Creating a Stormwater Utility

I support this, especially that there’s isn’t an exemption for non-profits and other organizations with lots of flat roofs and parking areas. The credits could be a little more generous, though. With a small yard, I could plant 5 trees per year for only so many years until they are too crowded to remain healthy. Plus, I’ve spent several years already planting trees to reduce the amount of lawn so there’s not a lot of available room for more trees at this point. The neighborhood kids tear up the storm drain markers so I guess reinstalling them will be a continuing source of credits…

I support the stormwater utility. It is a matter of equity. Residential homeowners are paying more than their fair share through the property tax. Commercial properties and others with large impervious surfaces are not paying their share. Let’s institute the stormwater utility and REDUCE THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX RATE BY 3 cents. Voila - NO TAX INCREASE!!

I completely disagree with this proposal until the City can justify why they can't find the money in the taxes already levied against its residents and businesses. Perhaps there are other ineffective/inefficient programs that could be cut if this project is that important.

With the current state of the economy (inflation, supply chain issues, employment transitions, etc.), another tax is the last thing we need right now.

Andrew S. Someone is addressing the complaint you lodged on Facebook. Please give us a little more time.

The sanitary sewer billing issue will be addressed next month. A winter quarter limit will be proposed and is expected to pass. This cutoff will greatly reduce the chances of receiving high wastewater bills. In the meantime, please review the information on how to get a one-time bill adjustment. This program was put in place a year ago by City Council while staff studied the billing issue. The information is available here: https://www.fairfaxva.gov/government/public-works/wastewater-services/billing-rates-adjustments

Here is some more information about the proposed utility we shared yesterday.

1. Will the new stormwater utility will be included with the real estate tax bill? How will property owners who use escrow be notified of the change?
If the utility is adopted the city intends to continue public outreach to educate property owners about the stormwater utility, and direct them to the property lookup tool that has been made available to determine the billing units associated with any property in the city. Placing the stormwater utility fee on the real estate tax bill is the most cost-effective option as it leverages an existing process.

2. Will the real estate tax be raised in the years following implementation of the utility?
The real estate tax rate may or may not change in future years for a number of reasons, however if the stormwater utility is implemented any future changes to the real estate tax rate will not be impacted by the stormwater utility.

3. How will homeowners associations handle the fee charged for common areas?
The distribution of the utility fee for common areas to residents is at the discretion of each association. It was decided not to evenly distribute common area fees among residents because this would take away the ability for the association to evaluate their fees in whole, and it would not provide the association with the information necessary for representatives to consider an appeal.

4. Will the stormwater utility rate increase every year?
The financial structure of the utility has been developed to allow for rate changes to maintain parity with inflation from FY22 to FY27. The cost to administer the stormwater operation as a utility will be lower than if it remains as a stormwater fund.

5. Is moving to a stormwater utility a permanent change?
The stormwater utility is intended to be a sustainable funding approach to the permanent need to manage stormwater. This is not intended to be a funding mechanism to only address short term needs. The stormwater operation is here and will continue to be here forever regardless of the funding mechanism used.

6. Is the city planning to spend federal American Rescue Plan Act funding on the city’s stormwater capital improvement projects?
The city is evaluating the most effective priorities for federal funding assistance, including stormwater capital projects. This type of federal funding is a one-time benefit that will not support ongoing needs for the long term. ARPA funds cannot be used for the purpose of reducing taxes or fees.

7. Under a stormwater utility, will homeowners pay more than they currently pay with the $0.03 allocation from their property tax?
We evaluated the average impervious area and the corresponding utility fee against the tax contribution towards stormwater for 49 neighborhoods across the city. Out of those 49 neighborhoods, 41 paid less towards stormwater through the utility approach than through the tax based approach when compared to the 3c tax dedication to the stormwater fund for stormwater related capital projects. All 49 neighborhoods paid less towards stormwater through the utility approach when compared to the 5.7c total cost of the stormwater program.

8. Will commercial building owners, churches, and other non-profits incur new annual expenses?
Overall, approximately 2/3 of the city’s total real estate assessed values are in residential properties; however, residential properties only make up 1/3 of the impervious surfaces in the city. Non-residential properties account for about 2/3 of the impervious surface in the city but only 1/3 of assessed property values. Untaxed properties generate stormwater runoff but currently do not contribute toward managing it. The utility approach addresses the disparity between impervious surfaces and tax based funding towards stormwater management. Assessing fees based on impervious areas means that fees are directly related to a property’s demand on stormwater management.

