Coraggio Consulting
Fairfax County Board of Supervisors Meeting, Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025
Place: Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Virginia
Length: 7h 23m (video)
Official meeting video (Fairfax County): https://video.fairfaxcounty.gov/player/clip/3682
Official Board of Supervisors page (Fairfax County): https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/boardofsupervisors/

Machine transcript (speech-to-text) produced by Coraggio Consulting. Not an official county record. Names and numbers may be misspelled; check the video at the timestamp before quoting.
Speech-to-text: whisper.cpp, model large-v3-turbo. Produced 2026-10-30. Timestamps are [HH:MM:SS] into the meeting video.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[00:00:11] Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our board meeting of February 18, 2025, and as we always do, we're going to begin this meeting with a moment of silence to be followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, and let me ask my colleagues if they have anyone that they would like to keep in our thoughts and prayers specifically this morning.

[00:00:30] We had a lot at the last meeting. I'm not seeing anyone. With that being said, if everyone who is able could rise for a moment of silence to be followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Please face the flag.

[00:01:02] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And we have no presentations this morning, so the first item on our agenda is appointments to boards, authorities, commissions, and advisory groups.

[00:01:34] And everyone should have a final copy dated February 18, 2025, at your places. and let me ask Supervisor Smith if she has a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move approval of the final copy of appointments to a board's authorities and commissions dated February 18, 2025.

[00:01:54] And the chair will second that along with Supervisor Lusk. Any discussion or individual appointments that board members would like to have pulled for a separate vote? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

[00:02:11] That motion carries. And that brings us to our next agenda item, which is a report on general assembly activities. And at this time, I'd recognize the chair of our legislative committee, Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since our last board meeting, the legislative committee has met once on Friday, February 14th.

[00:02:30] We also held our annual reception in Richmond on Wednesday, February 5th. And thank you to all the members of our board who made the trip there and some school board members who joined us. The 2025 session is rapidly heading towards its scheduled adjournment on Saturday, February 22nd.

[00:02:47] The county's initiatives continue to move through the legislative process. The first, HB 2036, patron by Delegate Bulova, expands reckless driving to include exhibition driving and prohibits increasingly dangerous behaviors on the Commonwealth's roadways.

[00:03:05] That legislation passed the House, has passed two Senate committees, and now awaits consideration on the Senate floor. The second, HB 2550, patroned by Delegate Sullivan, authorizes localities and planning districts 8 and 16, which includes Northern Virginia, to place and operate noise abatement monitoring systems for the purpose of recording and enforcing exhaust system violations in a pilot program.

[00:03:34] It was reported by the Senate Transportation Committee last week, but yesterday in the Senate Finance and Appropriations Committee, the bill was turned into a study to be sent to the Crime Commission because of a potential fiscal impact on the Virginia State Police.

[00:03:51] Delegate Sullivan is working with our legislative staff in the hopes of reviving the bill in this year's session, but if not, we will work with the study and look to bring it back in next year's General Assembly session. A key area of focus for the remainder of the session will be the 2024 to 2026 biennium budget amendments.

[00:04:12] During Friday's legislative committee meeting, staff provided an analysis of how the budgets adopted by the House and Senate affect key county priorities. That budget is now in conference, and staff are closely monitoring the negotiations and will provide updates as the process unfolds.

[00:04:31] As we discussed on Friday and have discussed many times, a watershed report by the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commissioner, J. Lark, in 2023 outlined the inadequacy of state K-12 funding and the substantial flaws in current state funding formulas, finding that the state standards of quality formula dramatically underestimates the actual cost of providing public education.

[00:04:58] This is demonstrated by the fact that the state provided $6.6 billion less than what was spent by local school divisions in FY 2021. In FY 2023, Fairfax County Public Schools spent $1.2 billion above the SOQ formula's calculated required local effort.

[00:05:20] We're going to begin our FY 2026 budget process later this morning, and that takes place against the backdrop of this severe and shameful state underfunding of education. Both the House and Senate have included some of the JLARC recommendations in their budgets, particularly those addressing the cap on support positions, which has artificially lowered the state's funding contributions for vital educational support positions since its establishment in 2009.

[00:05:54] I think this is important to note. This was a budget cut enacted during the Great Recession in 2009. A kindergartner who started class that fall in 2009 has graduated, completed her FCPS career, and is in college or in the workforce somewhere, and those cuts have not been restored to this day.

[00:06:18] Eliminating this cap has been a longtime county priority. Both the House and Senate budgets do provide funding to eliminate it, which is good news. But it's important to note that they are only a small step toward addressing the broader JLARC recommendations, and a lot of work remains to be done.

[00:06:38] One thing I will note is that the governor's budget proposals, the House budget, and the Senate budget all include pretty significant tax cuts on top of the billions of dollars in tax cuts that have been enacted in recent years. And I'm in favor of tax cuts. I think that's a wonderful thing when you can do it.

[00:07:02] But you have to pay your bills first. And the Commonwealth of Virginia has been cutting taxes, including for the very wealthy, while underfunding schools and passing the buck to local governments and local taxpayers. And that has to end. The legislative committee also received updates on a number of other bills, and legislative activity continues frenetically in Richmond throughout this week.

[00:07:28] We will receive additional updates from our legislative staff as the budget and legislative process progresses, so stay tuned. With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the board adopt Legislative Committee Report No. 2. And I'm happy to second that discussion on the motion.

[00:07:44] Let me just add just a question for Supervisor Walkinshaw that I know the answer to, but I think everyone watching needs to know the answer to. Just going back to one of our initiatives, which is cracking down on excessively loud exhaust systems on cars that are causing problems in all of our communities.

[00:08:03] I just want to make sure I understood what you said right, which is, and by the way, I thank Delegate Rip Sullivan for all of his work on this and continued work to try to get this passed. Seems like a really simple bill. This is an initiative of ours for a pilot program to try to crack down on these very noisy vehicles.

[00:08:23] And if I heard you right, it's going to study because the Virginia State Police have said it will cost them $200,000 to review the citations that come from Fairfax County. Is that what we've been told? That's right. Obviously, that stretches credulity to think that it would cost $200,000.

[00:08:46] Essentially, they're asserting that it would require a full-time, fully funded position who apparently their only job would be to review this small program, which would involve three devices across the county.

[00:09:03] So we're going to try to work on that in the remaining couple of days here. and see if there's a way to work through that, but unfortunately, that's where it stands right now. I just want to be really clear on that because a lot of folks are living with this chronic problem, and we had a solution to do a pilot so that we could generate data that could then support what the long-term costs and ramifications are of this program, and before we can even do the pilot, the Virginia State Police have said it's going to cost them $200,000 to review it.

[00:09:34] Therefore, this needs to go to study, and I want people to hear this because the state is sitting on a gigantic surplus and they can't find enough money to help support a local government that's trying to tackle a very real problem in our neighborhoods that affects people.

[00:09:50] And to me, it's just, it's crazy. And, you know, I'll be reaching out, as I hope all of us do, to Delegate Sullivan, one, to thank him for bringing this bill forward on our behalf, but two, there's got to be a more common sense solution to this than kicking this to a study and telling our folks that you're just going to have to live with this for another year.

[00:10:09] The other thing I was going to mention, you did a very eloquent job talking about JLARC and, you know, obviously this is a chronic problem that drives real estate tax rates. We're getting ready to hear the county executive's presentation. I'm going to have a board matter on this later, but it would be foolish for us to sit here and not mention what's happening in Washington, D.C. and what the effect on our economy is going to be.

[00:10:35] It's going to be significant. Read any media source. talk to any government employee, talk to any private sector government contractor, that the bread and butter of our economy is under direct attack right now and will affect commercial property values in Fairfax County.

[00:10:52] We'll stretch our services thin, and we already know that we stretch every budget, as we're getting ready to hear, to fund a giant hole in education funding that the state has created. So the state is sitting on a giant surplus, largely generated by the economies of northern Virginia, Northern Virginia's economy is under attack, and we still don't have the funding we need for public education.

[00:11:17] And so this is a great stage to set for the county executive's budget presentation and for our general public to understand exactly what's going on here. This makes the JLARC recommendations more important than ever. The idea that we'll just be able to continue to fill that hole for the state while people are standing by on the sidelines watching our economy get decimated in Fairfax County and Northern Virginia is going to be the driver of our budget conversations for the next couple of years.

[00:11:47] So that makes this JLARC report and progress on it being made in Richmond that much more important. And so thank the board members. We had a great, I think nine of us were at legislative committee on Friday, had a great conversation about these issues, and we have to keep that up.

[00:12:04] So with that, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Parity, nay. And that passes 9 to 1. And with that, we're going to move on to the next item, which has been perfectly teed up, which is the county executive's presentation on the proposed FY 2026 and FY 2027 multi-year budget plan.

[00:12:28] County Executive Brian Hill is here for the presentation. Welcome. Fail. I think I've done this eight times and I've had a cold nine times. So I do want to apologize if I cough and sneeze a bit.

[00:12:44] But thank you for allowing me to this opportunity today. Before I start, I do want to say thank you to the budget team. As you know, we've been working very hard in trying to get this budget together, led by Christina Jackson, as well as Phil Hagen, Katie Hortsman, Joe Lahate, and the group behind them.

[00:13:04] We have been working diligently trying to figure out how to make this somewhat palatable, as you stated in your opening. I also want to thank Amy Brobe's third annual strategic plan report available after this budget presentation.

[00:13:21] And I want to thank all of the county employees that have worked towards us getting ahead and doing a great job. So today I'm pleased to present the FY26 advertised budget plan for the board's consideration. This budget marks my eighth as county executive and has been one of the most difficult ones that I've had to deal with.

[00:13:44] Responsible budgeting is about balance, and this proposal seeks to strike the right balance in funding necessary expenditure increases, finding sensible reduction opportunities, and managing the impact on our residents. This budget release comes at a time of great uncertainty for our region.

[00:14:05] As the new presidential administration has begun taking action to significantly reshape the federal government, Fairfax County is home to more than 50,000 federal workers, And even more workers connected to businesses that contract with federal government.

[00:14:23] Already, we are seeing workers being laid off or furloughed. The broader economic impacts of some of the president's actions have yet to be realized, particularly as it relates to policies like tariffs. It is important for me to note that this proposal was developed before the new administration took office.

[00:14:44] and it will be imperative for us to continually monitor actions at the federal level to determine if any updates to our revenue or expenditure projections are necessary. These actions have enormous potential impact on our budget, and we will keep the board informed as we make our way through the coming months. With this backdrop, I present the fiscal 2026 advertised budget plan

[00:15:14] for your consideration. This slide provides an overview of our 26 proposal. Our real estate tax base will increase by 5.34 percent for fiscal 26, driven by increases on the residential side.

[00:15:33] As commercial equalization was negative for the second consecutive year, as two other sizable revenue categories, personal property taxes and investment income, are projected to decrease in fiscal 26. General fund revenues are projected to increase by only 3.2% over the last year, assuming no changes to the real estate tax rate. This 3.2% would generate an additional $207 million in revenue. With proposed disbursement increases totaling almost $450 million for both county

[00:16:11] and schools combined, it was necessary to find savings to offset these increases and identify potential additional revenue sources. The budget I'm proposing today includes equal growth for county disbursements and the transfers to FCPS, Fairfax County Public Schools, with a growth rate of just under four and a half percent. I should note this does not fully fund the superintendent's requested operating transfer. We have focused on compensation for our employees, especially given the competitive job market in our region, and have fully funded our collective bargaining agreements

[00:16:49] and have funded a full compensation package for non-represented employees. Additionally, given the moderate revenue growth projected, the advertised budget does not include major investments in many county priorities. However, we are proposing the dedication of an additional quarter penny on real estate tax rate for affordable housing in order to support the county goal reaching of 10,000 new affordable homes by year 2034.

[00:17:17] In order to generate revenue sufficient to provide pay increases for our employees and a consummate transfer to schools. I'm proposing a 1.5 cent increase on a real estate tax rate.

[00:17:35] A 1.5 cent increase, excuse me, a 1.5 cent real estate tax rate increase would generate $50.9 million, bringing the impact on the average homeowner to just under $638. As the board and our community recognize, the state offers counties few options to generate revenue, with the real estate tax serving as our primary level.

[00:17:58] To mitigate further increases to the real estate tax rate, I'm proposing a 2% increase to the transit occupancy tax, which would bring the rate from 4 to 6 and generate just over $13 million. A 6% rate aligns with what we see across many jurisdictions in the area.

[00:18:20] Half of this additional revenue is mandated for tourism promotion and has been held in balance pending discussions on its use. The remaining half can be utilized as general fund revenue and can be applied to balance the budget. Although this proposal focuses on pay and benefits for our employees, we had other adjustments which were necessary to address inflation, debt service obligations, state and federal mandates, new facilities, information and technology needs.

[00:18:52] Increases associated with these items are more than offset by $60 million in targeted reductions and identified savings, including 208 positions. This is the highest level of reductions since fiscal year 2010, when over $90 million was cut from the budget following the Great Recession.

[00:19:16] In total, since fiscal 2024, the county has cut spending by approximately $100 million. Before we turn to our revenue projections, I want to provide some context on the national and local economies.

[00:19:35] As I noted at the outset of this presentation, the information contained in our budget proposal was pulled together prior to the start of the new presidential administration. Thus, as many of the data points that you see on this slide paint a stable economic picture, there is the potential that we will see changes in trends in the coming months.

[00:19:55] For fiscal, excuse me, for 2024, the national economy grew at a rate of 2.8%, only slightly lower than a 2.9% increase in 2023. Defying expectations of a slowdown, the labor market remained remarkably resilient despite the impact of higher interest rates.

[00:20:20] Payroll growth averaged 186,000 jobs per month in 2024. The national employment rate stands at 4% as of last month. In addition to continued employment growth over the last year, inflation also continued moderating.

[00:20:39] In December, the year-over-year increase in the Consumer Price Index was 2.9%, down from the December 2023 rate of 3.4%. Overall, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell described the national economy as being in quite a good place, citing growing GDP, solid job gains, low unemployment rate, as well as signs of inflationary pressures easing.

[00:21:07] Now, on the local level, the county's unemployment rate is 2.5% in 2024, which is unchanged from the prior year. Based on preliminary estimates, the county's economy increased at a rate of 1.9% in 2024 and is expected to grow another 1.9% in 2025.

[00:21:32] This slide provides a history of the annual changes in general fund income and revenue. You can see that our revenue has fluctuated over this time frame with a growth of only 0.8% in fiscal 21 as a result of the economic impacts of the pandemic.

[00:21:52] As we came out of the pandemic, our revenue picture improved, primarily driven by significant increases in residential home values. We finished fiscal 24 with a growth of 5%, and we are currently estimating fiscal 25 was similar with a projected growth of 4.8%. Fiscal 26 revenue forecast includes an estimate of 4.2% growth over the current fiscal 25 estimates. This assumes, again, this assumes a 1.5 cent increase to the real estate tax rate and results in increased revenue of $258 million.

[00:22:30] With no change to the real estate tax rate, our growth would be 3.2%, generating $207 million more in revenue. This slide provides information about some of the major general fund revenue categories. As you know, the county relies primarily on the real estate tax to fund county needs. In fiscal 26, 66.6 percent of general fund revenue is derived from real estate taxes, which are projected to increase 6.5 percent over fiscal 25 as a result of equalization

[00:23:08] and the increase in the tax rate. Personal property taxes are projected to decrease 1.4% in Fiscal 26 after increasing 7.2% in Fiscal 25. Despite the number of vehicles in the county anticipated to increase, values are projected to be lower than last year.

[00:23:28] Personal property tax release from the state, which has been capped since Fiscal 2007, is estimated to provide 50% reduction in Fiscal 26 for our taxpayers. Our next largest category, sales tax, is projected to grow 2% in fiscal 26. BPOL is a revenue category for which we currently do not have any actual data as business file and pay on March 1st. Based on their gross receipts during the previous calendar year, BPOL grew rapidly in fiscal 22 and fiscal 23 as the economy recovered.

[00:24:06] The advertised budget assumes a 2.5% increase in fiscal 26. Investment interest revenue increased significantly in both fiscal 23 and 24 as the Federal Reserve raised rates to deal with inflation.

[00:24:28] Our staff in the Department of Finance have been working to lock in higher yields into fiscal 25 before the Federal Reserve implemented three rate cuts beginning in September of 24. We expect to see a decrease in revenue for fiscal 26 as the interest rates begin to fall, but this is a category that we will continue to watch.

[00:24:53] On this slide, we show current and historical changes in our real estate tax rate, excuse me, real estate tax base. We have updated the table this year to be more clearly reflect full residential and non-residential changes, including growth.

[00:25:13] 26, the real estate tax base is projected to increase 5.34 percent, as you can see in the bottom right-hand corner of the chart. Residential real estate experienced an overall increase in value of 6.65 percent, driven primarily by value growth of existing properties due to low inventory. Commercial real estate increased 0.91 percent, primarily due to new growth.

[00:25:43] The next two slides, we will have more detail on both residential and non-residential properties. The value of one penny on the real estate tax rate is $33.95 million for fiscal 26.

[00:25:59] The combined impact of equalization and the proposed $1.5 increase in the tax rate to $1.14 results in an increase in the average tax bill, again, of just over $638. Because of the growth in residential values in fiscal 26, our commercial industrial base has declined for the fifth year in a row to just 14.8%.

[00:26:29] In the residential real estate market, the average sales price of homes sold in the county rose 8.6% during calendar year 24. The number of homes sold increased 5.1%. Homes that sold during the year stayed on the market for an average of 17 days, one day less than they were sold in 2023.

[00:26:53] In the chart, you can see the single-family home values increased 6.4%, up from 2.8% increase in fiscal 2025. Single-family homes are the largest component of the county's residential base, making up almost 72% of the residential equalization value.

[00:27:12] Townhomes increased 6.5%, also up from last year. Condos were up 5.8%. Overall, residential equalization was up 6.2%. Of the over 338,000 taxable residential properties in the county, 91.5% experienced an assessed value increase, 2.5% experienced a decrease, and 6% remain unchanged.

[00:27:47] Non-residential equalization is down by 0.38% in fiscal year 26. The amount of empty office space increased to 22.1 million square feet. The direct office vacancy rate in the county was 17.8% as of the year-end 2024, up from 17.2% at the year-end of 2023.

[00:28:12] As of year-end 2024, there was one office building in Reston under construction, expected to deliver 210,000 square feet in 2025. Due to increases in vacancy rates, higher capitalization rates, and the difficulties in securing commercial financing, the office sector continues to struggle.

[00:28:38] Office elevator properties, the second largest component of non-residential tax base, experienced a decrease for the fifth consecutive year, declining to 7.2% in fiscal 26. Apartments and retail properties were generally stable, and the biggest gainer was hotels for the third consecutive year, increasing over 17% with higher occupancies and increasing revenue.

[00:29:07] Data centers are included in the industrial category, with several new developments nearing completion and coming online. Overall, data centers in the county increased their contribution to the assessment base in 2025, growing from $1.4 billion to over $2 billion year over year.

[00:29:24] This slide provides an overall budget proposal summary. In the top half of the chart, the total projected increase in available funding after the proposed dedication of an additional quarter penny to affordable housing, preservation, and construction is shown to be just over $225 million.

[00:29:48] $255 million, excuse me. The amount includes the impact of the proposed 1.5 cent increase in real estate tax, as well as the proposed 2% increase in transit occupancy tax. The lower half of the chart lists how we have utilized the projected revenue increase.

[00:30:07] Just over $125 million is allocated to FCPS, with most of that for operating support. County funding adjustments net to an increase of $118 million. This reflects $177.8 million in increased expenses, offset by almost $60 million in identified reductions and savings.

[00:30:28] As I noted earlier, the entire increase in this year's budget proposal on the county side is attributed to pay and benefits for our employees. All other increases are more than offset by nearly $60 million of reductions that have been identified in the general fund-supported agencies.

[00:30:49] The managed reserve requires a $2 million contribution to remain fully funded, consistent with board action in the past two fiscal years. We have assumed that contribution will be made as part of the fiscal 25 third quarter review using revenue already identified as part of the mid-year revenue update.

[00:31:09] The Revenue Stabilization Fund and Economic Opportunity Reserve are projected to remain fully funded as a result of interest earned. Therefore, no contributions to these three general fund revenues reserves are included in the fiscal 26 proposal.

[00:31:31] Excuse me. As 1% of the proposed increase in transit occupancy tax rate must be used for purposes related to tourism, the associated $6.5 million in revenue is held in reserve pending identification of uses after consultation with the industry.

[00:31:51] After all of the recommended adjustments, there is a balance of $5.62 million. A tight budget brings difficult choices, and one of the most challenging this year is funding the support of our schools. The superintendent's proposed budget includes a $268 million increase in a school operating transfer, or about 10.4%, slightly less than the amount discussed at our November forecast meeting.

[00:32:22] This transfer request exceeds last year's $254 million request, which was the largest dollar increase request in county history. The large transfer request is driven primarily by increases in employee pay and also includes adjustments for enrollment changes, contract rate increases, baseline funding for previously approved adjustments, investments in multi-year initiatives. Dr. Reed's proposed budget includes funding for a 7% compensation increase for all employees as this percentage

[00:32:59] was negotiated for most FCPS employees through the school system's first collective bargaining agreement. However, with the governor's budget funding only 3 percent increase and the state contribution remaining at an estimated 20 percent of the total cost, the potential impact on county taxpayers is significant. In light of the potential impact of our residents, I cannot recommend fully funding the FCPS request. Doing so would require an additional $150 million, equivalent to

[00:33:32] approximately 4.5 cents on the real estate tax rate above the 1.5 cents increase upon which this budget is balanced. This would bring the total increase for the average homeowner just shy of $1,000. Since the release of the General Assembly Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission study in July of 23, the board has consistently advocated for increased state funding to support education. The state's own analysis shows that it provides Virginia school divisions with less

[00:34:10] funding per student than the national and regional averages, and less than three of five bordering Virginia, three of the five states bordering Virginia. Fairfax Public Schools is estimated to be underfunded by over $568 million, or approximately $3,100 per student. Although the governor's budget failed to include additional schools funding as recommended by a JLARC study, Several House and Senate budget amendments, which prioritize some of the near-term JLARC recommendations, could result in increased funding for FCPS.

[00:34:47] These include removing the cap on support positions and providing additional resources for special education students. In addition to increased funding for school operating support, an increase of $6.7 million is included for school debt service requirements.

[00:35:05] Last year, $230 million in bonds were sold for FCPS, representing the culmination of of a collaborative effort between the Board of Supervisors and the school board to increase resources for necessary capital investments. The most recent bond sale is the first at the elevated level recommended by the Joint County Schools Capital Improvement Program Committee, a $50 million increase from the $180 million limit in effect when the committee first began

[00:35:40] discussions. The school bond sale has increased almost 50% from the $155 million limit in place in fiscal 2018. Combined county support for FCPS is increased by $125.34 million as part of this proposal, representing an increase of 4.46% over the fiscal 25 adopted budget plan. A total increase

[00:36:15] of $123.6 million is included in the four county compensation adjustments, including pay and benefits. This includes funding the county commitment to its collective bargaining agreements with our uniformed police officers, firefighters, public safety communicators, as approved by the board in December of 2023. For our non-representative employees, compensation increases include a 2% cost of living adjustment, performance and longevity increases for general county employees, and merits and longevities for our non-represented, uniformed public safety employees.

[00:36:53] We have also fully funded adjustments related to our annual benchmark studies to maintain competitive pay scales and ensure that we do not have specific job classes falling behind as compared to the market. This budget also includes increases to support employee benefits, particularly for the counties to find benefit retirement plans and retiree health care.

[00:37:15] Over $18 million is included for required increases in the employee contributions rate for the three retirement systems. All three systems experience strong returns in fiscal 24, ranging from 9 to 11 percent. However, contribution rates are required to increase based on part of remaining impact of smoothing and returns from prior years.

[00:37:39] Another $5.5 million is allocated to the county Other Post-Employment Benefits Trust to account for an increase in annual required contribution. This is due to higher medical and prescription claims, driven in part by the increased use of GLP-1 drugs and escalating medical costs.

