Op-Ed by Judy Fraser & Sue Kuiler – Fairfax City Residents
A vote to build the George Snyder Trail (GST) was pushed through last June despite significant community and Council opposition. Whatever your position on the project, you may be interested to learn that the June vote was based on misinformation. Council had been told by the acting city manager and his staff, in no uncertain terms, that the City would have to pay back $3.7 million if the project was canceled. This is simply not true.
A deep dive into project documentation has revealed that there is no requirement to repay such a fantastic sum. According to the 2018 project agreement signed by the then city manager and the VDOT chief of policy, the city is not required to pay back the “Transform 66 Outside the Beltway Concessionaire Fund” money it has already spent on the design if it cancels the project. The only required payback is $395,000, which is the much smaller federal grant that the city also used for project design costs. Thus, the required payback is almost ten times less than Council was led to believe.
The record shows that the most recent vote, taken on June 10, would have been 4-2 to cancel the project if not for the purported $3.7 million payback penalty. Council Member Amos stated publicly that he does not support the GST because of its negative impacts on the Accotink Creek. But he voted to allow it to proceed because “my main difficulty of this process was that I don’t know if I can go to bed knowing I cost the City nearly $4 million”. He reiterated in an op-ed in the July Fairfax Independent News that he “voted in favor of the full GST due to major concerns the fiscal impact the $3.7 million would have on our bond rating and budget outlook”. It turns out his vote to cancel would not have cost the City $3.7 million.
Council Member McQuillen’s vote to proceed was likewise inconsistent with her stance on the project. McQuillen eloquently stated her position on the project during the March 11, 2025, work session: “It’s clear based on testimonials and the data by local naturalists, environmentalists and our city’s own stormwater specialist [and] urban forester that the east side cannot support this project environmentally. I am pro-trails, just not this project. If we pursue this project we will experience an increase in our stormwater runoff… an increase in our trail maintenance costs and with the future costs of our city in mind…I cannot support this project.” Unfortunately, after that work session, staff doubled down on their insistence that full payback would be required (e.g., the June 3, 2025, council work session GST presentation).
At the July 22nd council meeting, the fact that the repayment is not required was brought to the attention of the council, mayor, city attorney, and acting city manager by two residents during the meeting’s General Public Comment period. The speakers noted that three lawyers, including Chap Peterson, had reviewed the 2018 Agreement and each had affirmed that the agreement provided the City with the option to cancel without penalty (see the relevant excerpt of the agreement included later in this article).
Council needs to retake the vote on the project now that it is clear repayment is not required. The four council members, Tom Peterson, Stacy Hall, Rachel McQuillen, and Anthony Amos, who do not support the bloated, costly, and damaging project, can now, out from under the cloud of a fictitious multimillion dollar repayment, vote to cancel.
The ripple effects of cancellation would be very positive. Not only will the trees be saved but staff will be freed up for other important projects, and the City Council will take a big step forward in showing that our leaders will uphold the City’s commitment to protecting our natural environment. The thousands of opponents of the project will be grateful.
Going forward, our leadership needs to do better. Perhaps, this misinformation was the result of lack of thoroughness on the part of staff, but if so, it represents a costly bit of negligence and makes it clear that finding a city manager who will be a careful steward of the city’s affairs must be a priority of this Council. We want to be known for remarkable and upstanding leadership with a reputation for fiscal responsibility. Also, we all know deep down that better outcomes will result from greater citizen participation even if it slows the process down and sometimes frustrates staff who are trying to move projects along. To quote Council Member McQuillen, “we’re lucky to have such caring, concerned, and engaged citizens and we need to listen to them.” As the saying goes, “to go fast, go alone, but to go far, go together.”
A Deeper Dive into the GST Concessionaire Fund Terms
In the 2018 project agreement between VDOT and the City, there is no requirement to repay the concessionaire funds. In fact, quite the opposite: there is a straightforward clause which allows the city to cancel the project without repayment penalty:
“9 This agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days advance written notice. Eligible project expenses incurred through the date of termination shall be reimbursed in accordance with paragraphs 1.f, 1.g, and 2.b, subject to the limitations established in this Agreement and Appendix A. Upon termination, the DEPARTMENT shall retain ownership of plans, specifications, and right of way, unless all state and federal funds provided for the Project have been reimbursed to the DEPARTMENT by the LOCALITY, in which case the LOCALITY will have ownership of the plans, specifications, and right of way, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon in writing” [source: Project Agreement UPC 112816 Project # U000-151-216 Locality City of Fairfax].