Benefits of a Stormwater Utility
• Recommended by the city’s financial advisor as a “best practice” for AAA rated local governments like the City.
• Allow for a more consistent year to year funding stream that is not subject to the market forces (good or bad) that dictates the value of the City’s real estate tax valuation year over year.
• With a consistent funding stream, the City has the opportunity to plan for adequate funding levels for the stormwater program year to year.
• Provides the City added funding flexibility, including the ability to utilize revenue bonds to fund larger capital projects.
• By moving from a real estate tax based funding approach to a utility enterprise funding approach based on property impact rather than value, the burden for payment falls proportionately to those that create the need for the service.

Someone will be in touch early next week regarding your vehicle.

Thanks for your patience.

This week I was reminded about the bloated and wasteful bureaucracy behind government. I've lived in the City of Fairfax for nearly 4 years and everyone always tells me how great the services are and that everything is included in the (supposedly low) taxes we pay. This week the leaf collector came by and vacuumed up the leaves on our street, just like they do every Fall. Only this time, the truck must have already been full because I witnessed huge plumes of minced leaves blowing out of the truck and into the street. No big deal normally, except they totally blanketed a car that happened to be parked on the street. I sent a Facebook message to the City and only got a response back 24 hours later that they were going to spend more time looking into the issue. I also called the City but had to call 3 different numbers/departments to apparently get to the correct person. I left a message and still haven't heard back some 36 hours later. Given all the great services we already pay for, shouldn't the car's owner be compensated for having to go get their car washed?

Which gets me to this new Rain Tax the City is proposing. What is it? I'm not sure anyone really knows, other than a massive new tax the City is trying to quickly vote on and pass without much deliberation or public insight. I pay thousands of dollars in taxes every year and we all know that a lot of this money is misspent and goes to pay for the salaries of bureaucrats or alternatively fund pet projects.

I believe Vienna has some form of rainwater mitigation requirements, but I think it only applies to new construction or redevelopment of a location. Sort of makes sense that if you are going to modify the footprint of a lot, that you take some reasonable steps to mitigate future issues.

But I'm not planning on building out my house, so why should I pay this new tax? Sort of like the government-sanctioned robbery with creating new tolls on existing highways! I get putting tolls on brand new roads like they did with the Dulles Toll Road, but now you are going to tax me for driving on existing highways? We all know how this worked out for the last governors election in Virginia.

Which brings me back to the taxes and fees I already pay. Today I received in the mail my quarterly water bill from Fairfax Water and I closely inspected it for all the line items on the bill. Total bill was a hefty $392 (and change) for 3 months. Looking closer, the actual Fairfax Water charges are only $101, but the City's Sewer Charges & Taxes are an eye-popping 3-times higher! $15 utility tax; $54 sewer minimum charge; $217 for a sewer usage above min. (another surcharge, I guess!); and $4 for repair and replacement. Numbers were rounded, but the total came out to $290 just for these City-imposed "sewer charges & taxes." As the bill says, these are "established by and collected for City of Fairfax."

So my question is: Mr. Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers, why are you putting more taxes on us? Aren't we already over-taxed? Do we not pay our fair share? Didn't the Congress borrow from future generations and give the City some $29 million that could be used for your pet project?

Please stop with this tax and spending nonsense already.

Please use the ARPA money to address this serious infrastructure deficit you’ve presented us. That is what it is for.

Cheryl M is spot on. City Council/Mayor have created a self-inflicted wound. And they have no plans to stop enlarging that wound (i.e. approving over-development, never requiring permeable surfaces from developers, approving enormous amounts of impervious surfaces, approving exceptions to tree cover requirements and ignoring environmental issues). Instead of addressing the cause they (4 of 6 anyway) want to create a bandaid that won’t work - an ever growing tax on residents to pay for the self-inflicted wound. In addition, there are real issues with the language of the draft ordinance. Unlike every other locality in VA that has a stormwater utility - fairfax city has language to allow the director to unilaterally change the definition of what is permeable vs impermeable. With no notice, no votes, no requirements that it be in writing. Fairfax City’s draft ordinance also removes the appeal to circuit court that every other VA locality has. Very unusual. Cheryl M, you should run for city council! I would vote for you.

