Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Fellows Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews Fellows property park concept, $1.18 million construction estimate; $200,000 A&E approved
Summary
City staff presented a conceptual plan for the Fellows property emphasizing preservation, environmental education and passive recreation; estimated construction costs are about $1.18 million (15% design, 40% contingency) and council has $200,000 appropriated for architecture and engineering as funding discussions continue.
Falls Church City Manager Wyatt Shields and project manager Al Storge presented concept plans for the Fellows property on Sept. 9, describing a design that prioritizes tree preservation, environmental education and passive recreation while adding missing sidewalks and ADA connections to nearby trails. Storge said the design includes a rubberized path, a grove of pawpaw and hickory trees, a rain garden for stormwater control and a small shelter and gathering area.
Storge said the project is at roughly 15% design and the construction estimate for park features was $1,179,767, with a 40% contingency included because the design is at an early stage. He told the council that architectural, engineering and inspection fees bring the total to about $1,000,946 (staff presentation included that figure as the combined A&E/inspection line) and noted $200,000 has already been appropriated for A&E work. The project is listed in the CIP as a $2.0 million project, of which roughly $1.8 million remains unappropriated.
Shields and Storge said timeline planning assumes completion of construction documents and a goal of beginning on‑site work in April 2026 if the council directs staff to proceed with A&E contracting. Storge said the design emphasizes low maintenance (minimal mowing, irrigation only during tree establishment) and the rubberized path was selected because it is less invasive to tree roots and remains ADA‑accessible in wet weather; staff estimated a useful life of about 20 years.
Council members pressed staff on the cost breakdown and whether sidewalk and ADA items — which staff said account for a large portion of the site‑work costs — could be separated from park features for phased budgeting. Several members raised questions about grant eligibility; staff said parks‑specific grants are harder to identify than transportation grants but that options are being explored. The manager also noted a $36,000 Virginia Housing grant to help form a working group for related redevelopment planning in the Virginia Village area (discussed earlier in the meeting).
Council asked about environmental protections for the park’s natural preserve area, the suitability of proposed fruit‑bearing trees for the local climate, and potential wildlife impacts. Storge said native species were chosen and that a northern area will be designated a natural preserve and left to accumulate leaf litter to support fireflies and other pollinators. He also described options for solar lighting and discrete waste enclosures to fit the woodland character.
Next steps: staff asked for direction on whether to proceed with an A&E contract (the council has $200,000 appropriated for that purpose) and to bring the project into upcoming budget discussions so council can consider how to fund the remaining CIP appropriation. The earliest construction target noted in the presentation was April 2026, contingent on design, procurement and funding decisions.
