Dozens of Fairfax City residents used the council’s public comment periods on Sept. 30 to urge the city to cancel the George Schneider Trail — frequently cited in testimony as the George Schneider Trail (GST) or the Georgetown Trail — arguing the project would harm wetlands and forested stream corridors and that council was misinformed about repayment obligations under the project agreements.

At least five speakers addressed the trail during general public comment, repeating claims first raised in local coverage and neighborhood advocacy: speakers said the 2018 agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) governing the project contains a section that allows cancellation without the city repaying concessionaire funds already expended, and they said public statements that the city would face a $3.7 million repayment obligation were incorrect.

Why it matters: The project footprint runs near the North Fork of Accotink Creek and through forested open space. Opponents say the trail design would add impervious surface, damage wetlands and require removal of trees. The disputed repayment amount — if owed — could influence council votes by raising estimated taxpayer costs. Several residents told council that the executed VDOT agreement (2018 GST agreement) includes a cancellation clause that would limit repayable funds to a much smaller federal grant amount.

What speakers said

Philip Latasa, representing Friends of Accadine Creek, asked council to cancel the George Schneider Trail and choose alternatives such as improving nearby streets for people bicycling and walking. Latasa said planting more trees does not compensate for the permanent footprint of “2 acres of asphalt plus attendant structures” that would be inserted into forest.

Judy Fraser, who said she follows the project closely, told council that the motion to cancel the trail presented to council in June would have committed the city to an unrealistic full repayment of project expenditures and that such full repayment is not required under the 2018 project agreement. Fraser and other speakers said the concessionaire funds used for the trail were private funds given to the Commonwealth and are not identical to VDOT-held state funds.

Shelly Vance and Susan Kyler pressed similar points, asserting that the only certain payback under the executed agreement would be a federal grant amount around $395,000, not the $3.7 million figure cited in some public comments and materials. Vance also connected the trail dispute with concerns about earlier developments she said weakened stream and floodplain protections in other neighborhoods.

Katie Johnson, who said she represents the perspective of longtime residents, described how intense local campaigns and misinformation have affected civic life and urged council not to proceed with a project that would “commit our city to building this bike road through our remaining and irreplaceable woodlands and wetlands.”

Authorities and documents referenced

Speakers repeatedly cited the 2018 GST executed agreement between the City of Fairfax and VDOT, and asked why the city or VDOT would treat concessionaire funds as repayable state funds when, they said, the original concessionaire funds were private developer contributions. Several public commenters asked the city to produce documents supporting staff statements that the city would face a $3.7 million payback obligation.

What council did

Council did not take action on the George Schneider Trail at the Sept. 30 meeting. Public commenters asked the council to revisit its June decision and retake the vote in light of what they described as newly raised contractual clarifications. City staff did not present a new staff recommendation on the item during Sept. 30 public comment.

Clarifying details cited by speakers

- $3,700,000: figure cited publicly as the possible concessionaire payback the city might face if it canceled the project; speakers insisted this figure was not required by the 2018 executed agreement.
- $395,000: amount speakers said was the federal grant portion that would be subject to payback under the terms described in the 2018 GST agreement.
- Section 9 (project cancellation): public commenters cited a clause they said allows cancellation with 30 days’ notice and limits repayable funds when project plans, specifications and right-of-way are turned over to VDOT.

What remains unresolved

Speakers asked the city to publicly clarify VDOT’s position and to provide the documents that would definitively show whether concessionaire funds are state-held or private funds and what the repayment obligations actually are under the executed 2018 agreement. Residents asked council to retake the June vote to avoid environmental damage and to explore trail design alternatives that would avoid wetlands and mature trees.

Next steps

At Sept. 30 council did not change prior votes on the matter and did not adopt a new motion related to cancellation. The trail continues to be an active source of public comment; residents indicated they plan additional outreach and formal requests that the council revisit prior actions if staff or VDOT cannot confirm repayment obligations as the commenters described.