Mr. Kaiser, thank you for the response you provided below. This is all great information and none of it surprises me.  I appreciate your confirming that the City employed methods of handling some/most of the run-off/stormwater for these new high-density housing developments - whether done by choice or to meet federal requirements.  But let's not lose sight of the fact that the City is now expecting residents, businesses and even non-profits to fund the ongoing maintenance of these engineering marvels that handle the huge amount of pervious surface run-off/stormwater from these new developments.  

As stated on my initial input, the goal was to look at City development and improvement practices in a more "holistic" way - not just from the aspect of a Stormwater Utility.  The impacts of an 11% increase in Fairfax City residences and resulting 10% population increase in under 5 years extend far beyond run-off.

Your statement that "Mixed-use developments are designed to reduce driving by including retail on-site or nearby, and all of the sites you mentioned are served by CUE Bus." doesn't even flirt with addressing all of those impacts.  High-density housing creates many issues that a bit of on-site retail and a CUE Bus stop don't come close to handling.  City residents are presented with beautiful artist renderings of each new proposed development and the general response is, "Oh, isn't that pretty!  Of course that development will be an asset to the City."  The reality of the environmental and day-to-day impact of the development is never highlighted or scrutinized.  And, sadly, the same lack of impact consideration has even been the case with City approval of residential improvements.  (Please revisit my comments on my neighbor's approved 46% impervious surface on a quarter-acre residential lot.)

As Fairfax City Communications and Marketing Director, I realize your job is to assure that everything the City undertakes is presented in a way that makes the initiative look and sound good.  But putting lipstick on run-away development doesn't make  the environmental or human impacts pretty.  And it sure doesn't change who has to pay for those impacts - both with taxes and lower quality of life.

Thank you for your comments, Dave S. Existing stormwater management facilities are eligible for credit.

Private developments with streets that do not meet Public Facility Manual standards cannot be accepted by the city into the public maintenance inventory, which means the city does not provide services such as snow removal, repaving, concrete repairs, drainage maintenance, etc. Buyers accept this when they purchase homes in privately maintained communities.

The benefit is that private streets do not have to meet stringent dimension requirements, and thus allow more lot area for development. One might say this just benefits the developer, but ultimately the costs for the individual homes in the development are partly based on the overall cost of the development as a whole, so the more homes that can be built, the more owners there are to spread those costs across.

The proposed stormwater utility would benefit all city residents through well-maintained public drainage infrastructure and environmental improvements. It’s also worth noting that mandatory municipal permit compliance is the responsibility of the entire community.

Thank you for your comments, Cheryl M. Here is some information about the stormwater management facilities at the redevelopment projects you cited. All redevelopment projects in the city are required to improve stormwater management, and many of the facilities are underground and out of sight. Mixed-use developments are designed to reduce driving by including retail on-site or nearby, and all of the sites you mentioned are served by CUE Bus.

While Scout on the Circle is mostly impervious, it is more pervious than the shopping center it replaced by about a quarter acre. The original shopping center did not have any stormwater management facilities, but several modern best management practices were installed when Scout was built. Scout’s water quantity requirements were met by improving stormwater management on the site and through the analysis of a dual 6-foot box culvert that captures and slowly releases runoff from the site. To meet the state water quality requirement to reduce phosphorous by 20%, the site includes two Filterra tree box filters and three Contech Jellyfish storm filter cartridge vaults. (A Jellyfish is also installed at the new Draper’s restaurant at Old Town Square.)

Paul VI, now known as Boulevard VI, includes four underground detention facilities with stormwater filtering vaults that treat the majority of the runoff generated by the site to meet their 20% water quality improvement requirement. The detention facilities reduce the rate of runoff for the 10-year storm when compared to predevelopment conditions, which meets water quantity control requirements.

Fairfield at Gateway (The Moxley) includes facilities similar to Boulevard VI. There are three underground detention facilities that control runoff rates to less than predevelopment conditions. There are stormwater filter cartridge vaults attached to the end of the detention facilities, as well as standalone vaults to meet the 20% pollutant reduction requirements for water quality.