[00:38:00] It is the county policy to fully fund the actuarially determined contributions to the systems, and making these investments is crucial to sustaining the strong financial position of our plans. The proposed budget includes an increase of $15.3 million to support county and school debt service requirements.

[00:38:26] This includes debt payments resulting from last month's $400 million general obligation bond sale, which fully implemented the Joint County Schools Capital Improvement Program. Committee recommendation to increase annual bond sales from $300 to $400 million.

[00:38:47] The increase in our debt service payments is also attributable to current interest rate environment. Last month, the county sold its bonds at an interest rate of 3.57%. The rate is competitive given the existing market and is evidence of the strength of the county's triple-triple-A bond rating, but it is slightly higher than the 3.27% rate we received last year and far above the 1.23% we received in January of 2021.

[00:39:19] The table at the bottom of the slide shows our bond referendum plan. This year, CIP proposes several changes. For our 2026 Human Services Referendum, we recommended adding $35 million for the renovation and expansion of the Joanne Jurgensen Public Health Laboratory.

[00:39:37] The current facility is space-constrained, even with the addition of modular laboratory during the pandemic, as the county laboratory is the sole local public health lab in Virginia. Addressing the needs is critical.

[00:39:52] We are also recommending changes to the Early Childhood Facilities Plan. Initially, the 2026 bond plan includes $50 million for early childhood facilities. To align with fiscal constraints and anticipated operating costs, we propose splitting the referendum into two, 25 million tranches in 26 and in 2032.

[00:40:14] The Early Childhood Birth to Five fund has successfully supported child care centers, including Hyba Valley and Kingstown, and child care will continue to be considered for co-location opportunities, which could be funded outside the general obligation bond program.

[00:40:32] Lastly, due to increased cost projections and we propose deferring renovations for the Centerville Regional Library to 2032 bond, Kings Park and Herndon Fortnightly Community Libraries would remain on the 2026 bond. There are no changes proposed for these upcoming schools, parks, metro, or public safety bonds.

[00:40:54] In addition to proposed changes to the bond referendum plan, staff have been working to maximize the effectiveness of every bond dollar by considering timing constraints, project schedules, and cost escalations. Some projects approved as part of the previous referendums are now incorporated into co-location projects.

[00:41:15] As a result, geo bond funds originally allocated for these projects can be now redirected to address cost increases in current projects, helping to mitigate the need to allocate additional general fund dollars for capital projects. This is especially important as we have seen an increase in the number and scope of system failures and critical building repairs across our existing facility portfolio, which require additional funding.

[00:41:44] To address these needs, I anticipate that we will need a sizable capital renewal investment as part of our upcoming quarterly reviews. Recent sizable increases in project estimates, driven by several factors, have prompted us to reassess how to design and scope our new and renovated facilities.

[00:42:04] While the annual bond sale limit has increased, general obligation bond allocations remain limited, and it is incumbent upon us to manage those funds prudently. We will continue seeking cost-effective strategies to appropriately maintain our facilities, but this may mean prioritizing renovation over new builds, reducing reliance on temporary facilities, and scaling back designs.

[00:42:33] Just as we are working diligently to right-size our operating budgets, we must apply the same level of scrutiny to the use of our capital dollars. As part of the budget guidance approved over the last three years, the board has directed staff to gradually increase baseline funding for affordable housing to reach the equivalent of two pennies on the real estate tax rate by fiscal 2027.

[00:43:01] This funding is essential to achieving the county's goal of producing at least 10,000 new affordable homes by the year 2034. In fiscal 23, the county reached a dedicated funding level equivalent to one penny. Since that time, however, the county has been unable to build on a baseline from fiscal 22 through fiscal 24.

[00:43:23] The county, however, allocated over $97 million in one-time funding for affordable housing, including $55 million in federal stimulus dollars and more than $42 million in county funds. More recently, these funds have not been available to support additional one-time investments.

[00:43:40] To continue making progress towards the county's housing goal, this proposal includes an additional one-quarter penny on the real estate tax rate for affordable housing, approximately $8.5 million. This brings the baseline funding in fiscal 2026 to $42.4 million.

[00:43:58] While we remain committed to allocating funding per the board's directive, allocating the more than $25 million that will be required in the fiscal 27 budget to meet the two-penny goal will be a significant challenge.

[00:44:14] We will continue working with staff, with the Department of Housing and Community Development to maximize available funding, explore options for additional one-time investments, and keep the board informed on progress and the projected timeline for meeting the county's 10,000-home target.

[00:44:34] Two new facilities that are slated to open in the coming months will require operational support in Fiscal 26. Kingstown Complex will co-locate the Franconia Police Station, the Franconia District Supervisor's Office, the Franconia Museum, and an active adult center, a new child care center, and the Kingstown Library.

[00:44:59] While many of the services that will be provided at the combined facility are already included in our baseline budget, additional funding is required to operate and expand active adult center and library, as well as the new child care center.

[00:45:15] Operating support is also included for the Fair Ridge Family Shelter, which will repurpose an extended stay hotel to serve families experiencing homelessness. Just under $41 million spans four categories that focus on maintaining our current services.

[00:45:40] Inflationary pressures continue to increase costs, with adjustments tolling over $16 million in this proposal. This includes contracts such as police body-worn cameras, veterinarian services for annual shelter, and personnel-based contracts such as those with our human services nonprofit providers.

[00:46:00] Information technology investments total $10.6 million, including $5 million in baseline support for IT architecture optimization, consistent with one-time support approved by the board's last-carry over funding. Funding also supports maintenance and licensing costs for IT projects as they transition from development to production and enhancements to the accessibility of our web content.

[00:46:28] Other increases in the cost of county operations total $10.2 million and include lease escalations, fuel, security at our public libraries, support coordination services for individuals with developmental disabilities, additional costs related to consolidation of the REC PAC program into Camp Fairfax.

[00:46:49] Finally, $3.8 million is required to replace expired grant funding, as well as new mandates imposed by state government. The largest of these adjustments are recurring funding for three items approved by the board as part of the carry-over review.

[00:47:07] The establishment of a pharmacy in the Fire and Rescue Department due to changes implemented by the United States Drug Enforcement Agency. The continuation of services for victims of crime were previously supported with state funding and additional positions in the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, approved by the state.

[00:47:34] Anticipating a tight budget, I've directed each of our general fund support agencies to develop reduction options totaling 10% of their budgets to provide opportunities to reduce spending as we sought to build a balanced budget. Following 6.3 million in across-the-board reductions in fiscal 24 and 34.3 million in targeted agency spending reductions last year, the options submitted were difficult, as many could significantly impact county services.

[00:48:07] Ultimately, this proposal seeks to balance the impact on the organization and the impact on our residents had we not pursued these cost-cutting strategies. Last year's reductions focused on efficiencies and reductions in agency financial flexibility.

[00:48:27] The nearly 60 million reductions proposed this year, which represent an approximate 3.4% reduction to the impacted agencies, are even more challenging and are certain to generate more community feedback. I firmly believe these reductions are prudent and necessary given the current fiscal climate.

[00:48:45] The proposed funding reductions include the elimination of 208 merit positions, with less than half of these positions currently filled. As a result, I will be declaring a reduction in force, and any employee impacted by this process will be notified imminently.

[00:49:07] The Department of Management and Budget has partnered with the Department of Human Resources and individual agencies to develop strategies that will help place impacted employees in available positions. Our goal is to offer every affected employee, merit employee, another employment opportunity within the county.

[00:49:30] We have a longstanding history of working to minimize the impact of reductions on employees, and I promise you this year will be no different. To be proactive in our communication with our union partners, we will also immediately begin effects bargaining regarding any proposed reductions that will impact bargaining unit members.

[00:49:50] with the intent of finalizing any agreements after the board decisions on the budget in May. With residential equalization over 6% and with the budget balance at a 1.5 cent real estate tax rate increase, I felt it was important to explore other revenue options for the board to consider.

[00:50:15] Last September, staff presented information to the board outlining the county's limited options to diversify our revenue sources. One of these options is food and beverage tax. The initial discussion at the September meeting generated significant community interest, with some residents intrigued by the prospect of decreasing our reliance on real estate tax, some interested in the potential use of the new revenue for additional investments, and others, still others, opposed to the implementation of a new tax.

[00:50:52] The food and beverage tax warrants a community discussion, particularly since a significant portion of the revenue generated by such a tax would be from non-Fairfax County residents. Implementing a 3% food and beverage tax effective January 26th would generate a net revenue increase of $48.1 million.

[00:51:14] Funds that could be invested in county priorities or a portion of which could eliminate the need for a real estate tax rate increase in this budget. A 4% tax rate would generate $65.1 million and could be utilized to reduce the real estate tax rate to 112 per 100 of assessed value, a 0.5% decrease from FY 2025 rate.

[00:51:38] Looking forward, we will continue to monitor one major revenue category and keep track of General Assembly actions to determine impacts on the fiscal 26 budget. In April, we will submit our add-on package to the board with suggested revisions to this proposal.

[00:51:58] We will have three upcoming budget committee meetings to discuss the budget in more detail, with a joint meeting with the school board scheduled from one week from today. The board will also advertise the real estate tax rate in March, setting the maximum rate that can be adopted in May.

[00:52:16] By our normal schedule, the advertisement of the tax rate would take place two weeks from today, on March 4th. However, last year, the state legislature enacted changes to public notice requirements, including reducing the 30-day requirement for the effective tax rate advertisement to seven days.

[00:52:38] As a result, we have the option to bill two additional weeks into our calendar prior to board action to advertise the real estate tax rate, allowing additional time for discussion before the critical decision. Therefore, I'm recommending that the advertisement of the budget and the tax rate take place on March 18th, in addition to the authorization to advertise the increase in the transit occupancy tax.

[00:53:08] I also recommend that on March 18th, the board authorize the advertisement of an ordinance to implement a food and beverage tax. This would allow for a robust dialogue throughout the budget process and for the board to act in coordination with other board budget decisions.

[00:53:27] If the potential tax is advertised on March 8th, the public hearings can be held concurrent with the budget public hearings beginning April 22nd. This slide details the many ways the public can participate in our budget process.

[00:53:46] We can receive feedback by the budget by text, email, or voicemail, and through the feedback form on our website, which is in English, Spanish, and Korean. As in prior years, residents can submit written or video testimony or participate in our April public hearing by phone or in person.

[00:54:09] We will also be updating our list of board members' budget town halls posted on our budget website. As they are scheduled, this presentation and all associated budget documents are now available at www.fairfaxcounty.gov backslash budget.

[00:54:29] The last slide provides the upcoming timeline for the fiscal 26 budget. The Joint Budget Committee meeting with the school board will be held again next Tuesday. The next step in the process is the board's advertisement of the budget and real estate tax rate, which will be recommending to take place on March 18th.

[00:54:52] Public hearings will begin on April 22nd. Ultimately, the board will mark up the budget on May 6th, followed by adoption on May 13th. Again, I want to thank the team, the budget team, and all county staff that have worked tirelessly to figure out ways to reduce our expenditures to help offset the cost of the resident.

[00:55:17] I also want to remind the Board that the budget questions can be submitted to the Department of Management and Budget as part of our normal budget Q&A process. And now I'm otherwise happy to take any questions you may have. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill.

[00:55:32] Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to our entire budget team. I know how much work goes into this, and contrary to what a lot of people believe, this is worked on every day in our county. And so we get this presentation, but you're obviously working on budget-related items every day.

[00:55:51] And I just want to begin by asking one question, just make a couple comments, and just remind my colleagues, we obviously are not sorting out the budget here. This is the first time any of us have heard this. Budget adoption, as was mentioned, is May 13th, so there's going to be a lot of time for deliberation in the months ahead from not only our residents, but from county employees and other groups that might be affected by this.

[00:56:15] But one question I wanted to ask is the one-and-a-half-cent increase in taxes that's proposed in this, the tax rate on real estate that's proposed in this, generates $51 million, if my math is right, 34 million per penny a half a penny a 17 million 51 million and did I hear you correct that the food and beverage tax that is being suggested not necessarily proposed but is suggested here at 3% generates 58 million dollars and so I

[00:56:51] just want to confirm that's where you came up with the notion that if we had a food and beverage tax in place we could conceivably not have to increase the tax rate on real estate That is correct, sir. And that $48.1 million is at 3%.

[00:57:07] The state, of course, allows localities to go up to 6%. I, for one, would not support that, but you're at 3%. And that $48.1 million, is that a half a year figure? So if that was in place, we would, obviously, if this was adopted, we'd only, because of the setup and preparation for it, we'd only be able to collect a half a year's worth of revenue.

[00:57:28] But in future budget years, that would represent two times $48 million. Just want to make sure that's roughly what your math shows. Roughly. Okay. I mean, it's important for us to know that $48 million is not a full year's worth of collections if it were to be implemented.

[00:57:48] So that was my question. Obviously, have a lot more. We'll withhold those for budget Q&A. Yes. Now, that's at 3%. At 4%, it would be roughly higher. Right, and that's another reason why I made the comment that this recommendation is based on 3%, a 3% number.

[00:58:06] The state authorizing legislation allows localities to go up to 6%. Many across the state have. And so it's up to us to figure out, one, if that's a route we even want to take, two, if we want to use it for real estate tax relief, which would be my strong preference, and three, what rate we would do.

[00:58:25] And so that's entirely discretionary up to the board and for us to decide after conversation with our community. And I'd like to ask Christina Jackson to add some more context to what we're talking about at this juncture. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify a couple points.

[00:58:41] Christina Jackson, county CFO, that $48.1 million is a net number, so that does include a 3% dealer discount, and it also includes an offset. There's a small expenditure increase that we would need to add for IT and DTA, so that's inclusive in that number as well. So that is a net number.

[00:58:57] Okay, good. So those things are taken out. And just for folks to understand, the dealer discount is a credit back to the dining or food establishments to help them offset the cost of accounting and other things to put in the programs necessary. Okay, just a couple comments and then open up to the floor for my colleagues.

[00:59:17] First, I want to thank you for the work that's been done in coming up with the proposed reductions. We obviously don't see all of those here. And we're going to want to go through those item by item just to understand what the impacts are in the county. But coming forward with $60 million in reductions, after $40 million in reductions last year, $100 million in reductions over two years is a painful but healthy exercise for us to go through.

[00:59:46] And obviously, we're going to be looking at those $60 million. But thank you for getting us to the point of understanding where those are and to the department heads who submitted those to you. Obviously, that's uncomfortable. They don't want to submit any reductions. But the idea that they came forward with some suggestions may not be recommendations of theirs, but suggestions certainly helped jumpstart our ability to come up with a balanced budget that's cognizant of impact on taxpayers as well.

[01:00:17] And so I do want to thank you for that. I also thank you for submitting some ideas for us for revenue diversification. Look forward to that conversation with our community because, you know, one thing that we talk about every year is the challenge. And you pointed out that, you know, over 66% of our revenues are coming from real estate taxpayers.

[01:00:39] And if we don't get a handle on ways to help move that number lower, we're going to continue to have challenges. And those are hard discussions to have, but frankly, they're honest discussions to have with our community about where our priorities are. I also thank you for the FCPS transfer.

[01:00:57] You know, this is keeping consistent with the goal that our two boards loosely set years ago, which is to fairly and evenly distribute new revenue that comes about through the budget process. And you have honored that, recognizing that there may be some very difficult decisions that our counterparts on the school board have to make.

[01:01:19] But at least thank you for including in your budget a continued commitment to evenly share revenue, proportionally, I should say, proportionally share revenue, new revenue with the school system. And my last two points are, one, I appreciate the focus on employee-employer compassion that's in here. This may not be what everyone wants, but the idea that we have a goal that in reducing positions by over 200, that we have a goal to make sure every single impacted merit

[01:01:56] employee in this county can be offered another opportunity within this county. That we have included, and that's one of the reasons for the proposed one and a half cent tax increase, We have included employee compensation consistent with what our metrics show and consistent with what we know is necessary to retain the best and brightest employees.

[01:02:20] And I save that to last because the concern I have with this budget is clearly that is not what's happening across the river. And I mentioned it earlier. This is going to have a significant, and you acknowledge, significant impact on our budget moving forward.

[01:02:36] And the way you treat your employees says a lot about your organization. And so I appreciate them being prioritized in this budget. But I sit here very concerned. I can remember back like it was yesterday, right after COVID hit, and the county executive came forward in essence and rewrote the entire budget proposal and put everything in a freeze scenario.

[01:02:58] My description, but pretty accurate with what happened. I would submit this. What is happening right now with our federal employees, federal contractors, office space that will be directly affected by what's happening in Washington, D.C. is a much higher risk to Fairfax County than COVID ever was.

[01:03:18] And the reason I say that is because we are specifically targeted with these federal government reductions. This is not something evenly felt across the nation, across the globe, like COVID impacts were. And we don't have the help of the federal government and stimulus funding to get us through these difficult times, to provide increased services for people who are out of jobs like we had during COVID.

[01:03:41] And as a matter of fact, actually, it's caused by the federal government. And so this, to me, has a much higher impact day-to-day on this county's ability to fund services, to maintain affordability for people by the thousands who we know who live in Fairfax County who are losing their jobs.

[01:04:03] And we've got to help them maintain their homes. And we're doing that in a very difficult environment. And so I appreciate the extra time for the advertised rate that you mentioned, not just because it gives the board more time to deliberate over that, but it also gives us a little bit more clarity.

[01:04:22] Every day we're seeing a worse impact of what's happening in Washington, D.C. than the day before. And by the time we have to advertise a rate in March, we're going to have a much better handle, maybe, on what's going on. But we know that there are thousands of people who have already lost their jobs, and the requisite impact on our commercial real estate might not be found for years, certainly not experienced for years.

[01:04:50] And so I say all of that because the compassion for our county workforce that's in this budget is appreciated by this member. I will also say the penny and a half tax increase is modest but very concerning to me. The idea that the average household tax increase would be $638 for me as a starting point is far too high because of the environment that we just spoke about.

[01:05:18] People are going to be losing their jobs, trying to stay in their homes because of a reckless, untargeted attack on the bread and butter of our economy in Fairfax County. And we need to factor that in and help people be able to keep a roof over their head.

[01:05:36] And a part of that is the real estate taxes that flow their way. And so I appreciate all that's been presented. One last thing I do want to mention, going back to the FCPS transfer for a moment. Not only thank you for the revenue sharing piece, but a message to our General Assembly.

[01:05:55] We are here doing our job, sharing proportionally all new revenue for schools to help the schools fund their budget. You mentioned that it's an unknown what's going to happen with the General Assembly. The governor included nothing for Fairfax County Public Schools.

[01:06:11] The Senate and House budgets include a range of number that we're going to be watching very closely. And so we're going to work with our school board members each day to try to get a better understanding of what that number is and to be pressing our General Assembly. It's time, it's way over time for them to do their part to help FCPS too.

[01:06:31] And so as we go through the remaining days of the General Assembly session, working with our legislative committee, Doubtful that a budget is going to be passed on time Unfortunately, Richmond now has a reputation of never passing a budget on time and so we will be left Also trying to figure out what that number is which is also why it's helpful for us to have a little bit more time to deliberate over this and so those are my Starting thoughts on what's going to be a long budget process But again want to thank the staff for the proposal you put forward that I think recognizes the very uncertain times that we're living in right now.

[01:07:08] And with that, I'd be happy to have anyone else give comments. And before I turn it over to my colleagues, the Office of Public Affairs, so that we don't have to waste a lot of time doing this, the Office of Public Affairs, as they always do, will widely advertise all of the budget town halls in each of the magisterial districts across the county.

[01:07:27] So we don't need to announce those there. There will be a comprehensive listing. Tony and his team always do a great job of making people aware of that. and we individually do that as well through our newsletters. And so there will be budget town halls in every magisterial district, in some districts, multiple town hall meetings that will be advertised to the public.

[01:07:48] So with that, I'm going to start on my left, and we'll work our way down. Let me start with Supervisor Jimenez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Hill, for putting this together. I know your team worked very hard, as you do every year on this. Obviously, lots to digest, but I just have a quick question.

[01:08:07] There's over 200 position cuts, and I'm curious to where these positions, how are these positions were identified for cuts? Were they unfilled positions? Were they vacant? If you can just clarify that, that would be helpful. Thank you. Yeah, there's a lot of unfilled.

[01:08:22] There's vacant, and there's a couple that have people in them that we're going to try and move around to other merit positions as well. Supervisor Lusk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will piggyback on the question from Supervisor Jimenez.

[01:08:41] I think I heard you say there's 104 of the 208 that are merit employees scheduled for. I don't believe I said 104. It's less than half.

[01:08:57] We didn't because it changes every day. I just picked the number that I heard. I think it's actually in the 80s right now that are filled. 80s? In the 80s. Okay. Again, that number fluctuates, so we said less than half. Okay. But we can do a budget Q&A for that as well. I appreciate that.

[01:09:13] I would be very curious, and I know in that process you sort of bump people as a part of it, and I'm really thinking about those that might be closer to retirement or that have more tenure in their position in the county and just want to think about how we take care of them.

[01:09:32] And I heard you say the intent is to offer employment for every single one of those merit employees, and I'm supporting that. I think that is the right goal here. I just want to make sure that we're able to do that. And if there's an issue with us being able to do that, just understanding what that number is and where those folks are.

[01:09:51] So I'll look forward to getting that presentation later. The second point I wanted to make is I really feel on the non-residential equalization percentage, and I think we've talked about this many, many times, and this is definitely the elephant in the room, elevator office and what's happening there specifically um i'm surprised too to see this 200,000 square feet of new office space under construction just unbelievable when you think

[01:10:26] about where we were just a few years ago i mean it was easy for the county to do a million two million square feet or more per year so this really indicates the state the status of play today, and it is very disconcerting. I think this tells us the severity of the issue that we have.

[01:10:46] So what this makes me think, and I've said this before, is that you've identified some of the areas that we can think about as it relates to revenue diversification, but I would argue too that we've got to figure out what are we doing with our economic development partners to help us expand both the commercial and the industrial tax base? What are we doing to grow the opportunities?

[01:11:15] How are we attracting more investment into the county to help us bolster up, lift up those percentages? Because I think in the end, it's working on both sides of that ledger, right? We can look at additional taxing authority, but we can also look at how do we push up our revenues by expanding opportunities in those particular areas so just be interested in not giving up methods here but we've got to be thinking about what is the

[01:11:48] strategy what is the thing that we're going to do to address that well if you want an answer for that today I can try to answer in a way where five years ago we created the Department of Economic Initiatives in this proposal we have a TOT increase. I think that, and in concert with the EDA as well as land services or land development services committee meetings, I have a plan that I think that I would like to give to the board in some fashion in the future. But I do think there is a way to do exactly what you just said,

[01:12:28] but it's going to have to be part and parcel of the whole with the EDA and DEI as one, not as two disparate organizations. And that's where my true question lies, is that we've got to come up with a strategy, and that strategy is going to be predicated on the work that's being done by those entities.

[01:12:47] And then we also have to be thinking about our private sector partners and others as well. So it's kind of a collaborative effort in many ways, similar to what was done in the past. And I think we've got a history for things that we've done to try to address that expansion in the past, and I think we can look to that to help instruct what we do here in the future as well. Well, I'm also looking to the CEO group that we just implemented to help us get to the future.

[01:13:17] The past is great. Obviously, we need to understand where we came from before we move forward, but the future is ever-bounding and ever-limitless. The conversations on AI and space and data centers are just out there for us to deal with.

[01:13:34] And it's unfortunate that we're not further advanced in those technologies, but we're going to get there. Yeah, I mean, when I use the reference to the past, it's only indicating that we were in a similar situation and we took steps, similar steps to what you described, to help us get out.

[01:13:51] That's the only reference to the past. Understood. And then I'll say last, you know, I appreciate the effort on affordable housing and acknowledging that as being one of the areas that we certainly want to do more on and acknowledging also for many of the folks who know this is a tough and difficult area for the board and for some of us here in our own districts trying to advance some of these projects.

[01:14:25] And in the end, we know how important they are to address what I would describe as our Achilles heel in some respects. We want to keep our residents here, our young people. We want to help our seniors stay in this community as well.