FOIA requests confirm there were no additional agreements on this project that described cancellation repayment terms.
Second, VDOT has standard repayment procedures for state and federal transportation funds which are part of those project agreements where such funds are used, but the concessionaire fund was a private contribution to the Commonwealth. State code makes clear that concession funds are held distinct from other transportation funds (Code of Virginia § 33.2-1528 Concession Payments Account). VDOT staff used the VDOT Locally Administered Project Manual, Chapter 19, Financial Management and Reimbursement Processing, to justify repayment, yet Section 19.1, the introduction to that chapter, states clearly that the manual’s procedures apply only to state and federal money:
“This chapter provides guidance for the LPA [Local Public Agency] in complying with VDOT and FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] financial requirements for federal and state-funded transportation programs and projects. This chapter includes guidance on eligible expenses and invoicing requirements.”
Indeed, this is borne out by a review of approved council resolutions about the GST and project agreements and council resolutions for other projects received from the city in response to FOIA requests in late July: Unlike other state and federal-funded city projects, there is no approved council resolution or supplementary agreement that requires the city to repay concessionaire funds, which are private transportation funds, as a condition for receipt of such funds.
Fairfax County included a very clear definition of private transportation funds, in particular, the “Transform 66 Outside the Beltway Concessionaire Fund”, in its Fairfax County, Virginia: FY 2024 – FY 2028 Adopted CIP, Transportation Initiatives, page 237, which clearly distinguishes private transportation funds from the other categories of state and federal funds:
“Fairfax County receives private contributions from developers for roadway and transportation improvements throughout the County. Developer contributions are based on the developer contribution rate schedule for road improvements in the Fairfax Center, Centreville, Reston, and Tysons Areas. These area contributions will address the traffic impact of new development associated with growth resulting from the Comprehensive Plan. The contribution rate schedule is revised periodically by the Board of Supervisors based on the Consumer Price Index.
In November 2016, I-66 Mobility Partners was selected to deliver the Transform 66 Outside the Beltway project. The project is a public-private partnership between the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT), and a private partner, Express Mobility Partners (EMP). The project will deliver $3.7 billion of transportation improvements in the I-66 corridor and transform I-66 into a multimodal corridor that moves more people by providing more reliable and new travel options.
The Transform 66 Outside the Beltway agreement also provided a $500 million concessionaire payment for additional transportation projects that will augment the effectiveness of the other I-66 improvements. In December 2017, the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) approved the list of projects, including nine projects in Fairfax County, with a total award of $122,169,000. See http://www.transform66.org/ for more information.”
Third, our own city staff have indicated they understand that the concessionaire funds are different from state and federal transportation money. In numerous public meetings, staff expressed uncertainty about the terms of payback given the source of the funding (see for example, the January 24, 2023, council meeting, agenda item 9a).
Bottom line, there are no payback requirements in the project documents or in state transportation documents and likewise no commitment by a City Council to pay it back. Only the unspent portion needs to be returned.
For anyone who thinks that the federally sourced $395,000 from the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program (CMAQ) would somehow be more costly than proceeding with the project, consider the following:
- Overseeing the construction of the GST will inevitably cost the city more than $400,000 in staff time and resources over the next two to three years;
- Staff will have more time to devote to projects that will truly improve bicycling and walking in the city if they are not embroiled in managing the construction of a $20 million infrastructure project;
- The intact and undisturbed forest will be less costly to maintain for future taxpayers than the maintenance of the costly infrastructure of the GST and the costs associated with additional stormwater runoff will be avoided;
- Repaying the federal funds will have zero impact on the city’s bond rating; and
- The returned money will be put to better use on a project somewhere else that will actually mitigate air pollution (analysis has shown the GST as proposed would likely result in an overall worsening of air quality based on the number of mature trees lost compared with the number of car trips likely to be displaced).
The City Council should retake this vote and allow City Council Members Amos and McQuillen to vote their conscience knowing that canceling the project is also the fiscally responsible choice. [Readers can contact Fairfax City Mayor Read and City Council Members by email].
[Publisher’s Note: Because we have received numerous emails about our October cover story, we are adding the following note. The Independent News Press emailed Mayor and Council on September 15 with the following question: “Is the council considering taking another vote to cancel this project and return the designated VDOT money?” in reference to GST. We did not hear back by our deadline at noon on September 16.]