The redevelopment of the Metro Church site will improve stormwater management, for both water quality and quantity. You may review the plans here (pages 4-8) https://www.fairfaxva.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/15163/637225729027700000.

I watched the presentation to the City Council last night (Nov. 30, 2021). I understand we must find a way to pay for the storm water costs but your plan is far from perfect. You already spent $400,000 in coming up with the study and planning for this.

I am most concerned about non-profits being assessed the utility. I computed my homeowners' association (HOA) has 77.68634 units of impervious surface based on the map linked from your website and that will result in a cost (tax/fee/utility it is all the same to us) of $2,276.21. My HOA has private streets and the storm water falling on our streets flows into filtration storm drains that we pay to maintain each year. I do not see anything about credit being given for this on your website and it was not brought up in the meeting last night as something that was considered. If my HOA is filtering storm water, why should we be charged a flat rate fee without any credit for? Also, my HOA will end up paying for our HOA streets plus our homeowners we will be contributing to pay for all the city streets in the neighborhoods that have city streets with the individual homeowners' utility fee. For example, I will be paying my individual utility fee plus I will be assessed additional HOA fees to offset the added fee charged to my HOA. In the neighborhood next to me, the homeowners have all city streets so those homeowners are only paying the individual utility fee. The fees I pay, go towards paying the costs for the impervious surfaces in the city street areas. To make things equal, as you try to point out that you are doing, the homeowners on city streets will need to be assessed the utility fee for the cost of the streets running through their neighborhoods.

The plan to assess fees on churches is going to be trouble for them. For example, the fee for the Fairfax Presbyterian Church will be $9,502.38 and the fee for the Truro Anglican Church will be $5,888.77. Many churches already struggle to make ends meet just to stay afloat. The fee for the INOVA Emergency Care Center will be $13,256.53. That center will survive but that added cost will get passed down to people who receive medical services.

If you are going to tax us or charge us a utility, just include it with the property taxes and keep it simple. Do not waste any more money on trying to figure out how much impervious surface is on each plot and sending employees out to verify some trees were planted for credits or the storm drains have labels attached to them for credits. Do not charge non-profits who cannot afford it. Do not waste another $400,000 on this.

Maybe we should look at the Stormwater Utility Initiative more holistically and quantify some of the issues that are, no doubt, driving the need for a Stormwater Utility. Plus highlight some other concerns that will, no doubt, drive the need for additional future revenue generation. Changes that not all City Residents and Businesses will readily embrace. This is a numbers-driven offering - nearly all from the City's own website - so buckle up.

-Per the 2020 Census, the City had 24,146 residents living in the 9,273 residences within its 6.3 square miles. That breaks down to an average of 2.6 residents per housing unit.

-Since that 2020 Census, 400 apartment units at Scout on the Circle have become available to rent. (A 54,000 sq. ft. Giant Food store is a stand-alone building on the Scout on the Circle property.)

-An additional 403 apartment units are under construction at The Moxley at Kamp Washington.

-Plus, there are 266 housing units (a mix of condos, townhomes and 7 single family homes) being built at Boulevard VI (former site of Paul VI High School) on Lee Hwy.

-That's a total of 1,069 new high-density housing units, representing an over 11% increase in City housing units happening in less than 5 years.

Per the City's "Creating a Stormwater Utility" info: "One inch of rain that falls on a 3,000 square-foot Impervious Surface generates 1,028 Gallons of run-off". Now let's look at what the City's Stormwater Utility Lookup Tool says about the amount of Impervious Surface for each of these new developments:

-Scout on the Circle occupies a 383,469 sq. ft. land parcel with a total of 349,176 sq. ft. of Impervious Surface. That means this development was approved and built with 91% of the land covered by Impervious Surface. When we have just 1" of rain, this property generates over 239,000 gallons of run-off or Stormwater that must be handled by the storm drain system since the 9% of Pervious Surface on the property sure can't absorb much of it.