[01:14:42] And that only happens if there is public investment as well as support. So I do appreciate what is being suggested here in the additional funds to help support that initiative. So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

[01:14:58] Thank you. Supervisor Walkenfeld. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, a sobering presentation, and, you know, I said this last year. I think it's worth noting, again, you know, we are in an era where we have to do more with less, and we're going to be in that era for the foreseeable future.

[01:15:17] Chairman McKay articulated, you know, I think the immediate and dire threat of what's happening at the White House. I think another thing we need to be aware of that is maybe a longer-term risk is the risk that inflation returns.

[01:15:38] And I think that was mentioned. You know, the policies that we have seen, tariffs at least proposed, massive tax cuts not balanced with spending cuts, all have the potential to be very inflationary.

[01:15:55] We're already seeing costs rise. And all of us have been in the position of explaining to our constituents that when costs rise for families and businesses, costs rise for governments too, and we could find ourselves in that situation.

[01:16:13] Again, I'm always careful not to draw hard lines at this point in the budget process because I won't say when it is, but I have a budget town hall where I'll engage with my constituents, I agree with the chairman. The average real estate tax increase included in this proposal is more than I can personally bear, but look forward to engaging through the process on that and other issues.

[01:16:45] I just wanted to go to slide 8 very quickly, and Supervisor Lusk highlighted the challenge with Office Elevator, which obviously continues. If we were searching for a silver lining here, perhaps there is an indication, we've heard this from the EDA and other presentations, that we might have turned a corner with a 9% decline in 25 and a 7% decline in 26.

[01:17:11] And we are doing a lot to address that issue. And I think an important thing for us to communicate is that weak number doesn't suggest weak economic growth or economic development.

[01:17:29] Because we have a lot of economic growth and economic development successes, low unemployment rate. This just reflects the very real reality that those new businesses that are coming here don't use nearly as much office space. And we have more office space than the market can bear, and we're doing a lot to address that, and we have to continue.

[01:17:48] Slide 13, this one I'll make a budget Q&A. I won't ask anyone to answer it right now. I would like to understand the average county general fund contribution per new affordable housing unit that we create.

[01:18:11] Obviously, as we all know, each of these projects includes a mix of funding sources. The county general fund contribution is just one of those, oftentimes not the largest. But I think that would be a useful number for us to understand, perhaps looking just at the 1,149 units that have been delivered.

[01:18:30] What are we getting for each dollar that the general fund provides? Slide 16. Of the 59, let me rephrase that.

[01:18:47] You directed county agencies to identify 10% cuts. Of that 10%, what percent is the $60 million? 3.4%.

[01:19:03] Okay, so got it. All right, good. And slide 17, for either the 3% or 4% food and beverage tax, I think you said you incorporated 3% dealer discount.

[01:19:23] roughly how much is that dealer discount maybe per percent yeah so at a three percent tax it would be about 1.8 million dollars for three percent got it okay yeah you know one thing i'll just note on the food and beverage tax and i think you know the chairman um was headed this direction but the the opportunity that it presents is because basically one percent on the food and average tax is equivalent to 1% on the real estate tax, give or take. It's the potential for a

[01:20:00] permanent 3 or 4 cent reduction in the real estate tax rate, 3 or 4 cents below what that real estate tax rate otherwise would have been. And, you know, we'll have to wrestle with that and discuss with the community whether that's, you know, something that we find has merit over the course of the year. So thank you. Look forward to continued discussions. Thank you. Supervisor Bierman.

[01:20:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work that you've done here, especially looking at agency reductions and working with people who work in the county and bringing it forward in a budget cycle rather than just slashing burning without having anything to do with the appropriation of funds by the legislative body that does it in complete contrast to what's happening across the river.

[01:20:52] It's a tough budget year. It's going to be tough budget years for all of the reasons that the chairman talked about, that Supervisor Walkinshaw talked about, that everybody's talked about. But I wanted to ask a few quick questions. The first question is we had collective bargaining agreements and contracts with FIRE and with our public safety agencies, FIRE and the police.

[01:21:16] Does this fully fund the second year of those contracts? Yes. And the second question I have is on the school transfer, the Richmond has funded a 3% teacher salary increase.

[01:21:37] I shouldn't put it in quotes, but I sort of do because they don't pay all 3%. We pay much of this. Do you believe that the school transfer number that you arrived at would allow us to unlock the dollars from Richmond that it has put towards teacher salary increases?

[01:21:55] When you say unlock, they're going to get, if Richmond approves, a 3% increase. That's coming to us. We have to make up the difference. So, yes, it would be the answer. But the question is, I think they have a collective bargaining agreement that has 7% in it.

[01:22:13] So the 3% is what I would consider, if approved, locked. And then the 4% up is where you, it's all on us. Well, so the reason why I ask is, you know, if we don't fund our portion of the 3%, it's a match.

[01:22:32] So we could leave state dollars on the table if we weren't funding properly. So I just want to make sure that this doesn't leave state dollars on the table. I do not believe this leaves state dollars on the table. Thank you. I also want to know, when it comes to the meals tax, what percentage of each dollar on the meals tax do we predict is paid by people who live outside the county?

[01:22:52] I think it's 44%, if I'm not mistaken. Is that right? I think it's about 34%. 34%. 34%. Okay, so if we were to get $65 million, I just did the math.

[01:23:08] You don't have to do it. I did it for you. $65 million on a 4% meals tax, then $22.1 million of those dollars would be paid by people who don't live in the county, and 43% million would be paid by people who do live in the county.

[01:23:25] Our 1.5% increase on the real estate tax, by chairman's math, was 51 million. So right there, the actual hit to our county, 43 is less than 51. And we would be putting something into the baseline for the future, for future real estate tax relief.

[01:23:43] So I think that is something definitely worth thinking about and something that we should note here, which is one of those taxes hits 100% on our residents and another one of those taxes hits 66% on our residents one seems like a better deal for our residents than the other so I think that's important to understand that's all I have for now thank you thank you and I'm gonna end with our vice chair supervisor Smith so Supervisor Palchuk all right thank you mr. chairman and

[01:24:19] And first of all, I definitely want to start with a thank you to our budget team, to the county executive, to our deputy county executives. I do agree with Supervisor Walkinshaw. This is probably the most sobering budget I've seen in with you, Mr. Hill, since I've been on the side of the dais.

[01:24:39] And there are some difficult things here. I'll try not to repeat, but agree with a couple of points and then ask a couple of, maybe I'm not asking, areas that I will be following and have some concerns with. So number one, I think Supervisor Lusk was maybe reading our mind or on the same page, that as we see here, while we continue to look at a strong economy, I know that beyond the fears of the current federal administration and the impact on both our workforce and our government contracting work is that office does continue to be on the decline

[01:25:18] of office vacancy on the increase. So I think you had percentages in here that are very helpful, about 18 or so percent vacant, 17 percent vacancy, 18 percent, I believe, with subleasing. So I think that's an area where I know that's what I've been hearing from a lot of our offices and our businesses as was mentioned yes even if businesses are moving here they're not looking right at the same square footage I know the EDA and DEI have looked at this so understanding that we have to look at I think understanding how we're going to focus and I know we've had conversations and I've

[01:25:57] them with Rebecca Madry's team on the revenue side on what do we do with the current reality of office and industrial and how do we focus both on the short term and the longer term right I think we have a lot of longer term but what do we do right now with the shorter term how do we focus on trying to have more of that tax base be focused again on commercial which it was before I think these boards started and rely less heavily on our residential homeowners I

[01:26:35] think we all agree on that and that continues to be to me and I believe to the majority of our board our number one area that we need to understand and really have a plan for number two let's go to our favorite topic the The prepared meals tax is, I do believe you have in here, looking at 3% or 4%, and that is understandably for a half a year.

[01:27:02] That's for the 26 budget. So for starting the following year, should it pass, it would be about double of what is being proposed. And so I know you have a lot of ideas on the table, and I believe in addition to hearing some thoughts we've heard mostly about tax relief we also need to look at some of the investments or I'm very focused on some of the cuts that I see very peripherally I mean this is the I don't usually use sports analogies but this is the kickoff of our budget season it is just the beginning so as we work toward

[01:27:41] the end I have some areas that I'm just looking at for the first time that I'll have additional questions on. And some of the big ones, I mean, a lot of the positions, 30 in the health department, 12 in the Department of Family Services, you know, as the chair of Health and Human Services and housing, I appreciate the investment in housing. I have some questions and concerns about the impacts of the cuts that are proposed for human services. And then finally, an additional question is, I think reading through some of this narrative very briefly,

[01:28:14] Some of the cuts, including with the police department and looking at Lorton and some of our other programs like our crossing guards and our middle school programs, are seen as sort of temporary cuts that may need additional investment later. So to me, I want to be careful as we're looking at potential additional revenue sources that we understand what some of those proposed immediate cuts may need, as is mentioned here, in order to not have the impact.

[01:28:47] When we come into next year's budget, we've made a cut, but then we hear, oh, actually, we said to you, we may need to give additional investments, especially to areas like the Lorton Station being filled. So I think definitely this is the beginning of a very difficult season.

[01:29:04] We will have a lot of town halls. I'm not going to give the date, but we'll be back in person. And I'm going to try and appreciate staff working with me to do a virtual one in Spanish in late March. We will do our best. I appreciate their flexibility on that.

[01:29:19] But clearly, there are a lot of difficult and, as was said, sobering questions and a lot of input that is important in order for us to continue to invest both in our workforce and in those community investments that we rely on.

[01:29:35] So thank you for this. Not happy about it, but appreciate the work that's gone into it. Well, thank you for the dialogue. I don't think anybody is happy with this budget. If I can put a happy budget together, I probably would be smiling. But I haven't smiled in about three years on budgeting here in Fairfax County.

[01:29:53] And this is where we are. and we're going to do our best to make sure that we can move forward. I just want to reiterate one thing because Supervisor Palczyk is referencing the agency reductions, and we have that document, but I just want to reiterate the county executive has already done the work of scrubbing through the 10% reduction list and has taken 3.4% of the reductions.

[01:30:20] So 6.6% on average that was submitted in agency reductions has not been taken. And so I just want to make sure folks understand that. Obviously, we're concerned about any reductions, but we also are looking at roughly a third of what was presented to county agencies.

[01:30:38] And I'm making that statement because I know there's a lot of things that were in the 10% that all of us would collectively say no way to. And so I don't want anyone looking at this thinking there are some things they put in that 10% that we're talking about in the $60 million worth of reductions here because it's likely not in here.

[01:30:57] A lot of things were not put in the reduction list that were presented. Supervisor Alcorn. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So thank you, Mr. County Executive and the budget team, as you've heard from others. I know there's a lot of work that went into this. I'm not going to repeat what my colleagues had, but I do want to ask a couple questions, but make one point.

[01:31:19] I'm so glad that this county invested in transit and transit-oriented development over the past few decades because that is the one area where things are still moving. Things are still hopping on the commercial side.

[01:31:38] In my area, the highest leasing rates in the DMV are around the Reston Town Center metro station. So thank goodness, as a county, we invested in that, and it is paying off.

[01:31:55] Just to clarify, and I know this is the case, but the food and beverage tax, that's prepared food and beverages, right? Yes. Okay. Because at the state level, there's a lot of discussion about sales tax on non-prepared food and beverage.

[01:32:18] And we're not talking about this is only prepared food. Thank you for suggesting this be advertised on, I believe, March 18th is the date. I completely support that.

[01:32:33] I think we need to move in the direction of diversifying our local tax base. We are way too dependent on real estate, as I've heard my colleagues say, as I've heard myself say for many years as well.

[01:32:48] This is not a new issue. This is a longstanding issue. And I just point out for at least the Hunter Mill District, roughly a third of the restaurants already have a meals tax in the town of Vienna.

[01:33:04] So, and frankly, Vienna has some of the best restaurants in Fairfax County. So I am very open to moving forward with that. that. And I do, besides the real estate tax, I think also, and this is something I think we'll be discussing, there may be an opportunity, while at the same time relieving real estate tax, to also provide a path forward for meeting our affordable housing goals. Because as we're all aware, and as proposed, we're looking at

[01:33:42] putting a penny, and now a penny and a quarter, on the real estate tax, well, perhaps some of that could come off a future prepared food and beverage tax, which would potentially at least solve a couple of very critical goals for many of us anyway.

[01:34:06] So thank you for doing that. The agency reductions list, thank you for bringing that up. Good discussion on that. You know, by breezing through here just in the last hour or so, we're going to hear from some of our constituents on some of these.

[01:34:24] Some of these are, you know, I want to thank the staff for going through and calling through, but these are not fake. These are real reductions, and many of them are going to require judgment calls on our part on, frankly, whether or not, well, it's just going to require judgment calls because some of these are going to be tough to swallow.

[01:34:55] I do have concerns about increasing the real estate tax rate, as I've heard some of my colleagues as well, and yet another reason why I think looking at the prepared food and beverage tax makes sense. Lastly, I guess this is perhaps something else for us to hear from the public and also the board about in board discussions, But we are seeing the potential for application of new AI tools across county government to increase productivity.

[01:35:31] And I would expect that as part of that process, we'll also see potential for efficiency increases and potentially maybe cost reduction. So as we go through this period of really phenomenal technology improvements that are offered by AI, how we go about that is something I think we probably as a board need to talk more about.

[01:36:01] Is it going to be more one-off or is it going to be a more coordinated effort across agencies and departments? So that's something I'd certainly be interested in seeing happen. Again, not a one-year thing, probably not a two-year thing.

[01:36:18] It's a little bit longer term, but I think the potential for improvements in productivity and efficiency is tremendous. So thank you for your leadership on that issue as well, Mr. County Executive. Well, I appreciate you saying that, because that goes back to a question or a statement that Supervisor Lust made as well as Supervisor Palczyk.

[01:36:40] You know, when I look at AI, I'm looking at augmentation, not necessarily supplanting, but, yes, making it more efficient. And if we're able to do the augmentation and not supplant and make it more efficient, then I have to reskill.

[01:36:57] Again, we talk about compassion of our employees. If we up our game with technology, I need to make sure that they can up their game with the way we do business here. So it's going to be more augmentation than supplanting. But I hear you loud and clear.

[01:37:13] You know, when I think about AI, it's sort of like Uber versus the cabbie. Uber has the map. Anybody can do it. Now the cabbie who had all that institutional knowledge is no longer needed because we – so how do we supplant and augment?

[01:37:30] And I'm working on those types of characteristics with how we move forward. And DIT has done a great job. One last thing, Mr. Chairman. So thank you very much for mentioning DIT. Thank you as well on the IT investments that are here because we may end up in a situation, maybe it shows up in AI, maybe it's some other, where, frankly, there is some investment that's required up front on the capital side to make this real.

[01:37:57] There may be some training requirements and upskilling, but looking at what that means in terms of our long-term burden, long-term costs, long-term productivity is exactly where I think we're going. And thank you for your leadership on that.

[01:38:13] Well, I appreciate that. And, you know, you made a comment on transit-oriented. DMV Moves is working towards making sure that we have a metro system that works well for all of our residents. The teeter-totter, right? So we have layoffs and furloughs with the federal government, but yet we have people coming back to work.

[01:38:34] Metro numbers are higher than they were this time last year. So now we're balancing all this out. How it's going to end up, I have no idea, but we're going to keep fighting until we understand what's happening. Lots of uncertainty. Thank you. Supervisor Stork.

[01:38:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, colleagues, for all your comments. I share most of them. And I wanted to particularly thank you, Mr. Hill, and your staff. This is an amazing amount of work. It starts the day after we probably approve our previous budget or just about.

[01:39:08] And it's a long journey. And as part of that journey, you're assessing not only kind of the projections that you made a year ago and how are they turning out, but you're also doing the same thing now and assessing how you think these are going to turn out. So how do we do basically from last year to this year in terms of what we projected for 2025, the end of 2024 and FY 2025?

[01:39:32] I mean, do you have a sense of that? Are we pretty much on track with what was projected a year ago? And this gives you confidence for the projection that you're making here? I would say yes, but I have a really good person who's a CFO. She's always within 0.1% of the – now she's looking for the numbers.

[01:39:52] Yeah, I was just thinking, and Phil's supposed to bring in my ear, so he might have something to add, but we do present our variance information to the rating agencies every year as part of our December meetings with them. And generally, our variance, both on the revenue side and the expenditure side, is usually right around like the 2% to 3%.

[01:40:09] So we're pretty on target, and we always like to be somewhat conservative because we always want to be under on expenditures and over on revenues. Yes. Excellent. Okay. And I also know that the memo, if you will, the direction that you gave to staff six months or so ago about a potential 10%, what would it look like in your department?

[01:40:32] I think that had a lot of foresight to it. I think it was very important to have done to identify that we can't just rest with where we've been. We have to look and see if there are ways to tighten it up and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of what we do. And as my colleagues have said, I know there's a couple in here I'm not so sure about, but that's the whole point of this, is that you identify what is possible, you surface it to all us, and then as a board, we try to reflect the community's interest and passion and willingness to find things that maybe they value more than the savings that would be generated. And in the end, we all recognize,

[01:41:10] I think, is the number one issue we have facing us is education funding, and frankly, the failure of the General Assembly, even over the last couple of years when they've had major billions of dollars of surplus, they could have funded some of the JLARC study recommendations at a higher level.

[01:41:29] And as a result, we're now facing and dealing with how do we fund education at a level that we recognize needs to be more than what it's been. And on that point, how did you generally determine what the education funding amount that you have in here is. I know in general it was, you talked about a proportional allocation, but I know that the increase overall was, that the revenue increase overall is a little bit higher than what that 50% split is. Maybe you can just identify a little bit what the... Well, it's a combination of things, Supervisor Stork. Thank you for your question. We do realize that educational funding

[01:42:08] is needed here in Fairfax County. I'll also state that I've heard from several board members on the school board that they wanted equal proportion of revenue. We've tried in past years to provide a fully funded budget, whether we had the equal revenue share or not, because we understand the value of education. This year, I just couldn't see a way forward to do it. We've taken $100 million off of the general fund that has impacted the services to our residents. Even when we took off

[01:42:43] the 30 or sorry 40 million last year we still funded the school district to a point where it was about a 170 if I'm not my math is fuzzy math right now we're doing the best we can but that's six years of straight funding their budget unfortunately last year was tough this year is going to be tougher the things that Supervisor Smith has allowed me to do in certain areas or certain areas of her district you'll see an uptick in about three to five years but for us to get out of this there is a short term which is what we're doing today there's a midterm and there's

[01:43:22] going to be a exactly a long term and we have to come together with those strategies to initiate the long term because the short term approach is only going to be year to year to year and I'm trying with the team we're trying to make sure we can balance year to year so we can put some things in place so three and five and ten years from now we don't have the same conversation. I agree with you that I think the steps to take a deep hard look if you will deep dive in our budget is something I've recommended to every agency and recommended to folks my colleagues on the school board etc because I think it's a critical part of how we do things well and do them and find ways to do them

[01:44:00] better so I appreciate your comments on that the the one cut that I'm really struggling with is is how do we take is a public safety improvement in Lorton and not at least continue to make a difference in providing more resources there for the community to take advantage of that facility.

[01:44:24] So I know we'll have more conversations for that, but I have to mention that because I know it's a key part of the community and a key part of what their concerns are that I'm looking to try to address at some level, even while recognizing we don't have the police officers and others to fully maybe staff that station.

[01:44:42] But I want to at least make that point. And then environmentally we have an operational energy strategy that when we talked about an environmental committee meeting four or five months ago, asked specifically then about will we continue to fund that operational energy strategy, will we continue to stay on track to meet that, and does this budget here do both of those?

[01:45:09] Well, let me just say this. We have goals. We're going to be set forth. John, Morrill, and I have developed five strategies to move forward, and we're trying if we can get those five strategies done in this fiscal year or the next fiscal year, then we're going to have ten more to build on that.

[01:45:27] It's a building process. So we're funding a lot in the environment. We're going to continue to fund the environment. Are we going to meet all the goals? That all depends on the industry as well. Yeah. No, I know it's not just up to us. That's for sure. When you talk about Lorton, just to digress, the board has allowed us to move forward data-informed decision-making, utilization rates, utilization capacity building.

[01:45:56] We're using all of these metrics to ensure that we are able to not only support all the residents but also make sure that we can budgetarily take care of the amounts that we need to support that operation. The one thing I will say to you is that we are not looking to not provide service to that area.

[01:46:16] We're going to always provide the services that we need, whether it comes with the Lorton Station next budget year or three budget years from now. It's hypothetical. Our goal is to make sure that every resident in our county has ample public safety.

[01:46:38] Sure, of course. And my last question is, does this budget fund the economic development objectives and initiatives, the things that will continue to enable us to focus and drive and continue the successes that we've had the last really many, many years?

[01:46:56] I think it can with discussions with the board because there is some funding that we could discuss and how to recirculate within DEI as well as the EDA, as well as other opportunities.

[01:47:13] So it's all dependent on how we provide a strategy moving forward. But, yes, I do believe there's some opportunities for us in this budget. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Herity. Yeah, let me join my colleagues in thanking the county executive and staff for the work and the budget.

[01:47:32] I know it's a ton of work to get this together. A couple of quick questions, and I always have you check my quick math, but the average residential real estate assessment went up 6.38, and if you add a 1.5% increase in the tax rate, that means the average homeowner's bill would go up 7.88.

[01:47:57] What I said in this presentation, that it would be the average of $638, if I'm not mistaken. What is that in percentage? I don't know that off the top of my head. I think they know it behind you. Because I always ask it. They're still looking for it, so I don't know yet. Supervisor Herity, Phil Hagen Budget Office, I believe it's 7.59% is the percent increase on that $638.

[01:48:18] Okay, thank you so much. So that's 7.6% basically? Sure. 5.9, 7.6%. And I'm having trouble, I'm having trouble, struggling with the recommendation in here to increase the penny for affordable housing.

[01:48:39] Our population, according to VPAP, from 2020 to 2024 went down about 30,000 people. And I'm struggling to understand, and I know we want to prepare for the future and future job growth.

[01:48:55] We've got lots of openings for people to come here, but struggling with that increase in light of the population decrease. I mean and it's clear taxes are having an impact on our residents because they're they're more leaving than coming still although that rate has slowed I don't know if that's a what I'd like to do is is is ask staff to come back and talk about that population change against our housing and I'm even struggling more because I've got a light tech project that's stuck in zoning and permitting in

[01:49:33] the Fair Oaks that doesn't require county investment so I think we need to take a look at that but let me start by asking we could just kind of take a strategic look at the population change and come back what's driving that what do we think what do we think the answers are and and balance that up against housing needs I know that's a pretty big budget question what I think it's an important one we'll take a look at the demographics of our county there's so many there's so many points of we're gaining we're losing you know there's

[01:50:12] there's so many criteria out there we'll work on that with and look through COGS as well I would ask after this budget meeting or this time if you send me the permit number for your project because I can go look at it okay tell you what's going on with it because of LDS is new plus this FPP yeah I mean Just give me the permit number, and we'll look it up immediately.

[01:50:37] It's zoning. It's zoning, not permitting. No worries. But when you say affordable housing, this board, by a majority, approved us to move forward with 10,000 new homes by 2034. Until this board tells me not to do that, then I am going to continuously push towards that.

[01:50:57] I understand completely. My issue is not with you, Mr. County Executive. No, I wasn't saying it was an issue. I'm just making sure everybody heard the context. I appreciate that very much. I do also appreciate the shout-out to the FY 2010 budget when we cut over $90 million because most of that $90 million was actually out of the alternative budget that I had presented the previous year.

[01:51:21] So what I do have an issue with on the cuts, I think, and, again, I just flipped through it, but half the cuts come out of public safety. We have a reputation in Fairfax County as having a world-class police and fire department.

[01:51:42] It's $26.1 million, which is roughly half of the $60 million. So I'm going to do a lot more digging in that. But to me, police and fire cuts being half of the cuts when public safety is such a big priority, it's something we're very proud of in Fairfax.

[01:52:00] I have a little bit of an issue with It's it's pretty obvious the setup on the meals tax I'm not a fan of single industry taxes. Our residents obviously rejected it twice. We'll see what the community discussion brings It's a it's disappointing that we're going in that direction when we haven't as a board strategically address spending And I'll say what I've said for for four years County executive you've gone in and looked at agency cuts I'm not talking about that.

