Hey, Justin, I gave you the fair housing proclamation. Okay, thanks. Seconds, you got it. I got time to pick up the... seconds you got Let me up We have to share my Are you sure to like to? Yes. He's last. So last? Oh, wait, I think I'm gonna do it. Yeah, I think we're gonna stay this. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, God. Oh, my God. I'm feeling... I'm feeling... I think I'm gonna do it. I'm feeling... I think I'm gonna do it. I think I'm gonna do it. I just went to late. I know. Why are you ready? I take back my prior optimism. Oh, I. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. OK. OK. Good evening, everyone. I wanted to call the Monday, April 14 meeting of the City Council to Order. Welcome, everybody. Can we start with roll call please?emar Clark? Yes. Ms. Conley? Here. Ms. Downs? Here? Ms. Flynn? Here. Ms. Sean's his god? Here? Mr. Snyder? Here? Ms. Underhill? Here? In Mayor Hardy? Here. Thank you, Council. If I can invite everyone to join us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, individual, with liberty and justice for our own. Thank you all. Is there a motion to adopt tonight's meeting agenda please? I move to adopt the meeting agenda. There's a second. It's got on the second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And he knows meeting agenda is adopted. Tonight is the beginning of what we call Proclamation or Rama. We have a number of special proclamations for the month of April. So we have a six tonight. And council member Downs is gonna kick us off with the first one declaring April as Child Abuse Prevention Month in the city of Allsearch. It's down. Thank you, Mayor. Whereas every family and child hold immense potential and we all have a collective responsibility to prevent adverse childhood experiences, nurture each child's growth and promote positive childhood experiences. And whereas positive childhood experiences such as loving caregivers and safe, stable, and nurturing relationships are essential in helping children thrive by lessening the effects of trauma and adverse childhood experiences. And whereas families who receive the support they need before facing hardship are better equipped to provide secure, loving, and healthy environments, leading to children who are safer, healthier, and more hopeful about their future. And whereas strengthening families through access to concrete economic, social, and community-based resources reduces the likelihood of abuse and neglect, ensuring children have the support they need for lifelong well-being. And whereas the City of False Church with the Fairfax County Department of Family Services, other human services agencies, the City of False Church Public Schools, the Mary Riley Styles Public Library, and community partners work together to offer programs and services to strengthen resilience and protect children from abuse and neglect. And whereas the City of False Church and partnership with Fairfax County works to build stronger families that provide safe and healthy childhoods, fostering a thriving community for all. And whereas prevention is the most effective way to protect our children and families. And whereas parents and caregivers can access resources and guidance through the Fairfax County Parent Support Line at 703-324-7720. And whereas anyone who suspects or witnesses child abuse or neglects reported immediately to Fairfax County Child Protective Services at 703-324-7400. Now therefore I, Ledy Hardy, Mayor of the City of Falls Church, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2025 as child abuse prevention month. Can you scroll up? Can we scroll up? I can't read the rest of this. Oh. Can we scroll up on the screen? I'm ready. Or the hard copy works too. In the city of Falls, Virginia, and do you encourage everyone to join in efforts to enhance the well-being of children and families, prevent child abuse and neglect, and build a stronger, more caring community? Thank you all. And thank you to staff for putting on, I think the ninth year that've planted pinwheels in the community. We just did that earlier tonight at seven o'clock at Cherry Hill across the library. So we encourage everyone in the community to pass by and see the meaningfulness of planting pinwheels which really symbolize what we all want our children's childhood to be. So thank you. Is there anyone here to help receive the proclamation? You know, Inv Month also in the City of Falls Church and Councilmember Under Hill will do the honors whereas fair housing has been the law of the land since 1968 and whereas the city's fair housing code prohibits discrimination based on race color religion Marital status national origin sex including gender identity and sexual orientation and elderly, and status, or handicap, and whereas state law further protects against the discrimination based on source of funds or source of income to the Virginia Fair Housing Law and acted on July 1st, 2020. And whereas the city of Falls Church has made it a priority to conduct fair housing testing throughout the city and fair housing training for city staff and rental property staff members. And whereas as a community and as a government, the city is proud of the cultural enrichment brought by our citizens who can claim heritage linking them with Africa, Asia, Central and South America and Europe. And those of all races, religions, ethnicities, genders, and sexual orientation and ages who come to false church from all parts of this country. Now therefore I, Ledy Hardy, mayor of the City of False Church, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2025 as fair housing month in the City of False Church and call upon all to support the city's total commitment to fair housing. Thank you all. Anyone here to help receive the proclamation? No. You're doing it again. You should still come up and receive the proclamation. It's a second one. Thank you very much. I'm going to turn it off. heard up is our proclamation declaring the 19th of April 2025 as Arbor Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia took place in Falls Church at the Old Jefferson School organized by the Village Improvement Society. The first observance of Arbor Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia took place in Falls Church at the Old Jefferson School organized by the Village Improvement Society. The first observance of Arbor Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia took place in Falls Church at the Old Jefferson School organized by the Village Improvement Society. 1992, the first observance of Arbor Day in the Commonwealth of Virginia took place in Falls Church at the Old Jefferson School, organized by the Village Improvement Society. And whereas each April, since 1974, Falls Church has held a citywide celebration of Arbor Day, encouraging all community members to plant and care for native trees. And whereas the City of Falls Church has been designated a tree city USA by the National Arbor Day Foundation for 47 consecutive years the longest in the state of Virginia. And whereas trees release oxygen into the atmosphere, absorb carbon dioxide, provide habitats for wildlife, prevent soil erosion from wind and water, filter pollutants before they enter waterways and help lower heating and cooling costs by regulating temperatures. And whereas the Quirkus Meshoyi, also known as the Swamp Chestnut Oak, has been selected as the 2025 Tree of the Year by the City of Falls Church Urban Forestry Commission for its adaptability to urban environments. The high value it provides our forests and environment, and its rarity in our city's urban forest. And whereas Falls Church wishes to continue to manage its urban forest for the current and future environmental, social, and economic benefits, it can provide. Now therefore, I, Letty Hardy, mayor of the City of Falls, Church, Virginia, do hereby proclaim April 19th as Arbor Day in recognition of the value that trees provide for our community in the City of Falls Church and urge all to join the celebration of that day. And in fact, I think we have a number of events on Saturday and so invite the community join us in recognition raising the flag outside City Hall and the tree planting in Cherry Hill right after that. And so I think I saw members of the UFC Urban Forestry Miss Crompton. Thank you for Yes. Or take this to me. Oh. Okay. Are we going to have a meeting? Yes. Are we going to have a meeting? Yes. Are we going to have a meeting? Yes. Okay. Okay. Are we going to have a meeting? Yes. Okay. Are we going to have a meeting? Yes. Okay. Are we going to have a meeting? Yes. Arbor Day festivities start at the Falls Church Farmers Market at the Vipis Table, the booth that's across from the community center. Excuse me from the city hall at the flag pole and we'll start handing out or having a tree adoption from about eight till noon. We have all kinds of species of native trees. At 11 o'clock, there'll be the raising of the flag, the tree of the year flag on the flag pole by our city, Arborist Charles Prince. At 11.30, we invite volunteers to come help us plant some more trees in Cherry Hill Park. Thank you. And it'll be a busy day indeed, because I think Saturday's also the Easter egg roll in Sherry Hill Park and the normal farmers market, so we expect to see a great crowd out and about. So the fourth one, I guess is Bon Jovi said, we're halfway there. Proclamation declaring April 22nd, 2025 as Earth Day in the City of Falls Church. Vice Mayor Hiscott will do the honors. Thank you. Whereas Earth Day was first celebrated on April 22nd, 1970, to inspire Americans to take action against the deterioration of the environment. And whereas Earth Day has become a global movement marked by more than a billion people every year as a day of action to change human behavior and create global, national, and local policy changes. And whereas the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change details how coordinated efforts to scale up renewable energy sources, overhaul transportation system, restructure cities, improve agriculture, and pull carbon from the air could put the planet on a more sustainable path while improving living standards around the globe. And whereas the theme for Earth Day 2025 is our power, our planet, focusing on accelerating the adoption of renewable energy for the sake of human and planetary health and to activate everyone, governments, residents, and businesses to do their part. And whereas the City Council has adopted a community energy action plan and a government operations energy action plan reaffirming the council's commitment to take action to participate in the regional effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to continue to advocate for regional, state and federal support to promote and protect the environment. And whereas achieving these goals will require continued commitment to finding opportunities for renewable energy adoption. And whereas committing to a renewable energy promotes a cleaner environment, a more prosperous economy and a positive economic development. Now therefore I, Ledy Hardy, mayer the City of Falls Church. Virginia, do hereby proclaim April 22nd, 2024 as Earth Day in the City of Falls Church. It encouraged staff, residents, businesses, and organizations to commit to take actions on Earth Day 2024 and in the future to invest in a more sustainable and resilient future. It looks like we've got Kurt. Kurt, welcome. Thank you. Okay. Our fifth proclamation is Proclamation declaring the 21st, the 28th of April as dark sky week in the city of Fallshourge, Virginia, and it's commonly we'll do the honors. Whereas the aesthetic beauty and wonder of a natural night sky is a shared heritage of all humankind and the experience of standing underneath the starry night sky inspires feelings of wonder and awe and encourages an interest in science and nature, especially among young people and out of area visitors to Virginia's local communities. And the greatest number of dark sky parks east of the Mississippi are located in Virginia. And Virginia's national state and local parks, including the longest stretch of miles of the Appalachian Trail, are home to dozens of species who rely on undisturbed night environments to hunt, mate and thrive. Whereas 80% of the Appalachian Trail are home to dozens of species who rely on undisturbed night environments to hunt, mate, and thrive. Whereas 80% of the world's population, including many people in Virginia, live under a dome of light pollution, excessive artificial lighting at night that disrupts natural darkness, and may never experience the visual, wonder, or ecological, and health benefits of living under a dark sky. And whereas light pollution has scientifically established economic and environmental consequences, which result in significant impacts to the ecology and human health of all communities. And Virginia's environmental goals for years has included the reduction of light pollution. And whereas light pollution represents a waste of natural resources, amounting to roughly $3 billion per year of wasted energy in the United States, contributes to diminished energy security and significantly reducing light pollution, would save Virginia residents tens of millions of dollars per year. And whereas the Dark Sky International is a globally recognized authority on light pollution and has created International Dark Sky Week to raise awareness of light pollution and provide free education, resources and solutions to the public to encourage the protection of and enjoyment of dark skies and responsible outdoor lighting. Now, therefore, I, Ledy Hardy, mayor of the City of Falls Church, Virginia, do hereby proclaim April 21st to 20th, 2025 as Dark Sky Week in the city of Fallschurch, and urge all to celebrate the pristine, undisturbed dark skies throughout the Commonwealth, and take a moment to ponder their role in protecting this valuable resource and connection to the environment for now and for future generations. I'll click the big guest here tonight. Welcome. Yes, we have Eileen Craigie from the Dark Sky International. Welcome. Thank you for encouraging us and advocacy for me behalf of that if you'd like to speak you're welcome to just for a second I just want to thank you Mayor Hardy and all the council members For this proclamation and for all the work that you're doing on to combat light pollution and light trespass It's gonna take every single community working together and every person in the community to solve this problem. And here in the region, this region, we need every local jurisdiction working together. So we've gotten proclamations to cover most of this region. And just to let you on the light pollution is growing faster than the population. It's doubling every eight to 10 years. And in some places, scientists predict that in 20 years, there will be no stars visible unless we take action now. So again, thank you for all of the work that you're doing. And the simple solution to this is to follow the five principles of responsible outdoor lighting at night. You all have those postcards and I left them cards for people to pick up on the way out. So again, thank you all. Great, thank you for your work. And last but not least, we have proclamation declaring April 13th through 19th, 2025 as public telecommunicators month in the City of Falls Church. And Mr. Snyder will do the honors. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Whereas public safety telecommunicators are the critical first point of contact for individuals experiencing emergencies, providing essential support, guidance, and life-saving instructions during times of crisis. And whereas the dedicated emergency communications technicians of the Falls Church Police Department act as vital connectors between the public and police officers. And whereas emergency communications technicians perform their duties with unwavering commitment, often under significant pressure and in challenging conditions to gather important information, dispatch necessary resources, and maintain composure in moments of distress. And whereas their expertise, dedication, and professionalism are instrumental in safeguarding the safety and well-being of our police officers, other first responders, and our entire community. And whereas emergency communications technicians play a critical role in the successful outcomes of emergency situations, significantly contributing to the protection of life and property. And whereas it is both appropriate and necessary to acknowledge the critical public safety role of these committed individuals who carry out their responsibilities with professionalism, dedication and compassion. Now, therefore, I, Ledy Hardy, mayor the City of Falls Church, Virginia, do hereby proclaim the week of April 13 through 19, 2025 as public safety telecommunicators week in the City of Falls Church and extend our sincere gratitude and appreciation to all public safety, telecommunication professionals for their vital service and daily unsung contributions to the safety and security in the community. It looks like we've got Chief Art and team joining us tonight. Thank you. Thank you for all that you do. Okay. Well, Let's move on to receipt a public comment. Let's start with a summary of written comments, please. Yes. This is a summary of written comments since the last regular city council meeting. And the hmm did you not have the correct copy pulled up? Sorry. A moment. I know I sent it all to you. Send it to you while today. Well, ah. It's not. Those are the old ones. Oh, okay. I've got it. Thank you. Sorry about that. So regarding the accessory dwelling unit or ordinance of the following road regarding it, Dr. Michelina P. Bonanno wrote in favor of 10 foot set acts for dwell dwellings. Mustafa Elna Hass wrote in support of the ordinance. False Church forward members Patrick Conley, naughty Martinez, Matt Cunningham wrote in support of the ordinance with five-foot setbacks. Jean Gruff's go of 120 North Fairfax Street wrote in favor of 10-foot setbacks. Michael Novotny, principal backyard homes building company, wrote in support of the ordinance with five foot sitbacks and no cap on ADUs. Josh Vavirka wrote in support of the ordinance on behalf of the Northern Virginia Association of Realtors. Jeff Pearson of 513 West Broad Street wrote in support of the ordinance. Yann Zee asked that any city council member with parents living with them in an accessory dwelling on their property, recuse themselves from voting on the issue. Regarding the budget, Nicholas F Benton, owner editor of the Falls Church News Press, asked for a city support for the newspaper. Andrew Olison for Bike Falls Church asked the city to prioritize several transportation issues in the FY26 budget in regard