[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6454205,"mediaKeyId","5861670-b38a7aaf20e21cfe034a3b648792155e","parentId",5861670,"title","Residents urge Fairfax City to cancel George Schneider Trail, dispute repayment claims tied to VDOT agreement","audioSeconds",1168,"startMs",1230000,"endMs",2398000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5861670-b38a7aaf20e21cfe034a3b648792155e&start=1230&end=2398","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5861670-b38a7aaf20e21cfe034a3b648792155e/thumbnail_1230000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6454205/Fairfax-City/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Residents-urge-Fairfax-City-to-cancel-George-Schneider-Trail-dispute-repayment-claims-tied-to-VDOT-agreement","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454205-0f9b19448b055cb36b300ed36a25e474/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191499&Signature=a14tznkLj~IW7-5iXgqg~BUDDjzZ2lTKrtg7ydGVNv8F~WwSYFf7WgsxzLR5gs0TdvBxmKbdiwGGUlgN2vmdaYyvxs3smMVX9oZ4tQqwBnLQMrSS3ScGzeTu7~nYj8tuMlhBhuP9OwlGoNYYn4EPnmJl4MSgUb3QQdU4I9D-~xJzmmyb0aw~LTzlkUC6jSxO5HBnIcBSAcXOjk9oE2kqhl55HY-1GkHAlDwbFcwxetD8hW3E0IxDbecWdvjRG6k8w3EKHNhdUdnVy42p8yrM2XrcRSEFdVqev5EldwRzFUc2zTCPvTnkPjG-rPpu7rEhnU5UG0Eeu5s~rxrXNpuV6g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fairfax City","date","2025-09-30T00:00:00Z","article","Dozens of Fairfax City residents used the council’s public comment periods on Sept. 30 to urge the city to cancel the George Schneider Trail — frequently cited in testimony as the George Schneider Trail (GST) or the Georgetown Trail — arguing the project would harm wetlands and forested stream corridors and that council was misinformed about repayment obligations under the project agreements.

At least five speakers addressed the trail during general public comment, repeating claims first raised in local coverage and neighborhood advocacy: speakers said the 2018 agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) governing the project contains a section that allows cancellation without the city repaying concessionaire funds already expended, and they said public statements that the city would face a $3.7 million repayment obligation were incorrect.

Why it matters: The project footprint runs near the North Fork of Accotink Creek and through forested open space. Opponents say the trail design would add impervious surface, damage wetlands and require removal of trees. The disputed repayment amount — if owed — could influence council votes by raising estimated taxpayer costs. Several residents told council that the executed VDOT agreement (2018 GST agreement) includes a cancellation clause that would limit repayable funds to a much smaller federal grant amount.

What speakers said

Philip Latasa, representing Friends of Accadine Creek, asked council to cancel the George Schneider Trail and choose alternatives such as improving nearby streets for people bicycling and walking. Latasa said planting more trees does not compensate for the permanent footprint of “2 acres of asphalt plus attendant structures” that would be inserted into forest.

Judy Fraser, who said she follows the project closely, told council that the motion to cancel the trail presented to council in June would have committed the city to an unrealistic full repayment of project expenditures and that such full repayment is not required under the 2018 project agreement. Fraser and other speakers said the concessionaire funds used for the trail were private funds given to the Commonwealth and are not identical to VDOT-held state funds.

Shelly Vance and Susan Kyler pressed similar points, asserting that the only certain payback under the executed agreement would be a federal grant amount around $395,000, not the $3.7 million figure cited in some public comments and materials. Vance also connected the trail dispute with concerns about earlier developments she said weakened stream and floodplain protections in other neighborhoods.

Katie Johnson, who said she represents the perspective of longtime residents, described how intense local campaigns and misinformation have affected civic life and urged council not to proceed with a project that would “commit our city to building this bike road through our remaining and irreplaceable woodlands and wetlands.”

Authorities and documents referenced

Speakers repeatedly cited the 2018 GST executed agreement between the City of Fairfax and VDOT, and asked why the city or VDOT would treat concessionaire funds as repayable state funds when, they said, the original concessionaire funds were private developer contributions. Several public commenters asked the city to produce documents supporting staff statements that the city would face a $3.7 million payback obligation.

What council did

Council did not take action on the George Schneider Trail at the Sept. 30 meeting. Public commenters asked the council to revisit its June decision and retake the vote in light of what they described as newly raised contractual clarifications. City staff did not present a new staff recommendation on the item during Sept. 30 public comment.

Clarifying details cited by speakers

- $3,700,000: figure cited publicly as the possible concessionaire payback the city might face if it canceled the project; speakers insisted this figure was not required by the 2018 executed agreement.
- $395,000: amount speakers said was the federal grant portion that would be subject to payback under the terms described in the 2018 GST agreement.
- Section 9 (project cancellation): public commenters cited a clause they said allows cancellation with 30 days’ notice and limits repayable funds when project plans, specifications and right-of-way are turned over to VDOT.

What remains unresolved

Speakers asked the city to publicly clarify VDOT’s position and to provide the documents that would definitively show whether concessionaire funds are state-held or private funds and what the repayment obligations actually are under the executed 2018 agreement. Residents asked council to retake the June vote to avoid environmental damage and to explore trail design alternatives that would avoid wetlands and mature trees.

Next steps

At Sept. 30 council did not change prior votes on the matter and did not adopt a new motion related to cancellation. The trail continues to be an active source of public comment; residents indicated they plan additional outreach and formal requests that the council revisit prior actions if staff or VDOT cannot confirm repayment obligations as the commenters described.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fairfax City - City Council Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Multiple speakers at Sept. 30 public comment urged council to cancel the George Schneider Trail project, arguing an executed 2018 VDOT agreement contains a cancellation clause and that the city would not be required to repay the $3.7 million concessionaire fund claimed by staff. Speakers called for alternatives to paving forest and wetland areas.","taxTitle","Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Virginia","taxId",59088,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6454210,"Fairfax City council delays public hearing on expanded firearms ban after staff, police outline logistics and enforcement limits",8349,3428000,11777000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5861670-b38a7aaf20e21cfe034a3b648792155e&start=3428&end=11777","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5861670-b38a7aaf20e21cfe034a3b648792155e/thumbnail_3428000.jpg","/articles/6454210/Fairfax-City/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Fairfax-City-council-delays-public-hearing-on-expanded-firearms-ban-after-staff-police-outline-logistics-and-enforcement-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454210-f76d0e5ccc4492f354d821b3c5bdc62d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191499&Signature=nKVXfTspJIo9A3qub3hCA4XsdN7Edep-1R3R9-2GA9ZwSS9qE6813lo4c~faprUfGmr52zHChAx1IofKqXnhoWZlmx8UGKXv8343D~BVSo1HFgQqkpRs5zullX-thGUdGQ-~0Yr6Uv8Yj2aJI~rHADqapicUEdeNpgGq0f5oQI4RhSM~uQ6-BYEewHF0I1d4Fs~VsfpYGFEa-vMKuFdbPHT~7EGsG096GUBSZpS2-fuAI~vJMdCBE8HqDnOUVyk6YIoEnI2Ywtp-U6eZigqGE0v-G5urOPg3VtUkt~PLQba6RSXsEvktByheKfHwbXHwHI0K9GcQt94VcDVQxum5lw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fairfax City officials on Sept. 30 discussed proposed amendments to Chapter 54 of the City Code that would expand the city’s existing ban on firearms inside city buildings and parks to include city-permitted events and adjacent public rights-of-way. The city attorney and police department presented legal limits, enforcement logistics and data, and council voted to schedule a public hearing on the draft ordinance for Oct. 14 and to take action at a later meeting.

The proposed change would add language to the current ordinance to prohibit the “possession, carrying or transportation of firearms, ammunition, or components… at city buildings or facilities, on public property, or at permitted public events,” according to staff presentation materials introduced by City Attorney Brian Lubkerman. Lubkerman told the council that local regulation must stay within the enabling authority granted by the General Assembly and cited the state statutory authority discussed during the original 2021 ordinance presentations.

Why it matters: The amendments would bring Fairfax City’s rules closer to those used by surrounding jurisdictions, including an explicit ban at city-permitted events and a possible increase in penalties for violations. City officials said the revisions are intended to reduce the chance of firearm-related incidents at public gatherings, but they also stressed practical constraints — especially the legal requirement to post clear signage where the prohibition applies and limits on citing violations where notice is lacking.

