Below are two e-mails. The first e-mail, sent by RCC's Executive Director Leila Gordon, expresses her concern that there are significant inaccuracies in our Reston 2020 blog post and that RCC has been transparent in its processes. The second e-mail is Reston 2020's response, noting key areas of lack of transparency and addressing the perceived inaccuracies raised by Ms. Gordon. They are posted here to help ensure that the Reston community has as much access a possible to the ongoing RCC planning to build a financially unsustainable recreation center in Baron Cameron Park using Reston tax dollars. Both posts are lengthy.
Message from Leila Gordon, Executive Director, RCC:
Subject: Reston 2020 Post about RCC Planning
Dear Colin and Terry,
I
am writing to object to your most recent Reston 2020 posting (copied
below my signature) regarding RCC planning for future indoor recreation
in our community. It is inaccurate. Beyond the inaccuracies, it is
needlessly confrontational
and disrespectful of RCC Board of Governors members. The spirit of
dialog regarding this issue has been civil, open and flexible on our
part; the discussions between RCC Board members and RCA Board members
has been conducted up to now with a view to the community’s
interests being served and acknowledging that is the intent of everyone
involved in both organizations. The Reston 2020 post accuses our Board
of acting “stealthily” – nothing has been done “stealthily” – and your
assertions are just plain wrong about where
things stand with respect to the current status of site identification
and data collected.
I think your post needs revision to reflect our actions fairly in these aspects:
1.
The Building Committee report and subsequent Board affirmation is that
locations (plural) – among those suggested by the community – worth
continued pursuit are Reston Town Center North and Baron Cameron Park,
with the Hunters Woods
site a third possibility for expansion should those two sites prove
unworkable. Further, as the minutes of our meetings also reflect, it was
specifically clarified at the November Board meeting that if another
site suddenly becomes available and attractive
from both location and cost perspectives, nothing about our
decision-making to date would preclude us from pursuing such an
alternate location.
2. The Board has communicated directly
to Fairfax County offices discussing the potential for public
facilities at Reston Town Center North that we wish to have an indoor
recreation facility considered among the public facilities that
redevelopment
there could produce. We received a letter in response to our formal
request indicating that such a facility is being considered. We have
communicated our interest in both locations, Reston Town Center North
and Baron Cameron Park, to our colleagues at the
Park Authority. All of this information is in our public records as it
has been stated and documented in our meetings.
3. Our processes have been completely
transparent. The studies, discussions, input and dialog with members of
the community at our meetings have all been fully accessible. We have
consistently responded in full and in detail to community
members’ questions and all the materials we have produced or recorded
have been made available on our website.
4. There is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between our decision-making on indoor recreation and Lake Anne redevelopment.
5. As documented in the Board package
for our December meeting, our conversation with Supervisor Hudgins at
the November Board Orientation (which was also publicized and conducted
in accord with open meeting requirements) included discussion
of both the Reston Town Center North location and funding from proffers
being of great interest to us and that we welcomed her support as
planning progresses.
6. The Brailsford & Dunlavey
update did outline that there would be a core user population of
1,500-1,700 people that could be relied on as regular, fully
engaged/paying types of users. Beyond that, there are a variety of other
users that
would be expected to contribute to utilization of this type of facility
on a more casual and/or less frequent basis. The purpose of identifying
“core users” is to help us understand the most conservative outline of
planning for cost recovery. Core users would
be augmented by other community users along a full spectrum of
participation.
7.
Nowhere does the update or the original report describe a pro forma
that contemplates that less than half of the users would be Restonians;
there were questions asked when Craig made his presentation about how
the ratio of Reston/non-Reston
users impacts the pro forma spreadsheet results; perhaps you confused
those questions with the data presented. The assumption we requested
Brailsford & Dunlavey use has been 90% Reston use. That is the
current utilization pattern for RCC.
8.
The cost recovery slides in the update contemplate cost recovery at
current RCC Reston patron levels of subsidy; if we adopt fees more
aligned with Fairfax County Park Authority or other public provider fee
rates, that rate rises as
the subsequent slide illustrates. However, both slides are based on an
assumption that RCC as a facility operator would continue a higher level
of subsidy to Reston patrons as a result of the tax district, hence a
less robust cost recovery fee schedule than
that of similar public facilities. None of the slides or studies
account for the impact of other funding resources – without knowing the
scope of other resources we felt it important to understand cost
recovery on the basis of our current model.
9.
The data we have obtained to date from Brailsford & Dunlavey also
doesn’t incorporate future population impacts, nor does it include
consideration of Reston-located businesses’ employees beyond a minimal
level as “corporate” types of
pass users. Reston’s growth on both fronts would change the potential
service profile and cost recovery performance of a new facility.
10.
This issue is one of great importance to the community and to our Board
of Governors. However, it is not the sole issue with which our planning
for the future is concerned. Our agenda for our January 3,4 sessions
will focus on where
we find ourselves in the current RCC Strategic Plan and how we might
position ourselves for the future in light of where we are now. The
public is welcome to attend and listen; comment opportunities will be
provided at the beginning of each day’s efforts.
I
hope you will correct your post –especially its headline – to reflect
the above information, Terry. Given how collegial and open we have been
with regard to discourse with our community on this issue, I find the
tone of your post and
its assertions of “stealth” really disappointing. My understanding is
that RCA is seeking collaborative and collegial relationships with other
Reston civic organizations; this is an odd path to pursue toward that
end.