to bicycle safety and infrastructure items. The city's environmental sustainability council provided their budget priorities regarding actions to meet the city's community energy action plan goals. John Ward, Jeff Peterson, Tim Stevens, Dave Gustafson, all members of the Falls Church Climate Action Network asked that the proposed budget and CIP expand support for implementation of the city community energy action plan, CEAP, and government operations energy Action Plan. Go GOEAP. John Ward, 335 Riley Street, Matthew Cunningham, Timothy Stevens, 106th Grushing Place, Ben Stoner, 426 Great Falls Street, Dave Gustafson, 302 West Columbia Street, Jeff Peterson, 205 Tyson Drive, Minion U and Clark Britain, members of the Falls Church Climate Action Network, wrote in support of funding solar panels on Aurora House. Page Griner of 32, Grove Avenue, Rotten Support of the City Schools Shared Revenue Agreement. and Lorraine O'Rourke, the VP of President on behalf of the VP is forwarded the board's budget priorities surrounding neighborhood trees, the CEAP and the GOEAP and arts and culture. Regarding the budget and solid waste, Norman Brand, Spectrum Board President supports removing trash removal bills from the property tax assessment, Sean Daken, 410 South Maple Avenue, wrote that those who use trash services should be responsible for the costs. Beatrice Dixon, Park Towers, supports solid waste financing option one. Marsha Hertzberg, Spectrum, wrote that it was not fair that she paid for trash removal twice. Robert Leopold, 200 North Maple Avenue, supports solid waste financing option one. Katie Murphy, Park Towers, asked that trash removal fees be removed from tax assessments. Kate Nesson, Deputy Treasurer, City of Falls Church, wrote in opposition to replacing tax support for solid waste services with a fee. Kathy Tai from the Byron wrote to support the Park Towers position on solid waste fees. And the following representatives of Condominion Associations asked that the City Council establish a fee for service system for city solid waste collection and make this part of the FY 2026 budget. Matt Adams of Park Towers, Norman Brand Spectrum, Sarah Tureko from Spectrum, Lynn Larry Hinn Kirk, Sprodway, Brian Pendle, Ten from False Plaza, Sally Phillips from Park Towers, Laurie Krillof's Silverman from Cherrywood Townhouses, Kathy Tai from Byron Condominium, and Gail Wadsworth in Peter Markham from Park Towers. In other written comments, Sean Deacon, a 410 South Mabel Avenue, asked for a ban or restriction on gas-powered leaf blowers and the Environmental Sustainability Council provided their annual report. Great. Thank you everyone who's written in. Well let's move on to receipt a public comment either live in person or virtually. And we don't have any studies signed up virtually so we do have some folks who signed up here just a reminder that we do set a the council sets a three-minute speaking periods so everybody gets a chance to talk and you'll be able to see that when I put this up here. I mean, I have 30 seconds to sum up. I think I'm going to have 30 seconds to sum up. You're going to have to go through it and get in the way. You get three minutes. I mean, I'll throw you seconds to sum up. I'll just be doing it. And throw you seconds to sum up. You can go ahead and do it in a nice way. You can go ahead and do it in a nice way. You can go ahead and do it in a nice way. You can go ahead and do it in a nice way. You can go ahead and do it in a nice way. You can go ahead and do it in a nice way. Fred Thompson and followed by Arthur Agan. I have filed a statement on behalf of homeowners in the city in property taxes taxes, there aren't even the benefits in the city's solid waste human rights. And I just like that the support and so you can see who they are. We had 17 people sign our letter so far. Others want to. It represents six condos and the agents, including part towers, spectrum, broadway, false clauses, cherry and the fire. Essentially, we want to first of all, we want to thank the mayor, we want to thank the council, we want the city manager and the city staff for the discussions that they can so play the place of organization. We feel that it's getting a full airing, and the concern that we have is that general revenue is used to finance the drafts collection for about 3,000 citizens of the city. Those of us here are presented in a part of the other thousand homeowners who are paying property taxes, but cannot access or use that facility, that capability aren't allowed to. We think the public transport situation is only available to us, as some say, the citizens of the city, and the paid for those places. We think the fairest way to do this is just to charge an annual fee. Arlington Fairfax, Alonso, Andrew, is sending all church residents to solid waste collection fee. That seems to be the pattern across the Virginia, if you think it should be the pattern here as well. The city has, we think it can move forward on a fee structure because a lot of work has been done already to determine what the actual costs are. And how the issue is, how can that be distributed, how can those most fairly be distributed to the people getting the service. So we think it would work has been done. The progress is being made. It could reduce the tax rate but from one and a half to two cents based on the different briefings we've seen. We think this is the forum. This is the FY2026 budget we're working on now. And we think this is the forum. This is the time that the city council should do that. Not some other set of briefings. Not some other discussions. The issue is how best to fund the activities that the city is in court is a bit used as important and how to make the people that benefit the service, pay for the service and can I contribute? Great, thank you all for coming out. Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Arthur Agen. Good evening. I feel lonely up here now. I'm a homeowner who will be charged with fees under the solid waste proposal and want to say that I support the plan to address in a quality that exists within the stage. So what was presented our last one day's working session I think was really fantastic I have to hear our sub-compensate with would like to make on other aspects beyond just should we do it? One, I think we'd be beneficial to see the total cost of what all the different changes have been made to. Concerned, they definitely did present as increased costs for certain people. I think it would be beneficial to have a commentation of the in-depth assessments, these issues that we've been seeing, and I said these issues are not that bad. So I'll make a hand with you so that you can understand the full change that we've been coming up. Second, there's been some comments on darklaces in the presentation. I believe that darklaces should be a part of the covers of any curtain. I think it's existing, which should be clear that the existing mattress, There's a bigger bad state in your home, in fun place, a little bit of a name, and that is for our faith, for our faith to go into the third bed but we should come to the library. And also that any third bed should be signed appropriate before the office. Mr. Aganich, I want to make sure that your mic is on. You know what it's not the other room I got used to the the room mics. But any third bid should be sized appropriately for composting and not overly large to deal with the storage concerns in other pieces along those lines, 20, 35 gallon at the most. Also any plan around solid waste should eliminate the bag tags, the $1 bag tags for brown bag, they've become more inconvenient to acquire with the closing of Brown's hardware and that is an issue. But overall, Council should move forward this year without waiting because otherwise, we're talking about another 12 months and that's not responsive governing. So I think it should move forward. I think there should be outreach to say we have, There's the budget town hall on the 24th, and this should be considered a topic for there. Thank you. Thank you. And the next folks we have signed up are here to speak about the accessory dwellings ordinance. And so we do have a public hearing tonight that's coming after this public comment period and the City Manager's report. So you're welcome to speak now or you're welcome to speak when the public hearing is held. So I'll call your name and if you just give me a signal, if you wanna wait, I'll put you aside until the public hearing. So Mary Chavises, our first, okay. Mark Gross, you're gonna speak now, sir. Now what I'm saying isn't all I'm gonna point. Hi, I'm Mark Gross from 303 to Lincoln Avenue. I'm gonna speak briefly on the ADUs. I would urge you to adopt the 10 foot side yard. I think you know all of the reasons everybody's heard them all already. I would only emphasize that something I often hear is that, you know, we all ready allow some structures at three feet a garage, or a shed. I have one next to me and I would expect if you asked a lot of the people who already have something at three feet. Since they would all say, well, are we're further away. So I think 10 is a good number. I think it also would show that the council is open to views that are not the ones that are driving and paying a lot of view. it would shush shush shush shush shush shush have concerned are their concerns. Something else is the issue of the owner occupancy. Now something that I've heard recently is there is a concern about a lawsuit. I would say that you ought to vote on this on what's best. A concern about a suit that might happen, might not happen isn't a reason to select a policy. That's, it's just you ought to just decide if it's good or it's bad, if you're sued, you know, you're sued and things happen, you know, you might not be. I would urge you to adopt a owner occupancy for, you know, you've heard all of the reasons. So I think having the owner on site helps the concerns of neighbors that the owner is still there, or seeing. The other concern I have is if you don't adopt owner occupancy here, you can't go back if there are problems. So it isn't something you can undo later. If it's done here and you don't have own occupancy, that's the end of it. Thank you. Jimmy Jung is next. Then Joseph Sharizzi is after. Hi, I'm Jimmy Jung from 203 Least Street. As always, trying to understand 80 years and why we would consider them and various factors factors that go into what they might do or not do for us. The one thing I walked away with was the idea that this is something that is intended to help the citizen families of Falls Church, the folks with kids, the folks with grandparents, those folks. I'm a little disappointed in myself for kind of losing track of this and seen that owner occupancy in fact had fallen out. I think that is absolutely essential. Quite frankly, I'm a little more afraid of lawsuits than apparently he was. Nevertheless, it seems crazy to me that the state and every surrounding county can manage to put this in there and we can't. That's absurd and as he says, if we don't put it in now, we're kind of messed up down the future. I would suggest that we put it in, I would suggest that we reconsider that. If we are not, then this becomes an investment opportunity, not something that helps our people. So I think that's absolutely critical. The other thing I as I look through the things that have shown up in our survey with folks, the very first things that we were worried about were coverage and the rentals and then right behind that, tied at third, was owner occupancy and then you know coverage things, the setbacks, those kind of I'm sorry setbacks setbacks, not coverage. And those things are kind of tied at third. Those things are critical. I don't want us to be dismissive of them. We've asked for input. We've got surveys. And then when we get that information in hand, I see things, I see folks saying, well, it wasn't scientific. And it becomes, I don't even know why we would do a survey if we're going to be that dismissive with it. This is what the folks have said. We've been down this path where we've trained our zoning laws. a survey if we're going to be that dismissive with it. This is what the folks have said. We've been down this path where we've changed our zoning laws in contradiction to what people seem to be saying to you, to us loudly. And I don't want us to be dismissive. If we're reaching out and our people are giving us answers, then we should pay attention. And I think the biggest issue, as I said, that seems to be what everyone's worried about now, is the setbacks I absolutely think we should have the eight or ten setbacks we cannot have five. And even when you leave aside all those folks, it seems to be trying to communicate that to you directly, I would leverage on top of that the fact that our one sort of acknowledged expert are planning commissioner from Fairfax County who has seen this in action for years has said we need larger setbacks. We need the larger setbacks. I think for us to ignore that is I'm not exactly sure what word I want to use there a mistake. Let's say it's a mistake. So I absolutely think we should have you guys have many people in this port of Toby, we'll we can pass along tweak it later. Well we can tweak it in one direction, but we can't tweak it in the other. So let's not make any mistakes. If we discover that seven is the right number later, let's be going from 10 to 7, not 5 to 7. Thank you guys. So we have Joseph Cherizi, followed by Robin Raimi. Hello. Can you hear me? Great. I'm Joseph Cherizi. I live on Gundry Drive and fall search. First, I want to thank Council for the many, many feedback sessions on accessory dwellings and the library here at office hours and especially for taking our many different feedback for many people. So I see some of the feedback that I gave in early sessions in this. So I really appreciate including RM zones. And yeah, thank you for a really wonderful process in this and taking everybody's voice into account. I want to publicly personally support the passing of accessory dwellings as the update is proposed with as few restrictions as possible, including the lowest possible setbacks and no restrictions on owner occupancy. My mother makes less than $25 an hour and my father is a retired polymer turning 70 this year as they age and age out of kind of their earning years. I'm pretty sure we're going to be unable to afford, but moving them in with me. And I'm not sure that we'll be able to afford any home close enough to the city, where I can get to the job that I need to be able to take care of everyone. I actually get built, which is the point of doing all of this. So, yeah, please support that with the community. I'm going to be, the proposed changes require everyone to conform to the existing maximum lot coverage for rainwater runoff in previous surface area and tree cover. So personally, single-family homes already have to conform to all these standards. So it seems like that no matter what step back or rainwater runoff restrictions that we create, there's gonna be no new trees at risk or no new negative environmental impacts at risk. And I think the letter from the ESC says something very similar. I encourage you to read that. That's just my personal response to that. I think the only negative environmental choice you could make here tonight is increasing the setbacks or other restrictions that arbitrarily limit the number of accessory dwellings that are built further limiting the density in false church contributing to urban sprawl and contributing to the destruction of the environment so thank you very much for all the feedback sessions and I really appreciate it. Good night. You have Robin Rae. Rae me followed by J. Veel. Good evening, Council. My name is Robin Rae me and I live at 1134 South Washington. I'm here tonight to speak in support of the proposed accessory dwelling ordinance. And in particular, I wanted to urge council to support the five foot setback. That's been recommended by both the city staff and then also the planning commission. As you guys have pretty much know, I've attended a lot of the public meetings on this topic. And I've listened closely to each of the council's work sessions on eighties. And one thing that I've noticed is that a lot of folks both, you know, someone council and then some in the room today tend to evaluate this policy sort of by imagining the worst case scenario. I think that's natural, a natural reaction and when something new is proposed, the first question is often, you know, what's the worst thing that I could wake up tomorrow and see in my neighbor's yard? And honestly, I get that. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a bit of a pessimist. So I don't think that we need to, you know, stop asking those questions. But I do think that we need to put the worst case fear in the proper context. So if we're going to worry about what the most disruptive possible outcome is, you know, we need to compare it to what's already allowed under our zoning code today. So currently, as most of you know, in the R1B district, you know, by right, your neighbor can put an accessory dwelling, that's 12 foot tall, just three feet from your property line, and they could also build a 35 foot primary dwelling just 10 feet from the property line. So when we're talking about a one-story 15-foot tall AD with a five-foot step back, that's actually a less disruptive setback to height ratio than several of the other options that are already available to your neighbor. And in that sense, adding an AD is one of the least disruptive options that your neighbor could choose to expand the livable or usable indoor space on their property. And the numbers also support this perspective. So the city sees about 20 new single family homes built every year. In contrast, our staff estimates we'd see just between two and five of these ADs under the ordinance as it is proposed. So the more likely worst case scenario of what might show up in your neighbor neighbor's yard if you're looking at the numbers and if we're being realistic is actually not a small AD, but a large by-rate single-family home that's replacing a modestly sized one. In fact, you know, allowing ADs might actually reduce the number of those large homes that because it gives property owners the gentler option to add a small unit instead of just tearing down a modest size home To build something much bigger So yes, let's consider the worst case scenario But let's also remember that the real baseline that we're considering here is not an empty yard It's what's already allowed under our existing zoning and when you look at it that way I think that a 15 foot AD with a five foot setback really is not the worst case scenario. It's a reasonable balanced and modest option. So thank you for your time. We have Jay Veal, followed by Jean Grasco. Okay. And Mark Hoolier. Okay, thank you. Good evening, councilmembers. Mark Collier, representing myself, 1308 Ellison Street, and I'm going to give you, it's on. I'm going to give you a, should I hit start? No. I don't want to teach you. You're good. I'm going to give you 90 seconds. I'm going to give you five reasons why this is an easy yes vote for A to use as written. First, we're empowering residents not creating a new bureaucratic hurdle. Two, we're allowing willing and capable homeowners to address their own unique needs and they'll do so at their own expense. Three, this requires no financial investment from the city and places no burden on other taxpayers. Homeowners will bear the full cost of planning, permitting, and construction. The proposed changes as written to the regulation include detailed qualifications to ensure responsible development. We've heard about the several listening sessions, the several opportunities to write in, and the professionals provided you their professional advice. There's no need to delay any further and make any changes. And lastly, for the vast majority of our city, daily life will remain unchanged. This amendment targets specific willing property owners and will have no negative impact on the character or infrastructure of the rest of Falls Church. This is a win-win. It empowers residents. It offers flexible housing solutions, costs to city nothing, and doesn't negatively affect anyone else. So please vote yes as is without further delay. Madam Mayor, that was the final speaker. Signed up for a public comment. Great. As the clerk said, we will have a public hearing when we get to accessory dwelling in the first item. So, there are additional people who would like to get comments and we welcome it. Let's move on to report of the city manager. Thank you, Mayor Hardy. Members of Council, members of the community. There's really just two things I'd like to report tonight. One is to share with the community the third quarter financial report, which was discussed with the City Council's Budget and Finance Committee, which includes representatives of the school board and school staff where we get together and review financials together. Some of the highlights of that financial report are that we, as we're looking very closely at our changing Northern Virginia and National Capital Region economy, and we are assessing that our revenue forecast for FY 26 need to be adjusted. And so what we are now putting forward is revised revenue estimate for FY 26 is $1.2 million less than that what was, you know, the revenue projections that we were putting together back in January and February and presented to you in March. We do not like to revise our financial estimates in this way. We know it's very disruptive to our organization and to the community and to our partners with the school board However, we do think the signal in the numbers particularly the sales tax numbers the meals tax numbers and the b-pole numbers Are a signal that we should not ignore and and so through that budget and finance discussion the City Council members of that committee ask for sort of the full slate of options which would include expenditure reductions and so we're working through some scenarios for that and we'll bring those to the council at a later meeting as well as some options on the revenue side. So that's the sort of the bottom line report from the financials that report is in the packet. And as Bawa and I would be happy to answer any questions for you in any detail that you would like to explore within that financial report. The last thing I will note is that when the budget ordinances do come up for Council's first reading tonight, the staff recommendation is on the real estate tax rate which was presented back in March with a two and a half cent reduction, sort of in this sort of just to keep options open to provide some flexibility as you navigate and we as we all navigate this together staff is currently recommending to advertise first reading at a flat rate with no change to the rate knowing that it is the council's desire to lower that rate and staff will work and close co operation with the with the council and community on those options. So that's the first part of the financial report. The second part of the report just to alert the members of our community that four members of their community that are experiencing our federal civil servants or federal contractors that may be impacted by layoffs or the threat of layoffs in the future. The city does have a resource on the city's homepage of our website that lists upcoming job fairs and other resources that are available in the region. We also have a resume building workshop that Mary Riley styles is offering this coming week that is on Wednesday, Aprilth from 5.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. That's a free session for people just looking for skills on updating the resumes. There are two job fairs that people that are on this website that people should be aware of. One is tomorrow April 15th at George Mason University at the Arlington campus from noon to 4 p.m. free no registration required. And another one on Saturday, May 3rd, a job fair for federal workers and contractors. Saturday, May 3rd from noon to 3 p.m. and that's at George Washington Middle School on Mount Vernon Avenue in Alexandria. City staff will be at that second one in conjunction with about 50 hiring companies and the National Capital Region. So I just wanted people to be aware of that resource and we'll continue to be leaning into this to help members of our community who are facing these types of dislocations. Thank you. I think we probably have questions and comments in addition to council requests. So vice mayor. Quick question on the job fairs. You mentioned the second one was for federal workers only, but I'm assuming that those provided in Palschurch City or that you're referencing are for people interested in job affairs period because we have so many that are adjacent fed adjacent jobs that have also been eliminated. Just want to clarify. The way they are advertised is for federal workers and contractors. They are open to the public and so I would view it as an open resource. But that is I think sort of programmatically, I think there's that for the organizers of these events that that's the target population. Thank you. Other questions or council requests. This one. I just had one question that came up with the reopening of the drive aisle in front of the community center. So if you could provide an update on the HVAC project as well as what people should expect in terms of timing wise of kind of finishing touches to the exterior. And if that is connected to whenever the interior will be done and kind of as we're still on target toward a June completion date or completion by a June date for different programming. Sure so I will note for the public that there are updates posted on the city website as well. We are very pleased that the the 16 geothermal wells have been dug and that work in terms of the rough part of it is complete in front of the community center. The drive-i'll there will be repaved and so that work still needs to happen. but it will be open to the public and so that does mean that that's another access into the city hall campus but it also means that we'll now expand the farmer's market to its normal summer configuration. And so that's I think two things that are relevant to the public. In terms of programming and other changes to the community center, I am not prepared to speak to those dates. They are the same dates that have been published earlier. The community center still is in the interior phase of its work and that's going to be completed later this spring. But I don't have those dates right at the tip of my tongue. Yeah, and I just raised it because with the reconfiguration or return to its normal configuration of the farmer's market, I noticed that where the sidewalks are closed, you know, there's now kind of pedestrian activity or more pedestrian activity in the drive aisle and in combination with the cars returning to the drive aisle. And so to just for folks to be aware that it is back in service to vehicles and that driver should also be aware that there are pedestrians also using the drive aisle. Okay. Ms. Connelly. Mr. Shields, I see the request from a there's a therapy of South Washington and Ann and Dale, they work with older teens and adults and they had some requests about signs for blind student in the area as well as just concerns and questions about the upcoming traffic circle and what kind of facilities are in that traffic circle for people with disabilities. So the traffic signal when it's or the circle when it's completed will be meeting all of updated standards for access for persons with disabilities. And so we'll provide that information to them. We are concerned about the construction period that's going to be impactful for all of the adjacent. So, if we haven't already, we will reach out directly to the folks you put us in contact with just to walk them through what they can expect when construction gets underway. Because I think we'll need to make some special accommodations to construction. They said they go out and walk about in that area on a regular basis and had some ideas for some signals and other things for people with visual impairment. Thanks. Okay. I have two things that came up in my office hours on Friday. I think everyone's very excited about the three Hock signals on Broad Street. When will those be operational? So they will be operational at the end of the month and we are going to be gearing up a public relations campaign to explain how they function and ask for people to spread that by word of mouth also. But the goal of those projects is to break up our super blocks and make it easier to cross the street and say for to cross the street, particularly where it's long distances between signalized intersections. Terrific. And look forward to the public education because I do think that will be important. Second thing, also transportation, actually all of them are transportation related. There are a number of street lights out along Broad Street, particularly in the west and in front of Burnton Broad and just various other parts. Those just dominion issues as they update them with LED bulbs or the things that can they address sooner than later. So I know our DPW staff are aware of the problem and vexed by the problem. We were noticing this, you know, back during the holiday lighting, etc. that the underground conduits to some of these street poles is degraded. And so it's not an easy fix, but we are aware of it and we're trying to move forward to get them fixed permanently. Okay. And the last one while we're in the west side of town, I received an inquiry about when broad and hay cock will be repaved as part of the West Falls project. I know that's usually towards the end of it, but is the developer's planning on doing that in May? That's correct. Okay. That's good news. I think that's it for me. Anyone else? Okay, well let's move on to business on the agenda. And before we call the first item on accessory dwellings, I know we all have conflict of interest disclosures to read so we can get started with that while we pull up the staff report and get everyone's situation. and accessory dwellings. I know we all have conflict of interest disclosures to read so we can get started with that while we pull up the staff report and get everyone situated. Should we start left to right? Okay, Ms. Downs. The City Council is discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I like many others in the city and an owner of residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass. As a result, my property may realize reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. After careful consideration, I've determined that I'm able to participate in this transaction fairly objectively and in the public interest. The City Council is discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I, like many others in the city, am the owner of a residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass. And as a result, my property may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. After careful consideration, I have determined that I am able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively and in the public interest. The City Council is discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I, like many others in the city, am an owner of residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit. If the proposed ordinance were to pass and as a result, my property may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. After careful consideration, I've determined that I am able to participate in the transaction fairly objectively and in the public interest. The city council is discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I like many others in the city and in an owner of residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass. And as a result, my property may realize a reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. After careful consideration, I've determined that I'm able to participate in this transaction fairly objectively and in the public interest. The City Council is discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I, like many others in the city, am an owner of residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass. And as a result, my property may realize that reasonably foreseeable, director and direct benefit from the ordinance. After careful consideration, I have determined that I am able to participate in this transaction fairly objectively and in the public interest. The City Council is discussing tonight the proposed accessory dwelling unit ordinance. I like many others in the city and an owner of residential property that would be eligible for an accessory dwelling unit if the proposed ordinance were to pass. And as a result, my property may realize reasonably foreseeable direct or indirect benefit from the ordinance. After careful consideration, I have determined that I am able to participate in this transaction fairly objectively and in the public interest. Okay, Mr. Shields, how do we want to proceed? So, um, we'll start with the reading of the ordinance. Yes. We have to 24-17 ordinance to amend City Code Chapter 48 zoning to allow accessory dwellings as a permitted accessory using the R1A, R1B and RM districts then to allow detached accessory dwellings and to amend City Code Chapter 42 utilities to regulate the water and sewer connections of accessory dwellings. So we do have a brief staff report just to update the council on any technical changes and updates that we have made since the council last had its markup work session on this several weeks ago. The ordinance is now before you. It is my opinion. It has been very thoroughly vetted and it is staff's recommendation in favor of adoption of the ordinance tonight. Mr. Jack Trainor has been our staff lead for this project and I want to thank him for his tremendous work on this. We started with our preliminary workshops over the last summer back in June and July. And from those preliminary workshops, which were just open, there was no code in front of us. We were just talking concepts trying to engage with the community about best practices around the country with accessory dwellings. From that, we put together a framework of some concepts that we would build into code from there. Jack led the effort and drafting the code language itself. He did so with our zoning administrator, Akita Roozy and with our city attorney, Sally Gillette, and I would say the three of them together have been sort of our all-stars for this effort. They've worked very closely as a team. And in the initial times, with Paul Stoddard as our team leader, with Paul leaving us right around the Thanksgiving time period, it really has been Jack who's carried this forward. So with the code it's gone through many iterations. I think really substantial listening and changes to the code as it's gone through the Planning Commission and ultimately before the Council tonight for your final consideration. We are aware that the Council has some draft amendments that it would like to consider tonight. We have attempted to draft up those proposed amendments to assist the council and we look forward to kind of hearing your final direction on those and I'll now it over to Mr. Trainer if he has any final comments or clarifications just in terms of the last little bit of gray highlighted text that might be in the ordinance if it Needs any review or explanation Sure, thanks, Mr. Shields I There are a couple updates. I would like to brief Council on quickly. Again, this is the public hearing before you tonight. Mr. Shields introduced their staff's recommendation again is adoption of the proposed motion. Again, it's the first motion included in the front page. There are several alternative motions, including their four councils consideration that address different topics like setbacks and heights and some other things that were requested. As far as the updates to the report and the proposal I just want to go to line 81 and just highlight what those are for council. The first one I want to highlight is accessory dwelling size allowance for smaller principal dwellings. The recommendation here has changed a little bit since council's last work session where Council was considering a proposal for allowing on accessory dwelling to be 60% the size of the principal dwelling for smaller sized principal dwellings. This was pointed out to create penalized home sizes that were kind of in between and so the recommendation to remedy that is just a flat 700 square foot allowance for principal dwellings that are 1,400 square feet or smaller. Additional analysis is included in the report. I'm happy to answer any questions about that, of course. The next is structural additions for existing nonconforming structures. So sections 48, 172 and 48, 12, 23 have both been amended in the draft code that clarifying that existing non-conforming structures would not be permitted to be extended. So these are the accessory structures like your garages or things that were built, again to the codes that they're allowed to be built to today. And they would be permitted to be converted into an accessory dwelling with especially used permit granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals, but would not be permitted to be extended both horizontally or vertically. A couple other things quickly is the short-term rental definition in the code