Staff and police presentation

Brian Lubkerman, the city attorney, summarized the technical structure of the existing ordinance enacted in 2021 and the narrow scope localities have to regulate firearms under state law. He noted the statute that serves as the enabling authority for local restrictions and said the proposed amendments aim to match Fairfax County’s language by inserting a prohibition for city-permitted events and by clarifying certain exemptions and signage requirements.

Police Chief Raul Pedroso told council the department reviewed 10 years of incidents at locations the ordinance would cover and found three incidents involving firearms: an unconfirmed reported confrontation in a park, an evening discharge at a rented city facility and a recent Rock the Block event in which officers identified and removed a concealed handgun from a permit holder. Pedroso said the Rock the Block case resulted in a class 4 summons under the current ordinance and that the department took possession of the firearm for safekeeping.

“We verified he was [a] concealed carry permit holder. He basically gave up his firearm,” Pedroso said of the Rock the Block incident, adding that the case remains pending in court.

Pedroso summarized operational implications: average response time to incidents mentioning guns citywide is roughly five minutes over the three-year window the department analyzed, and response times are shorter — about three minutes — for incidents at known event locations where officers are more likely to be stationed. He told council that the department already increases event staffing and uses intelligence, cameras and license-plate readers to reduce risk at large gatherings.

Policy choices and practical limits

Lubkerman and the police captains emphasized two recurring operational issues: (1) signage and public notice and (2) the difference between signage and physical screening. Lubkerman referenced court precedent discussed during earlier litigation over firearms signage and said clear, reasonably placed signage is required to put the public on notice. He and Pedroso warned that a prohibition without effective notice would be difficult to enforce and that some events might require additional measures — such as funneling entrances or temporary barriers — to place people on legal notice.

Captain Natalie Heinze reviewed national studies the department examined and said the research uses different definitions and reaches mixed conclusions about the deterrent effect of gun-free zones. She told council those studies were inconclusive and that the department wanted the discussion grounded in local operational realities and data.

Council questions and staff follow-up

Council members pressed staff on specific implementation questions. Among the council requests and staff responses:
- City Hall grounds: Lubkerman said the current ordinance covers city buildings and parks as defined in the code; designating City Hall property as a park would be a separate local action if council wants the prohibition to apply to the exterior grounds. He said that change would not be handled as part of the present ordinance amendment.
- Leased space and common areas: Lubkerman said the prohibition applies only to space used by the governmental entity; common hallways and privately owned areas in leased buildings would not automatically be covered unless the private owner bans firearms. If a city office uses only a portion of a leased building, the prohibition applies to the area used for governmental purposes.
- Signage and operations planning: Staff said that, if the council adopted the amendment to cover city-permitted events, staff would need to review every city-permitted event to prepare a signage and notice plan; they recommended a short delayed effective date if council adopts the ordinance so staff can implement signage and public education.
- Penalty level: The current ordinance carries a class 4 misdemeanor penalty (fine up to $250). Staff said neighboring jurisdictions use a class 1 misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and a higher fine) for similar ordinances, but they also told council that the severity of the penalty does not change officers’ ability to investigate when they reasonably suspect an offense; it may, however, affect deterrence and public messaging.

Chief Pedroso and Captain Jay Tolan said neighboring jurisdictions that adopted similar event prohibitions have reported few arrests tied only to the ordinance; Alexandria reported four park-related incidents in recent years, most of which involved other criminal charges. Pedroso emphasized that signage and staffing are the practical levers the city can use to make the ban effective.

Direct quotes

“We rely on intelligence. We staff events. We use technology and equipment,” Chief Raul Pedroso said, describing the department’s event-security approach. Captain Natalie Heinze warned that national studies define “active shooter” differently and reach mixed conclusions, so local data and operational planning should guide council choices.

Next steps and public hearing

After questions and discussion, council voted to defer the public hearing that would have been held that evening and to schedule the public hearing on Oct. 14, with council indicating it will take action at a subsequent meeting (the council indicated Oct. 28 as a likely decision date). Councilmembers asked staff for additional information to be published before the hearing, including clearer signage guidance, an event-by-event map showing where the prohibition would apply at city-permitted events, and more granular response-time data (for example, median times and the interval from incident start to 9-1-1 call), so the public and council have more information ahead of the hearing.

The council’s motion to defer the hearing was made and seconded on the record and passed unanimously. The staff presentation, police data and the schedule for the Oct. 14 public hearing were the principal outcomes of the work session.

