FAIRFAX CITY, VA — Fairfax City officials unveiled a proposed $567.8 million capital improvement program Monday night that includes major investments in school facilities, a replacement fire station, renovations to Van Dyck Park and a potential overhaul of the city's aging property yard.
City Manager Dan Alexander presented the draft fiscal year 2028-2032 Capital Improvement Program to the Fairfax City Planning Commission during its Nov. 9 meeting. The five-year proposal includes 82 projects, with approximately $82 million proposed for FY2028.
The presentation opened a review process that will continue through January, when the Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a public hearing before submitting its recommendations to City Council in February. Coming just two days after a City Council budget work session, the discussion raised additional questions about the affordability of major projects, alternative funding sources and whether the city is adequately preparing for future development.
Several large projects account for a significant portion of the proposed five-year program, including approximately $186 million associated with the city's school capital improvement referendum.
The proposal also includes major investments in general government facilities, particularly Fire Station 3 and the city's property yard.
Fire Station 3, built in 1965, no longer adequately meets modern operational, equipment and safety requirements, according to Alexander. The overall project estimate is approximately $54.3 million, including $17 million programmed for FY2028 and FY2029.
READ: Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2028 To FY 2032
A feasibility study identified property acquired next to the existing fire station as a potential location for a replacement facility. City officials must determine how to complete the project while maintaining fire and rescue operations.
The property yard presents an even larger financial challenge.
The facility supports approximately one-third of the city's workforce and provides space for equipment and operations essential to public services. However, its aging infrastructure, limited space and location within a floodplain have created significant operational concerns.
The proposed CIP includes a preliminary $155 million estimate for the property yard project.
Alexander cautioned that the figure is far from final. A feasibility study is examining existing conditions, redevelopment opportunities and alternative locations.
"It is a significantly wild estimate," Alexander said, describing the figure as a rough order of magnitude rather than a firm project cost.
He said he hopes the estimate can be reduced as the city develops a more realistic scope for the project.
Planning Commission Vice Chair Kirsten Lockhart asked whether the feasibility study would provide more reliable figures before the city develops its budget.
Alexander said the review remains preliminary and that officials are continuing to evaluate potential alternatives.
The proposed CIP also includes a $16 million investment in Van Dyck Park, one of the city's major recreational destinations.
The project would modernize aging infrastructure, improve accessibility and strengthen connections between the park and the new Willard-Sherwood Health and Community Center.
Alexander said city officials want to ensure that proposed improvements reflect changing community needs and how residents will use the park in the future.
The five-year program includes 14 newly proposed projects totaling approximately $8.1 million, compared with seven new projects in the previous year's proposal.
Those additions address school facilities, public safety, pedestrian infrastructure, parks and transit.
Other projects reflect recommendations from the city's adopted small area plans, including the Norfax East-West roadway and South Street Extension. Alexander said these investments demonstrate how long-term planning can guide infrastructure improvements supporting redevelopment and connectivity.
The city also continues to distinguish major capital investments from routine maintenance and operating expenses. Generally, projects included in the CIP involve assets costing more than $50,000 with useful lives of at least five years.
Although commissioners did not vote on the proposed CIP Monday, several expressed concerns about how the city would finance its largest projects.
Commissioner Paul Cunningham questioned whether the city's financial forecasts adequately account for changing economic conditions and the possibility that projects may have to be postponed.
He said commissioners need to understand how financial constraints could affect priorities over multiple budget cycles, particularly when considering expensive projects such as the property yard and Fire Station 3.
Cunningham also asked how individual school improvements, including approximately $3 million for high school heating, ventilation and air conditioning work, would be coordinated with larger renovations funded through the school bond referendum.
Alexander said city officials are working with school administrators to coordinate short-term improvements with long-term renovation plans.
Commissioner Daniel Drummond questioned changes in funding sources, including the expiration of federal American Rescue Plan Act funding.
Alexander said that funding is expected to be finalized during the current fiscal year, with no additional ARPA funding anticipated in FY2028.
Planning Commission Chair James Feather also raised the possibility of obtaining contributions from the city's new nonprofit parks organization.