of Virginia. That telescoping has been amended in the draft code to its proper section. And a reporting requirement has been included in the draft code before tonight tonight. That's in section 40, 1223 as proposed 12 months following any action by council tonight. A report on accessory dwelling applications would come back before you on what those are. And you know, that sort of summary. And then lastly, I want to point out that previously a proposed amendment to the subdivision code in section 30 at 34 was included that would clarify that accessory dwellings would not be permitted to be subdivided apart from the principal dwelling its accessory to, due to an advertisement error this provision has been removed and will be brought forward separately in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. We will be in the next one. on historic properties. That's in section 48, one, sorry, excuse me, it's 48, 1, sorry, excuse me, it's 4792. That's part of the Planning Commission recommendation. The Planning Commission recommended amending this section to basically bring accessory structures, height measurement methodology to make that uniform across historic and non-historic structures. After some additional conversations with Council and City Attorney, determined that this might be outside the scope of the accessory dwellings consideration. And so this will be put on our list of kind of follow-up zone and cleanup items. We'll get harbs in put, of course, on that. And so this may come back before council at a later date. And then lastly, setbacks and heights for accessory dwellings. As mentioned earlier, the draft code before tonight reflects the plan and commissions recommendation, which has that five foot setback minimum to put the sliding scale to 10 feet. There are a couple, again alternative motions included for Council's consideration tonight that address different setback options that have been discussed in previous work sessions. And so with that Council, I'll turn it back to you, Madam Mayor. Thanks. Happy to answer any questions. Great. Well, why don't we see if we have any questions for Mr. Trainer and then we will open up the public hearings? I know we have some comments. We have any clarifying questions for Mr. Trainer based on the updates from our last work session. OK. Well, let's invite public comment then. I'm going to open up the public hearing. Yes, first we have Mary Chavez followed by J. Veele. Mary Chavez, 215 Lawton Street. When council first discussed accessory dwellings in May of 2024. There was clear emphasis on engaging the community early and listening to the public prior to drafting code changes, while recognizing that people often don't respond until they are concerned about specific issues. This was true of the early town halls and dot voting exercises, where only 25 or 30 people showed up, and there was no certainty where this process was leading. There was greater clarity on the new provisions after first reading in November of 2024, but a number of issues were either left hanging or stimulated strong opposition within council. City staff sent out over 3,000 postcards in early 2025 to solicit public views on the provisions adopted at first reading. Some 227 citizens responded with very clear views of what they liked or didn't like Despite the emphasis on listening to the public to avoid what happened on T zones Neither the planning commission nor the city council discussed what those views were Nor considered the clear division within the community on these issues particularly the strong opposition on the lack of owner occupancy and the proposed five. considered the clear division within the community on these issues, particularly the strong opposition on the lack of owner occupancy and the proposed five-foot setbacks. Now we face a final decision on setbacks with a five feet, eight feet, or ten feet, with some optional provisions for a sliding scale or a requirement for a privacy fence. I've been neutral on the concept of permitting detached accessory dwellings on residential lots, but it has always been clear that the details of the regulation matter. I cannot support a five foot setback based on personal experience with having to cut down a canopy tree threatened by construction of a neighbor's dwelling. I also do not support a sliding scale or a required privacy fence. My clear preference would be for a 10 foot setback to maximize space for canopy trees or tall bushes as a buffer to help assure some privacy and to reduce stormwater impacts on neighbors if there is no grading plan. This would be consistent with a required setback for homes in R1B districts. Trees are normally grown along the perimeter of residential lots to maximize backyard space and provide a natural buffer. Larger setbacks will help to preserve those trees, not harm them, as some have suggested. I urge a majority of council members to support a 10 foot setback. Thank you. Next we have Jay Veal, followed by Jean Gresco. Thank you. Do I push this? Okay, regarding further densifying our city with ADs. I have, my name's Jennifer, and I live on West Cameron Road. I've spoken on the topic many times before and despite the city's rhetoric of allegedly listening to residents, this proposal shows nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. The proposed code is a slap in the face to homeowners and residents who value the beauty of a backyard and who gravitate to the city for the sublime experience of nurturing a yard much like we would nurture a baby or anything else. These are precious ecosystems, obviously. The lack of provisions in the proposed code are mind-boggling from no requirements for parking, essentially no setbacks, no requirement for owner occupancy, and what the one size fits all approach. These poorly carved out provisions, in my opinion, which are more permissive than neighboring jurisdictions clearly puts the interest of activists and builders ahead of homeowners and long-term residents. From the outset, the Council and Planning Commission manipulated residents into thinking past the sale, treating it as an inevitability, and not a possibility as was evident in the biased language and the dot presentations and the survey methodology. It was all flawed right from the get go. I attended almost all, possibly all of those dot sessions. An issue of this magnitude should have gone to ballot and not decided by a handful of council women who are pushing their political ideologies and agendas. We should be nurturing our precious backyards and not raping them for profit and left-wing ideology. By an already scandal plagued city council, as pointed out by the Washington Post last year. In conclusion, Falls Church City is fast losing its culture. It's not vogue for me to say this, but residents fought to keep the school names, but they were ignored. And now this pushed to densify our backyards when there's, there has not even been a grassroots effort. The Plenty Commission said this was pushed by certain individuals on this council, not by the community. So it begs the question, what, what, why are you doing this? I mean, it's just super unclear to me. Again, is this white privilege ideology that you've pushed for four years? I mean, it's inexplicable. I gain. I think that this council, certain council members are acting like bullies and they continue to run roughshod over the public. I think that the proposed code is not a win-win. I think the doubles in the details. Thank you. Finally we have Jean Grasco. I'm Gene Grasco and I live on North Fairfax Street. I agree with the planning commissioners Friedlander and Crazner who voted against the accessory drawing proposal given the five foot side and rear setbacks. Both commissioners indicated that homeowners bought their homes, expecting neighbors to be 10 to 15 feet away. Their privacy is the number one citizen concern. Our planning staff always shows the AD being built in an out of the way corner of the backyard. But the planning commission's final proposal allows a 1000 square foot AD to be almost next to the primary house and five feet from the neighbor, greatly impacting that neighbor's privacy. Today's alternate motion number one calls for a one-story AD to have a minimum eight-foot setback. If that alternative motion also clarifies 10 feet is required for a max, 1.5 story A.D., then I believe motion 1 is a good compromise. That would greatly help privacy and still achieve all the goals of A.D.'s. Let me repeat. Eight feet provides greater privacy while achieving the AD goals. I asked that you vote for alternate motion one with its minimum eight foot setbacks. That's the fairest alternative for all our citizens, all our citizens. Thank you. Are there any other public comments? There are not. I'd like to invite any other members of public to join us for now for public comment. Otherwise, I'm going to close the public hearing. Just rainy. Good evening, again, everyone. I just wanted to point out for both the public at home and anyone in the room who perhaps hasn't been on this very long ride in journey. We've been on the last summer. We worked on the original, before there was even any proposed code language, this, the proposal has gone through a significant number of changes. There are very many opportunities for public comment, which is greatly appreciated by the community. But I just wanted to point out that anybody who hasn't looked at what the original language was, I would encourage you to look at it and compare it to what's in front of Council tonight. Because I think that you'll find that on very many pieces of the framework for this proposal, there have already been a number of concessions and compromises made. And I think that those were done in response to public comment that has been given. So I would encourage anyone who would like to see what those concessions are and see how this proposal has to help staff, how the board's and commissions and how our city council have responded to public comments to compare that initial framework to what's in front of them today. And I think that you will find that a lot of compromises and concessions have already been made. Thank you. Thank you. Last call. I think we're allowing one public comment. So during this, yes. Madame Clerk, did you get any others or? No, ma'am? Okay, then I will consider the public hearing closed. I'll open this up for council comments and deliberation. Do you want to go first? Letty. I'm going to go. I didn't see anyone else. Raise their hands. I just want to start out by giving a huge thank you to Mr. Trainer, Mr. Let and Ms. Rousey and Mr. Shields, because this has been such a thorough process. And I want to thank all my colleagues because the people who have worked on this have put in so much time and so much effort. There has been a lot of talking and a lot of listening. And those of you who think that the City Council isn't listening, I think you're wrong. City Council is listened and listened and listened. And there have been, as Ms. Ramey just said, there have been so many changes and collaboration on this ordinance. So I just wanna, before we even start asking other questions, I wanna lay that out there that this process has taken a long time. I know you have spent so many hours on this because there have been so many changes along the way. So thank you for that, Mr. Trainer. And thank you to my colleagues. And now I'll go to the rest of it. But I really kind of take it personally when people are saying that City Council is not listening because we are listening. We are listening. We know who you are. We recognize you. We hear your comments and we're listening. Thank you. It goes for all of us. Any other comments? I think I'll just echo Ms. Connolly on that plan, particular, and thank Jack for all of his work over the long time that we've been considering ADs, and I think in the community, you know, everyone has their role to play and they're going to be people who are sort of on the polar extremes of issues with, you know, adamant no I don't want this to be done at all and yes please do this with zero restrictions. And I think those people's voices are as important as all the voices in the middle in terms of. I think that's what I think is that it's not just a lot of things that we have in the city. I think that's what I think is that it's not just a lot of things that we have in the city that's what I think is that is what I think is what I think is what I think is what I think doing our best with kind of the you know, when they were coming here, that they're being heard and is any ordinance going to be a perfect ordinance know, but I think that, you know, we're all doing our best with kind of the information that we've seen and what's been presented to us and the votes that have preceded this and recognizing that, you know, hopefully, we'll do the best we can and have opportunities to revisit this and see kind of how it's working across the community given the goals that we laid out At the outset for this process so and I know I will say that we didn't have a large discussion about the Public comments but that I know many of us have looked at the Community survey results in detail and have, you know, gone line by line through them and seen kind of individualized responses and very much do appreciate the time and effort that people take to give us that additional feedback when they're not able to join us in person or, you know, choose not to submit public comment either in writing or here your andbers. So thank you. And if I could just jump on to that, of course, thank you, Mr. Trainer and Mr. Shields and Mr. Gillette and everyone else who's helped support at the council we couldn't do without you all. And I would just also say that, you know, legally we're never allowed to have a meeting that's not public, right? But we are allowed to talk to each other one-on-one. And just so the public is aware, we really have been reading your emails, looking at the survey results, looking at some of the comments that past meetings have had, that we've had at past meetings. And we've done a lot of talking to each other one on one this weekend. So I think, you know, just throughout this process, actually, and I think my mind has changed several times because I've been keeping an open mile as we all have. But, you know, we talk to each other on the phone, and it makes me look at something differently. And so I think sometimes the public may not be aware that behind the scenes, we are really working on this listening to each other and really trying to absorb all of the community feedback. And I hope that you will see that tonight as we continue this discussion. Thank you. Okay. Other comments? Sure, Madam Mayor, if you mind. Okay. So I have always viewed my role as to represent the entire community, which becomes a great challenge when the community divides over an issue like this. And as the survey, the community survey indicates there there is agreement on a desire to provide for more flexibility in terms of excess redwelling units and even detached excess redwelling units where there is not community agreement is on the setbacks. There is not community agreement on owner occupancy issues. There is not community agreement on a few number of other issues in terms of how we guide this ordinance in the future and determine whether changes are made or not. So at that point then my best effort is to find something that I believe best represents all the citizens. So number one, my preference on setbacks is 10 feet. Number two, my preference on on on our occupancy is that if we are to get back to the original purpose that launched all of this, which is to provide for family members who need the additional living space, then owner occupancy is something that should be included. Third, I think there's a need to further define going forward and how we manage the process going forward if in fact the projections from city staff are blown through. I recall a lot of projections about what the T zone ordinance was going to produce and the fact of the matter is it'll produce something very, very different based upon market conditions. So those are some initial comments. My final vote tonight will depend on the outcome of the amendments that have been proposed because I think they do. Many of them do make an effort to address the concerns that I've raised and to try to bridge the gap between very serious disagreements amongst our citizens on exactly how to do this. So those are my initial comments and I'll wait to see how the votes come out on these amendments. I do think there's been some positive development, but clearly listening to public comment, looking at the citizens comments, In my opinion, we're not not there yet and something that truly represents all the community so we'll see how we come out with the amendments tonight. Thank you. Other comments? Ms. Downsett. Thank you. Madam Mayor. So I do think it obviously I think Mr. Schneider said very well. It's tough to find an ordinance that's going to cover you know make everyone happy and you know that what they say compromise means that no one's happy in the end. But you know looking I think I started where Mr. Schneider was thinking about 10 foot setbacks and 15 foot setbacks. And again, I think through individual conversations with certain of my colleagues and thinking, you know, does that make it, that may make it less, not everyone may be able to build an A to U if we have the 10 foot and the 15 foot setback. I think that I, we settled in actually this is a meeting that I was out of the country for, but I believe it was Ms. Connelly's original suggestion for the eight feet and 10 feet. And I think to me that's a nice compromise. It puts the structures further from the property line. It promotes more privacy than a five-foot set would, hopefully would damage less tree roots, being eight feet back. And then of course, having structures that are 20 feet or one and a half stories that are 10 foot, I'm sorry, 15 foot setback. So for me, I'm sorry, 10 feet setback. So for me, the eight and the 10 is sort of a compromise. I do believe, you know, coming back in a year and looking where we are is really important. You know, are we, did we only have a handful built? Maybe we only had a handful built because we were too restrictive, however we end up tonight. Or maybe it's going at a little faster pace than we anticipated. So I think that's a really important piece of this is coming back in the year and reviewing. But I do feel that to really looking at the neighbors perspective, I know we look a lot about the owners perspective, but looking at the neighbors perspective, I think doing the eight and 10 feet gives people a little bit more privacy and it's a more