-The Moxley at Kamp Washington is being built on a 362,478 sq. ft. land parcel and will have a total of 291,133 sq. ft. of Impervious Surface. That means this development was approved with 80% of the total land covered by Impervious Surface. When we have 1" of rain, this property generates over 99,000 gallons of run-off or Stormwater that must be handled by the storm drain system since the 20% of Pervious surface on the property will only absorb a fraction of it. Better than Scout on the Circle but still pretty bad.

-Boulevard VI is harder to quantify as the Stormwater Utility Lookup Tool shows the property broken up into multiple sections and individual housing units. It looks like the Impervious Surface percentage for this development is in the 70% range overall, so definitely more storm-drain-friendly than Scout on the Circle and The Moxley. But still not great.

On a more personal note, my single family residence has just under 19% Impervious Surface. This means that over 80% of my quarter acre lot absorbs the run-off from my house, driveway and walk. In Stormwater Utility terms, my Pervious Surface absorbs most of the run-off from my Impervious Surface. The residence next to me, on exactly the same size lot, boasts over 46% Impervious Surface. "Why?", you ask. Because the homeowner is a car enthusiast and the City approved his plan for a 2 car garage with a separate 2nd driveway leading to it, a turn-around area in front of the garage and a parking pad to the side that runs the length of the garage. All concrete. I've probably lost a ton of topsoil from my back yard from the erosion due to run-off from the volume of parking space next door that many City businesses would envy. Neighbors to the rear have been similarly affected.

I am neither for or against Creating a Stormwater Utility. What I do endorse is a more ecologically-friendly approach to development and property improvement in Fairfax City. And here are a few more important reasons why:

-The average US Citizen creates 16 tons of carbon emissions per year.

-If the City's 1,069 new residential units average only 2.25 residents per unit, we're adding 2,405 new City residents. (That's a 10% population increase and is a pretty conservative estimate since the 2020 Census shows an average of 2.6 residents per City residential unit.) This means the City is gaining a big part of over 38,000 tons of new carbon emissions each year from residents of these 3 new developments.

-A significant portion of those emissions come from automobiles. If those 1,069 new residential units average 1.5 automobiles per unit, that means we have 1,603 new automobiles regularly traveling into, out of and through the City.

Is this too much population increase too fast? Has the City lost focus on maintaining a "small town community feel" in favor of emulating Tysons? Is it right for the City Council and Mayor to approve an 11% increase in City residences which translates to at least 2,405 new residents - a nearly 10% increase in City population - in less than 5 years? If the fast and significant residence and resident increase has resulted in the need for a Stormwater Utility tax, what is the next tax we'll see in order to handle the effects of such significant growth?

And one last question: Isn't it more than a little hypocritical of the City to offer Storm Water Utility (tax) "credits" to existing City "Property owners who take measures to reduce the stormwater rate or volume flowing from their properties to the City’s stormwater system . . . " as the City is approving new projects that boast huge amounts of pervious surfaces? Has Fairfax City determined that generating real estate tax revenue trumps any and all ecological concerns? Looks to me like the answer is "Yes!". But it does seem to want to "look" like it cares so shifts the responsibility for "doing better" to existing businesses and residents.

Summary: The City has recently approved too many huge hard surface horrors and has realized that, Oops!, there are long-term consequences, from both the infrastructure and Federal-compliance perspectives, that will take significant additional funds to handle. I hope others will voice their own concerns as the Stormwater Utility consideration goes forward. And especially as new City developments - like the 50 townhouse units on the 3.7 acre Metro Church parcel on Pickett Rd. and the Kamp Washington Small Area Plan - are being finalized. And have you noticed that trees keep disappearing along City roads as they're widened to make room for all those new cars driven by new City residents living in all that high-density housing that's creating all that run-off . . . ?

This is a great idea. It ties the utility fee to the amount of stormwater runoff. The loophole as I understand it is that the City itself is exempt from the utility. I would imagine that the City roadways are a major contributor to stormwater runoff that would not be subject to the utility fees. I would propose that the City would have to assess itself when it adds road surface and get a credit for removal of road surface. Of course that charge would be passed on in our taxes, but it would provide another metric for evaluation of new transportation projects. For example, in the debate over Old Lee Highway this would provide an incentive for the City to remove even more road surface than the current plan calls for. Each project should have an addendum detailing that calculation. In addition and unrelated to the water issue, there should be a calculation of annual maintenance and of the periodic resurfacing required. That would give the citizens even more information for their input at public hearings.