[01:52:37] I'm talking about this board doing what other boards have done and doing an outside help on a strategic look at our priorities and our spending benchmarking. And I've got a whole list of areas we could look at. We've talked about some of them. But we really need a strategic, you know, the best time to consider those budget reductions and efficiencies and restructions would have been years ago.

[01:53:00] The next best time is to start it later this year because right now we're going to be stuck at line item cuts. But we really need a strategic look at where we're going. And with that, I'll conclude until later. Supervisor Alcorn.

[01:53:15] Yeah, just very quickly. On the county population, I guess our demographic report comes out in March usually. Yeah, I'm just looking at the last one that came out. We only went down one year. That was pandemic year. But we've gone up every year since and every year before. So I'm not sure where those numbers are coming from.

[01:53:33] I'll send you, it was in VPAP just the other day, it was net out migration of 30, and anyway, I'll send you. I'm not supported by our own data. I'm way outdated at this point, so looking forward to the answer to that question.

[01:53:50] I think it'll be an interesting answer because I keep hearing that, but the data doesn't support that. So you can't just keep saying something that's been overtaken by events very clearly statistically. And I'll just say that, you know, $100 million in reductions, $60 million proposed this year, is pretty significant.

[01:54:10] Supervisor Herity, looking forward to your alternative budget this year. The only alternative budgets I can remember that Supervisor Herity presented gutted the FCPS budget. And, in fact, in some years increased county spending by reducing the transfer to schools.

[01:54:25] And this year, you know, the schools are going to have a significant challenge with what is already in this budget. So I look forward to those conversations. Supervisor Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We get to this time of year, and this saying comes to my mind, is that we have a tendency to have a mindset of abundance.

[01:54:47] And sometimes that leads us to make decisions that we can do everything and that our community expects everything. But it really is a time to have a mindset of scarcity and to make, which I appreciate the strategic decisions that the county executive made with the department heads to come up with reductions in the budget.

[01:55:07] And I think this is the hard work facing the board now because we are going to hear from people that don't want things to be cut, and we have to make those tough decisions. And so keeping in mind how do we provide the services we need to this community, knowing that there are probably going to be more people in need, but knowing that we're going to have to make some of these hard decisions moving forward.

[01:55:31] And so I know a lot of work has gone into this to bring us to this point, and we will have discussions with the community. I always try not to say where I am at the budget at this meeting because we just got it today. I want to read the budget. I want to have discussions with the community.

[01:55:48] But my mind is open. My mind is open that we are going to have to make some hard decisions. And so I want to thank you all for your work on this, and I look forward to us doing a lot of hard work. Thank you, Supervisor Smith. just as a reminder for everyone this has been mentioned a couple times but we have three months is a extraordinarily long period of time certainly compared to some years when when we have to adopt a budget is very late this year May 13th and so I think you know for a lot of reasons that's strategic and good knowing that each day comes a new story that affects Fairfax County and gives us the

[01:56:27] ability as best we can to be able to be reactive to that and including pushing back the date by which we have to decide on the advertised rate the high end of the advertised rate and so we got a lot of work to do but we got a good amount of time to do it and as always looking forward to now having the community be able to chew on this and give us some feedback as we progress so thank you excellent presentation again thank the budget staff for an always good job Thank you, sir.

[01:56:57] With that, we're going to move on to our next agenda item, which is board matters. And I have a couple. I actually have two. I'm going to hand the gavel to Supervisor Smith for a moment.

[01:57:13] First, I move to approve without objection the proclamation request listed in this document to be presented inside or outside of the boardroom. and that is a resolution to recognize the Friends of the County Animal Shelter's 20th anniversary, the 50th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, a proclamation to recognize Consumer Affairs Days on March 6, to recognize Arab American Heritage Month in April, and to recognize Small Business Week, May 4th through 10th.

[01:57:40] Without objection, it is so ordered. Thank you. And my next board matter, really important first step in what's going to be a long-term struggle for all of us. And this is offered jointly with our legislative chair, Supervisor Walkinshaw.

[01:57:58] And I apologize that this was not in the clerk's package. But given the day-to-day changes, this is the beginning of, as I said, what's going to be a lot. Fairfax County is home to around 80,000, we now know, 80,000 federal employees and over 3,800 federal contractors.

[01:58:17] Those are not contractor employers. Those are contractors. The federal government has invested over $108 billion in Virginia, making us the largest recipient of congressionally designated federal contracts in the United States of America. In total, 27% of federal contracts go to Virginia's small businesses.

[01:58:37] The federal government invested $41.3 billion in Fairfax County in FY 2024. The Trump administration's goal of reducing the federal workforce, 30% of which are veterans, And shrinking the budget through indiscriminate cuts and without any congressional oversight directly threatens our local, regional, and statewide economies.

[01:59:01] These cuts are being implemented in a way that's causing great uncertainty and fear in our community. All of us have no doubt heard from our constituents, friends, and family about the impact this is having on the people in Fairfax County. Many federal retirees, 150,000 of which live in Virginia, are expressing their uncertainty of how these changes will impact their retirement benefits.

[01:59:24] Many of us have been using our communication channels to express our strong opposition to these cuts, the manner in which they're being conducted, and to connect those who are in need of county services. I'm in regular contact with our federal delegation as well as my counterparts, the mayors and chairs of the region.

[01:59:42] County agencies are also communicating with those who they serve. Last week, Virginia General Assembly Speaker Don Scott announced the creation of the Bipartisan Emergency Committee on the Impacts of Federal Workforce and Funding Reductions. Localities, including Fairfax County, have offered our support to the committee.

[02:00:01] Also last week, Maryland Governor Westmore launched the Federal Public Servants Resources website, which serves as a central hub to help workers connect to state services. Speaker Scott and Governor Moore have both been very vocal in support of both Virginia and Maryland residents who are losing their jobs and under siege daily.

[02:00:24] I'm extremely disappointed that our own governor, Governor Youngkin, has stated he supports these reckless cuts that undermine our entire Virginia economy. It's time for Governor Youngkin and others to show his support for the thousands of Virginians that are having their livelihoods stripped away and whose careers are hanging in the balance every day because of the drastic, reckless steps being taken by the Trump administration and the manner in which they are being taken.

[02:00:50] The least that can be done is to ease the transition by helping connect Virginians who are impacted to state services that they sadly now need. Therefore, I move the Board of Supervisors send the attached letter to Governor Youngkin asking him a simple ask, a simple ask, which is to establish a central resource center for the people and families that are being negatively impacted similar to what Governor Moore has done.

[02:01:17] Virginia needs leadership from the top now while so many are being threatened. Additionally, I ask our Office of Public Affairs to help publicize the related efforts by the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority, including its Workforce Reemployment Action Plan. Second. Seconded by Supervisor Beardley.

[02:01:34] Thank you. I put this forward. You know, this started with the attention that Governor Moore's website was getting, which is very well organized. It speaks directly to Marylanders who are being affected by what's happening in Washington, D.C., and lists the resources that might be available to them.

[02:01:52] Understand that these people are suffering in many different ways. Some of these have worked for the federal government for many, many years. Some of them go day-to-day not knowing if they're going to have a job the next day. Some of them are fearful that their personal information has been shared in a reckless way.

[02:02:11] Some of them don't know what their next steps are going to be because they don't even know what the status of their job is. And the least we can do in Virginia, I think, from the state level, is match what Maryland is doing. At least get the information out there for these people who are under attack to understand what resources are available at a statewide level.

[02:02:31] And I want to give a lot of credit to our county staff. I know the county executive has a team of people looking every day at information that's coming from Washington and how it might affect our county. I know that the EDA has been very outspoken.

[02:02:47] I know that our workforce skills hubs and other centers across the county are very busy, and a lot of work is being done to try to help these folks. But sadly, you know, this is a simple ask. There will be other asks coming forward. I'm not asking the governor to do anything here that Governor Moore hasn't done, which is provide the resources, make a one-stop shop for people who are affected by this to know what those resources are.

[02:03:12] There will be other actions later where we would hope and wish that, frankly, the governor, and I know Supervisor Herity has weighed in on this as well, supporting these cuts at the federal level, that the people who actually represent Virginia and Fairfax County do what their constituents want them to do.

[02:03:30] Just as an electoral reminder, Virginia rejected this. Fairfax County rejected this. Springfield District rejected this. And so it's time for us to stand up for and fight for our constituents who did not vote for this and did not want this.

[02:03:48] And aside from the politics of it, anyone that doesn't recognize the dramatic effects that this can have on so many things in this county. We could talk about federal workers. We can talk about federal contractors, which are being laid off by the thousands. We can talk about benefits that are being cut that won't come to people who need them, whether it's support for kids with intellectual disabilities, whether it's special ed support.

[02:04:14] We're hearing about that all the way down to what we now know is one of the most dramatic cuts that will affect Fairfax County in the reckless USAID siege that's taking place. is the funding for our own Fairfax County Urban Search and Rescue Team, Virginia Task Force One, who will lose most of its funding if these proposals go forward.

[02:04:35] These are the real-world things that people are living with. And I can tell you, and I'm sure most of you agree, I can't go a single place in this county without having a federal worker or a federal contractor, mostly in the private sector, come up to me and tell me what their life is like right now.

[02:04:51] And we did not see in the budget proposal today what the direct economic effects are going to be on us. But I can't think of a single thing in my lifetime that can have a bigger economic, mental health future effect on this region than what is going on right now.

[02:05:11] This economy, everything we just talked about, largely built on our strategic location and our federal government employees and the contractors that are in Fairfax County and serve our people. And so it is critical that we start talking a lot more about this.

[02:05:29] It is critical that the people who represent these people reconsider their positions and actually stand up and fight for their constituents and the bread and butter of our economy. And now is a more important time to do that than ever. And lastly, for our federal employees, not only are we as a board concerned about them and their jobs, but we also understand that most people who work for the federal government, these public servants, have started working for the federal government because, A, they believe in the stability that that job brings and in many cases will take a lower salary because some of the risk to their longevity is reduced.

[02:06:06] So they will work for less. And B, most of them are doing what they're doing because they believe in the mission, the critical mission of their agency. How many federal workers have even come to me and said, Chairman, whether I have a job or not is important, but whether or not I'm able to do what my agency is supposed to be doing for the American public is equally as important.

[02:06:30] And if you don't take my job, but you got all my ability to do all the things that people need, from veteran support to intellectual disability funding to consumer protection to U.S. aid and the work that we do for people who are living under very difficult conditions.

[02:06:48] If we can't do those mission-driven things, why stay? And the only thing I can do is tell them, please stay, because if you don't, you're surrendering, surrendering to a reckless attack pointed directly, directly at the DMV.

[02:07:06] And the idea that our governor is in every day fighting against this, that will destroy, is down there in Richmond with a surplus, playing with our house money that was created because of the federal workforce and the federal contractors in Northern Virginia, and can't even say one word of concern about it, but actually worse, saying, it's okay.

[02:07:30] Or Supervisor Herity who said, you know, if you're going to terminate people, just, you know, do it professionally. It's not being done professionally, Supervisor Herity. Talk to your constituents. There's nothing about what's being done that's professionally. So I'm sorry. You're not going to get away with saying it's okay what's happening, but just be nice to people when you do it because that's not actually what's happening.

[02:07:52] And so the time for us to stand up and fight is now. The very first step is making these resources available to people in an easy way for them to understand. And there will be other steps this board has to take because I, as one, am not going to sit here idle while our economy is deconstructed in a reckless way that will harm long-term people's lives and harm Fairfax County's core economy for potentially decades to come.

[02:08:21] And it's happening each and every day, sadly. So, you know, there will be, as I said, there will be more to come on this. But step one is, let's send this letter to the governor and say, can you please at least make available what state resources are out there for federal workers in the same way Governor Moore in Maryland has done?

[02:08:39] Thank you. Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the facts that has been lost in this discussion is that 30 percent of all federal employees are veterans. The federal government employs a much higher proportion of veterans than the private sector does.

[02:09:01] And a lot of those who are losing their jobs, a lot of those who are being attacked, whose service is being denigrated, are veterans who work in federal agencies, including employees at the VA. And it was reported just yesterday that among the VA employees laid off, fired, were those serving and helping to staff a veterans crisis line.

[02:09:29] Where our veterans who are facing mental health challenges, PTSD as a result of their service, can call and get access to supports. Some of those folks have been fired and laid off. We know that nuclear experts, and it surprises people to know that most of the federal government's experts who protect and manage our nuclear arsenal that has the power to destroy the world thousands of times over, are not in the Pentagon.

[02:10:03] They're at the Department of Energy. Those experts were removed from their jobs. They're now frantically trying to rehire them, I guess. Really dangerous stuff. There's a signed affidavit from a USAID employee who was serving in a very dangerous location overseas, whose wife was pregnant, had complications in her pregnancy, and they requested a medical transport that historically the United States government has always provided to our personnel who are serving overseas.

[02:10:38] If you get hurt, if you're in trouble, we will transport you. That request was denied. These are our constituents in the Braddock District, in the Springfield District, in every district on this dais. And if our governor isn't willing to stand up for them, then we'll have to do it.

[02:11:00] And this request is very modest. We're not even asking the governor to do what I would like him to do, which is utilize the close personal friendship he's developed with President Trump, go down to Mar-a-Lago or wherever he needs to go on the golf course, and tell the president he's wrong.

[02:11:19] That's what we need Governor Youngkin to do. And look, I was on the Hill during sequestration, which had a negative impact on Fairfax County's economy. And I was really proud of the governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia at that time because he did the hard thing.

[02:11:39] He went to members of his own party and said, you're wrong. What you're doing is wrong. You're going about it the wrong way. And it's bad for Virginia. His name was Bob McDonald. I didn't like some other things Bob McDonald did, but he was willing to do that.

[02:11:55] So the question for Governor Yunkin is, to what end have you established such a close relationship with President Trump? Is the purpose of your relationship to perhaps further your political ambition?

[02:12:14] I don't know. Or is the purpose of your relationship to stand up for the people in Virginia that you represent? And I certainly hope, and I'm an optimist eternally, I hope he will choose to stand up for the people he represents and use the relationship he's developed with President Trump to tell the president that he's wrong.

[02:12:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I have Supervisor Jimenez followed by Supervisor Lusk. Well, thank you so much. And Mr. Chairman, this is a very timely board matter. I'm really happy to be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. Walkinshaw, for your comments. Very on point as well.

[02:12:51] Many of us, or some of us on this dais are former federal employees. A lot of us on this dais have friends, families, neighbors that are experiencing this right now. They're experiencing waking up to the unknown, going to work scared, coming home scared, not knowing what will happen next.

[02:13:10] This resource hub is the least we can do, but it needs to happen and it needs to happen now because these impacts are being felt every day. Mr. Walkinshaw mentioned that this is impacting his district and all of our districts. I was leaving church on Sunday and someone came up to me and said, what is Fairfax County doing for its federal workers?

[02:13:30] And that really touches home, right? You can be going to a supermarket, you can be going to a friend's house, and this is being brought up. This is extremely important. We need to be helping our residents during this time. You know, Mr. Walkinshaw touched on the VA and other administrations.

[02:13:47] I really look at, you know, places like NOAA, places like the EPA, where I had been, you know, working hand-in-hand with for over a decade and looking at what's happening to their environmental justice teams and all the hard work they put in and kind of where it is now. And it's one step forward, two steps back. And I feel like right now it's our job and our responsibility sitting up on this dais to do as much as we can. And so, you know, I got a call this morning from someone over at IBW and labor saying how can we be supportive of our federal workers and so we must come together we must be united we must have a voice and so I

[02:14:23] thank you for this board matter mr. chairman thank you supervisor Lusk thank you very much madam vice chairman I'll echo the same comments here from my colleagues appreciate the chairman for bringing this board matter forward this is a real threat to our communities a real threat to our viability and I think I think something needs to be done, and we should have support from our governor on this issue.

[02:14:49] I just want to lift up the point about the resources that are available through the EDA, and I just wanted to express that they've done an exceptional job of cataloging all of the available vacancies that exist in the entire region. There's over 70,000-plus job listings.

[02:15:07] Many of those are right here in Fairfax County. And what I think is amazing is that there are a series of job fairs that they host and there are opportunities for people to kind of come in, meet employers, share their resumes, and get offered jobs sometimes on the spot.

[02:15:24] I've gone to a number of these. I serve on the Northern Virginia Regional Commission as the Total Military Partnership co-chair, and this is one of the areas that we are very, very focused on. And so I just want to lift that up. And anyone that's listening, this is a real place that you can go look for opportunities and would definitely recommend that you do that.

[02:15:46] And, again, just want to thank the chairman for bringing this forward. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Herity. Well, it's really no surprise I'm seeing the board matter in the morning instead of the week before, but it's the kind of thing I've come to expect from the chairman.

[02:16:03] So, you know, to be clear, I do agree with the size and scope. effectiveness of the government. I absolutely agree that we need to address the size, scope, and effectiveness of the government. Do I like the way it's being done? Absolutely not. I was the first one at this dais to put a newsletter out that shared resources with our employees that are potentially impacted. So I, but this is, this is kind of, in creating a centralized hub for workers that will be helpful is something I'm going to support. And, you know, it's a common

[02:16:41] sense thing to do so the thing I don't get is when you want something from a government governor and it's unfortunately become a habit I don't think trashing the governor in the body your board matter followed by asking him to do something is probably not the best strategy I don't agree with much of the board matter but if we can make a couple of small changes in the letter I'm happy to support the letter I think you get a lot further instead of trying to bully

[02:17:18] him we're calling on to say we we crest we request that you create the centralized hub instead of calling on him to create a centralized hub and the last line now is the time to put politics aside when you made the whole thing political in your board matter and he does watch occasionally or gets reports about what's said here I I think you delete the last line and we might actually get something done versus just make a political point so I'm going to move that this letter be amended by changing we are calling on to we we

[02:17:58] request that and deleting the last nine line now is the time to put politics aside in the name of all Virginias across the Commonwealth their future and the Virginia's economist economy economic future is under threat so moved Mr. Chairman I need to get a second I guess it's not friendly no it is not anybody take that as a friendly amendment okay let me make it clear let me wrap up with my comments let me make it clear I I absolutely absolutely

[02:18:34] support the need to do this resource center and I will communicate that on my end but I won't I'm not going to make this a political letter to the governor calling on him to do something. If I may speak on that, given the urgency of the matter, we shouldn't have to call on him or request it.

[02:18:55] It should have already been done. And so I guess a question, Supervisor Herity, since you had time to write a newsletter article saying it's okay if these people get terminated, but do it nicely, have you talked to the governor about putting out resources like Governor Westmore has done? Well, first of all, that's not what my newsletter said.

[02:19:14] Oh, I can read it. I can read it. Your incredible mischaracterization of what I say. Well, I can read it. Would you like me to read it? Go ahead, read it. Just let me pull it up so I can make sure you're not taking a line out of context.

[02:19:30] In many cases, these are our neighbors and friends and have spouses and families who depend on them. In any changes at the federal level or otherwise, they deserve to be treated with respect and gratitude for their service. Is that what's happening? No, that was a statement that they said that they should.

[02:19:48] No, that's your statement, that you should, that you're saying they deserve to be treated with respect and gratitude for their service. They absolutely do. They do? They're being treated right now that way? No, that's not what it says. It says they should be treated. In many cases, these are our neighbors, friends, and spouses that have families to depend on them.

[02:20:06] In any changes at the federal level or otherwise, they deserve to be retreated with respect and gratitude for their service. They absolutely deserve that. And my question is, is that what's happening? No, I said I absolutely – you just heard me say, do I agree with the way it's being done?

[02:20:22] Absolutely not. Supervisor Herity, we can debate the words all we want. No, you're mischaracterizing what I say. No, I'm not, actually. You consistently do it. I'm not mischaracterizing. And I'm not going to sit here and stand for it. Okay, well, you don't have to sit here and stand for it. You could actually do something about it. And you could follow the lead of other governors and other people.

[02:20:40] Frankly, this governor has said not only does he agree with what's happening in Washington, but he has not uttered one word, not one word, to support these federal employees and their contractors who are under siege. He lives in Fairfax County. He knows that our economy is based on federal spending and federal contractors.

[02:21:00] And when we need his leadership most, he's doing nothing. So, yes, we have to call on him to do something. Have you had a conversation with the governor? If the governor understood the magnitude of what it is, you can laugh all you want, Pat. This is not a laughing matter. I'm not laughing. I'm asking if you've had a conversation.

[02:21:16] with the governor. I have. And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. What matters is are you going to stand for your constituents or not? That's what matters. And clearly you have decided in your newsletter, in your own words, to not do that. Now, I understand you're running for statewide office and you want to appeal to people outside of Fairfax County, but the people in Fairfax County who put you in office need your help. So I would like to call for a vote on the motion. Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed?

[02:21:52] Herity abstain. Motion passes 9 to 1. Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. And that is the end of my board matters. I will say there is more to come on this front as we continue our conversations with the EDA and others. I know one of their main concerns, and Supervisor Luss rightfully was pointing out the number of jobs.

[02:22:11] When you go in there and look at them, the number of jobs in there that are contracting jobs tied to USAID, the GSA, OPM, CFPB, the other agencies that are shedding and their contractors left and right canceling contracts with those that number is going down dramatically and it's not going down sadly because the positions are being filled it's going down because the contracts that support those positions are being eliminated and so there's something that we're going to have to pay pay very close attention to as we move forward with that next up in board matters is supervisor Smith thank

[02:22:49] you mr chairman i have one board matter to expand a and a contracting potential use and intensity on april 11 2023 the board of supervisors authorized the consideration of a plan amendment for tax map parcel 32 i'm sorry 33-2 double circle 1 1 to consider warehouse or surface parking for vehicle storage up to 0.35 far with specific considerations related to the environment stormwater and interparcel access on december 3 2024 the board of supervisors expanded the authorization at the applicant's request to include additional uses limiting the contractor's office

[02:23:28] and shop up to 10 000 square feet of gross floor area the site is currently planned for high quality campus style office and industrial flex use up to a maximum intensity of 0.35 far the property is currently vacant and is subject to a concurrent rezoning rz2020-su-005 during review of the rezoning application and after additional market analysis the applicant has requested that the authorization be expanded to consider additional intensity for the contractor's office storage yard therefore mr chairman i move that the board of supervisors direct staff to increase the intensity

[02:24:06] for the potential contractor's office and or shop up to a maximum of 0.35 far with continued consideration of environmental constraints stormwater improvements and viable interpersonal access this motion should not be construed as a favorable recommendation on these applications by the board it does not relieve the applicant from compliance with the provisions of any applicable ordinances regulations or adopted standards this action in no way prejudices the substantive review of the applications. You've heard the motion. It's been seconded by Supervisor Bierman. The chair will second that as well. Any discussion on the motion?

[02:24:42] Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three board matters. The first is recognition of the Northern Virginia Girls softball 30th anniversary. And I won't read the entire board matter i'll just note that their 30th anniversary celebration is taking place on april 5th of this year obviously a significant milestone for the entire community and we'll make sure that

[02:25:16] the board is aware of the details for that event mr chairman i asked unanimous consent that the board recognize and commend the northern virginia girls softball association for its 30 years of service, and dedication to empowering young female athletes. I further move that the Office of Public Affairs, I further ask unanimous consent that the Office of Public Affairs prepare a proclamation to be presented outside the board auditorium in honor of this milestone. And without objection, that is so ordered, Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The next is a joint board matter with you, with Supervisor Lusk, and with Supervisor Bierman regarding the consideration of the

[02:25:55] community safety officer role. In recent years, local governments across the U.S. have explored innovative approaches to enhancing public safety and improving relationships between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. One such approach involves the establishment of community safety officer roles. These non-sworn positions focus on addressing non-emergency incidents, promoting crime prevention strategies, and fostering trust between residents and local government. Community safety officers typically assist with duties such as responding to noise complaints, enforcing parking ordinances, directing traffic, conducting community outreach programs,

[02:26:34] and supporting law enforcement with administrative and logistical tasks. By handling lower-level non-violent incidents and calls, CSOs allow sworn officers to prioritize emergency response and criminal investigations, resulting in more efficient and targeted use of law enforcement resources. Fairfax County's hundreds of dedicated volunteer auxiliary police officers, or APOs, perform similar key roles, including supporting officers at crash and crime scenes, assisting during community events, and more. If established in Fairfax County, the CSO role would not replace

[02:27:13] APOs. While CSOs would have broader authority than APOs, they could work together, especially in fulfilling their community engagement and outreach roles. Additionally, it's possible that the benefits of establishing a CSO position could be realized by expanding the APO program and enhancing the training and responsibilities of APOs. The establishment of a community safety officer role could help further enhance public trust and ensure equitable access to public safety services. Additionally, CSOs could provide valuable support to existing police

[02:27:49] personnel, helping to reduce officer burnout and further improve departmental morale. Given these potential benefits, it's prudent for Fairfax County to examine the feasibility of creating such a program. A comprehensive study would allow the county executive to assess the financial, operational, and community impacts of establishing a community safety officer role, as well as provide recommendations on its scope, training requirements, and integration into existing public safety frameworks. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors direct the county executive to conduct a comprehensive study on the feasibility of

[02:28:26] establishing a community safety officer program in Fairfax County. The study should, one, evaluate the potential roles and responsibilities of CSOs within the county's public safety framework, including whether an expansion of the existing APO program could achieve similar goals.