moderate approach and you know again we can revisit it in a year and if we feel like we need to loosen in my opinion it's easier to loosen those restrictions in a year than to try to tighten them in a year so thank you. I guess while Lauren setbacks any other comments on setbacks? Place mayor. Constantly in setbacks, but on the concept of reviewing it, annually, I think that's a fantastic idea. And when we're looking at any public policy decision that we're making, I think it's always good to come back and see, you know, we had our goals and our objectives and we attempted to create something that would achieve those. Are we achieving the public policy goals to Laura's point where they are too restrictive or they are not restrictive enough? I think within, you know, if we do this annually, it's a great measure of how the public policy is effective or not effective and some strongly in favor of that. I would agree with Ms. Downes on the eight foot, right? ten foot if it's a one and a half stories, eight foot if it's a one story. I think that strikes a good balance between giving flexibility to the homeowner as well as understanding of neighbors. I'd also like to be able to put in there some kind of special use permit process. So if someone really would like to be at five feet, they can go through a process with the BZA, possibly the planning commission on my question, that works to work with their neighbors and get it to five feet. If that works with the community and that would be the same sort of SUP process that other there other dwellings go through to go beyond what the limits are of the policy. So I think that should be in there, but I am pleased that we've landed on eight feet in the ordinance because I think that does give some flexibility to the homeowner as well as some understanding of neighbors' concerns about what may or may not come in right next door. Is that on your hand? Just a question to follow up on that. Yeah. What is the SUP process? So if somebody needed more flexibility on the placement of their ADU that didn't quite fit to what we set out tonight? Yeah, so that would first require planning commission recommendation. So the Planning Commission Act right now doesn't actually hear too many SUP cases. And so I imagine it would be one probably planning, at least one planning commission meeting where they would make their recommendation to the BZA. The BZA would take into consideration the planning commission's recommendation and hold its own public hearing. That's advertised, it's a public meeting, of course. So, Nibbers would have opportunity to come and comment or submit comment at a time. So, that's the process. I did go plan a commission and then the BZI. Thank you. Other comments? Is this one? Yeah. Again, I would support this one. I was a kind of proponent of the eight feet for the 15 foot one story, detached accessory dwelling, and then the 10 feet for all others. And I think that part of my thinking on the eight feet was also that it would account for potentially better account for some of the idiosyncrasies of substandard lots of which we have a hefty amount in the city. And so my hope was that it would give us an opportunity paired together with the reporting requirement to see how to see how this was playing out in the city and so my hope was that it would give us an opportunity paired together with the reporting requirement to see how this was playing out in the city and then as my colleagues have said, be able to kind of take this up in in terms of any further modifications or experience that we then have further experience as we see kind of case by case studies before the planning commission and the BZI to kind of see how this evolves and kind of how well we did at the outset. And so I'm comfortable with the by-right provisions and then misconily suggestion of sort of a safety valve under appropriate circumstances that goes through case-by-case reveal. I think that's important too because the lots in false church are also different. Every lot is different. Some of them have an old house next to a brand new house and there's just a lot of differences. The size is the shapes. We did some special things for the corner lots because some of the corner lot brought that up to us. So I think being able to have that, you know, drum lines and then have some flexibility as well, really fits what our community needs. Okay. So I think given where the votes are, I have some thoughts about five versus eight or 10 feet setbacks. So I certainly respect my colleagues from wanting deeper setbacks because it doesn't feel enough. I will respectfully disagree, but if it comes to what I will vote for it because it is better than nothing. But I do wanna point out three things. One, we should all be making decisions based on facts, data, and professional recommendations and not our feelings. When you look at what's allowed by right, three feet for grozers and sheds at 10 feet. And then for R1B houses up to 35 feet tall, five feet for one story, especially if screened is actually really quite fair and reasonable. I think ratios are not complicated math. Small set bets, lets homeowners build in the rear corners of their lots, preserving actually more open yard space for trees to thrive and more usable space for children to play and family gatherings. Privacy concerns from neighbors are very valid, but they could have been addressed with fencing, screening, window treatments. A staff has used Arlington and Fairvax County as the points of a comparison. Fairvax County actually has a minimum two-acre requirement and very little production since they passed their ALU, so actually not really quite relevant. But we actually haven't talked at all about Alexandria, which actually allows one foot setbacks. Five feet actually looks quite reasonable in comparison. And third, I do worry that we are creating a perverse incentive to actually build bigger than what someone may need. One story A.D.'s, most common use case is for aging seniors or people with disabilities who may not need to have florist stairs. But because we're pushing one story to eight foot setback with just two more feet, we'd allow one and a half story version, people may be incentive to build the bigger, slightly taller option. So I would encourage us to think critically about that. I'm OK with it. This is what it comes to. But I do think that I do disagree for those reasons. So is there a motion or other comments on other things? Madam Mayor, just I have a preference for the 10 foot setback. Rigid 10 foot setback does anyone agree with that? On council willing to consider that? Okay, not seeing that. That's important for me to know. Thank you. So can I offer an amendment to what's offered by staff? How do we do this, Lester? Do we, we don't have a motion yet? We don't have a motion. So what we've laid out for council is a pathway whereby there would be a motion to adopt 24, TO-24-17. If that motion gets a second, then it's there for the council then to consider amendments. So if you take that action first, we've laid out a series of amendments that the council can consider. There have been some variations on that theme, so we'll sort of have to work together on those variations of the theme but I think that roadmap would might be helpful to Council. I'm so just to make a motion right so I moved to adopt TO24 to 17. Second. Second. This was down on the second. Now is there a amendment to that motion? I would. Okay, so I'll move to amend the setback provision. It's actually listed at lines 1645 to 1649 of the staff report just to make it easier for anyone who's following along. But I would move so that that language states detached accessory dwellings up to 15 feet or one story in height must be set back 8 feet from rear and side lot lines unless the board of zoning appeals grants a special use permit that reduces the rear and side setbacks to no less than five feet each the board of zoning appeal shall consider and may set conditions on such applications as described in section 488-172 all other detached accessory dwellings must be set back at least 10 feet from rear and side lot lines. So there was an amendment. I didn't hear a second on that amendment yet. Can I second that? That was down second. Did the original motion we need a second on Miss Flynn's amendment? Is Can I second that or because it's my motion? Okay. I think so. Okay, so I'll second that. Okay. It's calling in a second. So did we want? Did you want to call the vote on the amendment? We need to call the vote on the amendment first and then back to the motion, right? Correct. Are you ready for that? Okay. Call the way. Yes. Is that a yes? Okay. Yes. Is that a yes? Okay. Yes. Is that a yes? Okay. Is that a yes? Okay. Is that a yes? Is that a yes? Okay. Is that a yes? Okay. Is that a yes? Okay. Is that a yes? Okay. Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Shunz-Histcott? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes. Ms. Underhill? Yes. Mayor Hardy? Yes, motion carries seven to zero Back to the original motion and so now we'll call the final Original motion. There were some other amendments here that were provided by Mr. Shields. So with that with the amendment motion number one having been passed motion number two is probably irrelevant at this point. So that one we would skip. Motion three relates to the ownership question. I don't know if that has someone who wants to make that motion or it has a second, then motion four relates to basement. That may not have a motion or a second. And then a motion five relates to a cap on 10 in the first year. And that would be the amendment there. That may not at this point need a motion or a second at this point either. But those are the ones that are listed. And then if council wants to think about those, and then we'll move that page aside and then consider the remainder of the Flynn request. Can I ask for a point of order just of the city attorney? So if we take up the motion, so if we have a motion in a second, at that point in time, we can have discussion on the motion before we do roll call on the motion. Correct? Correct. Okay. Actually, just... And, or can we discuss some of these without having them on the table and then decide which ones to move forward with them which one's not too. I thought we can do it smoothly. I think so. Yeah, I'd like them to be included as an entire basket of so we know what the totality of the conversation is. Yeah. That makes sense. Okay. Who wants to raise something first. Just for the motion three, this one doesn't seem to address the underlying issue. You know, and you see that possibly having more negative consequences, specifically because if a home builder were to purchase a property, they would be stuck only building a large single family home. They wouldn't be able to build an accessory dwelling unit. And so if they were to then sell it to a family, that very much restricts the types of houses that do get built in false church. And so that doesn't seem to address the underlying issue that I think it was intended to address. The other point is that a lot of times when we have seen ADU's approved in localities, the people that do take up building them tend to be local smaller home builders. And so this basically keeps the market such that the home builders that we have in the area tend to be the larger ones that build the larger single family homes. So I'd just like to consider that as we discussed motion three. Many comments on that one. So I would just so so that the public can follow along more easily. So there's a potential amended motion. Or potential amendment to the motion. That I proposed that would be a modification of an owner occupancy requirement. So during our discussions, people following the owner occupancy requirement sort of saws debating this. And it caused some of us to go to some of the neighboring jurisdiction codes to look at what those owner occupancy requirements looked like. Some of them are kind of pure owner occupancy requirements. So to speak, where you always have to have an owner living for the life of the AD and principal dwelling on the property. And then Alexandria actually has a kind of variation on it, which is that the owner of the property shall maintain the property as their primary residents at the time. The residential building permit and the certificate of occupancy. Required to have an AD built or issued. And so it sort of responds to speculative purchases concerns about sort of the commercialization of residential districts and whether that blocks out as other jurisdictions have experienced first time or other home buyers from actually being able to to have access to lots. And so it does that without sort of imposing the life of the property restrictions that make it sometimes more burdensome and the things we've heard about about, you know, does that bring, you know, perpetuate kind of bias fuse of renters. Does that unduly burden, you wanna go away, and then you have enforceability, or administratively kind of concerns about people who may have leases on the property. And so it's at the time of issuance, you want a person, we've had community concerns about like someone who's invested in the community actually making a decision about putting the accessory dwelling on their lot with hopefully more engagement of their neighbors about that decision and the appropriate sighting of the accessory dwelling. So I thought that the city of Alexandria model was one that you know was responsive to community concerns we've heard about and also council conversations we've heard about the argument and the counter arguments for this and so I would support that motion. I do hear Ms. Underhill's concern about if a developer owned a lot and they if at the time of purchase they're the owner and they're doing the build and the person who's the contract owner, so to speak, wants a new dwelling and an accessory dwelling. Does this somehow preclude that? And that wouldn't be my intention with this. And so if we wanted to add language to accept, you know, for new construction that's a principle twalling and an accessory twalling being built new together, I would be, I would view that as a friendly amendment even though we're not in the technical like motion at that point in time. So I think the fear that we're trying to address is the risk of corporate ownership. Could staff refresh our memories on the research that's been done to date and why the staff recommendation was not to put in an owner-occurrency requirement of any kind? Sure. So it included in the staff report is an analysis of single-family homes in R1N, R1B that are currently owned by an entity that's not a name so as best as we can measure is perhaps a corporate entity but could be a family trust or other entity we found that I could find the exact section here but it was I think it was about two or three percent of all single-family homes in those districts where we're owned by such an entity and that of the properties that were owned under such an entity, no more than, I think two or three properties were owned under the same name. So if there was a corporate entity, it owned only two or three properties in those districts. And so kind of looking at that data is, you know, it gave us a snapshot of what the current conditions are under corporate ownership. And so that led to the recommendation in council with the city attorney's council on the legality issues or concerns around such a requirement. The fact that right now corporate owners are not buying up and snapping up single family homes. The boogie man of the black rocks are really not happening here because I think the ROI based on how expensive land is here hasn't really netted out for people to be able to rent something out. Okay. I guess my response to that is if you don't have the concern about blocking purchasers because you don't feel they're going to do it, then there's no harm in including the provision in terms of who can buy the property at the outset, in terms of, you know, at the outset, putting an accessory dwelling on a property. And I think that, you know, the spirit of this is responsiveness to community concern about a one-way ratchet that we don't do something unnecessarily and take owner occupancy off the table at this point in time and then leave ourselves without the option of imposing something like this going forward when it would be more difficult to do so. And as I said, I view this as sort of the permissive variation of owner, you know, primary resident applicant without the restrictions of the pure, like owner occupancy requirements that have raised legitimate counter arguments on the other side. Okay, so there was a motion. I think a friendly amendment. Do we have a motion to do three? We have the rich and a motion yet. I hope do we get a motion and then we were just talking about it. Okay, so is there a motion? Yeah, I'll move to a MNTO 2417 by altering 40 by altering 48-1223 by inserting a new standard between number two and number three and remember the list that follows accordingly with the new standard to read as follows. Quote, the owner of the property, shall maintain the property as their primary residence at the time the permit and certificate required by subsections one and two above our issued. I would like to make a friendly amendment to exempt new builds. And I'll second all of that. OK, so I think we've been somebody read the new language that was inserted. It's not the entire thing, but Miss Underhill. I might look to Erin to add this language, but it would be specifically exempting new builds from the occupancy requirements. And so how would accept that as a friendly amendment? I made the motion. I accept that as a friendly amendment. With the section we had. How would read? Yeah,, so could you just say with the exception of me? So I think it would be above our issued, except for new construction. New construction where the principal dwelling and accessory dwelling are built together at that time. Did that help Miss Heath or do you need to say, OK've got it So it was moved by mr. Snyder and seconded by was Connolly Ready to call the roll Ready Miss Connolly yes is down. Yes is Flynn. Yes Miss Shons has got yes Mr. Snyley? Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Shonshizqad? