental process where we'll look at exploring ways to influence the private side afterwards. And one other thing just in terms of understanding the full scope of this, there was reference to penalties, like the representative penalties from DEQ or something like that. It was separate from other things. So what is like a DEQ penalty? What what's the scope of financial liability for something like that? So yeah, this is specifically related to what are called SSOs, which are sanitary sewer overflows. So this is when sewers come out of the sewer and onto the ground and end up in a waterway or something. In terms of, so the SSOs that I've been involved with have not, DQ, hasn't levied fines. They've asked for plans, asked for a remediation plan, how are you going to prevent this from occurring? Typically, those fines are for like repeat offenders. I don't believe, well I don't know. I don't think this would be something that would happen regularly in this portion of the system that we're talking about. So I think it's in there to protect Fairfax County because they're looking at how they can control what they develop and what's going on in the city or in the county. But you know if the city's sending excessive flows and they continue to have SSOs and SSOs and TQ comes after them they just want to be able to point to the city and say the city's causing this they need to have some financial responsibility in it. Last exposure question was just the earlier one that I had if there's a way to get an answer on that. Like if they do say stop connections and we know a connection maybe defied a new connection, maybe defined in a way that doesn't actually stop certain types of development. It stops redevelopment that is a higher occupancy than what would otherwise be there. What is like does the city have any liability if we approve things and then we get in a stop new connections territory for land that we've approved to be redeveloped. So if someone's project like gets halted because we get a stop connection. Yes, that is a point that, so the definition that we went in with that we were hoping to get for new connection is that it be limited to the meaning of a legislative approval, that anything that's by right could move forward because it's already allowed under the zoning ordinance without any kind of legislative process. And they said no to that, but I have just asked them to reconsider that because I don't. I would like to speak with their attorneys about the legalities of moratorium on by-right development. I think it's not allowed. And so the only way we could fix it the way it's written is to put, you know, language in there that says to the extent permitted by law. And we could argue about that point later. But what I would like to see is for them to recognize that by right development would have to be allowed and that what we would be talking about are legislative approvals. If they don't, then I guess we would need to evaluate the zoning ordinance and see which by right land uses would generate higher levels of sewage than the ones that currently exist on the property and figure out if we could move those into special exception status. That is a labor intensive process. I have a related question on how we're going to monitor this. So given that there's various triggers in the agreement that you know if you see this then happens are we thinking like quarterly annually like how do we what's the staff plan on that. So we get so so the data that Dustin was referencing kind of with the charts and things where you know we collect the data and 15 minute increments or Fairfax County collects the data and 15 minute increments. So that data has provided us with some time lag on a monthly basis. And so one of the things we've talked about, now that we've got Dustin and his team kind of plugged into help us is developing kind of a monthly quarterly kind of report on all of the metrics kind of governing the system. So we can kind of more actively see kind of our progress and how things are operating. And so that's needed to get through kind of tonight and kind of moving forward with kind of the agreement, but that's one of the next things along with the flow equalization decisions that that we intend to work on. So we really wouldn't be surprised. We would know when we're approaching a point where something might be at risk here and you wouldn't be suddenly like well, we've got to stop now. And you see some of the terms that Fairfax County put in the agreement at 95%. This is going to get flagged and we're going to ask the city to come up with a plan to, you know, what they're going to do next, whether it's by additional capacity or come up with a plan to not exceed those requirements. It's all in the spirit of what you're talking about is so that nobody's surprised that or were actively working on something before it becomes an issue. Okay. Other questions, Justine? There's a couple of notes. I'm glad to see the development that we're breaking things up. I'm sorry to make before and so I'm glad to see that as an improvement. The only question I had was I noticed the June 2028 deadline. That agreement there is that we would have like something already built to manage peak flows by that date or we would have a plan in place by that date. Well, I, there's not a lot of time between, you know, that date in 2028 now, right, to construct what we're talking about. I think that would be what we would kind of push to do. But I think that's the point in the agreement where they would expect us, where the limitations and the measurement of those kind of twice a year metrics would come into play. So they're essentially giving us a three year grace period on the front end to work on some of these things to get some of these things in place. So it's in our incentive to get it built, because that'll reduce the risk of us tripping those limitations. Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes sense. I guess I saw that in that document I've said whether it be a sewage basin or some other option. Are there any other options besides, you mentioned pump thanks to Erlington or those pretty much of the two options that exist. Is he shaking your head? Yes. I think effectively, right? What do you do with the water that's already in the system? You either contain it or you move it somewhere else. Or the third option, stop it from getting into the system and with, but you can't do anything in three years. You can't do enough in three years to stop that. So those are effectively your two options. Great. OK. Thank you. And the pump Arlington pieces more about your average daily flow than dealing with a peak flow rain storm. So thank you. That's all. That's more than FY30 capacity purchase, right? That's if we, where we send it. Correct. Okay. Other final questions? Okay. Thank you. This is helpful. Appreciate the discussion. Any final wrap-up to buy it on this one? Sounds like we're going to get it back in April 7th, right? So the goal is to get back to you all on April 7th. Like that's dependent on us kind of finalizing the document with folks in Fairfax County. So we're waiting to hear back from them. Our goal is to bring that back to you on April 7th. If that doesn't line up, we may shift out a few weeks, but the goal is to kind of try and wrap it up through, you know, the City Council and then the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors before the end of the fiscal year. Great, thank you very much. Thank you all. Yeah. I think we have one consent item to talk about the rooftop unit at the library. We do. So, um, the, um, just a couple of points on this. This is, uh, the library has four rooftop units. Um, we