I might have missed this, but if you impose this fee, will you reduce our real property tax rate by the 3 cents now put towards stormwater management? With SALT deductions likely to be increased, why are you shifting from a deductible tax to a nondeductible fee? The need is there, but you could do this in a way that causes less impact on our finances/overall tax bill. It's still a tax. Call it a tax and let us deduct it...although you think you won't face political backlash if you call it a fee and not a tax? It still comes out of the same pocket in my home.

While I had initially been supportive of the concept of a storm water utility, I have come to understand this simply is a tax by a different name. I live in a section of a community that is in both the City and the County, but whose storm water virtually all flows away from the City's storm water system toward George Mason University. However, the City is still planning to charge the city residents and the HOA (for common property) the full amount as if the city was actually providing storm water utility service. They are not. I certainly do support the concept that all residents must contribute to the costs associated with public property storm water management from public streets, sidewalks, parks, city facilities and the like. This is the sensible basis for residents and HOAs paying minimum one billing unit amount into the Utility. However, charging residents and HOAs for full “utility” service on the basis the City has described for the reasons they describe since, is not reasonable. These citizens and HOAs do not receive “full” service as they do not contribute significantly to the stormwater volume the City manages. The utility fact sheet available on this page states the utility "...will more equitably distribute the cost of stormwater service to all properties based on their stormwater runoff impact..." It is clear this is untrue.

I would like to understand how the new Stormwater Utility will help achieve the strategic plan for the city to join the Community Rating System under FEMA’s flood control program and achieve a high rating for the city that will provide significant discounts for city residents purchasing flood insurance. I recently dropped my flood insurance policy because it was too expensive. I live in a zone X flood zone, so flood insurance was not required. It is supposed to be inexpensive but I found I was paying as much as my son pays in a rated flood zone in coastal Georgia. Why? Because his city is a member of the CRS and gets a significant discount in flood insurance premiums for all their citizens. I recommend a specific goal be established to join the CRS as part of this SWU plan with specific goals of achieving ratings - better ratings each year,. This type of specific accountable performance objective would make me feel better about supporting the plan.

I am concerned about creating another taxing authority in the City. I would ask why this hasn’t been placed on the ballot for voter’s to speak, before being subjected to this new system involving taxation. I generally agree on the need for this. I understand how these utilities work in general. I am most concerned about ensuring there is a system of accountability in place to control growth. As with all government agencies, there will be a tendency to grow staff, grow projects, and justify increases in taxes imposed on our citizens. I have experienced the well intentioned transfer of drinking water system to Fairfax County. I read the material provided and saw the argument that this would “save” taxpayers money. My water bill has done nothing but increase tremendously since. so I am somewhat distrustful of all the charts showing how this will save taxpayers money. For example, living in a community with an HOA, it appears that the previously untaxed HOA will now be assessed a new fee. Since the HOA has no income except fees paid by homeowners, we will now see an increase in fee due to this new assessment. I do not think we will see any assessment decrease, and I fear things will increase over time, maybe dramatically. Please consider putting this major decision to a vote of citizens. If the argument can be made effectively for this SWU, then the citizens will agree and vote for approval.

KK FFX City Resident - You are welcome to attend any of the meetings on 10/30. The basic information is the same. The only difference is the property examples presented. If you are unable to attend, please view the presentation saved on this site: https://engage.fairfaxva.gov/11489/widgets/40491/documents/24963