[02:28:43] Two, assess the financial implications, including cost estimates for training, salaries, and program implementation. Three, analyze the potential impact of the program on public safety outcomes, including community trust and the efficiency of sworn law enforcement personnel. Four, review best practices from other jurisdictions with similar programs. Five, solicit input from key stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies, employee organizations, FCPD officers and employees, community organizations, and residents. Six, determine whether Virginia law currently allows for the creation of such a role, and if not, what legislative changes would

[02:29:22] be necessary. The county executive should return to the safety and security committee with a detailed report with findings and recommendations to the board. Ideally, the update will be scheduled concurrently with the staff update on the pilot school crossing guard program. So moved. Heard the motion. I'm happy to second that along with Supervisor Lusk-Bearman. Discussion on the motion, Supervisor Walkinshaw. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, I just want to be clear here, what I'm asking for is a review and analysis of this as a potential option. I think based on

[02:29:59] experience in other jurisdictions around the country and in our region, it could have some merit. But I don't in any way prejudge the outcome. I have not decided for myself that this would be the right path, but I do think it's worthy of consideration. I've discussed this with the Deputy County Executive for Public Safety with the police chief.

[02:30:23] I've discussed it with PBA leadership, all of whom are open to exploring this, as well as Supervisor Lusk, who are open to exploring this as a potential option for us to consider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Questions or comments?

[02:30:39] Let me start over here. We'll work our way down. Supervisor Lusk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Supervisor Walkinshaw for initiating this opportunity, will acknowledge that this could be helpful as we're trying to address some of the staffing issues too with the police department as a way to you know relieve them of some of these other ancillary duties i also appreciated that we're able to look at the apo program and determine whether or not it could be expanded so that inclusion was one that i fully supported and then

[02:31:18] the last point I'll make is happy that we're able to consider this I think I see Tom's here but I think the idea of bringing it back with the school crossing guard program pilot is kind of important as well we've talked about having that schedule we'll just have to figure out on our agenda for that meeting the inclusion of this item as well but fully supportive of that moving forward so thank you mr. Sherman thank you supervisor Beerman thank you mr.

[02:31:44] chairman uh yes i'm also supportive of getting this information um when i talked to uh supervisor walkinshaw about it um early on i was thinking of certain things where for instance i have a really tough intersection uh georgetown pike balls hill the beltway we've been struggling to get full-time sorry overtime police officers to go out there and direct traffic so the idea was Well, is there somebody else who might potentially be able to direct traffic?

[02:32:15] Also, you know, it actually was during our school crossing guard discussion where, you know, Supervisor Herity and I agreed on something when he said that he worries sometimes about privatizing public safety. We were talking about school crossing guards as something that we might want to outsource, and I don't necessarily think we want to outsource.

[02:32:39] I haven't closed the door on that, but outsourced that, but if we had a different type of officer, a different type of role within our own police department, we might have more opportunities to work on better police force utilization, because we know that your average police officer doesn't necessarily want to be dealing with traffic at Georgetown Pike and the Beltway.

[02:33:02] and so I think that it's very useful to have this information of a potential additional role and how we might want to use it potentially in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Supervisor Palcic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you to the maker of the board matter and them supporting it.

[02:33:21] I also support it. I have probably a friendly amendment if you're open to it. I know we haven't had a chance to discuss this yet, but in addition to the APO, I've been having quite a few conversations with some of our FCPO, sorry, FCPD and others about areas of workforce development, as you're probably aware, right, the gap between perhaps high school graduates interested in a career and then having to go through, you know, college to then go through the program.

[02:33:56] We've had conversations about looking at both the cadet program and perhaps dispatcher programs as possible pathways of training for police officers. So if you're open to just adding in the review in addition to the APO, it can be number seven, or just adding here paths for workforce development to include reviews of our cadet program and dispatcher, and if there are others I'm not aware of.

[02:34:22] But I think there's maybe another, not to complicate it, but another angle to look at our recruitment and retention practices there. I certainly wouldn't have any, I think it's a great point that the CSO role could be one of those paths to recruitment.

[02:34:44] To me, a broader look at paths to advancement from other programs might be a little bit outside of this scope. Perhaps we can ask for it parallel.

[02:35:01] So it's not part of this analysis because I have, I think many of us have visited the criminal justice programs and FCPS and have talked with some of the explorers and cadets and others. And I think we should have a conversation about that, not the least of which is, do we have the capacity to handle the demand for kids who are interested in potentially pursuing this as a career path?

[02:35:24] And then also, you know, they may be strong candidates for a CSO program if one is created. So I think we should parallel ask the workforce development piece. And maybe what we can do is, and Tom is here, we could get an update on recruitment in general, including, you know, some information about, you know, the things that Supervisor Palachuk mentioned, and not the least of which is FCPS's programs that they currently have and the capacity that's there.

[02:35:54] Thank you. Okay. All right. Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Supervisor Walkinshaw and the co-sponsors for bringing this forward. I do want to just very quickly, similar to Supervisor Bierman, I'm very interested in seeing how this might affect our pilot and future of our school crossing guard program.

[02:36:19] And I guess in thinking about that, one of the challenges I know with the school crossing program, the school crossing guard program right now, is it's such a limited time. So you're talking about just, even if somebody is covering more than one school, you're talking maybe two or so hours in the morning, in the afternoon.

[02:36:41] So it doesn't lend itself, obviously, to something that a lot of people would want to do. So I think seeing where there might be some other roles, the first bullet here directs that I think is a great idea.

[02:36:59] I guess my, you know, I'd point out there is something relating to that in the budget cuts that we got from county executives, so we'll see if we hear about that from the community. But I guess I would just ask Supervisor Walsh-Conshaw about timing.

[02:37:19] Like, is this something that might be, you know, might get rolling in the next few months? Or is this, you know, a year? Or any thoughts on that? Well, I think the establishment of such a program, if we went in that direction, would probably be a multi-year process.

[02:37:41] I'll leave the timing of the report back to the deputy county executive and to Supervisor Lusk in terms of the committee. I don't know if the pilot school crossing guard program is already scheduled.

[02:37:58] But I think your point about crossing guards is a good one, and I don't want to oversell the potential here. But to me, it does seem there is the potential for real value in having a group of people who have a set of skills that we know are needed and the requisite licensing certification that could include crossing guard duties, among other things, perhaps that could be a full-time position.

[02:38:30] So they're performing that kind of duty in the morning and in the afternoon, and throughout the rest of the day, perhaps they're assisting sworn police officers with other law enforcement functions, and maybe they're at Georgetown Pike for a little bit of time also. And, Mr. Chairman, just one other thing very quickly.

[02:38:48] So, yeah, and I think this all sounds great, and this is something also with the pilot program for school crossing guards. Let's also be very mindful. We have people that are doing school crossing guard duties now, you know, and a lot of them have chosen to do so because of the specific.

[02:39:06] Maybe it is because of the timing, you know, and the flexibility. So, you know, as we transition any of this, let's make sure that that those folks that we we truly appreciate the service that they provide currently. And, you know, we basically are going to make sure that, if anything, it's just an improvement in their options, perhaps, for what they do as we go through this process.

[02:39:30] And I think we all agree that, you know, having a sworn police officer with all of the training and all of the equipment performing crossing guard duty, as happens every day of the week across this county, is not where we want to be.

[02:39:46] Absolutely. And maybe this is a path to help with that. Yeah, and I think it is a good conversation relative to the crossing guards, because one of the other things is I don't think most folks understand the demands that are placed on people who go through the APO unit. I mean, these are fully sworn officers.

[02:40:03] They go through extensive training. There's a huge commitment of time on their part, a huge commitment from the county in terms of supporting the program. but there's not really an entry point for people who maybe don't want to go in that deep but want to be involved in some level of public safety service to the community and so there is a gap there you know from the volunteer opportunities that are out there now to you know where we are and what we need from crossing guards and so I do think there's an opportunity here to feel potentially maybe to fill that void but the APO program is is is robust and the

[02:40:41] qualifications for it are significant and the training is significant and the liability associated with it is significant and so I really look forward to a conversation of is there something short of that that people can can really make a meaningful difference and supervisor Hariti yeah kind of echo on that happening we get the APS basically volunteers and we whatever we do here we don't want to make sure want to make sure we don't lose that and I would It's include in a look the impact, if any, on the crime rate in the jurisdictions that have adopted this model.

[02:41:17] I mean, I think that's something that we certainly ought to look at, what the impact on actual crime rates are. And I assume we're getting an update at the next public safety meeting on the recruiting and retention efforts for crossing guards.

[02:41:33] Do we know when that's coming back to us? We're still working on that, so Tom and I can, or unless, Tom, are you ready to announce it now? Tom Arnold, Deputy County Executive, that's going through the RFP process, so that's being finalized, so we haven't selected a vendor yet, so once that's selected, it'll depend on when it lines up with school, whether it's in session or not, so our anticipation was it would be towards the end of calendar year 25 of everything successful with getting the RFP out and soliciting.

[02:42:11] Excuse me, Supervisor. My question was, what are we doing, I know there's an RFP out there, but what are we doing to recruit and retain our current crossing guards? Is there an update on that? Because there were some ideas that were thrown out by the board, and I think it was a board action.

[02:42:29] Correct. And that's what we report back with the pilot would be that the district supervisors were directed to continue looking at opportunities and what we can do with recruiting with regards to salary, which they confirmed with DHR. The salary range is within the correct range, so the compensation is not an issue.

[02:42:45] They were looking at the recruitment options, and there still are oftentimes what we found is it is still better off handled at the district station level versus the county level based on the location of many of the places the crossing guards live in relation to the district they serve.

[02:43:02] But that will come back with our recommendations on the pilot, which is included in outsourcing. Okay. Any other discussion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye.

[02:43:18] Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. Supervisor Walkinshaw. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My final board matter is a motion to authorize partial waiver of special permit fees for HITREPS LLC, doing business at 643. Mr. Chairman, HITREPS LLC has leased space at 8600 Morrissette Drive, Suite C, Springfield in the I-4 district to open a facility for girls softball training and development.

[02:43:45] Later today, we will vote on a motion to adopt a resolution and include consideration of an amendment to the zoning ordinance definition concerning this type of use and providing additional clarity regarding the use definition for this and similar facilities. Given the unusual circumstances and that the Board will be asked to consider amendments to clarify the use definition, I believe that a partial fee waiver is warranted.

[02:44:10] Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors authorize a reduction of the special permit fee to $1,295 for HITREPS LLC doing business as 643. I further move that scheduling of this application be expedited to the extent possible.

[02:44:28] This motion should not be construed as a favorable recommendation on these applications by the Board and does not relieve the applicant from compliance with the provisions of any applicable ordinances, regulations, or adopted standards. This action in no way prejudices the substantive review of the applications.

[02:44:46] So move. Second. Second that. A lot of people second that. Discussion. Supervisor Wattershoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I've discussed this with everybody on the board. It is a very unique set of circumstances. And as I noted, I think our action later today will prevent this unique set of circumstances from happening again in the future.

[02:45:10] Thank you. Thank you. important to note how unique this is and that County Attorney was consulted clearly on the motion and it's a unique circumstance to say the least all those in favor of the motion please say aye aye any opposed any abstentions that motion carries and supervisor Walker that's it thank you okay Supervisor Beerman no board matters thank you thank you Supervisor Beerman Supervisor Lusk okay thank you mr. chairman first up is an announcement on the workforce

[02:45:45] innovation skills hub wish job fair pleased to announce the wish will be partnering with DPR construction and ANOVA to host a job there on February 19th from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the hyper Valley Community Center this event will provide residents with valuable opportunities to connect with potential employers and learn about available job openings and apprenticeships with the ongoing construction of the new ANOVA Hospital Franconia Springfield facility many of the opportunities available at the job fair will be related to the hospital's construction this event supports the community by creating job

[02:46:23] opportunities for those seeking employment and experience I also want to acknowledge the wish for offering classes related to construction trades equipping students with essential labor skills and providing various other workforce development programs at the center these programs give students the opportunity to gain hands-on experience in construction and other skilled trades while registration is not required we urge residents to register for the job fair by using the QR code provided on the flyer which is attached for your reference thank you mr. chairman thank you very much supervisor Lusk and that's

[02:47:00] an announcement so thank you yes sir and then second I have a joint matter which is with you chairman McKay this is a proclamation to request the honoring of the 200th anniversary of historic Huntley throughout my time in office I've had the pleasure of visiting historic Huntley it is a preserved home of the Mason family originally built by Thomas F Mason the grandson of George Mason the 4th. After a series of ownership changes, it was purchased by the Harrison family for use as a

[02:47:35] dairy farm. The road historic Huntley rests on was named after Albert W. Harrison. The site has been a local attraction for all visitors, but especially lovers of history. At the site, you can learn about the main house, which is on the National Registry of Historic Places, but you can also see the tenant house, two outbuildings, a carriageway, an ice well, and the remains of a spring house. The site has a fascinating Civil War history displayed on kiosks around the grounds. This historic building dates back to 1825, with several additions and alterations

[02:48:15] occurring over the years. Park Authority purchased the building and the approximate three acres it rests on in 1989. Historic Huntley truly came into form when restoration of the site began in 2010. Thanks in large part to the work of the Friends of Historic Huntley, who worked diligently with the Park Authority over a 20-year period to ensure the restoration went forward. Thanks to the Park Authority and the Friends of Historic Huntley, this preserved home is an incredible site to learn about our history as this is the 200th anniversary of the building of

[02:48:51] Historic Huntley. It is also appropriate that we honor the preservation of this building through the actions of the Park Authority and the Friends of Historic Huntley. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move without objection that the Board of Supervisors direct the Office of Public Affairs to prepare a proclamation for presentation outside the board to acknowledge the contributions of the Park Authority and Friends of Historic Huntley on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the building of historic Huntley so moved and without objection that is so ordered supervisor loss thank you for bringing this forward and we in

[02:49:27] the proclamation want to also acknowledge the restoration in 2010 was only done thanks to a huge amount of federal grant support that came from the federal government so we just want to make sure we capture that because it was the diligence and hard work of the friends of historic Huntley but the financial instrument was federal funding and I'll also note in your office as well as in my office in our lobbies we have a nice prominent photo depiction of historic only beautiful yep thank you mr. chairman and then the last item is I'll just note we heard the budget presentation today

[02:50:03] by county executive so thank you again for that I'll just announce personally that I will be hosting a virtual public town hall on April 1st 2025 it will be televised on Channel 16 and also streamed online and staff from the Department of Management and Budget will join me to hear community concerns and comments and to address questions in advance of the public hearings that will begin on April 22nd 2025 we've also asked that our school board representative Marcia

[02:50:39] St. John Cunning also join us so for those who can attend that we will look forward to seeing you there thank you thank you supervisor Luskin we'll make sure that's on the on the list of the town halls excellent supervisor Alcorn no board matters thank you supervisor Alcorn supervisor Jimenez mr. chairman is with mixed emotion and acknowledging the retirement of miss Myung Suk Lee the beloved owner of gamba who restaurant a

[02:51:07] A treasured Korean restaurant located in Annandale, Ms. Lee has been a part of the fabric of our community, offering delicious, authentic Korean cuisine and providing a gathering space for residents to connect over food for many years. Real quick, I've been there many times, and when you go and you sit down, there's a picture of a bear, and that picture of the bear in the window is her husband.

[02:51:30] It's a great story, but Gumbawu has been a cornerstone of Mason District for many years and stands as a testament to the cultural diversity that defines the vibrant area. The restaurant has not only served as a place for Korean-American families to celebrate their heritage, but has also introduced the broader community to the rich flavors and traditions of Korean cuisine.

[02:51:50] Ms. Lee's work has made a lasting impact on the culinary scene in Fairfax County, helping establish Mason District as a cultural hub within the county. After decades of bringing joy and connection to so many, Ms. Lee will close the doors of the Gang Ba Woo for the final time on Sunday, February 23rd, 2025.

[02:52:08] In recognition of her many years of service and the immeasurable contributions she has made to our community, I move without objection that the Board of Supervisors issue a proclamation honoring Ms. Myung Suk Lee and the legacy of Gang Ba Woo. To be presented outside of the boardroom, we encourage the community to join us in celebrating Ms. Lee's remarkable career and the lasting impact she has had on the people of Annandale and beyond.

[02:52:31] Without objection, that is so ordered, and this also tells us we have five days to get in there before it closes one last time, so thank you, Supervisor Jimenez. Is that all? Yes. Excellent. Thank you. Next up is Supervisor Stork.

[02:52:49] Ah, we'll come back to Supervisor Stork. Supervisor Palchik. No board matters, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Supervisor Palchik. Supervisor Herity. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have two board matters. The first one is to recognize Autism Acceptance Month. April is National Autism Acceptance Month, promoting acceptance for individuals on the autism spectrum.

[02:53:10] One in 36 children in the United States and more than 5.4 million American adults are on the autism spectrum, including over 155,000 Virginians. Diagnosis of autism have increased over the last five years nationwide, which some researchers attribute to the increased awareness of autism.

[02:53:30] And I'm going to not go through the rest of these, but we've got some great organizations like Service Source Fellows Programs and others that are dedicated to the mission of promoting gainful employment and services for those on the autism spectrum.

[02:53:45] And at our CEO meeting, it was interesting to hear some of the work they're actually doing in our intelligence community and national offense. So with that, Mr. Chairman, without objection, I ask we prepare a proclamation that recognizes April 2, 2025 as Autism Awareness Day and celebrates April as Autism Acceptance Month and encourages all citizens to exercise respect and compassion for our relatives, friends, coworkers, and fellow Americans on the autism spectrum.

[02:54:18] The resolution will be presented to ServiceSource, a dedicated community partner serving the needs of residents on the autism spectrum, and I further ask the proclamation to include recognition of the unique challenges faced by individuals with autism, and that it reaffirms the commitment of this board to encourage business and employers to utilize existing incentives and strategies to assist them in hiring persons with autism.

[02:54:42] And without objection, that is so ordered, but discussion, Supervisor Smith. I really appreciate you bringing this forward, and the discussion in the CEO meeting was really very eye-opening. But to me, there's one thing that's missing, and it's awkward, I guess, because it's a resolution we're doing. But you talk about businesses and employers.

[02:55:04] I would hope our county government, Fairfax County government, is doing this work, too, in hiring people that are neurodiverse. And I don't know if there's a way to add that in here, but I wanted my voice to say that it just can't be other businesses and employers. It needs to be us.

[02:55:20] I think you just did, and we'll figure a way to add that in there. All right, thank you. Any further discussion on that? Supervisor Herdy. The second one is jointly with Chairman McKay, Supervisor Smith, and Supervisor Stork on reaffirming our commitment to the downzoning of the Occoquan watershed.

[02:55:38] On July 26, 1982, Fairfax County Board of Supervisors downed approximately 41,000 acres in the Occoquan Basin to a maximum density of one house per five acres and imposed water supply protection controls on approximately 64,500 acres.

[02:55:55] This action was taken to protect the Occoquan Watershed and the Occoquan Reservoir that supplied drinking water to 600,000 people in northern Virginia from the effects of non-point source pollution. The decision was challenged and upheld by Fairfax County Circuit Court in 1985, preserving the zoning that helps protect the reservoir and reforcing the ability of our local governments in Virginia to implement comprehensive plans and effectively plan for the future.

[02:56:24] Fairfax County has continued to protect and restore this vital natural resource through the implementation of stormwater management projects. The Board has welcomed the diversity of agritourism uses that are in keeping with the tradition and heritage of the area, and at the same time continues to preserve the downzoning and protect the water quality of our streams.

[02:56:44] The Occoquan Reservoir provides safe drinking water for over 1 million Northern Virginia residents. Concerns from Fairfax Water on increased salinization in sediments that may impact the watershed and make it crucial for our Board to officially reaffirm our stance as leaders and stewards of this watershed.

[02:57:04] In addition, we continue to be concerned about the per- and polyfluorichide PFAS, known as forever chemicals polluting the Occoquan. As a critical source of our region's drinking water, it is important Fairfax County to protect the Occoquan from further PFAS pollution and urge our neighbors in Prince William County to do the same.

[02:57:25] In 2016 and most recently, in 2022, we asked our board to reaffirm its commitment to the downzoning of the watershed The latest reaffirmation motion jointly proposed with Supervisor Smith and Storck and Chairman Kay passed unanimously and promoted long-term resource planning and improved the capabilities of local government to protect the water quality of our streams.

[02:57:50] The current board has two members that were not on the board in 2022. The county regularly receives inquiries about changing the zoning in the Occoquan watershed. Trust me, I'd get them. It would be great to develop this. Anyway, on a regular basis, members of the Aquan Watershed Coalition have requested that the board again reaffirm our commitment to the watershed.

[02:58:12] I believe it's important for this board to do that. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move the Board of Supervisors on behalf of all citizens of Fairfax County reaffirm its commitment to the continued efforts by the county and related agencies and residents to protect and preserve this critical natural resource for future generations, just as the previous board did in 2022.

[02:58:33] So moved. And it's been multiply seconded as the the board matter points out this has been the county board policy since 1982 And so I just you know want to be clear legally. We're Cementing and saying again, that's still our policy, but we're not changing anything. This is symbolic But the law still in Fairfax County supports what this what the action was done in 1982 and reaffirmed in court in 1985 and that has not changed since then Supervisor Walkinshaw.

[02:59:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I think the board knows, a portion of the down zone areas in the Braddock District, relatively small portion. And like Supervisor Herdy, I somewhat regularly hear from folks saying, wouldn't it be great to develop this or allow a sewer connection here?

[02:59:23] So I think this is an important reminder. I will remind us that one of those groups that said, wouldn't it be great to develop this portion of the Icahuan down zone, which happened to be in the Braddock District, was the Sports Tourism Task Force when it identified the GMU-Shirley Gate property for the potential location of a 200,000-square-foot indoor court facility or 100,000-square-foot natatorium or 150,000-square-foot indoor track.

[02:59:53] So sometimes in our zeal to pursue important goals, we might lose sight of this policy, so I'm glad that we have this reminder today. Thank you, Supervisor Walkinshaw. Any further discussion? Seeing and hearing none.

[03:00:08] All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. Supervisor Harry. That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Let me go back. Supervisor Stork, did you have any board matters?

[03:00:24] No, sir. Just a reminder that we have our virtual budget meeting, which I know all of us do. But in this particular instance, we have our virtual Wednesday, February 19th, which means tomorrow, will be the first one. So I particularly wanted to remind everybody that we've got the activity and people.

[03:00:43] Obviously, anybody can join us, but it's a virtual budget meeting, and it is tomorrow night, 7 o'clock. Thank you. Thank you very much, Supervisor Stork. And that brings us to the end of board matters and takes us to admin items. And let me ask, Supervisor Smith, is there a motion to approve admin items 1 through 5?

