George Snyder Trail Bids $4.6M Higher Than Expected; Council Mulls Options

FAIRFAX CITY, VA — Following a lengthy discussion during Tuesday night's work session, the Fairfax City Council delayed making a decision on how to address the additional $4.6 million in construction costs required to build the controversial George Snyder Trail.

Despite vocal opposition by some residents, the city council voted in June to move forward rather than cancel the project entirely, which would have forced the city to return $3.7 million in concessionaire funding to the Virginia Department of Transportation.

In an Oct. 20 memo, City Manager Bryan Foster — who is retiring on Oct. 31 — notified the mayor and council that the city had received two construction bids for the project, $18.8 million and $17.1 million. Both amounts exceeded the $16 million in unspent funds available in the project account.

"The construction phase cost of the project includes the bid amount, plus third-party construction management, VDOT oversight, and contingency is expected to be $20.6 million, meaning $4.6 million in additional funding is needed," Foster wrote.

After conferring with VDOT staff, Foster said the city had four options:

1. Fund the difference with $4.6 million of city funds.
2. Request additional concessionaire funding from VDOT. There is $6.6 million remaining in the concessionaire account that is available for distribution to eligible projects. This would require the city to make such a request and then approval by RJACC (committee of NVTA), the NVTA Board, and the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). This would take about three months.
3. Value-engineer the plans to remove/reduce items and rebid. This would require VDOT review and approval — an approximate six-to-eight month timeframe. This cost would be paid for with either available concessionaire funds or available C&I funds [construction and industrial loans].
4. Cancel the project, which subjects the city to repayment of all funds spent to date.

Foster recommended option two, since it would not incur additional expenses or require the city to repay money that had already been spent on the project.

"While there is no guarantee that we will be awarded additional funds, there is sufficient funding available to cover this expense and VDOT desires the completion of this project," he said.

Also See …

• New Acting City Manager Appointed Following Foster's Departure
• Fairfax City Council Votes On Hybrid Option For Controversial George Snyder Trail
• Fairfax City Gets 3rd Option, Shorter Deadline For Controversial George Snyder Trail Project
• Controversial George Snyder Trail Project Delayed

When asked by Council Member Rachel McQuillen why the bids came in higher than anticipated, Foster said it had to do with the delay in advertising a request for bids.

"This was on pause for many months, so we've seen the escalation of prices, general inflation," Foster said. "The engineer's estimate was $15 million to $15.5 million, so it's about 12 or 13 percent higher than the engineer's estimate. Not what you want to see, but also it's not like we missed it by $50 million. It's in line with where it should be."

At its April 8 meeting, the city council approved a motion by Council Member Tom Peterson not to advertise for bids, in order to give the council more time to pursue modifications to the project, including a hybrid option that would result in fewer trees being removed.

Opponents of the trail said the city would lose more than 7 to 8 acres of wooded habitat, which would cause erosion and lead to more stormwater runoff. With the removal of more than 1,200 mature trees, carbon levels in the air would also increase significantly.

As the city's representative on the NVTA Board, Mayor Catherine Read asked council members what they wanted her to tell the board at its next meeting on Nov. 13.

Council members Anthony Amos and Stacey Hardy-Chandler each supported option two, saying that it was the most expedient thing to do. It would also keep all four options open for consideration.

"My second choice would be option three, recognizing that time is expensive, and any options that will extend the time will likely extend the cost, just as it did to this point," Hardy-Chandler said.

Another factor for the council to consider was that the two bids were guaranteed for 90 days. Once they expired, the city would have to go through the bidding process again, which would likely incur additional expenses, according to Foster.

Eventually, the council agreed to continue the discussion at its Nov. 4 meeting. This gives council members more time to consider the various options and reach a decision before the Nov. 13 NVTA Board meeting.

This is the Oct. 20 memo Foster sent to the mayor and city council: