Last Wednesday evening, Nov. 1, proved long for members of the McLean Citizens Association (MCA) Board of Directors. Three resolutions were on the table for approval, two of which sparked lengthy discussion and debate.
The language of a resolution on the 2006 Fairfax County bond referendum was the topic of much dissent, as board members went back and forth over exactly what message they wanted to convey. There were two bond issues on the Nov. 7 voting ballots: a Public Facilities bond to designate money for the renovation, expansion and update of various public facilities, including the McLean Police Station and the Great Falls Volunteer Fire Station; and a Parks and Parks Facilities bond to designate funds for the acquisition of new parkland, the conversion of up to 12 existing natural turf rectangular fields to synthetic turf, and the addition of 75 miles of trails and trail connections.
The draft resolution stated that the McLean Citizens Association supported the bonds, but also listed several qualifying concerns about the accuracy of Fairfax County's forecast for revenue and spending in the coming years, and the county's efforts to obtain proffers from developers. Subsequently, the Association urged the county to re-examine its budget, taking into account the predicted decline of housing prices, and also urged the county to improve its performance in acquiring proffers and planning proposed bond projects.
"Fairfax County has not been aggressive in seeking proffers from these projects and the MCA has pointed this out several times in the past," said Chris Monek, chair of the McLean Citizens Association Budget and Taxation committee.
However, board member William Denk said that he felt the reprimanding tone of the resolution to be counterproductive, and unrelated to the issue at hand.
"We don't have a resolution in front of us that says the county needs improvement on how they manage the bond process," said Denk. "This has nothing to do with supporting the bond referendum itself … deal with policy issues in a separate resolution — that would be my opinion."
However, Monek argued that leaving out the Association's reservations would not be an accurate portrayal of its stance.
"If you don't say it, it doesn't send a message," said Monek.
AFTER MUCH debate, the board approved the resolution with a few minor changes.
A resolution supporting the goals of recently formed Tysons Tunnel, Inc. also caused lengthy discourse. After Gov. Timothy Kaine gave his approval of the aerial design for Metrorail in Tysons Corner, the McLean Chamber of Commerce formed Tysons Tunnel, Inc., a group made up of local citizens who are opposed to this option.
Tysons Tunnel, Inc. seeks to have public, competitive bidding of the final design and construction of the Tysons Metrorail project, and also hopes to have simultaneous consideration of the aerial option and a 3.5-mile tunnel beneath the entire length of Tysons Corner. In addition, Tysons Tunnel is pushing for side-by-side competitive bidding of the tunnel option and the aerial option.
"The raising of this at such a late stage by the [McLean] Chamber of Commerce is a long shot — because it comes so late — and they recognize that," said Bill Byrnes, chair of the McLean Citizens Association Transportation committee.
Despite this, the committee drafted a resolution that expressed support of the goals of Tysons Tunnel, Inc., mainly because the McLean Citizens Association had sent a letter to Kaine in August that outlined similar recommendations.
"We support the current effort … but I don't want to give people the impression that we're dealing with a high probability of prevailing," said Byrnes.
Discussion of the resolution quickly turned into a debate between those who support the advent of Metro to Tysons, and those who do not.
"Time is money," said board member Bob Philipp. "This could delay it further … a tunnel is nice and it's pretty, but it's not going to work or help them get this done in a reasonable amount of time."
Board member Jim Turner agreed with Philipp and was also loathe to support anything that might hinder the arrival of a Tysons Metro system.
"We have to begin sometime," said Turner. "The worse thing we can do is not get a train to Dulles."
However, board member Wade Smith noted that as of now, the aerial option is "going through no matter what," so it would be impossible for any efforts made by Tysons Tunnel to have an impact on current plans.
"All this says is that the group [Tysons Tunnel] is going to see if the tunnel can work," said Smith of the resolution. "I don't think it's a hazard."
ON THE OTHER END of the spectrum, board member John Adams expressed his extreme disapproval of bringing Metro to Tysons in any way, shape or form.
"I think it's a disaster," said Adams. "If we're going to consider other options, we might consider options that are financially viable … my first choice would be below-ground Metro, but my second choice would be bus rapid transit."
Smith pointed out that, for the second time that evening, approval of the resolution at hand was being clouded by other issues.
"This group [the MCA] for 20 years has been supporting the rail option, so I don't see the point of re-opening that issue now," said Smith.
Board member Dan DuVal agreed with Smith.
"There is a group out there that is actively trying to raise funds, and is actively researching an alternative, so I'd like to see us focus on this, because I think that's where this is," said DuVal.
Ultimately, this advice was heeded and the Association voted unanimously to approve the resolution as written, thereby supporting the goals of Tysons Tunnel, Inc.