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes. Ms. Underhill? Yes. Mayor Hardy? No. Motion carries 6 to 1. Thank you, Council. Any more motions? I had a motion just to clarify on the rear yard coverage requirement. I think it was our intention. The council had, planning commission had moved to eliminate the 30% rear yard coverage requirement cap. Council then reinserted that cap so to speak at 50%. and in reviewing the code language, I wanted to make a motion to just clarify that as I understood Council's intent, it's for that accessory structures would still be in the aggregate no more than 30% of the minimum rear yard, but that you would have additional flexibility in the case of an accessory dwelling up to 50%. And so I would like to make a motion just so that we don't move to a system in which we have sheds and grudges taking up 50% of the rear yard as opposed to allowing that flexibility in order to accommodate housing that we're seeking to promote in the city through this ordinance. Yeah, I think the intent of expanding the rear yard coverage was to allow for a second unit not to allow supersedes. So I think that was the intent up here. So if you'd like to make that motion we can or amendment to the motion. So I would, what are we doing? Move to amend T024-17. So that section 48-1102 E3 reads minimum rear yard except residential developments requiring site plans. Any permitted use or accessory structure, not over one and a half story or 12 feet in height and accessory dwellings such buildings occupying an aggregate not more than 30% of the minimum rear yard area or up to 50%. such buildings include an accessory dwelling. Shall be located not less than five feet from the principal dwelling not less than 10 feet from all street and alley lines and not less than three feet from all other lot lines notwithstanding any regulation or standard including an article five division 12. We have a second for that amendment. Second. Downs on the second. Call roll and then amendment please. Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Shantz-Hisscott? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes. Ms. Andriel? Yes. Mayor Hardy? Yes. Motion carries 7-0. Other amendments? Do we need to amend the we have asked for reporting once a year and that we had talked about increasing that for the first three years. I don't know if We need to say specifically what we want in that reporting. Go ahead. Just on that topic, I do have a quick question. Is it possible for the permitting office to collect information on people that would have preferred to go to five feet or to actually have some sort of data collection knowing what people would have done, have the setback not been capped. So yeah, it's common to have a pre-development meeting when an applicant comes in and says I want to do this, you know, tell me how to do it. Is it possible? That's a common thing. So in those conversations, we do kind of get a gist of what regulations tend not to work for folks in different realms. I mean, the commercial parking that the council considered back in October was a result of some of those conversations where the zoning staff picked up on a pattern of applicants being turned away from something that would otherwise benefit the city because of a really specific zoning question. So, in those kind of meetings, I think that's where they would get picked up. It's something that I can talk to the folks at the front lines, the zoning permit counter, and our zoning staff about if they have any other ideas about how to kind of and get that information from folks that maybe end up not submitting something tangible but do perhaps express interest so we can again kind of start identifying potential barriers in the future. Yeah, so I guess for any reporting that we have it would be helpful and so to actually direct them with to collect that information. Yeah, second that. Maybe in 10 of having the reporting mechanism is to know again, where we're succeeding or not succeeding on the public policy of accessory dwellings. And I third that. I mean, even if it's just sort of conversing, not to create more work for the staff, but even if it's sort of themes of conversations and that sort of thing, anything would be because this is brand new for us. So at least during the first year having those kinds of, just this is what we're seeing, this is kind of, you know, so some more concrete data, but also maybe it's also more conversations and themes and things. Thank you so much. That's also my intent for sort of this reporting cycle. So thank you. So did we change that in the ordinance? Or does it just say the first 12 months? So there is language that is in Ms. Flynn's list, and I'm looking for it, but it has basically for three reports. Yeah. So there would be an annual report for at least the next three years. That's correct. Should I make a motion? Okay, so I would move to amend the reporting language as currently drafted in the code to require reports every 12 months for the first 36 months So the language would read be it further ordained that the city adopt the ordinance codified in this section with the following restrictions Following an act to amend of the ordinance codified in this section the city manager will bring to city council an analysis of Applications approvals and projects every 12 months for the first 36 months following actment. And I think we all understand what that means in terms of what we expect. Second. Ms. Scott on the second. Call roll, please. Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downes? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Shonsha Scott? Yes. Mr. Snyder. Yes, Ms. Underhill. Yes, Mayor Hardy. Yes, motion carries seven to zero. Thank you So I counted five amendments so far do we have any others? I think that was five There was one amendment about not having a basement. So I think it was it was covered in our conversations and it I I think the expectation is people generally don't have basements because it counts against their gross floor area coverage. But I didn't know if staff's recommendation was that we actually included that in the code because it came from somewhere. Well, that's right, Council member. They would count towards the square footage. So it's not common that an accessory dwelling has a basement because again, you want that above space to take the most advantage of your limited square footage that you're allotted. And so I don't think a basement will be common for accessory dwellings. Another consideration is that obviously a basement goes further down than your normal slab foundation. And so that can affect surrounding area trees. So that's another consideration. If the council desires to not permit basements wholesale, that could have benefits towards certain area trees that may be on the lot. But again, I don't think we're going to see a lot of applications that include basements anyway. I guess given Jack's response and some of the concerns we heard about critical root zone for trees and also weather neighbors who have trees on their lot line that could be affected by you know five versus eight versus 10 foot setback. I would go ahead and move to what, TO 24-17 by altering section 48-1223 to insert a new standard between numbers 8 and 9 and re-numbering the existing list with the new standard to read note detached accessory dwelling shall have a basement. Yeah, I think that if we're going to do no basements, this should be discussion across all dwelling types and not penalizing accessory dwellings at this point in time. If you're have it for an accessory structure, you can have it for single-family home. If the point is to not have basements and it should be no basements across the housing types. So I don't support moving it just for accessory dwellings. Other thoughts? I think there was a motion. I didn't hear a second yet. I'll second the motion just to get a vote on it. Okay, that's Mr. Snyder on the second. Any more discussion before we call vote on this one? I'm also a little bit torn on basements because I think the tree root situation I think is important. But I also think there are different lots in false church and different things work on different lots. So... I don't know on this one. And this is... And this is by right. So you couldn't have an arborist come out and say, have the arborist say, oh, if you dig a basement here, you're going to kill these neighbors trees. We couldn't. Right. Remember people could have a basement under their garage at three feet from the top of the line. And we're not saying you can't build a basement in that garage. People don't. Right. We don't say that right now, which is his guts point. Right. I guess my feeling on it would be I would prefer to have this in the code and I would prefer to have us put accessory structures on a cleanup list so that things three feet off the lot line don't have basements and make that clear in the accessory structure sort of place elsewhere when we're coming back for other zoning cleanups that you often do kind of annually. So that's my view on it, but it's fine. Other thoughts are we gonna call for a vote on the sixth amendment? Okay, let's call for the... I think we're on sixth, but that was a five. Close. Call for the vote anyway. Okay. Ms. Conley? No. Ms. Downs? No. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Sean's hiscott? No. Mr. Smyder? Yes. Ms. Underhill? No. Mayor Hardy? No. Motion fails. 2 to 5. Thank you. And again, just reminding thank you, Mr. Trainer, because this probably won't be very common anyway. So thank you. Okay. And so are there, are there amendments? Are we done with amendments or? Are we able any more discussion on the original motion that's on the table with all the amendments before we call for vote? Or closing comments from anybody before we vote? Okay, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to share a few words. I wanted to begin by extending my sincere thanks to our dedicated city staff. It has worked incredibly hard and taken in a ton of feedback. And I feel really listened and provided lots of data and lots of information on why you made the decisions or recommendations you did, planning commission as well. I'd like to thank our engaged community members. There are so many people who came out and provided a range of comments. I thank each and every one of you for sharing your experiences and your opinions. I'd like to thank the boards and commissions. We've had, Kasha, I don't know how many meetings where each of our boards have taken this tremendous amount of information really digested it and provided comments and feedback to us. We've had a number of civic organizations very engaged. Our regional partners, we've worked with Alexandria and Fairfax and Arlington, their staff, their elected to see what's worked for you, what hasn't worked for you, learn from the fact that they've been doing this for seven, eight, nine years. We also have council members to talk to people all over the country and gathered a ton of data. So thanks to our regional elected officials as well. And of course to all my colleagues on this council for the really thoughtful and sustained work that's brought us to tonight's vote on accessory dwelling units. The topic of eighties has been part of our council work plan for many years. We started working on a fishly last May, but it's been contemplated for many years and it hasn't been taken lightly. We've approached this with care, diligence, and a shared commitment to expanding housing options in the City of Falls Church. While we've had differing views on how best to meet that public policy goal, and I personally would have supported perhaps some more progressive approach at times, I'm really proud of the collaborative effort that's led us to this incremental but meaningful step forward. I've had the privilege of calling Falls Church home for nearly 30 years, living and working within our 2.2 square miles for most of that time. I love this community deeply and plan to stay for many years to come. Tonight's action affirms our commitment to ensuring that others can continue to find their place here too, whether they are aging parents, adult children, long-time neighbors or new residents. Expanding housing choices through 80 uses of practical and compassionate move towards a more inclusive and really resilient city. Thank you to everyone for your participation in this community process. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Other closing comments, Mr. Sider? Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do appreciate all the work that's gone into this and I appreciate the effort on the part of each and every council member to listen to what the citizens had to say and to find a middle but still effective road. I would obviously have liked to see changes in this ordinance. On the other hand, I recognize that there is a genuine effort to listen to all the citizens and as I said, to find a middle ground. I want to reiterate that compromise is not a four-letter word. I think there was a serious effort here on the part of the council to find compromise has been recently displayed. So again, I would prefer certain changes, but I do think the effort was made to, again, to work through the comments made by the citizens and to find a medium that does its best to bridge any gaps. And I hope this is a process that will continue to apply in all future issues. That is a genuine effort to, as I said at the beginning, govern for everyone. Thank you. This one? I'll just add to that and to my thanks to staff and to my council colleagues. And as my colleagues have said to, you know, bridge that gap that has existed and also really thank my colleagues for spirited discussions and their patients with me along the way too. I'll give it some of my, you know, maybe hawkish review of the code language itself and wanting to make sure that we got to a place where, but we were discussing was, you know, really reflected in the ordinance language and that people who look at this ordinance can hopefully have clear answers, not having participated in all of these conversations to know what is permissible or what isn't permissible going forward. And I think that this has been an opportunity to expand housing options to provide people flexibility on their lots while also respecting the need of zoning ordinances more generally to strike a balance for the community as a whole. And so to think that our current ordinance has internal only accessory dwellings with a special use permit and a three year renewal requirement and and that we've moved to Internal, you know, accessory dwellings attached accessory dwellings detached accessory dwellings conversions of accessory structures while still accommodating and really wanting to stand by other values in our community, which is trying to find that consensus, wanting to find harmony where we can and that sort of so division. I'm happy with where we've landed and really just want to again say thank you to my colleagues for their engagement throughout the entirety of this process. So thank you. Any other, not really. So because I thought my prediction was this was going to take us 20 minutes tonight, so I was wrong. So I won't say much except to say thank you to everyone. It really is a process of collaboration and communication and talking and listening and gathering information. And it has really been a heavy So thank you for that. Thank you to all the community members who have commented and stuck with us from the beginning. I know many of you were here at that very first meeting or even the meeting before the very first meeting that Vipis held last like a year and a half ago. So I thank everyone for really sticking with us being involved and I do think we're, we've come up with something that we've all collaborated on, which means not everyone's perfectly happy, but I think we're in a good place. So thank you all. I'll just jump onto that. As I'm looking at all my colleagues in my brain, I'm thinking, I know she compromised on that. I know he compromised on that. I know she could. So it really is none, you know, we all work together and we all made concessions and listen to each other and try to find that middle ground. So I'm just sounds a little hokey, but I am very proud of us. I think we did great job. And thank you again, Mr. Trainer, the amount of work you put into this is just incredible. and Ms. Gillette, Mr. Shields, and all the staff that's helped support us. Again, we couldn't have done it without your support, so thank you. Okay. Well, I have some comments. And this is going to take us over. Whatever time frame you have. So I think allowing detached accessory dwellings is really a small incremental move. It's one part of that puzzle and solving housing that's really been proven to address creating more housing options without dramatically impacting neighborhoods. And it's been one full of compromises as evident by tonight's, I think, five or six amendments. Tonight, I actually want to talk about the wins and three in particular that I want all of us up here and the community to really take to heart. The first one is about the process. While it's been in our work plan and long-range plan for many years, last spring we set out a schedule on how to get this done in a year with deliberate process, a lot of community engagement, time for council and staff iterations. That is success and the speed of addressing a long standing topic that people all around us have adopted is one we should apply to all of our problems. We are not in elected office to deliberate endlessly and not study things to death. We are elected to solve issues and improve the quality of life for residents, current and future. The second win. Clearly Jack, this is well researched and we should be learning from others quickly. learning from others quickly. so thank you for making that possible. This is not an exotic new thing and so thanks to Jack, Sally and the team for the really thorough and professional research and showing how we can learn best practices from other communities where this has worked and where they've iterated over time and for our planning commission for their very thoughtful work and weighing this for us and the extensive community engagement process. You drafted thoughtful proposals to us each time showing us that changes each time for us to consider and kept us moving forward. So thank you. The third. The actual rules I think are when. Is this as progressive as I'd like it to be? No. But we are making it by right with no permanent owner-accumency and not requiring additional parking. And those in fact are actually the three poison pills that ARP and the GMU Mercata Center says have limited production of ADUs as a feasible option elsewhere. So I'm quite proud that we've stuck to those because those are important. And hopefully we are creating more viable option of what people can do with their land instead of tearing it down, providing for choices now for multi-generational living, something each of us appears dealing with. Whether that's for children who would like to return home to their community where they grew up, or aging parents, or additional