[03:01:05] I move approval of Admin Items 1 through 5. And the Chair will second that, along with Supervisor Palczyk. Are there any Admin Items Board members would like to pull, either for a separate vote or discussion? Supervisor Smith. I would like to pull Admin Item 3 for a separate vote, please.

[03:01:21] Pull Admin Item 3 for a separate vote. Supervisor Alcorn. Yeah, just a comment on Admin 4. Just a comment on Admin 4. And Admin 4 is authorization to advertise a public hearing on proposed amendments to Fairfax County Code Chapter 12, Tenant-Landlord Relations.

[03:01:41] And we have staff here for this item. Supervisor Alcorn. Yeah, thank you very much. I think this is, you know, given the amount of activity and the lack of activity during the last few years, this probably makes sense. However, there have been historically, we just haven't done it for the last few years, some policy-related things that have been an issue for discussion at the Tenant Landlord Commission because they have played a role I would say almost in generating some of the issues relating to advocacy

[03:02:16] that this board has done in Richmond in particular with tenant landlord issues over the years so I would just want to make sure and we'll obviously hear from the public when we you know have the public hearing but I would want to make sure that that there still is a process for you know at some point whether it's a legislative committee or or somewhere for discussing those issues because I you know we do have tenant landlord issues and the department does a great job you know working through the complaints and the questions and the issues that we get but but I just want to make sure we don't lose the policy

[03:02:54] pieces - let me ask there's anyone on staff who wants to respond to that don't have to obviously we have a public hearing that this is authorization to hold a public hearing on this subject. Yes Rebecca Makley director of the Department of Cable and Consumer Services and yes to Supervisor Alcorn's point the Department of Cable and Consumer Services regularly regularly reviews all the legislative bills associated with tenant landlord issues and we do you know obviously coordinate with government relations on providing our responses to those and we also can keep the board abreast of any changes that we feel would be necessary in the tenant landlord environment yeah that that's fine

[03:03:34] sometimes the changes don't come from staff sometimes they come from the community sometimes they come you know from board members or people that we ask you know that watch these issues as well i just want to make sure that's still an option yeah i think uh one of the things we should do um when we bring this back for public hearing is acknowledge the work that's done in this space by different county agencies, because it's not just one.

[03:03:59] But then also, I know, for example, I meet, and I think most of us regularly meet, with the Tenant Workers United, and they didn't exist. I mean, they existed, but they weren't active in Fairfax County for a long time, and they bring forward some of the ideas that may have historically been brought forward by this commission in the past, too.

[03:04:18] So we do have some other active groups that weren't in existence before that you know we obviously regularly interface with but maybe a look at what other organizations are out there both internal and external to the county before we have to act on this after the public hearing supervisor walk and jaw okay any other questions on that item seeing and hearing none what we are doing is we are voting on admin items make sure we have this right admin items 1, 2, 4, and 5. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

[03:04:58] That motion carries. Admin 3 is authorization to advertise public hearings on a proposed zoning ordinance amendment regarding minor and editorial revisions and changes to reflect Virginia Code Update. Supervisor Smith. Thank you. With regard to administrative item number 3, the zoning administrator has recently identified the need to amend the definition of small and large health and exercise facilities. There has been confusion on these uses, specifically involving sports-related instruction and amending the definition will clarify and ensure consistent application of the provisions. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board authorize

[03:05:34] advertisement of public hearings on Admin Item 3 by adopting the resolution and including clarifying revisions to the small and large health and exercise facility definitions. I'm happy to second that motion. We heard about this a moment ago. Any discussion on the motion?

[03:05:51] Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of that motion for Admin 3, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. And that's the end of admin items. For action items, we have Action Item 1, Approval of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and Clean Air Partners for the Electric Lawn Tools Promotion.

[03:06:14] and Gas Lawn Tools Exchange Program, Supervisor Smith. I move approval of the county executive's recommendation. You've heard the motion. It's been seconded by Supervisor Lusk and Palchek. Any discussion on the motion? Supervisor Palchek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[03:06:31] I just, first of all, want to thank the staff and the county executive for bringing this forward. I've had some questions, and I see Matt Myers, and I believe that's Katie, are here. I just wanted to, if you could clarify, because I know we haven't had the opportunity to discuss this in committee.

[03:06:47] It's very exciting, but if you could clarify what the funding would be used for and what has already been worked out versus what still needs to be worked out in the MOU, both to the partnership and to the scope of participation.

[03:07:04] Good afternoon. Matt Myers, Division Manager with the Office of Environmental and Energy Coordination. The proposed work is still part of this. If the MMU is agreed upon, we'd be working with clean air partners to develop a plan.

[03:07:21] They're scheduled to have the Air Quality Awareness Week this year on April 28th to May 4th, and that's when our first on-the-ground event would be. And so we'd be building on their existing programs to the lawn equipment exchange as well as education outreach about the program.

[03:07:43] Excellent. And finally, can you just clarify? Is it expected to be a one-to-one exchange? So for each gas-powered, one electric one would be... That's right. The current program is a one-to-one exchange. If you bring in a gas lawnmower, you exchange it for an electric lawnmower. Excellent.

[03:07:59] Thank you very much. Okay. Any further discussions? Supervisor Lusk. Yep. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to express my own excitement and support of the approval of this MOU. This will help both Fairfax County, the region, through its efforts with COG to achieve our environmental goals and educate our residents about ways to reduce harmful emissions. So thank you very much for this. Thank you, Supervisor Lusk. Supervisor Harity. Yes, just a quick question before a comment and probably a substitute motion. What would the impact of a three-month delay be on the results of

[03:08:37] the program? I know there's a planned advertisement of this in April, but if we delayed this till for three months, what would the impact be on the air quality results? The proposed funding for this is existing funding that was previously approved that will be allocated. So it hasn't been dedicated for a specific project, but this would dedicated those previously approved funds for this MOU. So if you delayed spending that for three months, what would the impact be? Missing the opportunity to bring this program to Fairfax

[03:09:16] County during the Air Quality Awareness Week on April 28th and May 4th. Could it be done at another time? The MOU does have flexibility to extend multiple years using that existing $200,000.

[03:09:32] Okay. We just heard a pretty difficult budget presentation, and this is $200,000, And I'll just I haven't had a chance to go through agency reductions yet, but there are a lot of them I just flipped to what page that I flipped to page 54 I think and you know, we're discontinuing the difference differently abled driving program where we helped those with intellectual Disabilities we just talked about that's forty six thousand dollars that we are going to discontinue that program We are look at considering sorry. We haven't we haven't adopted it yet

[03:10:08] We are considering eliminating the child seat safety inspection and installation program, which we all know how popular that is That's forty five thousand dollars their public safety tool that Reminds us what a great job that our police department is doing is a hundred and forty four thousand That's on the chopping block Reducing our police training and travel budgets, you know again under two hundred thousand dollars I you know, this is this is a great program and all programs are great

[03:10:42] And I know this pro this this funding exists, but we're gonna sit here and allocate two hundred thousand dollars to a program I would I would move a substitute motion and it probably won't get a second but a substitute motion that we delay this until after the after the budget public hearing in the budgets decided and that would be a Budget consideration item for 200,000 we could balance with the many other things that we're going to need to look at in this budget dies for lack of a second supervisor walk-in show

[03:11:20] Thank You mr. Chairman, you know a couple points this comes out as the board item notes a 2021 board matter where we committed as a board to encouraging this transition across Fairfax County And, you know, gas-powered lawn equipment have a lot of negative impacts.

[03:11:37] If you're someone who, you know, believes in climate and climate change issues, you recognize the importance of it. Even if you don't, the air quality impacts, the health impacts on folks in our community are very significant.

[03:11:55] And we've made a lot of progress across the county, by the way. FCPA, Park Authority, has phased out gas-powered equipment at their properties. We're working to encourage county contractors to make the transition. This is an existing program that, by the way, Clean Air Partners has already executed successfully and works.

[03:12:15] With respect to the budget issues and budget reductions, two points I'll make. One, this is authorization of up to $200,000. It's a one-time authorization for up to $200,000. And among the reductions that Supervisor Herity didn't mention are reductions to this very fund, the Office of Energy and Environmental Coordination.

[03:12:40] So there will be cuts in these environmental programs as well. But this is one-time funding. It's consistent with our policy as a board. And I think we should move forward.

[03:12:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just one follow-up question, and then Supervisor Alcorn. The board matter does mention that in May of 2024, we worked with, as was acknowledged, the Clean Air Partners, a nonprofit organization, and COG to publicize this event.

[03:13:11] So we're out there publicly advertising, telling people to do this. Would an effect on a delay mean we would be turning people away from the very thing that we've been advertising? Clean Air Partners is scheduled to have events this year on their own.

[03:13:29] This, again, will just bolster and bring that opportunity into Fairfax County and provide additional exchange for Fairfax County residents. So they have limited capacity. We're supplementing that, and so it could be very likely that we're out promoting this program, advertising it.

[03:13:45] And if we're not providing the resource that we're advertising, we potentially could be either turning people away or telling them, hang out and wait three months for government to catch up. Okay. Supervisor Alcorn. Thank you. Supervisor Walkinshaw said most of what I was going to say about one-time funding and the long-time policy position of the board.

[03:14:06] And I would just also remind everybody that this really was a compromise because, you know, at the time we were talking about gas-powered leaf blowers, which is one type of law agreement, and we were talking about a ban and, you know, trying to figure out.

[03:14:22] And this doesn't go that far, but it helps transition to the time when they're no longer necessary. which is something I enthusiastically support. And frankly, I hear about this a lot in my office. And it's, you know, occasionally I'll hear about climate concerns, but it's mostly noise.

[03:14:42] So this is, it doesn't get any more local than this. So I'm glad we're moving forward. Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Galkorn. Any further discussions? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

[03:14:58] Herity abstains. Herity abstains. That motion carries. Action 2 is resolution to support the abandonment in addition of portions of Waples Mill Road in the Springfield District. Supervisor Herdy. Move approval of the county executive's recommendation.

[03:15:17] Any discussion on the item? Seeing and hearing none. It was seconded by Supervisor Beerman. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That motion carries. Action item number three is resolution to support the abandonment of Dunloring School Route 9133 in the Providence District, Supervisor Palchuk.

[03:15:38] Mr. Chairman, I move to approve the county executive's recommendation. You've heard the motion. I'm happy to second that. Discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries 9-0, Supervisor Herity being absent.

[03:15:58] Action item number four is authorization to make loans to affiliates of Wellington Development Partners of up to $9,400,000 to finance the development of Agape Chantilly House Phase 1 in the Sully District, Supervisor Smith. I move approval of the county executive's recommendations.

[03:16:15] It's been moved and multiply seconded enthusiastically. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion, two carries, nine to zero. Supervisor Herity being absent. And I have confirmed with the county attorney's office, this almost never happens, but there is no need for closed session today. And our first public hearings this afternoon begin at 3.30. So the board will recess for lunch, report back here to

[03:16:50] the board auditorium itself for public hearings at 3 30 and with that the board

[03:16:56] will recess all right the board is back from our lunch break and we did not have

[05:55:35] a closed session so there are no motions needed to bring the board out of closed session however I do want to share some of the rules for public hearings as we begin our public hearings this afternoon as a reminder individuals wishing to provide testimony, had a number of options. They can testify here in person, or they can provide testimony by phone or by YouTube video. At the designated point in the public hearing, I will call for any speakers from the speakers list, and they will either come forward or their video will be shown, or they will be connected by telephone. There will then be an opportunity for anyone else

[05:56:10] who would like to speak to the matter to come down to the podium or to call in at 703-324-1020. As a reminder, speakers testifying by video must have signed up and submitted their video no later than 9 a.m. on the day prior to the hearing.

[05:56:27] For public testimony, you're given three minutes to speak as an individual. If you're a spokesperson for a group, you are given five minutes. This afternoon, we only have four public hearings to be followed by public comment period, which is scheduled to begin at 4 o'clock.

[05:56:44] And with that, I will call our first public hearing, which is a public hearing on RZ2020-PR-015, concurrent with PCA78-P-137-05, ANA Flint Hill 4, LLC, and ANA Flint Hill 1, LLC in the Providence District.

[05:57:06] And could the applicant please reaffirm the affidavit? Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Gill, and I reaffirm the AFA dated, originally dated October 30, 2024, and reaffirmed most recently February 4, 2025. Excellent. Thank you very much.

[05:57:22] Are there any disclosures from board members? Any disclosures from board members? Seeing and hearing none, I will now recognize county staff for a staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Daniel Cree with the Department of Planning and Development. The applicant, ANA Flint Hill 4, LLC, and ANA Flint Hill 1, LLC, It seeks to rezone approximately 14.63 acres from the PDC District to the PDH-20 District to permit a residential development with a mix of multifamily triplex units and single-family attached units.

[05:57:55] The subject site represents a portion of an existing office park, Flint Hill. The applicant has also requested a proper condition amendment to amend the governing approval to delete the land area. The 14.63-acre subject site, Zone PDC, is located in the Flint Hill Suburban Center within the Providence Magisterial District.

[05:58:16] The site is southwest of Germantown Road, west of Rosehaven Street, and Cambridge Road, and north of Arrowhead Drive. The site is developed as an office park, which includes two mid-rise office towers and associated surface parking. The properties to the north and south are also subject to pending rezoning applications for residential redevelopment.

[05:58:39] Flynn Hill 3 to the north is currently under review with a planning commission hearing scheduled in June of 2025. The property to the south, Redwood, is being heard this afternoon. The applicant seeks to redevelop the property by replacing the two existing office towers with a combination of single-family attached and multifamily triplex residential units.

[05:59:02] The applicant proposes up to 186 multifamily units and up to 88 single-family attached units for a total of 274 dwelling units. With the application area of 14.63 acres, this yields a density of 18.72 dwelling units per acre.

[05:59:20] The applicant proposes an internal network of streets, alleys, and sidewalks that will provide connectivity to the surrounding proposed residential developments and to the external system of roads and trails. Since the planning commission, the applicant has now updated the road section along Arrowhead Drive to narrow the roadway, provide street trees, and provide a 10-foot wide shared use path.

[05:59:41] The applicant to the south will also be completing these improvements, which will ultimately provide an active transportation connection between two major regional trail systems and the Oakmont Rec Center. The applicant is proposing five separate publicly accessible urban park spaces, labeled the Central Green and Urban Parks A through D.

[06:00:00] These spaces will feature several amenities, including a dog park, sports court, and children's play area. This concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, I'd recognize the applicant for an applicant's presentation. Gil, I'm a land use attorney with Wiregill here on behalf of ANA Properties, who's been a long-time owner of this office park.

[06:00:25] And I think this is a challenge you've seen in a number of areas in Fairfax recently where the suburban surface-parked office really have had a challenge to maintain occupancy. Both of these buildings are largely vacant. The application we're about to talk to you about on the next application is also largely vacant.

[06:00:41] And so we've been working with staff for these past two years to come up with a vision that we think makes sense for the entirety of this land unit. We work together with staff so that both of these applications can be heard together as a single unit. And we've brought the same design team forward so that it's considered basically almost as a seamless application.

[06:00:58] All of the parks that we have identified will be open to the public as well so that either residents of either community or the wider community will be able to use this. One of the things that staff highlighted that we've recently worked on from Planning Commission was providing that active use trail.

[06:01:14] It will actually connect the cross-county trail to the I-66 trail. So you'll have a true shared use path connecting those key bike improvements. Beyond that, we have worked really hard to get here today. We've given the Oakton Library storage in some of these office buildings for some of their books.

[06:01:33] We've worked with the Greater Oakton Civic Association, the Oakmar Civic Association. We do have the endorsement of staff as well as the UNAPS endorsement of the Planning Commission. I think when we originally brought this application forward, we were looking at adaptive reuse of these buildings.

[06:01:51] It ended up being too much of a challenge to really make happen, especially at what the current densities are recommended in the plan. So we focused instead on creating open space. Our urban parks are twice what we're expected from a development of this size. So you get 1.7 acres with this one, 1.8 acres with the other application together, 3.5 acres of urban parks with this application.

[06:02:13] With that, I really do request your endorsement here this afternoon, and we're excited to finally be moving forward on this. We think it'll be a really interesting opportunity to invest in Oakton and create activity in an area that hasn't seen a ton of it. Thank you very much. Excellent. Thank you very much for that presentation.

[06:02:30] Are there any questions of staff or the applicant? Questions of staff or the applicant? Supervisor Alcorn. Yeah, just a quick question. We got new proffers. Can you tell us what's different from the February 14th version? Yeah, the key change was the shared-use path connection.

[06:02:46] Originally, we just had an 8-foot path with on-road bike lanes. And I think what some of the Planning Commission concern was is that needed to be, because it's going next to these parks, needed to be off the actual right-of-way. So now we have a larger 8-foot landscaped buffer actually moving the curb in and making the trail the full 10 feet so that bikes and pedestrians can use it.

[06:03:07] And Supervisor Alcorn, if I may have, the largest change between the 14th, which had those changes, and the 18th is the addition of some language about the bus shelters the applicant is constructing. It's just ensuring ADA compliance for the pad as well as the shelter and some flexibility if the bus stops aren't needed to reinvest that money in another transit area in Providence.

[06:03:32] Okay, great. Thank you. All right, thank you. Other questions? Supervisor Lusk. Yeah, I apologize. I'm just not as familiar with the triplex concept, so if you could help me kind of understand in terms of how you divide the units up, how do you get to the triplex?

[06:03:51] So it's actually very similar to a 2 over 2, but it'd be sort of a 3 over 3 for lack of a better term. So each floor is a flat where you have three garages underneath that you would park in, and each one has tandem spaces, and you would be able to access each flat that way.

[06:04:06] Yeah, that was instinctively, that's what I was thinking, but I wasn't really actually seeing it. It is a relatively new use, and it was one of the ways we could mix density on this site and mix absorption into the market, frankly, too. No, it's a very clever idea. And then what's the height of the unit itself?

[06:04:24] The maximum height is 50 feet in this location. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Seeing and hearing none. This is a public hearing, and I have no speakers that signed up in advance to testify on this matter.

[06:04:41] Is there anyone here in the auditorium that would like to speak on this subject? This is a public hearing. Anyone present who would like to testify? Seeing and hearing no one, let me ask the clerk if we have any callers. No callers. No callers. Assume the applicant waives rebuttal. Closing comments and a recommendation from staff.

[06:04:59] On January 8, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject application. Staff concurs with these recommendations. Thank you. Thank you. Last call. Any questions from board members? Seeing and hearing none. I will now close the public hearing and recognize Supervisor Pouchik for a motion.

[06:05:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief. We have the neighboring property coming in next. First of all, very much want to thank Daniel Creed and all the staff who, over the years, have helped make this a much better presentation. I also very much want to thank the applicant and thank the representative.

[06:05:34] I believe, I was trying to look back, we first saw this maybe as far back as 2020, the original application. So a lot of staffing changes since then, and I really think it's a far cry from that initial submission we saw and those applications.

[06:05:51] This is the first parcel to come in in the Flint Hill, this remaining Flint Hill area. As was mentioned, you know, it's office parks have changed, right? We were talking about it this morning, about the future of office, and these suburban parks are just not the future of office, but they do provide a wonderful opportunity, I think, to build residential neighborhoods with triplexes, which I believe were kind of stalled due to some legal matters for a while, and now we're starting to see them come through, and they are able to bring units that are sort of in between, right, the townhouses and the

[06:06:29] two-over-twos and the multifamily, we now have triplexes. So I really want to thank the applicants. I want to thank the representatives. Though these were not consolidated and they were not required to be, it really was helpful to have that coordination to ensure that the existing community as well as the future community have increased amenities.

[06:06:53] And for me, the biggest ones are those connections, the Cross County Trail and the Oakmont Rec Center as well as the adjoining parks will now be connected through the trail system that's being proposed on this property and the adjoining properties all the way to the new I-66 trail.

[06:07:11] And as we'll see with the next application, the improvement of Arrowhead and narrowing it and making space for the 10-foot mixed trail, which is why there were some last-minute proffers. There's been a lot of negotiation, and I absolutely want to thank the Planning Commissioner.

[06:07:27] without whom I think these applications would not be in the place where they are. And finally, before I make the motion, I just want to share that, you know, for me, again, the main focus is a wide variety of housing types and abilities to house people of all generations and all abilities in an area that will be, I think, an improvement for those who currently live there as well.

[06:07:55] So I appreciate the outreach that was done to the neighboring communities, supporting the friends of the library, as well as the neighbors across the way in the Greater Oathing Community Association. So to that, let me make sure we've gone through a few different, make sure I have the correct final motion.

[06:08:14] I have three motions. So number one, I move that the Board of Supervisors approve PCA 81-P-069-078. for the first one oh i'm reading redwood sorry they have almost the same name there we go now i have the correct one i move that the board of supervisors approve pca thank you 78-p-137-05 and sorry let me keep going i further move that the board of supervisors approve

[06:08:47] rz 2020-pr-015 and its associated cdp subject to the executed proffers dated february 18th 2025 And finally, I move that the Board of Supervisors approve the waivers and modifications listed in the handout dated and distributed February 18th, 2025.

[06:09:07] It's been seconded by Supervisor Lusk. Is there any discussion on the motion? Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions?

[06:09:23] And that motion carries. Thank you very much. Next up is a public hearing on RZ2023-PR-00010, concurrent with PCA81-P-069-03, RZPA2023-PR-00039, Redwood Propco, LLC, in the Providence District, and could we please get the affidavit reaffirmed?

[06:09:55] Hello again. I'm David Gilligan. I'd like to reaffirm the affidavit most recently reaffirmed, February 4th, 2025, originally dated November 14th, 2024. Thank you very much. Are there any disclosures from board members? Any disclosures? Seeing and hearing none, I will now recognize county staff for presentation.

[06:10:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Daniel Creed with the Department of Planning and Development. The applicant, Redwood Propco LLC, seeks to redevelop an existing office park, Redwood Plaza, to permit 196 single-family attached dwellings. To that end, the applicant seeks a PCA to remove the subject 12.13 acre site from the governing PDC zoning.

[06:10:38] The applicant then seeks to rezone the site to PDH 20 to permit the residential development consisting of single-family attached units at a density of 16.13 dwelling units per acre. As noted, the subject property is on PDC and located in the Flint Hill Suburban Center within the Providence Magisterial District.

[06:10:56] The site is south of Germantown Road, west of Rosehaven Street, and north of Arrowhead Drive. The site is developed as an office park, which includes three office buildings and associated service parking. The two properties to the north, which are also part of the Flint Hill Office Park, are also subject to pending rezonings.

[06:11:15] The abutting property to the north, Flint Hill, was scheduled, we just heard, and further north is Flint Hill, which again is scheduled for planning commission in June of 2025. The applicant seeks to redevelop the property by replacing the three existing office towers with up to 196 single-family attached residential units.

[06:11:35] Three different styles of townhomes of varying widths are proposed, including a 16-foot, 20-foot, and 24-foot model. The applicant proposes an internal network of streets, alleys, and sidewalks that will provide connectivity to the surrounding proposed residential developments and to the external roads and trails.

[06:11:53] As noted, since the Planning Commission, the applicant has now updated the road section along Arrowhead Drive to narrow the roadway, provide street trees, and provide a 10-foot-wide shared-use path. The applicant to the north was also completing these improvements, which, as we discussed earlier, is going to provide a connection between the two major regional trail systems, the SACC6 Parallel Trail and the Jerry Conley Cross Country Trail, as well as the Oakmont Rec Center.

[06:12:20] The applicant is proposing five separate park spaces, which could include children's play area, fitness equipment, and seating areas. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this time, we'd welcome an applicant presentation.

[06:12:37] Yes. The story here we've already had a preview of, so I won't repeat it too much more. But the applicant on this one is a different applicant. It is Network Realty, one of the more sophisticated developers in the region who is very excited about bringing this forward. When they brought this forward, the ANA one was in process, and they tried to catch up as much as possible and to coordinate as much as possible with that owner.

[06:13:00] So our roads line up, all of our street networks line up, all of our sidewalks will be open to each other, and all of our parks will be open to each other as part of this. Again, the urban parks here is 1.8 acres, and that's double, 1.6 acres, excuse me, approximately double what the requirement is today.

