Here are the four highlights of the McLean Community Center Board Meeting for April.
1. Architectural Firm selected for $50,000 contract. Board member said the Capital Facilities Committee which she heads had selected the firm of SWSG to explore the possibility of expanding the current center.
She said the firm has done a significant number of projects at the MCC over the past 10 years or longer.
This was another in a series of no-bid contracts agreed to by the board. Sanders said the firm was on the list of contractors approved by Fairfax County.
The board is considering expanding the current community center at the same time it is considering building a yet to be determined building in downtown McLean. The board has accumulated a $12 million surplus by charging taxpayers more in property taxes than are needed to operate the center.
2. Partial release of secret downtown report. The board agreed to release part of a report on downtown for which it paid nearly $40,000 last year and which they have to make public.
The board has reactivated its Downtown Committee. Committee chair Susan Bourgeois said releasing part of the report would help community understanding of the project.
3. Downtown banner. Communication Committee Chair Craig Richardson said the committee had dropped plans to erect a near the intersection of Old Dominion Drive and Chain Bridge Road in downtown McLean. It wasn't feasible, he said.
4. Meeting with Fairfax County Parks Authority Board. The community center board will meet May 30* at 7 p.m. with the Parks board. The meeting is open to the public.
The MCC board has been with Kevin Fay, the Dranesville representatives to the Parks Authority Board.
The MCC Board held a with Fay in February over the board's plan to erect a new lighted sign in McLean Central Park.
Fay, a McLean resident and the Dranesville Park representative, won the showdown. He had told the MCC Board twice already that he had serious concerns about a lighted sign on park property but the board proceeded.
*McLean Patch incorrectly reported the date of this meeting in the first edition of this story. The date is now correct. We apologize to our readers.