What was not decided

Council did not change the ordinance language at the Sept. 30 work session and did not adopt new penalties or new exemptions. Staff said they would return with targeted follow-up information and with a signage/operations plan if council moves forward after the public hearing.","At a Sept. 30 work session, city staff and police described proposed amendments to the City Code that would extend firearms prohibitions to city-permitted events and increase penalties. Council agreed to hold a public hearing Oct. 14 after questions about signage, exemptions and enforcement.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6454202,"Townhouse residents tell council proposed rolling-cart rollout will be difficult or impossible for many households",658,1563000,2221000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5861670-b38a7aaf20e21cfe034a3b648792155e&start=1563&end=2221","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5861670-b38a7aaf20e21cfe034a3b648792155e/thumbnail_1563000.jpg","/articles/6454202/Fairfax-City/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Townhouse-residents-tell-council-proposed-rolling-cart-rollout-will-be-difficult-or-impossible-for-many-households","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454202-b04ce566c6bcbee802eb4a70c248abd4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771191499&Signature=SdXxq7HZi-COjxnigoKnC7OTijoyuXRB7cWPcAJVIVkwvwHEiu2QzFprYqzgFnsb9ayjWp2rMQwHkfqPSMek8s6HgmGTQSBcq8kVd~NB-gEd~udrk0jW9NiVUq82K0H34qaLmRe03BvJJaMwkr5qicTqX8y3dNY7uOWqZqTyfeZ~hT4jPBT9qyXB6u1XLUdUDUcwVOsVhq36z~d4OvnGvklft-KTumgbeWAY74YadrLjvXA7LAZYIS6Y-MkbaOhedKe9qABPscGvr9CDBLH~LNuYDI1PuBMxGccvGFdd8u6wBESiMac6LsT26Rl9Evvny02Vx9mPvzwUs4p-c4OSvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple Fairfax City residents raised concerns Sept. 30 about the city’s planned rollout of two rolling trash carts for households, saying the requirement will be unworkable for townhouse communities with narrow courts, steep steps and limited storage.

Why it matters: The planned change affects households required to use rolling carts for trash and recycling. Commenters said the city’s standard cart size and placement plan do not fit the physical realities of many townhouse clusters and that the city provided insufficient public engagement with affected homeowners’ associations.

What residents said

Ellen Pence described the physical constraints at her townhouse complex on Adams Court: no garage, tightly parked lots, steep stairs to the rear patio and rules restricting storage on patios because of rodent control. Pence said requiring carts to be stored on two blocks away at Cardinal Road would effectively end her trash service unless the city provides an accommodation.

Shelly Vance said the city’s plan to require each single-family and townhouse household to take two rolling carts was announced without outreach to homeowners in townhouse courts and that the 32-gallon cart being offered does not solve the physical storage and maneuvering problems. Vance asked the city to allow residents to opt out or to propose alternative pickup approaches for tight courts.

Other commenters who spoke in support of these concerns seconded calls for more neighborhood outreach and urged the city to consider flexible options for storage or opt-outs rather than a single mandatory approach.

Staff response and next steps

At the Sept. 30 meeting staff did not present a detailed outreach timeline or a specific accommodation plan for townhouse communities. Several council members asked staff to provide more details on implementation costs, whether carts would be distributed by the city or event organizers (in the context of signage discussion for other items), and to consider allowing opt-outs where carts are impracticable.

What was not decided

Council did not adopt policy changes or vote on exemptions at the Sept. 30 meeting. Commenters asked staff to return with an outreach plan and options for residents who cannot store or move rolling carts easily.

Ending

Speakers urged the council to explicitly allow exceptions or alternatives for tight townhouse courts and to do more direct outreach to affected communities before implementing mandatory cart requirements.","Several residents at the Sept. 30 meeting said mandatory two-cart curbside service will be unworkable for townhouse communities built on tight courts without garages or driveways, and asked the city to allow opt-outs or smaller carts and to provide better outreach.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Residents urge Fairfax City to cancel George Schneider Trail, dispute repayment claims tied to VDOT agreement

Fairfax City council delays public hearing on expanded firearms ban after staff, police outline logistics and enforcement limits

Townhouse residents tell council proposed rolling-cart rollout will be difficult or impossible for many households