[06:13:17] There are three largely vacant office buildings on there. I think their current occupancy is less than 10%, and those will all be replaced as part of this application. This has been an area that has needed to see some investment because of that, and the current comprehensive plan already envisioned it as part of their mixed-use options.

[06:13:36] So we're very excited to be able to finally implement that. Staff just mentioned that cross-county trail link, which links the cross-county to the I-66 trail. That's a critical one. Beyond that, we have a variety of housing types on site to be able to provide the variety of units, I think, that Supervisor Palchuk had mentioned early on and had been working with the community as well.

[06:13:58] This does have the endorsement of staff as well as the unanimous supportive planning commission, and we're very excited to be here today and finally move this forward. Happy to answer any questions. Elwin, before I go, I do want to thank Daniel and Kathy Lewis. They have been instrumental in making sure we got here today. It has been a lot of last-minute work, and really do appreciate their help on that.

[06:14:16] Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. Questions for staff or the applicant? Supervisor Palchik. Thank you. I know we're trying to get through these, but because we've spent so many hours, especially in the last few days, working, I really want to thank you, but especially Commissioner Hancock, whose follow-on motion, I think, got us to a much better place.

[06:14:35] Do you mind just walking us through a little bit of what that final, I think, between the Sherry Duce Pass, the better sizing of that road that was built so many years ago? So, yeah, if you don't mind pulling up the street section. So originally Arrowhead right now was just a wide piece of pavement with one stripe down the middle.

[06:14:55] And so people park randomly on the street. What we're actually doing is moving the curb in 12 feet and replacing that with an 8-foot buffer and then the 10-foot trail and a three-foot buffer behind the trail so that VDOT can maintain that trail moving forward and it won't be a burn on the HOA. So it'd actually be part of the public right-of-way and be maintained by VDOT. In addition, we can stripe now the southern part of it for on-street parking and then make the crosswalks across there to the county trail, which you see in the southeast corner, a lot narrower so that you can actually get to that I-66 parallel trail

[06:15:31] a lot easier. So that's a pretty significant upgrade in how we were doing it. Originally, we weren't going to touch the curbs and just put on on-street paint it to make it work. Instead, we worked with Commissioner Hancock to come up with this solution. So it did take a lot of effort to get here, and we're pretty happy with the result. Awesome. Well, I really appreciate it.

[06:15:51] I know you're engineers and ours, and I also want to thank FCDOT, Mark Dreyfus, and their team who helped us navigate the path, pun intended, between what VDOT would approve and what we were hoping for here. So I think it's going to be a great improvement. And not to mention, you see on there the three bus stops, which I believe are part of the new, well, it's an existing line, but will be even better with the WMATA better bus redesign. It's going to be a wonderful bus route here as well.

[06:16:19] And I appreciate you mentioning that about our civil engineer. Literally, Peter Reinick was having surgery on his knee on Friday and was answering questions about how we make this trail work so I want to thank him too for doing that hope you hope you're recovering Peter all right thank you very much are there any other questions of staff or the applicant supervisor Lusk thank you mr. Sherman I'm on the heights again just trying to get a sense of like the skill so these four stories as well which so these will be slightly lower the the max height here is there technically can go up to four stories but they'll probably be the three and a

[06:16:55] half. So the top half will have a lot of those outdoor decks on them, but they'll be traditional three and a half story urban townhomes that way. And then also because of the way the hill sort of, the grade comes down, this site is about five to ten feet, depending on where you're looking, lower than the other site. Okay. That'll make a difference. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

[06:17:16] Okay. Seeing and hearing no other questions. This is a public hearing. I have no speakers who signed up in advance to testify. Is there anyone here present who would like to testify on this subject. This is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to testify? Seeing and hearing no one. Let me ask if we have any callers. No callers. No callers. Assume the applicant waives rebuttal. Closing comments and a recommendation from county staff. On January 8th, 2025, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject application. Staff concurs with these recommendations. Thank you. Thank you very much. Last call. Any questions? Seeing and hearing none. I will now close the public hearing and

[06:17:54] recognize Supervisor Palchuk for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again so much to Daniel and Kathy and the staff who've worked on this. This one did not take as many iterations. And to that, I really want to thank also the applicant on this and the excellent work. I mean, I think I said it, I think the staff has said it, and the Planning Commission referred to how much you listened and responded and worked with our community, with the staff. And I think you can see that here today. We have a much improved application and looking forward to hopefully

[06:18:29] the third one is just as good. So before I read my correct three motions, it's a little tricky when they have almost the same name and the same representative. The proposed redevelopment includes replacing three, as was mentioned, three underused office towers with up to 196 single-family attached residential units. So again, creating another portion of this larger Flint Hill community with a variety of housing types, with a variety of parks and amenities, and I think to me most importantly here really the two large park spaces plus the five smaller

[06:19:06] internal parks and the public access to these, right? I really think between the Oakmont Rec Center and hopefully we can get VDOT to allow a street down where the Cross County Trail is, But until then, that connection to this community is much improved.

[06:19:22] I again want to very much thank Commissioner Hancock, without whose questions and follow-on motion, I don't think we would have gotten to this excellent trail that's going to connect this community and surrounding communities, and especially the two major trail networks, the Cross County Trail and the I-66 Connector Trail.

[06:19:42] We really, I think this is the future of where we need to go to connect our communities for walkability, bikeability, and really safety for everyone using any of our roads. I especially want to thank the applicant for the shelters that will make it a safer place to wait for the bus, for the upgrades to the stormwater management pond.

[06:20:03] That was where we spent a lot of time trying to make improvements, as well as for the for sale affordable dwelling units that will be coming through this application. To that, I think I've thanked everyone. I, again, want to thank Network Realty for their excellent design and for their commitments to this community.

[06:20:21] And I think this definitely is going to look like a great improvement. And really, when we talk about community development, you're helping develop a community space here. So I, again, have three motions, hopefully the correct ones.

[06:20:38] But Daniel, I'll let you check on me. We've had about five versions of this just today. So first, I move that the Board of Supervisors approve PCA 81-P-069-03. I further move that the Board of Supervisors approve RZ 2023-PR-00010 and its associated CDP, subject to the executed proffers dated February 18, 2025.

[06:21:08] And I further move that the Board of Supervisors approve the waivers and modifications as listed in the handout dated and distributed February 18th 2025 you've heard the motion has been seconded by Supervisor Lusk any discussion on the motion any discussion seeing and hearing none all those in favor of the motion please say aye aye any opposed any abstentions and that motion carries thank you all right yes but I was checking we got two minutes until four o'clock I was trying

[06:21:43] figure out what I want to say for the next two minutes. Yeah, don't go far because two minutes goes by quick. We do have two more public hearings to be followed by public comment.

[06:22:12] Mr. Chairman? Yes. Can I make a little commentary here? So 30 years ago. We're entering into the danger zone now. 30 years ago when I worked first for Jerry Conley in his office and then when I transfer to the Economic Development Authority, this building, these series of buildings were full. It was an active, vibrant office community. It just tells us what's happening. There's a shift, a seismic shift, and it's not going to be the same. So I appreciate what's happened here

[06:22:47] today. It's going to be a noticeable, noticeable change and a positive one as well. Thank you. Also as a reminder of how long you've been around. Okay, one last point on that, Mr. Chairman. I said 30 years ago, I got my pen for 35 years in Fairfax County government penned on me by vice chair just a few days ago.

[06:23:14] So thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's right. Well, if I may, because there was one person I forgot to thank. The triplexes first came to my attention thanks to Barbara Byron, who's now in the chairman's office, when we were looking at options in the Tysons area.

[06:23:31] Unfortunately, again, there were reasons why they weren't able to be used, and I'm very excited to see that they are becoming a new option. So, yeah, times do change. They do. All right. Speaking of which, the time has changed, and it's 4 o'clock.

[06:23:47] So next up, we have a public hearing to consider adopting Chapter 82, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article 4A, Residential Cut-Through Permit Zones to the Code of the County of Fairfax, Virginia, to establish the Residential Cut-Through Permit Program.

[06:24:03] And at this time, I would recognize county staff for a presentation. Good afternoon, Chairman McKay, members of the board. I'm Henry Stein-McCartney with Department of Transportation. This is a public hearing to consider a new section of Fairfax County Code, which would be added as Chapter 82, Article 4A.

[06:24:22] This section was authorized by the Virginia General Assembly in 2019 to enable Fairfax County to develop a new ordinance and program to issue permits to residents of a designated area that will allow those residents to make turns into or out of the designated area during certain times of the day when such turns would otherwise be restricted.

[06:24:42] The proposed ordinance considered here today establishes the Residential Cut-Through Permit Program authorized by Virginia Code Section 15.2-2022.1. The proposed ordinance sets forth provisions related to the establishment of residential cut-through permit zones, administration of the permit program, a fee for permits, and enforcement and penalties for violations.

[06:25:06] The program will benefit residents of communities where turns onto neighborhood streets have been restricted during certain times of the day under the Residential Cut-Through Traffic Mitigation Program, which is a joint program that's offered by FCDOT and VDOT to address cut-through traffic on secondary roads that serve residential areas.

[06:25:26] These term restrictions currently apply to all motorists, including residents of the neighborhood that the term restriction serves. Residents of permit zones established under the program would benefit by having an opportunity to obtain a permit that would allow them to make an otherwise restricted turn into the community.

[06:25:45] Non-residents and residents without a permit would be required to enter the community during the posted hours of restriction by using the alternate unrestricted street into the community. The proposed ordinance provides that permits will be available from FCDOT for verified residents of established permit zones, which would initially include 315 addresses in the Mason District and 10 addresses in the Drainville District.

[06:26:11] Additionally, permits will be available to residents of communities where cut-through restrictions are implemented in the future. A proposed fee of $24 is included to partially offset program and material cost estimated to be approximately $3,000 annually.

[06:26:28] The recommended fee is comparable with fees charged by jurisdictions in the region for similar transportation functions. The residential cut-through permit program will be initiated on or after July 1st or following approval of the proposed ordinance. Thank you very much.

[06:26:48] For that presentation, are there any questions of staff? Any questions? Seeing and hearing none. This is a public hearing, and I do have two speakers who have signed up in advance to testify on this matter. Both are callers. Before I call them, is there anyone here present who would like to speak on this subject? If you can please come on down. If you're here, if you have not already signed in, please sign in with the clerk over here to my far right. And let me go ahead and see if we have our two callers on the line.

[06:27:17] Okay, and so speaker number one is Lamia Musa. Can you hear me okay? I can hear you just fine. Thank you very much, Chairperson McKay. Excellent. Welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you very much. Members of the Board of Supervisors, my name is Lamia Musa.

[06:27:37] I'm a resident of Sleepy Hollow Manor, residing on Carolyn Drive. I'm here today to express my strong opposition to the resident cut-through permit program. In the June 18, 2024 meeting, Supervisor Bierman ended the meeting by stating, when referring to this permit program, this helps the neighborhoods being absolutely crushed by this problem.

[06:28:04] However, my question to all of the supervisors here today is, what is the problem that we are allegedly being crushed by? In the 1990s, when the cut-through restriction was implemented, making it illegal to take a right turn from Sleepy Hollow Road to Carolyn Drive, the change requested was driven by the community, with all of the appropriate studies conducted, voting, and with all of those requirements being met, it was implemented.

[06:28:32] I've spent countless hours on the phone with the Mason District Office, Fairfax County Department of Transportation, and even reaching out to Delegate Marcus Simon's office in an attempt to find out the issue. What is the problem? What was the complaint?

[06:28:50] And to this day, no answers can be found because there, in fact, is no problem on our street. Moreover, no community outreach has requested this permit program. No studies have been conducted that assesses either the impact of the violations of the cut-through restriction or whether such program would be fiscally responsible, and no constituents have voted to implement this permit program.

[06:29:16] Indeed, the impact of this program will override, some may even say crush, any supposed benefit. To wit, there are 315 residences that will be impacted by this permit program in the Mason District.

[06:29:32] By contrast, the Drainville District, there are 10 residences that will be impacted. In fact, it is my understanding that the permit program is motivated in part by some Drainville District residents that do not even have a cut-through restriction yet.

[06:29:50] But if they were to get one, do not wish to be inconvenienced by being unable to lawfully make a right turn. Forcing acute green sticker permit program on 315 residences without any study or budgeting or even thought due to the complaint of 10 residences in the Drainsville in a different district is inane.

[06:30:17] It screams that the wealthy in McLean want fewer people on their pristine roads and would hate to be inconvenienced. It is a solution without a problem, and any alleged benefit from the program, if any, is severely outweighed by the burden such a program places on those who are actually affected by it.

[06:30:40] Therefore, I stand in staunch opposition to the program. I thank you for your time and consideration. And to the Drainsville constituents and their supervisor, who may be listening today, please go ahead and take the long way home between 6.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m.

[06:30:57] We all do, and we're no worse for it. Thank you very much. Speaker number two is Gabriela Hammack. Are you on the line? Yes, I am. Welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this subject regarding the revision to Chapter 82, Article 4A.

[06:31:20] And for the record, I'm speaking in opposition. I live, I apologize, I've been living without power for 12 hours. It came on at 5 a.m. this morning, and I'm home with big children. So apologies in advance. I live on Carolyn Drive in Fairfax County, three houses up from the intersection of Carolyn Drive and Sleepy Hollow, where there's a sign posted, no turn, 6.30 to 9.30 a.m. during the week.

[06:31:51] I never had an issue following the law and not making that turn during those hours. I drive both my children to school and I work from home, so I am in the car during those hours. Fortunately for me, there are many other ways for me to get to my house during that time, and it's not an inconvenience.

[06:32:09] So I'm unclear, and I am late to the party. The first time I heard about this proposal was when I saw the poster board for this meeting at the end of January 2025. But it's unclear to me why this is necessary. I watched the meeting from June, and I'd like to thank the transportation planner, Ms. McCartney, in advance.

[06:32:38] She's been wonderful answering all my questions. And I watched the June meeting, and she showed examples of other jurisdictions that had similar restricted turn signs. And a few of them looked into residential permit programs and decided that it was unfair to give certain residents access to public roads.

[06:32:56] My question for the board today is, why do you disagree with that finding? Why do you feel like it is fair? Or why do you feel like that finding doesn't apply to Fairfax County in these neighborhoods? I have only seen a policeman enforcing the no turn sign once since I moved into my home in 2017.

[06:33:16] I'm not criticizing the police. I don't feel a policeman or woman needs to sit there and enforce the no turn. But my concern is that if we allow this residential permit program to move forward and be allowed, drivers are going to feel emboldened, and they're going to make that turn thinking, well, people will just assume I have this small permit sticker on my car, and I'm going to make this turn risk being caught.

[06:33:42] And I don't want additional traffic on Carolyn Drive or in my neighborhood during those hours of 6.30 to 9.30 When children are boarding buses, when I'm getting in and out of my car, taking my children to school, people speed up Carolyn Drive.

[06:33:59] I truly don't understand why this is necessary, and I don't support it because I don't want even my neighbors driving on Carolyn Drive during those hours. Yeah, that's really all I have to say, and I really do appreciate your time and all the staff efforts in reaching out to me and answering my questions.

[06:34:20] Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker number three is Chase McAlpin, to be followed by Joe Bismire. And is there anyone else here who wants to testify on this subject? If you can please make sure you come down here and sign in with the clerk if you want to testify on this.

[06:34:38] Speaker number three, Mr. McAlpin, welcome. Good afternoon, everyone. Thanks for taking the time to speak about this or talk about this program. So my name is Chase McAlpin. I'm the representative of the Richland-Kentland Citizens Association. which covers all the residents in the off thomas avenue lakeland drive lake drive and cedar drive that would be affected by this permit program i can just say that most of the residents have that have reached out to me are for the permit program we have seen over the years a significant

[06:35:16] amount of traffic that have come through our neighborhoods in the mornings and afternoons people using our neighborhood as a cut through to get to their final destination unfortunately these drivers feel necessary to use excessive speeds for our neighborhood and litter in the neighborhood crash their cars in our neighborhood all whilst children are boarding buses in the morning and while there aren't turn restrictions in the afternoon the same happens in the afternoon so i just wanted to reiterate you know our desire to see this permit program implemented

[06:35:55] will note that I would like maybe some clarification from the board that the Loudoun County residents of the neighborhoods affected would also be allowed to participate in the permit program because they're they are the ones that are going to be by the numbers mostly affected by the establishment of permit program in the mornings being able to turn into their neighborhood there's only three entrances and one of those entrances is through the Algonquin Parkway which is where the turning restrictions currently are so yeah okay

[06:36:33] thanks sir thank you very much speaker number four is Joe Bismarck welcome hello my name is Joe Bismarck I live at 107 Lake Drive I don't have as much a formal long petition but I will reinforce what he just stated I don't know how many of you analyzed how many houses are in Fairfax County versus Loudoun County but you literally drive through the street and once you pass about four houses it immediately says welcome to Loudoun County so if this by chance didn't include Loudoun County residents it would be I don't know the

[06:37:09] legality essentially keeping us from getting our own houses by county that is has the where the entrance point is so very strongly state that another thing I wanted to bring up and this is very important hasn't been discussed before is that when the people went door-to-door seeking the signature the petitions, it was explicitly stated that we would have permits from the beginning to the point where I was actually handed a piece of paper that was highlighted about turn restrictions and how that it was expected that we would have that from the very beginning. And I was very upset that that

[06:37:47] wasn't the case because there's many practical reasons why people need to be able to turn at those certain times that are residents, everything from morning commutes, my wife driving kids to school, going to church in the morning, coming to and fro from that from the north into our neighborhood is very restrictive and causes many issues. Lastly, a topic that might not impact as many people but is a major issue is equal opportunity under the law. And I'll try to be brief with this, but I'm not a legal person. I candidly looked this up on the internet, so I'm going to let the legal language speak for itself. Equal protection under the law is a principle

[06:38:25] enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. It mandates that no state shall deny any person within this jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The principle requires that all individuals, regardless of race, religion, gender, or other characteristics, be treated equally under the law. In practice, equal protection means that governments must apply laws fairly and cannot discriminate against individuals or groups without a legitimate or constitutionally acceptable reason. It serves as a basis for challenging discrimination, practices and laws, ensuring fairness in legal processes, and protecting individual rights against unequal treatment.

[06:39:02] And I actually wonder how many of you right now have any idea what I might be referring to. In the case of the turn restriction, families with kids who attend religious schools, we are one, and next year we will have kids at three different religious schools, are disadvantaged since the turn restriction does not provide an exception for carpools, which is the only method of alternative transportation to the religious schools.

[06:39:24] So you currently have an exception for buses for the public school kids, but kids in our neighborhood that send our kids to religious schools and private schools do not have that same exception. So I would strongly argue that unless that is stipulated on the sign for the residents, that carpools are included or maybe changing it to language such as education, transportation, that it is against the law from equal protection under law.

[06:39:49] Thank you. Thank you. And speaker number five is Benita Parker. welcome and after miss Parker is there anyone else in person who would like to testify on this matter okay welcome good afternoon thank you for letting me speak first of all I want to thank the board for helping our neighborhood I live in Richland acres I live on the Loudoun County side but I am on the side that we're talking about here I appreciate what Fairfax has done for us we've worked with loud and we've worked with Fairfax trying to control traffic cutting through our neighborhood it's not safe to walk through our neighborhood

[06:40:26] until now. The one piece of information that I don't think we've discussed here is there is a bridge that people are crossing through, and that was the cut through traffic. And so that bridge has been deemed unsafe and is closed. And the proposed time for it to come, you know, be rebuilt is 2027. I've also heard rumors that it may not ever get built, you know, be replaced. And so therefore i think it's a little premature to do the permits i mean if we're doing them and they start when the bridge opens back up that makes sense but right now if you turn it to that neighborhood you belong in that neighborhood you live there or you're picking somebody up or you're

[06:41:06] doing something like joe mentioned carpools or something like that but to have permits for people that live somewhere there's no cut through there's nothing there's no reason to have the permits yet until the bridge is in place so i i'm sort of questioning the timing of this i realize that we did say when we did the you know the time frame for the morning uh not to be able to do the right turn that we would get permits but that was also assuming the cut it was because of the cut through traffic we no longer have the cut through traffic i'm okay with just taking the sign away until that

[06:41:44] bridge comes back. I don't know what the level of effort is because I know the community worked really hard to get that in place. I don't want them to have to do that again. But if you can just cover it up for three years or whenever the bridge comes back, I think to me that just makes the most logical sense because right now anybody that's going in, like I said, just lives there.

[06:42:02] There's nobody cutting through and nobody else is affected by it except for the people that live in that community right now. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Let me verify there's one else here who would like to testify are there any additional callers no additional call there are no additional callers you've already testified sir with that let me ask for closing comments and a recommendation from county staff staff recommends approval of the proposed ordinance okay thank you very much questions from board members let me start with supervisor Beerman so

[06:42:42] I just want to be clear about something the creation of the permit program itself does not in any way alter any cut-through restrictions that are already in place right now. We're not lifting cut-through restrictions out of the creation of the permit program.

[06:42:59] That's correct. The permit program does not impact an existing cut-through restriction. So no cut-through restriction that already is in place is going away because we created this program. That is correct. This program simply takes local residents who are directly affected by a cut-through restriction and gives them the option of getting a permit so that they could potentially break that cut-through restriction, correct? That is correct. So, for

[06:43:32] instance, the idea that, oh, there are only 10 families affected in Drainsville is complete nonsense, complete and utter nonsense. There are lots of families who have come to my office talking about their neighborhoods, talking about the people who are cutting through their neighborhoods and they are thinking about putting in place cut through restrictions and they try to and sometimes they fail because there are people who say oh wait I'm not going to allow that to happen in the neighborhood because then I get in trouble at from you know three to five or whatever

[06:44:09] three to six I'd love to have that and then there's a big problem there because the problem just compounds itself I've got I've got videos where people are spending 40 minutes in traffic on dead run drive trying to get to their own house. So this is simply adding another tool to help solve that problem that is already within our bailiwick. We already put in place cut-through restrictions in the county. If we didn't put in place cut-through restrictions, maybe this would be a different conversation. But we do put in place cut-through restrictions because we do know that

[06:44:49] there are certain neighborhoods where people are going on secondary streets to go through those neighborhoods and cut through and the people who are living there are absolutely getting crushed so I just I gotta gotta push back on that narrative because it's entirely false now with respect to fiscal responsibility for years this program was proposed by my predecessor and there were some numbers coming back for how much it would cost that were very high and our staff worked really hard to figure out how they could do it and have it be much cheaper. What is

[06:45:27] the actual operating expenses for this program per year, roughly? Approximately $3,000. And the permits that would go for $24, which is roughly consistent with other types of parking permits, help cut into that correct yes um you know and and so by the way no one no one has had a permit imposed upon them the idea this somehow imposed anything on anybody if you don't want to break

[06:46:03] the cut through restriction and you don't want to go get a permit don't get one don't get one thank you i'll yield the floor thank you uh thank you supervisor beerman supervisor alcorn Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple questions for staff just so we all understand. This change, this ordinance would authorize residents to petition for a permit program. Is that correct? Or would it apply automatically to every neighborhood that already has a cut-through program?

[06:46:43] Supervisor Alcorn, Joanna Faust from the county attorney office. This would not take effect automatically pursuant to section of 82-4A-3. It's lines 48 through 52 of the draft ordinance. The Board of Supervisors may, at your pleasure, establish a permit zone, in which case that would authorize staff to then issue the permits.

[06:47:09] Okay, so before any resident anywhere in Fairfax County would have to have a permit to go through here, there would be a whole other public hearing process. There would be a petition process and a whole other public hearing process. Is that correct? That is correct.

[06:47:24] Sir, I would just add that the ordinance drafts gives this board the flexibility to either do it as a part of a cut-through restriction action or at a separate meeting. Okay, that's very helpful. So it's possible, I'm not saying this will happen, but it's possible that we would adopt this and no community ever either petitions for a permit program or we never approve a permit program.

[06:47:50] That's possible. Is that correct? That is correct. This board could deny or never take up. So this just authorizes the ability for communities to petition for the permit process and the board to ultimately decide. Yes, sir. As required by the enabling authority, the only way this board could even get to that decision point is through an ordinance.