sources of income to help pay for increase in cost of living. Right now, the main way you can live in a neighborhood anywhere off Broad Street is a snatch up a small rambler before it gets torn down or buy a new $2.5 million home. Even a winter hill townhome now costs $900,000. anywhere off Broad Street is a snatch up a small rambler before it gets torn down or buy a new 2.5 million dollar home. Even a winter hill town home now costs 900,000 dollars. This is limited who can live in our neighborhoods and drives up housing costs. So I want us to keep those three things in mind as good kind of successful things we've done. I do want to talk about what's next and a mindset that I'd like all of us to have. In the accessory dwelling, two point O version of this, and I hope we get to that in a year. As we all committed to, we should be monitoring production. If we're not seeing enough come through the permitting process, that means we're being too prohibitive. I think we've all made the commitment with that amendment vote that we'd like to see the rules loosening up. So I hope that we stick with that. In addition, I've talked about other ways that this can be more progressive. If we are serious about home ownership opportunities, which we all talk about up here, if we're already allowing two families to live on one lot, we should consider the split ownership idea. That allows for mortgage financing of the accessories dwelling, and on the locks, this is an option for more people to build one versus now as only people who have the cash on hand or willing to get construction loan or take equity out of their home. We should also consider whether someone can have an interior. versus now is only people who have the cash on hand or willing to take a construction loan or take equity out of their home. We should also consider whether someone can have an interior AD and a detached AD, pre-proo plans to lower the cost of production or tax credits to build them and rent them as affordable. These are all more progressive things that we are leaving on the table that we can do and chosen not to do this time, but I hope we consider in the future. Again, if we are serious about being a welcoming city and creating more options to live here besides the default, default being a welcoming city and creating more options to live here besides the default, default being a $2.5 million home, apartments, and now a few more town homes and condos, how are we actually going to get there? So I want to talk about that mindset. The mindset of holding ourselves accountable to our values beyond yard signs, solving issues we say are important every time we adopt strategic priorities. And see whether actually producing outcomes that we want is I hope to take away what we do from all of this. And remember to apply that to other challenges we have, whether that's trash fairness issues, pedestrian safety, budget, climate, and so much more. We should be reframing the discussion every time we talk about housing and change it from mitigating bad stuff that's going to happen to a more well-rounded discussion about the good it will bring. The places we all actually admired most are the ones that are allowed to organically grow and change and the same should apply to fallsturch. And finally, we have to be careful that all the rules and processes we put on ourselves that supposedly keep bad stuff from happening may actually prevent us from doing as much good as we want. And I hope that we take that to heart. Thank you. I think we're ready for the vote. I moved to the app to go ahead. Oh, we have, I think we had a motion. We actually have the original motion and so you've amended that. So what you're voting on now is the original motion with all the amendments. Five amendments, you already had a motion. Would you like me to recap the amendments or does that? Okay, everybody's like no. No, thank you. All right. So we're ready to vote. Yes, please call roll. Okay, Ms. Conley. Yes, Ms. Downes. Yes, Ms. Flynn. Yes, Ms. Shonshizqad. Yes, Mr. Smider. Yes, Ms. Underhill. Yes, Mayor Hardy. Yes, thank you. Council, that passes 7 to 0. Congrats, Mr. Schreiner. Thank you. Thank you. We mean it. Thanks. So does 10 to 10 do people want to take a break before we get to the other items? Are we ready to keep going? Okay, maybe it's break till 10 and then we'll resume With West Falls and then budget okay Okay Okay, welcome back. ready to get on to the rest of our agenda. So first up is TR25-09? Yes. And that's a resolution to amend the voluntary concessions community benefits, terms, and conditions associated with the West Falls Economic Development Project. Special exception entitlement approved by Resolution 2021-23, dated August 9, 2021, to reduce the minimum area of the city. The number of cases that are in the area of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the and the members of the City Council are representing Hoffman Associates as participating virtually and now we welcome her to this meeting. Mr. Jang. Thank you, Mr. Cheryl. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor and members of the City Council. I promise I will be very brief. As Mr. Cheryl's mentioned, the City Council review this last Monday. This amendment is being proposed in response to the leading, at least in reality, of the grocery space. Most importantly, it is to facilitate the completion of the phase one. As of right now, we are expecting the entire phase one, we'll be completed by the summer, except for the senior building, which will be in 2027. This amendment will result in a 63 hundred, 300, excuse me, 63 hundred square feet of additional tenant space. And then that will be a potential tenant for the city, that result in tax revenue. And then the last thing I need to point it out is that this amendment is very limited to scope only to this language in the SEC, a special exception entitlement and then there are a bunch of the use limitations also within the SEC without any impact by this amendment. With that staff recommend a pool of the motion to basically refer to proposed amendment to the City Planning Commission for review and recommendation and also further schedule the public hearing and the final considerations on May 12, 2025. Thank you. And be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you, Mr. Zhang. Do we have any questions or comments for Mr. Zhang or the applicant? There really no changes since our work session discussion. Exactly. Okay. Okay. Well, I actually just have a comment for Miss Avidazian if you can hear me. So I just wanted to thank you for really the really long road. We are really nearly to the finish line. I think as Evan by the request I had about paving, of paving right around the corner, that means we were very, very close. And a quick anecdote. I was actually at Meridian High School this weekend, we hosted the regional housing expo. And frankly, left and right, we were fielding compliments about how wonderful the new high school is, and that really wants in a generation new high school. And the West Falls Project and our partnership with you and Hoffman has really made that possible. So I just wanted to thank you from that, because it was so apparent by seeing the space used by the community and across the region that The West Falls project was really the catalyst for us being able to do that high school. So thank you. You're welcome. the space used by the community and across the region that the West Falls Project was really the catalyst for us being able to do that high school. So thank you. You're welcome. Our pleasure. Okay. Matt and Mayor, just one additional comment. I've been critical in the past of developer requests to change fundamentals that had been agreed to without some offsetting benefit for the city. I don't think that's the case here. I think they've made a good faith effort here to provide the fundamental that was bargained for, which is the grocery store, and then I provided a reasonable way forward for the additional square footage. So I just wanted to make that comment and thank Hoffman for this. I've not been that supportive of changes Hoffman has been made in the past, has made in the past, but this one I think has the elements of a good resolution. So please support it. Okay, is there a motion then? Uh-huh. Missed down. I moved to refer TR 25-0909 to the Planning Commission for Review and Recommendation to the City Council, Schedule Public Hearing for May 12, 2025, and it advertised the same according to law. Second. Ms. Hussot on the second. Call roll please. Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downes? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Shenzhen's has got? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes. Ms. Underhill? Yes. And Mayor Hardy? Yes. Motion carry 7-0. Thank you, Council. Thank you. Okay, we're onto the budget. So before before we get started I think we have a conflict of interest disclosure the city council is discussing the FY26 budget for the city of false church I am an employee of the false church city school board which may be affected by the proposed fiscal As a result, I'm in a group of three or more people who may realize a reasonably foreseeable director and direct benefit from the proposed ordinance. After consideration, I am electing to participate in this transaction because I'm confident in my ability to participate fairly objectively and in the public interest. Okay, Mr. Shields and Ms. Bowen. All right we Mayor Hardy and members of council what we have before the council for first reading which is the council's first formal actions on the budget is we have the budget and the CIP ordinance we have the tax ordinance that would set the real estate tax rate and the personal property tax rate. And we have a storm order billing rate ordinance and a sewer rate ordinance. So these four items are typically are considered together and public hearings are held together but each one would require a separate motion. Would you like me to read the titles? I think it's- Would you like me to read them all together? That was my question. I guess that would be what we need to do. Okay. We will read them all together. So we have TO25-02, ordinance fixing and determining the budget of expenditures and revenues and appropriating funds for the fiscal year 2026, general fund sewer fund, storm order fund, cable access fund, affordable housing fund, school operating fund, school community service fund, school food service fund, community development authority, and capital improvement program funds and to adopt the FY26 to FY2031, capital improvements program. We have TO25-03 ordinance setting the rate of tax levy on real estate for texture 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 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 of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of the state of Falls, Virginia as of July 1 2025. And we have to 25-05 ordinance to amend, reenact and recodify chapter 42 utilities to revise sewer rates and fees as of July 1 2025. So I noted at the outset that with the revised revenue forecast for F.R. 26, we anticipate that the I noted at the outset that with the revised revenue forecast for F-R-26, we anticipate that there will be changes both to the budget and potentially to the tax ordinances between first reading and second reading. But I will provide just a very quick overview really for the public's benefit of what these ordinances do. the budget, the high level things in the budget is for the public's benefit of what these ordinances do. For the budget, sort of the high level things in the budget is for the general government. There's an operating budget of $57,706,605. That's an increase of 6.5% over the current fiscal year. For the school budget, the overall budget is $69,547,486.7% increase over the current year. The transfer to the schools is $55.6 million, which is an increase of $5.6 over the current year's transfer. One note about this budget is that overall it is a 2.9% decrease over the current year and that is because there's a decrease in the use of cap reserves for the cap improvements program and a decrease in debt service due to the Mary Ellen Henderson debt coming off the books. The budget are just a few notes on the budget, the budget does include a $500,000 contingency to provide the city of buffer against further revenue declines due to federal government actions. The budget does provide increased funding for paving and for road maintenance. That's a $700,000 increase over the current level of spending for road maintenance, a total of $2.2 million for that purpose. The budget does provide a compensation increase for employees of 5%. And the budget also has about a million dollars of increases to our inter-gear-stirictional contracts with Arlington County and with Fairfax County. The last thing I'll say just in terms of summary, the budget does include the Capital Improvements program and for FY 26, the Capital Improvements program, which is generally funded with one-time money, not really part of the operating budget so much, but that is a budget of 26.2 million with the largest investments of $9 million in transportation improvements, mostly towards pedestrian safety and safety improvements for our streets. The other notable thing in the CIP is a $14 million appropriation in the sanitary sewer, which includes the detention vault in the amount of just over $10 million, which is based on our conceptual plans for that facility. The remainder of the spending in the sanitary sewer fund is for plant upgrades with our inter-jurisdictional partners. So that's a summary of some of the high-level things that are in the budget. With respect to the tax rate ordinance, then shifting to that, what is proposed then for first reading is a real estate tax rate of $1.21. We anticipate there will be Council discussion about that number for first reading. There is a proposed personal property rate for the business tangible component of personal property at $5 per dollars of assessed value. And what is before the council is a rate of $4 and 80 cents per $100 of assess value for cars, the car tax. Those personal property rate changes that are shown in here are unchanged relative to 2027. The last thing I will note with respect to the other two ordinances for the storm water fund. There is a request, a staff request, for an increase in the storm water fee that would address for just normal inflationary growth. And so that's a 2.7% increase in the fee. and that would cost the average homeowner about $10 per year in terms of that increase. And then similarly in the sanitary sewer fund, a 2.7% increase, and that would have on average for the average rate payer in the city or homeowner and the city increase in the average rate payer and the city. And that would be the average rate payer in the city or homeowner and the city an increase of $14 per year if that rate increase is enacted. So I will stop there and be happy to answer any questions Ms. Bawa as well. In the packet are responses to questions that council has had so far and we'd be happy to answer any follow-up questions on that information as well. Okay thank you so given that's first reading tonight it's the quick sum up is that today it's the ceiling as we continue deliberating between now and May 12th, we have the opportunity to go down but not go up. So I think in budget and finance, where many of us were there already, we discussed not just using real estate, but making sure we think about other revenue levers, as well as other things on the expense side. And so I expect maybe in the work session, we'll have a more thorough discussion about what those options are to close the gap on this new $1.2 million shortfall given where sales and meals tax are. Is that like a fair kind of what tonight is and what the coming work session will be about? Okay. So people feel about keeping the real estate flat at $1.21 and not the 2.0 and I've sent as originally contemplated. Vice Mayor has got. Yeah, I think that I'm happy to take the recommendation of staff to keep it as the ceiling of where we're going, but just want to put on record that I'm still interested in getting to the point that we are discussing before if possible, and that might require some, you know, looking at where increased revenues are as well as decreasing some expenses that we've already outlined in order to enact a tax rate reduction. But I understand that there are a lot of data still out there. We might have more information. We might need to increase the tax rate from that one 185 we discussed before between now and May. So I'd be in support of it, but been in the same way. We've been in the same way. We've been in the same way. We've been in the same way. We've been in the same way. We've been in the same way. We've been in the same way. We've been in the same way. We've been in the same way. We've been in the same way. So thanks. On that note, could we bring up that section of the budget Q&A because I do think that was valuable. Not just benchmarking our tax rates, but what the net impact is based on AVs across the region. As well, 2.0 sounds like a big deal when you actually look at the actual impact once you compare AV numbers.'s because our AVs grow so much that that 2.0 doesn't do as much as you think it does We keep scrolling I think it's A little more There it is. Yes That chart right there so you could see that with the proposed Q&F sense, for the meeting homeowner, that still increase of $400 in their bill. And we can look at the region. Thank you, Ms. Bawa, for doing these budget Q&As. I do think that's the most, one of the most valuable things that we do during budget is capturing all the questions that we ask and providing responses on paper. Okay, other thoughts? Is underheld? Given that this is the maximum that we can tax, I would be in favor of amending the vehicle tax rate back to $5. And again, that could be something as we look at our budget, as we look at our road paving needs and other things. We can decide to bring that back down. But for this budget, I would be in favor of bringing that back to pre-COVID levels. I would agree with Ms. Underhill on that. Can we bring the Q and A to look at the benchmark personal property tax rates? Because I think there's a Q and A for that too. Just so we all can see the chart. That's not it. Sorry, my computer side update, others I tell you it's page it's on, but I remember you had a there was a budget Q&A that benchmarked Car Tax rates. It's page 8 of the key. Thank you. There it is. Okay. I'd be in support of Justin and Laura as well. The putting a ceiling on that. bring it down, but you can't bring it back up. In that 20 cents, it gets us, looks like 280,000 of