No More Utility Taxes until there is better justification on why you can't find this in the current budget when FFX city's population has only grown over the past 3 decades. There are drains all of the city for stormwater – SO NO TO THIS. I am truly disgusted that for a city this size and the growth we've seen that you want to tax residents more when this money should be coming from the new taxes. Does someone just sit at the office thinking of ways to raise money? Just because other towns do this does not mean we need to when it is already built into our budget through growth. Isn’t that the grow, tax, and spend strategy? Now the piper is coming back for more money with this ludicrous bill. This should be coming out of the infrastructure like it should. You need to start working the FFX City budget and spending like a private company and be frugal about spending money from your Citizens. You don't just think of an idea and hoist it upon the masses to pay up whenever you feel like with slick marketing materials like its a done deal. This is a tragedy - FFX has been growing over the last 3 decades and the roads are the same roads, the waterways are the same waterways. You've allowed unfettered apartments and condo and townhome complexes with the greed in mind to only get more people squished into this city. Like 50 townhomes in the place of the old megachurch on Picket- that is pretty much 100 new cars you just added to that road. GREED GREED GREED! This in addition to the other living high rise dwellings you built on picket in the last decade. You have let residents down when you transferred the water system to the county without seriously looking at the sewage calculations or the consumption calculations - it is so messed up. Oh and we were told it would be less money but we got charged more than the county. Doesn’t make sense when its all the same company managing it. How about you fix this first then come back and talk to us about how you need this. Because the way I see it - you are already double or triple taxing homeowners (1. the sewage bill doesn't acct for sprinklers/hose usage where water goes to the storm drains 2. many communities take care of their own storm drains so you don't need to install these there - you'd be double taxing 3. adding this stormwater tax on top of the first 2 items 4. The city has storm drains all over the place – figure this out without increasing fees. Fairfax City has been growing within its boundaries - You have a bigger tax base, get the money from the current tax base. This is double and even triple taxing its citizens and even quadrupling them when there are storm drains all over the place. What are the citizens gaining - nothing but more expenses. Manage this budget better or maybe we can get an audit accounting from Richmond or who is hired in a situation like this to see about bloated salaries or too many staff like the ones sitting in an unopposed chair taxing its subjects more. And do not even state there is a supply chain issue. This "Utility Tax" will have the same accountability as the people that collect our water and sewage fees - there is none. You can't get simple answer or corrections. Its a vicious cycle to keep us with busywork so we don't see what you are doing. The City needs to fix these problems first. Also the Tree City and urban tree development has always been part of FFX city's budget. By the way what are the citizens gaining here as you constantly take away green space when you said 2 decades ago we want to preserve our green spaces. Where are people going to park for Pat Rodio Park – you know the tenants of the new place will be parking in the spots for that park. There should be no need for a new utility tax for this. The 'equity' portion of this is terrible. It should not be based on impervious land - you either charge a flat fee to everyone or no one as everyone benefits from this - right? That is not equity to charge someone more when they bought something years ago and now are stuck with something they never knew about would cost them more - that is sick. This is stealing - plain and simple. Do better Fairfax and stop with the slick marketing trying to justify something that should be part of the growing receivables from the growth our city has. If this is such an issue, why wasn't it forecasted BEFORE you allowed the development of the PVI school land, or the land across from Wal-Mart with an ourtrageious amount of units for 29 and 50 to handle or the SCOUT on the Circle, or the Layton Hall new apartments, or the new townhomes in FFX City and slated for Picket Road or the the houses at the end of Roberts Road, or the dwellings on Main Street by the American Legion? Maybe you are overbuilding too quickly and its not really 'Smart Growth' because we don't have a suitable infrastructure - like the land grab going on Old Lee Highway - figure out if you want FFx to be a copy of Arlington or Reston or both - which are terrible to get around anymore. How about you focus on attracting some good restaurants to get folks to the town - how about a FFx city restaurant scene with fun events to generate something for the residents instead of just taking our money - provide for great events that justify us spending our money here. Provide for the green spaces – Van Dyke never has enough parking – get more parking – that park is crowded. Install more parks not more living dwellings. We are out of space – the fields are packed with children and families – we need more of these open spaces and more events for people to enjoy where they live. Isn’t that what we were promised with the new growth? Where is this? The urban forest is something that should be part of the TREE CITY initiative – looks like you just rebranded it. I VOTE no for this project. Our funds need to be managed better in a city of our size. There has been serious growth and along with it serious receivables. You have already congested this city more over the last 3 decades without giving anything back to our Citizens. Instead let’s be a beacon for other city’s and towns and show them how to meet regulations within our boundaries without taxing our residents more as we take that money from bonds or your continuous new growth. Let's learn from the water bill debacle. Let’s show them how we converted the infrastructure budget we have and applied what we need to achieve this without impacting our citizens more.

You need to have more residential property public meetings. I just got the postcard. The one on 10/30 is at 10:30am. I see I missed the evening one on 10/20. Will there be another evening one the week of November 1?