[06:48:10] Okay. So let me ask you about two other things. The question about Loudoun County residents, could they participate in this process? They could, sir. And the reason is because of the enabling authority, although limited to Fairfax County creating the program by ordinance, ties the permits to be issued to the residents of the designated area.

[06:48:30] That is a VDOT-designated area. That's the reference in that part of the statute. So to the extent that VDOT designated an area that crossed jurisdiction, which they have done multiple times, then this board would have the power through an ordinance to issue permits to the residents of that designated area, even if they were Loudoun County residents.

[06:48:50] Okay, so it might be an issue on the Arlington side because they're not VDOT, but not on the Loudoun side because Loudoun's VDOT. That's correct. Okay. And then my last question is, the question about carpools for religious schools and the exemption for that, would that be allowed or would we have to come back and change the ordinance?

[06:49:13] Unfortunately, Supervisor Alcorn, the enabling authority is extremely specific, using the word resident three separate times within 15 words. It's resident permits to residents of a designated area that will allow residents. Okay, so even if we wanted to do that, it's not authorized by the state?

[06:49:34] Not at this time. Not at this time. Okay, thank you very much. And just following up on that, the exemption for buses that's built in is part of that authorizing legislation, correct? Yes, sir, for a different part of the legislation. The designated areas and staff have shown the pictures from VDOT.

[06:49:50] They exempt emergency vehicles and buses from the cut-through restriction itself. So to the point that Supervisor Alcorn is raising, the fact that you attend a religious school and you carpool and have multiple people in your car doesn't – could qualify you as a resident, but you can't qualify that as an exemption per the legislation that specifically speaks to buses and emergency vehicles because you are neither of those two.

[06:50:19] That is correct. Okay, and I think this is, you know, one of the things we deal with a lot at local government is that, you know, we're dealt a hand of cards from Richmond, and we're playing with that hand of cards. And there are some things that are within that hand of cards that we don't have the authority to exempt or change.

[06:50:36] You're either in this program by those rules or you're not. Okay, Supervisor Palchik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and those of you who maybe weren't expecting it, we're getting a little Dylan Rule lesson today. I had those questions, but a couple of follow-up ones generally bring more questions.

[06:50:53] So number one, because I appreciate the clarity that right now we're just establishing the program through our new, very limited authority. But I wanted to clarify, you mentioned that the next step would be to authorize it.

[06:51:13] Have we already created how we would do the authorization? or are we just assuming it will be similar to our other programs? Supervisor Palchek, yes, the cut-through restrictions could be established through the process that this board has been doing for years, and then this ordinance draft gives the flexibility to also establish a permit zone at the same time or at a separate meeting.

[06:51:36] So while the cut-through restrictions of the three neighborhoods that have been mentioned are already in place and, as such, would require a separate meeting it to to establish the permit zone where the board to so decide going forward as a cut through restriction to restriction was established the board could either choose to also establish a permit zone or not final clarity so should one community decide to move forward and either petition us or ask us the other one is not required to go forward it's not required no nor is this board required to grant the permit request for a permit so okay thank you and then

[06:52:16] starting falling back to the bus question are it's vague language it just says buses so it could be all types of buses I will defer to FC DOS T staff who have I have seen the signs but as far as it exempts from cut through restriction the emergency vehicles and buses I've taught at independent schools that have buses so those would also qualify correct if they were to have a private

[06:52:49] school bus I assume it's Neil freshman with FCDOT our understanding is from VDOT is that it is buses I do not know exactly how VDOT defines buses I do not think carpools would be included but it does not specify transit buses or school buses it just says buses so we we can follow up and get the actual definition of that I'm sure it's somewhere it may be by size or weight or some type of

[06:53:27] restriction but certainly it's content neutral from the standpoint of a private bus would have would be able to obtain the same rights as a public bus one operated by Fairfax Connect or FCPS and I'm sure I'm sure that that's defined somewhere and it must be by some metric that's content neutral and so if we could just make sure we get that that answer back we don't need it right now but we'd like to get that okay any other questions I know we had a good conversation about this at committee as well and so if there are no other comments or questions I will close the public hearing and recognize supervisor

[06:54:06] Smith for a motion mr. chairman I move that the board of supervisors adopt the addition of article 4a resident residential cut through permit zones to chapter 82 motor vehicles and traffic of the Fairfax County code with an effective date of July 1 2025 you've heard the motion and the second by supervisor Beerman discussion on the motion and we had a lot of discussion already seeing and hearing none all those in favor of the motion please say

[06:54:40] aye aye any opposed any abstentions and that motion carries 10 to 0 thank you very much next up is a public hearing on the acquisition of certain land rights necessary for the construction of gravity sewer capacity improvements in Tyson's West in the hunter mill district and as soon as staff is ready we would

[06:55:01] welcome a county staff presentation Thank You mr. chairman and members of the

[06:55:40] board I am to share to Senate the senior right-of-way agent with the land Acquisition Division, Department of Public Works, and Environmental Services presenting today. As of today, the county operates 59 sanitary sewer pump stations, 78% of which are located in residential areas. However, the Potomac Interceptor doesn't have the capacity to support the county's comprehensive plan, and it can't be expanded. To solve this wastewater from the D.C. Water Blue Plains sewer shed needs to be redirected to the county's Nomen coal sewer shed

[06:56:19] which has additional capacity. New development occupancy permits can't be issued unless there's enough capacity in the wastewater collection system. The comprehensive plan amended for the Tyson's Urban Center adopted by the Board of Supervisors in June of 2010 after a thorough public process aims to transform Tyson's into an urban center by 2050 with 100,000 residents and 200,000 jobs to support the vision.

[06:56:47] Significant sewer infrastructure upgrades are needed. Currently, wastewater is conveyed through D.C.'s Waters-Potomac Interceptor and treated at the Blue Plains WWTF. However, the Potomac Interceptor's capacity is sufficient to handle the future flow from Tyson's.

[06:57:04] As a result, new developments in Tyson's cannot receive occupants' permits unless the adequate capacity in the wastewater collection system. To address this, the Fairfax-Tyson program includes a series of initiatives designed to support the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.

[06:57:21] Those efforts will involve improvements to the existing sewer system, the construction of new facilities, and the redirection of flow to the Fairfax-Norman Coal WWTP, where additional treatment capacity is available. The Tyson's Comprehensive Plan envisions significant population growth will pursue on the capacity of existing wastewater infrastructure.

[06:57:43] This plan, which supports the major redevelopment of Tysons, was approved to the Board after extensive study by the Tysons Land Use Task Force. The task force held over 60 public meetings, along with additional subcommittee meetings, and hosted 45 more public workshops attended by 2,000 stakeholders.

[06:58:04] Public input was also gathered through the county's Tysons website in the planning commission process. To accommodate the growth, the plan includes expanding the capacity of the current gravity sewer system.

[06:58:21] This will involve accepting increased flows from the Tyson's West and Difficult Run pump stations and transporting those flows to the Fairfax County Nomenclan WTP plant treatment. This project is located in Tyson's Corner.

[06:58:38] It consists of installing a 25 million gallon per day MGD wastewater pump station, 5 miles of 36-inch force main and 3 miles of 24-inch gravity sewer, and the demolition of the existing pump station.

[06:58:54] The Tyson's Waste West project consists of three phases, pump station, force main west of Route 7, and Route 7 gravity and force main. The purpose of today's hearing is to discuss the force main located at west of Route 7 as illustrated in the graphic.

[06:59:13] During the project, we've held several communications and outreach meetings with individual homeowners and the community. Since the initial public hearing was advertised, land rights for sanitary sewer, grading, and temporary constructions have been acquired for five additional parcels.

[06:59:35] An account offer for another parcel has been accepted. However, land rights for sanitary sewer, grading, and temporary construction remain to be acquired for five parcels. Staff is actively engaging with the property owners and making every effort to reach an agreement.

[06:59:55] However, to keep this project on schedule, it is necessary for the board to exercise its quick-take intimate domain powers. The county executive recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution authorizing the acquisition of the necessary land rights for this important wastewater project.

[07:00:13] Thank you. Staff is here to answer any questions you may have. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of staff? Any questions of staff? Seeing and hearing none. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone here present who would like to speak on this matter? Anyone present who would like to speak on this subject? Seeing and hearing no one. Let me ask if there are any callers. No callers. No callers.

[07:00:36] Closing comments and a recommendation from county staff. The county executive recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the resolution authorizing the acquisition of necessary land rights for this important wastewater project. Thank you very much. Last check. Any questions? Seeing and hearing none, I will close the public hearing and recognize Supervisor Alcorn for a motion.

[07:00:56] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank staff for working through this. And frankly, I want to thank the members of the community, the property owners that have been working with staff on this very, very important infrastructure project. I'm hopeful that all these will be worked out in the coming days and weeks.

[07:01:18] And this authority will not have to be exercised, but you've been doing a great job working with the community. So please, let's keep that going. With that, Mr. Chairman, I move that the Board of Supervisors approve the acquisition of those certain land rights necessary for the construction of the Gravity Sewer Capacity Improvements Tyson's West Project in accordance with the resolution included in the board package as attachment to.

[07:01:45] You've heard the motion. It's been seconded by Supervisor Palczyk. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? And that motion carries. Thank you very much. Finally, today we have public comment.

[07:02:03] And just a reminder, as we move into this item, there are some rules and restrictions for public comment. The board will hear public comment on any issue except issues under litigation, issues that have been scheduled for a public hearing before the board, and personnel matters and/or comments regarding specific individuals.

[07:02:23] Speakers must register in advance and each speaker is given three minutes for their remarks. A maximum of ten speakers may address the board during any public comment period and speakers may address the board once during a six month period. I do have a speakers list in front of me that has seven speakers who have signed up to testify and our first speaker is Gina Marie Lynch who I know is here.

[07:02:47] about Nancy Oaks is Nancy Oaks here you will be speaker number two if you could come on down and be close and ready when it's your time miss Lynch welcome thank you again I'm Gina Lynch I'm chair of the Animal Services Advisory Commission and thank you for the opportunity for letting me speak to you on a subject that's very important to us the ASAC for this year and that is pets not being allowed in subsidized housing as we know most American families have pets, and most consider their pets part of their families. Sharing our homes with them provides a level of compassion, safety, and improves our physical, emotional, and social

[07:03:26] well-being. In days of extreme stress, pets help to calm mental anxiety and oftentimes are the best friends for children experiencing challenging interactions at their schools. Issues associated with pets affect people from all walks of life in all corners of our community, and especially in our lower-income communities. Over half of Fairfax households have pets. That's 57% of families that enjoy having a companion animal in their homes. Sharing our homes with a cat, dog, or rabbit provide many additional benefits. They are usually the best friends of children and are senior

[07:04:05] citizens. Their daily care provides many people a reason to get up each morning and engage in the community. Canvassing the reasons for surrendering a pet at the Fairfax Animal Shelter is surprising that 20% of relinquencies are due to housing issues. Well-developed operational housing policies for pets can benefit management as well as families. Owners surveyed nationally have reported that pet-friendly vacancies are easier to fill, filled faster, and pet families

[07:04:39] are longer-term tenants. In the case of subsidized housing, we are attempting to fix a problem we ourselves have created, restricting those who reside in these communities the opportunities to have a pet. Due to the lack of community housing that allows pets, our Fairfax Animal Shelter is at capacity, which causes an unfair burden or added workload on the staff and resources that need to be devoted to the care and feeding of additional intake of animals. But you can fix this heartbreaking scenario by establishing pet inclusive policies in Fairfax. We

[07:05:17] We sent the board a memorandum last month addressing this issue and asking for an evaluation of our current housing policies that may restrict families with pets. In conclusion, we need to do everything we can to allow everyone to share the love and contentment of pets in our homes.

[07:05:35] In a stressful world, a calming factor is always the soft touch of a cat or a gentle paw of a puppy. Thank you. Thank you, Gina, and thank you for your letter and for connecting with me at the holiday party about this issue, and Supervisor Lusk has done a board matter, and that review is underway, so look forward to working with you on this as we continue to move forward, so thank you.

[07:06:01] Speaker number two is Nancy Oaks, and Nancy is here. Welcome. So I want to ask the question of the board of why are they not enforcing what the state law enforced for bamboo. So basically, Fairfax County revised their stipulation for bamboo

[07:06:31] on January 1st, 2021. It became rather toothless, in my opinion, because they didn't have the requirement of the container that they're supposed to contain bamboo in, which is supposed to be metal or heavy plastic, they didn't-- they allowed the property to cross property lines.

[07:07:01] And that causes me problems as a next door neighbor to somebody who has bamboo. And it grows through my driveway up against the foundation of my home.

[07:07:20] And I just don't understand why the Fairfax County hasn't agreed to enforce the laws of the state. So I've tried to work with my neighbors, and they will not give me permission to cut the bamboo, even though it's on my property.

[07:07:45] I've asked for something in writing from the county to allow me to cut the bamboo, and they won't give me anything in writing. So I feel like I'm hamstrung.

[07:08:00] And the other thing is Fairfax County also, or I should say Dominion Federal or Dominion Power, they want you to put something on, put something, they want you to do bamboo insurance.

[07:08:23] And I said, why would I want to do that? Will it cover bamboo? And they said, no, it won't cover bamboo. So I'm kind of betwixt and between with all this. And I just feel like I don't understand why the state won't and why the county won't enforce the state laws.

[07:08:46] Okay. Thank you, Ms. Oaks. Let me ask you one question before you leave because I respect the fact that there's no address here. But has there been complaints that have been filed for the property next door to you and there's been zoning enforcement inspections of that property has already occurred?

[07:09:03] - We've been working on it. - Okay, okay, then we'll talk. Okay, thank you, thank you very much. Speaker number three is Ian Mandel. Is Mr. Mandel on the line? Mr. Mandel, can you hear me okay? - I am, can you hear me?

[07:09:18] - Yeah, we can, welcome, the floor is yours. - Thank you, and I want to say at the outset, I appreciate you all having an opportunity to testify by phone. I think it's a family-friendly policy, so thank you for the opportunity. I wanted to speak with the board about snow plowing.

[07:09:34] sure you guys have heard a lot about it um i will say just you know uh you know i think everything went much more smoothly with our last snow event um so you know i live in the mount vernon district in the strafford landing neighborhood um and i was in frequent contact during the january storm with supervisor stork's office with our state representatives with our folks at vdot um because our our neighborhood it was all of the streets in the strafford landing area it did not get any plowing until Saturday from a snowstorm that happened Sunday into Monday.

[07:10:10] Now everything that I heard from our, and I want to give kudos to Supervisor Stork staff who were very attentive and responsive when I spoke with them, everything I heard was that it was, you know, VDOT's responsibility and I certainly can understand that that may have been the primary responsibility may have fallen to VDOT, but the question I want to pose to the board, the suggestion I'd like to make is that, you know, it seems to me that Fairfax County should have some kind of backup plan when the state doesn't need to do what it is charged to do. Fairfax County owns a lot of trucks. I'm probably oversimplifying it, but I don't think by very

[07:10:49] much to say that we could throw some plows on our trucks, have our staff trained on how to do that. You know, some folks like the garbage operators who may be not running their routes on a day with a snowstorm, whoever it may be, I'll leave that up to you, to go and pick up the slack where the state is falling down. You know, it was because of the failure to plow. It's the reason we had four and a half snow days. And I think that there's a real solution to this. We live in a county with a, you know, and I'm happy to pay my taxes. We pay for our services here. I think

[07:11:25] we have the capacity and the funding and the opportunity to ensure that the streets are plowed, even if it's not the county's primary responsibility. But I would love to see you all consider having a backup plan where the county steps up.

[07:11:42] So I just wanted to throw that out there and would love you all to consider it. Thank you very much for that testimony. And caller number four is Joe McMullen. Mr. McMullen, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Can you hear me, sir? Yes, we can. Welcome. The floor is yours.

[07:11:59] All right. My call is adjacent to the last caller. A little bit different, though. So I'm calling to employ the Fairfax County supervisors to enact legislation that matches the City of Falls Church's snow removal policies for residential and commercial properties, specifically for sidewalks.

[07:12:20] Now, their policy states that residences must remove snow and ice from sidewalks surrounding the property 12 hours after the snow stops falling, 6 hours after the snow stops falling for commercial property. If the snow falls at night, residents have 12 hours after sunrise to remove it, while commercial has 6 hours.

[07:12:39] Snow and ice must not be placed on city streets. Fines begin at $100 for first offense and scale up to second and third offenses. I live in Jefferson Village in Falls Church, not the city of Falls Church, which is between Arlington Boulevard and 29, west of Annanelle Boulevard and the January 6th and January 12th snowstorms.

[07:13:00] Plus, the spell of serious cold in January kept a majority of the unshoveled snow that turned into ice on top of our untreated sidewalks for up to four weeks before it finally melted. All four of the major school bus stops for our students in my neighborhood had snow and ice piled up.

[07:13:19] I want to quote Superintendent Michelle Reed from January 8th on why Fairfax County schools continue to be closed. Quote, we still have a number of bus stops where there are plowed snow piles, which have created unsafe conditions, limiting visibility and access for students.

[07:13:37] Further, even though we have approximately 130,000 students who ride FCPS buses each day, we have approximately 50,000 students who do not use FCPS transportation, many of whom are walkers and bikers. Many of our sidewalks remain untreated for walkers.

[07:13:55] And the aforementioned snowpiles have also created concerns for the safety of our walking students. So with that said, why are we not mandating that our residential and commercial property owners clear their sidewalks in a reasonable amount of time and incentivize them with financial penalties?

[07:14:12] I believe this to be a no-brainer. I understand that we have climate change in Northern Virginia. We get irregular snow, ice, and cold spells. But we should be future-proofing our neighborhoods and holding our neighbors accountable for keeping sidewalks safe for pedestrians and students.

[07:14:31] Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. For your testimony, Speaker No. 5 is James Thomas. James Thomas is here to be followed by John Lilly. Is John Lilly here? Okay. And James Thomas is representing the Fairfax GOP.

[07:14:48] Welcome. Hi, good afternoon. And first, I want to thank all of you and your staff for the hard work that you do for the residents of Fairfax County. But I stand here before you in strong opposition to any inclusion of a meals tax in the budget proposal being considered by this board.

[07:15:04] Including this single industry tax will have a devastating effect on the food service and restaurant industry, impacting hundreds of workers, small businesses, and entrepreneurs, and of course, every single resident in Fairfax County. Just as the restaurant industry has begun recovering from the impact of COVID, they continue to struggle with inflated food costs, workforce shortages, and credit card swipe fees that cripple the industry, especially family-owned small businesses.

[07:15:31] Meals tax initiatives can be a blow that some small and locally-owned businesses won't recover from. I know this far too well. Family member of mine struggled for years to keep their restaurants open, eventually closing them because of the impact of COVID and the challenge of increased operating costs that resulted from high record inflation.

[07:15:51] This is a delicate industry for many, and adding this tax will only increase the stress and challenges that owners and operators face just getting customers into the doors. Additionally, we know for a fact that this new tax will disproportionately impact lower-income residents and senior citizens.

[07:16:07] Among households with an annual income of less than $30,000, spending on restaurant, food, and beverages represent 9.3% of their pre-tax income, or more than double the national average. Compare that with only 2.6% for households with over $200,000 of annual income.

[07:16:25] Before the General Assembly in 2020 allowed you to bypass voters' wishes on this issue, the meals tax proposal was soundly defeated twice in 1992 and 2016 by voters. So why then, when voters are cut out of the process, would you go against the constituents and the opposition of the majority of voters in the county on this issue?

[07:16:45] The reality is that Fairfax County does not have a revenue problem, you have a spending problem. It's true, the impact of COVID and many residents working from home have impacted commercial tax revenue. But instead of finding creative ways to bring new businesses into the community and diversify the tax base and generate revenue, you turn to the easy route of increasing taxes on voters.

[07:17:06] Last year, you approved an increase in the average homeowners' taxes of 6%. This is on top of a 56% increase over the last 10 years, well above the national average. Add in the dreaded car tax, and this has been a recipe for disaster, with the county continuing to see an out-migration of residents to other areas where the cost of living is less and housing is more affordable.

[07:17:28] I urge this board to seriously evaluate, audit, review existing spending plans to ensure that taxpayer money is going to those things that are inherently governmental and necessary, removing waste and inefficiencies and providing transparency and accountability before flippantly increasing and adding new taxes, increasing the financial burden on families, many of whom struggle to make ends meet.

[07:17:52] Thank you very much. Thank you. And speaker number six is John Lilly. Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is John Lilly, and I retired from the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department December 17th, two months ago, I come before you to introduce myself. I have served this county for 26 and a half years. I have shared pain, tears, joy, sometimes meals with the citizens that I swore to protect. The citizens treated me like a friend and sometimes like family. I'm here today because the morale in the fire and rescue department has become toxic and the harassment

[07:18:31] has not improved, just redirected. The service to our citizens is suffering and is not what it used to be. An article published in Fairfax County Times dated September 7, 2018, quotes Fire Chief John Butler saying, and I quote, a healthy team is invested in the success and well-being of every member. Every member must succeed or else we haven't succeeded. It's not us and them, some and not some. We fail if every member does not succeed, end quote. I have emailed each of you about many failures within the department.

[07:19:10] Most people are willing to say things when they are hiding behind emails, letters, or when they think no one else will know. But I am not hiding. I stand here today willing to stand up for and prove everything I have emailed to you. I may be retired, but I will continue to serve the citizens of Fairfax County.

[07:19:29] If anyone has ever held a human being in their arms as they died, then you understand that the fire department cannot continue on its current path. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for your testimony. And speaker number seven is Susana Vega, who has submitted video testimony. Susana, and I'm appreciative of the time to share my concerns regarding Fairfax County. I am speaking as a child of Greek and Ecolorian immigrants who made the United States home long ago and as a mother of a child of color. Respect for people who look and speak differently than you do is what

[07:20:08] strengthens us. Diversity is what strengthens us. Fairfax County proclaims to be welcoming of all people, to be inclusive, yet has been silent on the genocide of the Palestinian people, and continues to remain silent as our current president carries out further racist and hateful action. It is no secret that President Trump would like to permanently relocate more than 2.3 million Palestinians out of Gaza into Jordan and Egypt. This is also known as ethnic cleansing.

[07:20:39] President Trump is speaking about carrying out ethnic cleansing. It is also no secret that in 2024, Israeli settlers have illegally seized more Palestinian land in the occupied West Bank than in the past 20 years combined. May I provide a small reminder that the West Bank is a separate area from Gaza, and that Gaza has been where the bombing of civilians has supposedly been justified because this is where Hamas is located.

[07:21:04] What Gaza and the West Bank do have in common is that Palestinian people live in both areas. Since January, the escalation of violence in the West Bank has forced more than 40,000 people to be displaced just since January. And may I also provide a small reminder that at least 60,000 illegal settlers are also U.S. citizens that are breaking international law.

[07:21:30] Also since January, Israel has violated the ceasefire in Gaza at least 265 times, including by not allowing aid trucks in, denying Palestinians food, clothing, and medical aid. And if for a moment you might think Israel's actions only concerns Palestinians, let me also provide a small reminder that Israel has also violated the ceasefire agreement in place with Lebanon as well.

[07:21:53] Remaining silent on the gross and unjust actions by Israel only feeds into the often-stated death-to-Arabs rhetoric. Here in the USA, a concerning event occurred this past weekend in Miami Beach. A U.S. citizen shot at two individuals and, believing them to be dead, smiled and said, I killed two Palestinians. Turns out they were not Palestinian. This murderous intention adds to the already existing list of hate crimes against Palestinians and Arab peoples here in the USA.

[07:22:22] Sadly, there is nothing that makes Fairfax County exempt from such an event, but the county can take action that stands against hate, clear action that exemplifies this county's supposedly support for diversity, fairness, and justice. As Fairfax County divested in 1990 from South Africa apartheid, Fairfax County can divest from companies that serve Israeli grotesque violence, genocide, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid in Gaza and the West Bank.

[07:22:52] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Vega. Thank you for your testimony. And that brings us to the end of our public comment period and also the end of our meeting, February 18, 2025. And with that, the board is adjourned.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Coraggio Consulting · aguyonx.com