revenue. Is that correct, Ms. Paoa? That's correct. I cannot quite have the penny. Okay, other thoughts on the various tax rates? I'm okay with the ceilings. I mean, as I've said before, I think on the like others, I would like to land somewhere between 1 18 5 and 1 21 and on the vehicle tax, I'm okay doing the ceiling at 5, but looking at the chart, we're already on the high side of vehicle tax and then you look at our tax rate. And I just have a concern that across every single place where people are paying money, whether it's fees or through taxes that on the tax rate, on the car tax, on the sewer, on the stormwater, potentially untrashed, like that all of these continue to add up and we're not anywhere near an equalization rate. And I understand the reasons for that and that this in particular is a difficult budget season but don't want to lose sight of how difficult it is for this city. It's also difficult for people who are very cost burdened right now. And so, don't want to sort of treat all of these things. This safe harbors that we take advantage of on every single domain or whatever you want to call it as we go through the budget. I agree with Ms. Flynn. I also, if we have an additional tough year, a year from now, those might be levers we choose to use in future years and not necessarily this one. But I agree, focusing on the net increase to residents is where we start. I may, I won't raise it for this budget cycle, but I will ask for a request that we do look at CNI tax again, because in looking at the other jurisdictions and sort of why the tax rate is lower, if we do move away from a general fund for trash, a lot of those other jurisdictions have a variable tax rate. So to speak in that the commercial properties are paying the CNI tax, which raises the kind of base tax rate in a way that may help with our transportation costs and offset transportation costs that were otherwise paying for through the general fund or local revenue in addition to kind of all the grants that we generally seek out regarding transportation. So just another kind of tool to consider. Yeah, I guess I'll throw that comment that, you know, we should not just be looking at revenue levers and hopefully the expense stuff, especially. We all heard the presentation about how the federal changes impact the region. This is year one of maybe three to five years of potential pain, like we need to have those options, even some that may not feel great right now, but ready to go for future years. And so I've said it before, but I think we should stop expecting 60% revenue growth as we've had over the past three to five years, just because we have it doesn't mean we should spend it. So even if this may be the first year, we should start learning to tighten our belts, I guess, we're needed. Ms. Connelly. This is Marva. this is probably a question for the Q&A now for right now, but online 125 of the budget. It's $150,000 investment in city financial systems. Can you just explain what is that more mueness or what that is? And again, it can just be a budget question in the book. You don't have to explain it right now. So what it specifically is is moving our financial software to the cloud. That's what Tyler technology wants us to do. And so we won't have the local servers. Our data will be on a secure environment and a cloud environment. And there's a subscription that comes along with that. So we'll have some cost savings because we'll be getting rid of our local servers for minutes. But the real reason we wanna go to the cloud is in terms of citizen access and doing business with the city, it's gonna be a much better experience once we take that step. So it's not doing it just for the sake of doing it, it's doing it as a precondition to creating a better experience for people doing business with the city. Thank you. I did wanna bring up something given that tonight is supposed to be first reading. Given all the discussion we've had on solid waste, what do we have to do tonight should we want to make that change in this budget cycle? So, nothing tonight, it's the bottom line. In terms of the options that were discussed at work session at your last meeting. There were some options that were discussed, a reduction of the tax rate and the imposition of a fee in lieu of that of the of the being in the property tax rate. By city code, it states that the solid waste disposal charge, which is envisioned in the city code and has been since the 90s, is to be set by resolution. I think one thing, if the council is interested in going this direction, the two actions should be considered together. In other words, don't lower the tax rate thinking that you would consider a fee ordinance later. They should be done at the same time. Then, so then the question is when would the council do that? I've been an advocate for giving us some time to study it and to design a fee schedule that would be fair and would also accomplish a line with city policy goals of having a price signal to encourage recycling and reuse. That will be more complicated and that would be slower. If the council wish to take the step to have a fee and lower the tax rate, the bottom line is you could either do that on May 12th if that is what the council direct staff to do Or it would be possible although it's not something we have ever done before as a city to Have a later action in the fiscal year to adjust the tax rate at the same time as shifting to a fee that could be done in August. I wouldn't really encourage it being done too close to October, because that's when we really wanna wrap up our billing systems. So August or September would be an option, but it is something that the city has never done before. We've never done a mid-cycle Adjustment of tax rates Now one reason we've never done it before is we used to send out a bill in July And that's a long time ago, but that kind of created this mentality that you really can't change the rate But we have for a number of years now shifted to that first billing being in December. It's mailed in November, so it is technically feasible to adjust it later in the fiscal year. Again, it's never been done before and it's not something you really see localities in Virginia do very frequently. So I put those caveats out there. If it were to be done the traditional way, it would be done on May 12th, both the tax rate and the fee, and then staff would then work through the implementation of that and the communication of that, sort of after the fact before the bill goes out in November. Thank you, Mr. Shields. And I'll just put this out there that I do support, pulling this out of the tax rate, but for me, my concern is the communication piece and getting, it's very complicated. Right, even for us, it's complicated. So it should try to then communicate it to the community. It's gonna be tough. So I think I don want to, you know, get ahead of anyone on the council, but I do think if we had more time also, that would help us on to have more time to communicate to, you know, through various measures, whether it's, you know, mailings or and the website and all that. But I think that would be my concern. It's just the going to fast would be hard then to get that word out to the community. Exactly what we're doing. Madam Mayor. Mr. Senator, go ahead. Sure. Thanks. So I do think there's a mixture of financial and policy issues here that deserve some work. I think we've not heard from single-family homeowners. I think to Russia decision would be, unnecessarily divide the community. I am interested in exploring how we can pursue environmental interests here, how we can provide, deal with the inequality right now between our multi-family homes and single-family homeowners, which is something I'm interested in dealing with. But I don't think creating a new set of winners and losers is the best way of dealing with the current set of winners and losers. I'd like a win-win here. And I think it may take some time to work that through, but I'm certainly committed to engaging in that process to see what we can do. And in an, in an expeditious as possible time frame, but I think between now and May, I think it would be a mistake. It would be, it would unnecessarily divide the community where you're just using tonight as an example. I think working really, really hard, we can end up with a better product than rushing it. Thanks. I just had a question, and I echo those comments and Mrs. Downs, those downs as just like gated backwards comments in particular about communications and kind of not wanting to have like warring factions in the community. You want people to come together over the budget as opposed to sort of feeling as though it's a contentious budget process, but still wanting to deal with this issue of the trash service and not reaching everyone. My question goes to kind of notice required. You know, you can see a lot of the single family homes would retain curbside collection because you need like that economies of scale and it makes sense in terms of, you know, the city is sort of organizing that for single family homes. Is there, are there steps the city has to take to confirm with HOAs for example, and some of the larger HOAs that they would continue to rely on the city if they were part of a fee-based system. Like in my mind, I could think of if you had an HOA of 200 town homes, that those townhomes might want to explore the possibility of what a private contract would be before they were necessarily had this fee imposed upon them. And so part of my concern is like if we set a resolution that is dependent on the current calculation of 3666, like what happens if you have groups that might fall out of it because they aren't mandated to use curbside collection right now. They're using curbside collection, but they might find that it's more economical, for example, to go in on someone else's contract who was using multifamily, a multifamily independent private like contractor and get rolled into their service. So, so I so that's my kind of concern about doing this in the next month. And then also just knowing, are we getting the numbers correct or the numbers going to potentially go up and down based on what your actual collection participation number is and what like the tippage fees might be associated with whether all 3066 or in that group come December when people pay the fee. I think we need to look at it. It could go up and it could go down. We have another policy question where we have a number of town house developments that it's in their site plan that they cannot hook up to City Trash. If we had a fee system, would we change that policy? If so, how would we change that policy? So that could grow the number of people, subscribe to it, but I don't have an answer to know exactly how we'd predict that at this point. I asked that not necessarily, because I know that work session next week, we are scheduled to have a more third discussion on where we are with solid waste. I think I asked tonight mainly to make sure that there wasn't any action we needed tonight. I'm hearing you say that we have two choices. It's a resolution and lower the tax rate in May 12th or we can adjust in August with the caveat that we've never done that before but it sounds like that is a legal option But tonight there's no action required even though it's first reading on all the other parts of the budget. That's right. Okay Okay So so far I think we heard one thing from us underhill the raise car tax to $5. Do we want to discuss anything else? Are we ready to do motions? I'm ready to move. Okay. I'll entertain a motion then. You should do it here. Are we coming here? I don't think we need to do a public hearing for this one. Do we? Do we need to do a public hearing for this one? No, this is first reading and so your public hearing will be April 28th and May 12th. I think, yeah, you'll be setting them tonight. Okay, just wanna make sure. Moved to grant first reading to Tio, Tio 25-03 schedule public hearings for April 28th, 2025, and May 12th, 2025 schedule second reading for May 12th, 2025, and advertise the same according to law. That is the tax rate ordinance. That was a three, not a two. You wanna make the amendment, right? It says a three vehicle. No, no, no, no. It requires an amendment. I would like to make a four. Sorry. With just the amendment of $5 tax rate. You can only start with O2. Oh, you're right. I think if we got ahead of one, I'm afraid. I withdraw my motion. Wait, okay. We have the budget. We have the budget ordinance come first. To, 25-O is the budget. I moved to grant first reading to Tio 25-02, schedule public hearings for April 28th, 2025, and May 12th, 2025, schedule second reading for May 12th, 2025, and advertise the same according to law. Second, onely in the second. Call. Call roll. Do we need to make an amendment? No. This is the budget, not the tax rate. One ahead. Yes. Miss Conley? Yes, yes. Miss Downes? Yes. Miss Flynn? Yes. Miss Shunz-Hizzcott? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes, Miss Underhill. Yes, Mayor Hardy. Yes, motion carries seven to zero I think now we're ready for the tax rate one So probably similar to what we were doing on the last one if we have a motion in a second for the ordinance then we would amend it and then we would uh, proceed with action. I just try again. You could just make a motion with the tax rate you want in it. Okay. As well. The first. Sorry. We have to grant first reading to TO25-03 scheduled public hearings for April 28th, 2025 and May is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second one is the second. Call roll please. Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Sean's his card? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes. Ms. Underhill? Yes. Mayor Hardy? Yes. Motion carries seven to zero. Thank you, Council. Round of the stormwater. I moved to grant first reading to Tio 25-04, schedule public hearings for April 28, 2025, and May 12, 2025, schedule second reading for May 12, 2025, and advertise the same according to law. Second. Second. It's underhill in the second. It's call roll please. Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downes? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Shonshizgad? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes. Ms. Underhill? Yes. Mayor Hardy? Yes. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you. Class one, zero rates. We have motion. We have to grant first reading to Tio 25-05 schedule public hearings for April 28th, 2025 and May 12th, 2025 schedule second reading for May 12th, 2025 and advertised the same according to law. Do we have a second? I'll second. There's underhill in the second. Call roll please. Ms. Conley? Yes. Ms. Downs? Yes. Ms. Flynn? Yes. Ms. Shenzhen Scott? Yes. Mr. Snyder? Yes. Ms. Underhill? Yes. Motion carries 7 to 0. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Ms. Underhill? Yes. Mayor Hardy. Yes. Motion carries. 7-0. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Bowen. Mr. Shields. Before you go, I actually had one budget request or one thing to go in the Q&A. Since we do such a nice job, benchmarking various things. And we have the benefit of being about three weeks later than everyone else in budget. benchmark what salary raises and coal changes are done across the region. Sure, I think it's, know 60% of the general government budget and 80-some percent of the school budget so that's an important thing to keep in mind. Well thank you. And I may have missed it on the budget Q&A but the question question is still out there about staffing levels, general government and schools from 2017 when we had the highest pupil level through now. We could also benchmark staffing levels. It says it's still pending in the Q&A document, I think. So we're in miss it. So we do have a response on the general government side. Is it the request for the school information or did we not get the question right? I've wanted to see both. So I guess the school specifically. All right. We did get the information from the last time. Sorry, I can't hear you. We did get the information from them yesterday, so we'll update the packet. Awesome, thank you. But your question was, comps within the region, right? Yeah. That was the question you had. I was just looking at numbers, staffing levels, and you were looking at salary increases. Salary increases. This year specifically, just to get a sense of where all the other neighboring jurisdictions are. It's we've been, it's been important to have parity across general government schools. I think we're achieving 6% with the proposed budget. Is that correct? I think so. The schools are, I'm sorry, which is 6%? The salary increases. I think the schools are sort of generally between 5 and 6%, and probably like 5.5. Okay. On average. Okay. Okay. Any final thoughts on budget? Are we done with budget? Okay. There's no consent items on the agenda. Do we have other business that people want to talk about? It's only 1040. I will note there's a meeting of the Community Development Authority this week on Thursday, 17th at noon. Okay. Any standing regional or committee or council liaison reports? I do have a short report here. I attended the COG Farm Committee meeting on Friday, and there were several presentations on hunger issues, food resource savings, as well as two reports on how jurisdictions have implemented organic recycling or composting. One was Laural Maryland and one is Arlington, Virginia, and it was a really good presentation, which would be super helpful for us as we are thinking about how we might do this. In Laurel, they had the benefit of just being able to mandate everyone must organic recycle and Virginia, we can't do that. But Arlington had some really good suggestions. There are different ways to do it. For both of them, a key part of the implementation was as Mr. Simlerchman-Mastownsha said, the communication plan all around it, the advertising, the multimedia to encourage people to change their behaviors and why. And then the results of it for both communities has been a very savings because tipping fees have gone down because more people are composting. So it was really good and I will get further information off that COD website and share with everyone because it's super informational. Okay. Other committee or council liaison reports? Council member comments. We're tired of comments. We're done with all the comments. Okay, well, let's take on minutes. January 13, 2025. Tell your mist. to the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 13th, 2025. Second, second. Connolly in the second. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Have a good night. Thank you. Do you hear the disappointment in the mayor's voice? Oh, we're done at 10.43.