replace two of them, or we, we put in a new one for the expanded space and replaced one of the old ones with the library project. The council, so there are two old ones. One of the old ones died last summer, and the council of Perfury had funds replace it, and we did that back in October and November. the other old one died this winter. And so this is the last of the four. So hopefully we will not be coming back to council for any more rooftop units for the library for another decade. Am I the only one surprise that the useful life was only 11 years? Shouldn't they last longer than that? I'm with you. I'd like them to last longer. I guess I mean is it like a home HVAC system where you would have some sort of warranty that it lasts 20 years or? I don't think my home unit has a warranty lasting more than a year, right? Maybe you maybe you got a better deal kind of with your house. I think The team looked at a number of different options on what we could do with this and the heat exchanger was the component of this that went bad and it's like half or more of the cost of kind of replacing the whole unit and a big logistical hassle. And so I think when the team kind of looked through the different options, you know, they were recommending that we go this route. To given that we've had no two fail, on other city facilities, we have other units that we think are going to approach this very short useful life that we should proactively plan for. Yes. I mean, it's part of our facilities budget. We're working on it, you know, working through, yeah, I think not just because of kind of some of the things we've seen over the last year, but trying to kind of build up a facilities plan, you know, we did a condition assessment study, I think in 2021, we need to translate that into kind of an investment plan that, so these things aren't surprises to us or to you all going forward. So I think we feel the same way you all do about this. Like we're not super thrilled about it. I don't think our facilities team is super thrilled about it. And so we're working on kind of a better set of projections so we can get ahead of these things in the future. And roll them into the big capital plans, right? Like when we did the library, if we thought, gosh, this really is going to be close end of life, we should have just rolled it into that big plant, that big project is supposed to replacing them one off after the fact. I think some of these capital projects, you get at a point in them where if there's not enough money, you have to make decisions about what you're not going to include in the scope. And I think we've seen some of that with this building, as well as with the library. I'm happy to talk about that 2019 decision on the City Hall library, but we'll table that. Yeah, I didn't mean to rehash old ground, right? But yes, ideally, when you're going to kind of make an investment in time and shut down buildings you're going to try and take care of everything I understand that in 10. Okay. Any questions on this one? I noticed in the staff report that the anticipated money for the significant unplanned expenditure might be coming from the street maintenance. And I guess looking at our kind of repeated comments and then looking at the gap between expectations and satisfaction like in the community survey where we see street maintenance is kind of one of the top issues. Is there any way to find funding out here? Yes, so that's what the plan is. So boring any other action, $117,000 charge is not something that DPW can just absorb. And so you would look at other programs in street maintenance, as the biggest in DPW, so that's, you know, could be impacted. We don't want that to happen. We administratively try to put a fence around that paving money, so it doesn't leak off to other emergencies that come off. So that's why we do say we would like to come back to council later in the fiscal year with a budget amendment to make DPW whole so that the maintenance, uh, street maintenance, uh, program is not impacted. And we would do that through citywide vacancy savings is probably how we'll do it, um, and we'll work through that a little bit more and bring that to council a little later date. So whether it's understanding or higher investment income since interest rates are still high, I guess my preference is that not to take it out of street maintenance Yeah, I think we all agree with that like this is more of a A sequencing and timing question for us to be able to get the project to move forward Unless there's a seasonal timing issue like if people are paving now and we've taken a hundred and some thousand out of that paving budget I just't want it any projects impacted. Yeah, so that's the other thing like we don't want to cut the bottom line is spend all the money that we have that the council is appropriated on paving on paving. That's what we want to do. Okay. Other questions on this one? Okay. Will it require the same shutting down of the street or did it? Yeah, there's crane involved and all of that. I remember that when we had to go. Yeah. So that's another unfortunate aspect of this. Okay. Okay. So the paving really is, the scope of the paving is city hall oriented. And so kind of the worst areas right here, we didn't go all the way down because you know we are going to be tearing it all up in about two and a half years. We're just hitting the worst spots. Okay. And a marathon might. So what is the plan to deal with the potholes around the city, when and how they'd be dealt with? So we do have crews out working right now on potholes. And so we'll, I can get more information to council in terms of what they're doing, but that's their routine spring, pot hole filling, and this is a, you know, this is a rough winter for our streets. I know, and I also know our citizens have put that right up at the top, basically, on the survey. So, and they're all so I'm around that I've seen. In fact, there's one so deep that it's almost an archaeological dig. Is that the one on great houses you were talking about? Yeah. There's a new one in that new lane where Hillwood and 29th and 29th, especially if you're coming from Hillwood and you're turning left onto 29 or turning right, kind of the new intersection where the transit plaza is, it's the right lane, got a really big, deep one right past the taxi area. And that's a not often reported one because it's probably a lot of county residents use it too. Yeah, if I recall in the distance pass, the governor of Pennsylvania was on alled as a result of potholes. So I think we want to make sure we fix our potholes. Right. And some of them might be, you know, water man breaks and things like utility work that happened during the cold months. They put a cold patch in and they, you know, want to blade hits a cold patch, it just pops out completely. And so any of the ECs in to us, and we'll put them our list. And we're inviting the public to do that as well. If you can give us some sense, though, we can tell the public, this is what we're doing with some specificity that would be helpful. Okay. Park Avenue this week right? That's what tomorrow. Great. That's right. Okay. Any other items on the agenda? Does anyone have appetite to do schedule or should we just resume Wednesday morning? We do have breakfast with staff on Wednesday, so we'll be here anyway. Another group stops and a Laura's sick, so she probably would like to end. I don't hear anyone dying to go through the schedule, so we'll just resume fresh on Wednesday morning then. That sounds fine. Great. Alrighty. Good night all. Thank you. Thank 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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