City staff and county present updated Willard Sherwood project cost, residents split on project

City and county project staff briefed the Fairfax City Council on Feb. 10 on the joint Willard Sherwood Health & Community Center, presenting final design, procurement and financing details and answering extended questions from council and residents.

Brooke Hardin, city point person for the project, described a long planning history (work began in earnest around 2013) that included community input, interagency agreements, and phased design development. Under the current phase‑2 agreement the county retains property ownership and the city will hold a 99‑year lease at a nominal $1 per year; site and building costs are allocated pro rata by program space (approximately 58% county, 42% city) and parking costs by assigned spaces (64% county, 36% city).

Staff presented a current adjusted all‑in project estimate of about $127.4 million. That reflects a set of negotiated reductions and procurement timing advantages; the city’s share was listed as about $54.3 million. City PAYGO (soft costs and design) totals about $4.0 million to date (county soft costs about $8.0 million). Subtracting past expenditures left an estimated remaining city financing need of roughly $50.3 million (the adopted city CIP had previously included $56 million for the project).

Staff said they had secured a competitive construction manager–at‑risk (CMAR) procurement and were negotiating a guaranteed maximum price (GMP) with the CMAR. The county will issue a notice once the GMP is finalized; the city then has a 10‑day window to decide whether to proceed. Staff anticipated returning to council on April 28 with a request to proceed or terminate the agreement and with bond‑authorization items tied to phased debt issuance to match construction cash flow.

Operating and cost‑recovery estimates were a key focus. Staff estimated gross annual operating costs of roughly $1.7 million and presented a rental/recovery model that tries to balance community access and private rentals. Staff modeled break‑even revenue in a conservative scenario and projected a potential cumulative equivalent real‑estate‑tax‑rate impact of about 4.33¢ (four and one‑third cents) on the tax rate if no other offsetting revenue or appreciation occurs; staff emphasized that debt tranches will be issued as-needed and that actual tax impacts depend on revenue, timing and other offsets.

Public comment was split. Supporters emphasized modernized health services, childcare, accessible senior programming, facility consolidation, and continued partnership with the county; several speakers said cancelling the project would increase long‑term costs or leave the city reliant on aging buildings. Opponents highlighted projected tax impacts, long‑term operating costs, and affordability concerns for current residents, urging farther scrutiny and transparent projections of total taxpayer burden.

Staff compared alternatives—building new at Green Acres or renovating Green Acres—and said those options would either cost about the same or more once sunk costs, above‑ground parking, and impacts on parkland and program continuity were included. The project team reiterated next steps: finalize GMP negotiations in April, receive county notice, then present council with resolutions to proceed, amend the design agreement, and adopt bond authorizations as required.

Councilmembers pressed staff on transparency, cost mitigation, staffing and program operations; staff said discussions about operating agreements and detailed staffing allocations remain ongoing. The project remains on track for a council decision this spring.