Alexander said officials will need to explore additional funding sources and consider the timing of major investments.
"We're going to have to be increasingly creative in the way we look at these, not only in terms of source but timing," Alexander said.
Feather noted that the commission has repeatedly encouraged the city to seek alternative funding sources, including grants and partnerships, as the need to replace aging facilities and equipment continues to grow.
Commissioner Matthew Rice asked whether regional partners, including George Mason University, could contribute toward the replacement of Fire Station 3 because the station provides emergency services beyond city boundaries.
Alexander said the city tracks those service demands and reviews its agreements with George Mason, but cost-sharing for construction of the new station has not been part of the capital planning discussions.
The Planning Commission's discussion came two days after the Fairfax City Council reviewed the potential financial impact of major capital projects during a Saturday budget work session.
As Patch previously reported, city officials are examining how proposed construction projects, future borrowing and other expenses could affect the city's finances over the next several years.
During Saturday's meeting, Chief Financial Officer J.C. Martinez told council members that the city has approximately $145 million in existing scheduled debt service obligations. Officials are also examining a planning scenario involving approximately $301 million in additional debt service associated with proposed capital projects.
The additional borrowing scenario does not represent approved debt issuances. Under the assumptions presented, the city's projected debt service remained within its financial policy limits, although annual payments could increase substantially during the early 2030s.
The projections also do not fully incorporate the FY2028 budget or future school borrowing associated with the additional 1 percent local sales tax authorized by Fairfax City voters Nov. 3.
Also See ...
Council members also reviewed a preliminary forecast of approximately 2 percent growth in real estate assessments for calendar year 2027, along with concerns about employee compensation, rising operating expenses and the city's ability to maintain services while financing major construction projects.
The financial questions raised Saturday provided additional context for Monday's Planning Commission discussion, particularly Cunningham's concerns about how economic conditions could force the city to delay projects or reconsider priorities.
Alexander told commissioners Monday that the timing, scope and financing of major investments would be important considerations as the budget process moves forward. He emphasized that projects included in the five-year capital program would still require additional funding and approval decisions.
Commissioner Tassos McCarthy questioned whether the proposed program adequately anticipates the effects of future residential and commercial development.
He noted that recently approved projects could bring additional buildings, residents and students to Fairfax City, potentially increasing demands on schools, emergency services and other infrastructure.
Alexander said the city is working to improve its level-of-service analysis and capital impact modeling to better understand how development affects both operating expenses and long-term capital needs.
Feather also questioned how commissioners could identify projects that should be included in the CIP but have been overlooked.
Alexander said project recommendations emerge from an ongoing process involving city staff, community feedback, the Comprehensive Plan, small area plans and other city policies.
Senior city planner Paul Nabti told commissioners their primary responsibility is to determine whether proposed investments advance the city's long-term planning goals, rather than examining the detailed costs of individual projects.
He encouraged commissioners to consider whether projects are appropriately prioritized, whether investments are distributed equitably across the city and whether important projects are missing.
Feather emphasized that commissioners should concentrate on the city's long-term needs while leaving detailed financing decisions to City Council.
"We're a planning commission, we're not the funding commission," Feather said.
The Planning Commission will continue reviewing the proposed CIP over the next several months, with opportunities to consult city departments and other boards and commissions.
The review schedule includes:
Alexander emphasized that inclusion in the five-year capital program does not automatically authorize construction or guarantee funding.
The proposal will undergo additional review before City Council makes its final budget decisions.
"This is the beginning of the commission's review. Certainly not the conclusion," Alexander said.
The city manager said the full 138-page draft CIP would be posted on the city's website for public review following Monday's meeting.
City Council is scheduled to receive the city manager's proposed FY2028 budget Feb. 23, with budget work sessions and public hearings continuing through the spring. The council is scheduled to adopt the budget and tax rates May 4, 2027, ahead of the new fiscal year beginning July 1.
Sign up for free local newsletters and alerts for the
Fairfax City Patch
Patch.com is the nationwide leader in hyperlocal news.
Visit Patch.com to find your town today.