Sincerely,
Leila
Leila Gordon
Executive Director
Reston Community Center
Message from Terry Maynard, Co-Chairman, RCA Reston 2020 Committee:
Subject: Re: Reston 2020 Post about RCC Planning
Leila—
Thank you for your feedback on
the Reston 2020 blog post concerning RCC’s efforts to establish a new
Reston recreation center. In spite of what you say, Reston 2020 still
believes that RCC has been acting in a less than transparent way and disagrees
that the post was substantially inaccurate.
Let’s start with the issue of
stealthiness, specifically, the letter RCC sent to the FCPA following the BOG’s
receipt and acceptance of its own Building Committee report: According to information we have from County
officials, RCC shared that information with FCPA and received a formal request
from RCC to work collaboratively to build an indoor recreational facility “in
the park.” That would be Baron Cameron
Park, not the FCPA-owned park land in Town Center North.
That is the information we have. Maybe you can clarify matters, but until we
see the letter(s) RCC sent to FCPA concerning the matter, we must consider it
accurate. It would have been helpful had
you made RCC’s request to FCPA to work collaboratively available to the public,
a step you could have taken as part of your e-mail to us, but you didn’t.
We would also note that the May
2013 B&D update report notes, p. 2.3, that “A separate analysis was being
conducted by RCC to understand the potential impact on the small district 5 tax
rate.” If this has been completed—or even if it is still in draft—it is
important to share this information with the community now. Our
earlier post makes an estimate that, in the early years of a new recreation
center, the STD$5 tax rate would
need to rise nearly 60% to $.075/$100 valuation.
To help clarify these matters, please consider this e-mail an official
FOIA request by Reston 2020 for all correspondence, including e-mails, text
messages, memoranda, letters, memos for the record, agreements, reports,
meeting notes, etc., between and/or among RCC, its Board of Governors and its
management and staff, and the FCPA, including the Park Authority Board,
management, and staff regarding the proposed construction of an indoor recreation
center in Reston from December 1, 2012 through your receipt of this
e-mail.
Hopefully, making this
information available to the public in a timely manner will make the dialogue
on a proposed Reston recreation center more transparent and positive.
Here are some brief comments on
your points:
1. The Building Committee report. What you say is not inaccurate, but it is also
incomplete as to the specific nature of the committee’s recommendations re BCP
and TCN. Here are the recommendations
for those two options with emphasis added:
- Baron Cameron Park: “Based on the below information, the Building
Committee recommends that the Board consider this site a strong location option for a new recreation center;
the Board should continue to work with the Park Authority to explore an RCC
recreation center at this location.”
- Town Center North: “Fairfax County is currently master planning
this site and the RCC Board has requested that a recreation center be included
in the master plan. The Building Committee suggests that the Board continue to
pursue this request with the County and that this location be considered a viable location, and should be
pursued in consultation and collaboration with the Park Authority.”
Which do you believe is the
committee’s “strong” preference? More
broadly, these preferences (along with the third place RCC/HW location) have
remained unchanged since at least the January 2012 RCC Long Range Committee
planning offsite nearly two years ago , according to notes of that
meeting.
2. Communications concerning locations. If this information is available in public
records, it is unretrievable. I have
searched the County website, including the FCPA area, and wandered through the
RCC website at length (which has no search tools). Internet searches using Google have been
equally unproductive. The only materials
I have found are those posted on the RCC BOG webpage—meeting materials and
various reports by B&D, RCL, etc.
3. Transparency.
Until the public knows the full nature of RCC’s involvement with FCPA in
siting a recreation center at BCP, you cannot claim to have been
transparent. Hopefully, our FOIA request
will shed light on those discussions.
4. BCP location and Lake Anne
Redevelopment. The statement that there
is “no relationship whatsoever” between the proposed location of the recreation
center and Lake Anne redevelopment strains credulity. Indeed, the new Lake Anne Comp Plan calls for
the developer to make contributions to the development of a recreation center
(& other recreational facilities) “in the vicinity.”
5. Conversation with Supervisor Hudgins. It is important that Supervisor Hudgins
continue to support the construction of any Reston recreation center in Town
Center North as part of the urbanization of central Reston. Proffers will play a vital
role in a wide variety of critical infrastructure improvements tied to the
urban transformation of the Silver Line station areas.
6. B&D November 2013 Reston market “potential”
assessment: In its 2009 final report,
B&D made an important distinction between the “potential” market (the
number of people who fit the profile for usage of a rec center) and “core
participants,” people who would likely be regular users. It specifically used the word “potential” in
identifying the 1500-1700 in its latest update which, frankly, seems low to us
as well.
Still, even 1500-1700 regular
Reston users is an extremely small number—about 2.7% of Reston’s population. The May 2013 update’s “Option B” (an 84,900
SF structure with facilities similar to those proposed in November, then costing
$33.9MM) offers a good cost grounding in how much we will pay for these
Restonians’ use of a new recreation center.
RCC will invest $35-$40 million per the November 2013 brief (higher per
SF than in June 2013) in construction costs and, from Option B in the June
update, $1.8-$2.4 million in annual operating costs over the first decade PLUS an annual debt service cost of $3.0
million or so on a $37.5 million, 20-year AA bond at 3% using straight line
bond amortization. (Note: For reasons that are
unclear, B&D appears to use a mortgage amortization approach, which
leads to a significantly lower annual debt service cost forecast as principal is paid down over time. For
bonds, the borrower pays interest on the full value of the bond over the period
of indebtedness, then pays back all the principal.) That’s about $4.8-$5.4 million per year total
expenditure leading to an additional $110-$140 tax burden per Reston household,
depending on whether RCC charges “Reston rates” or “Fairfax County rates.” Why should any Restonian pay more than $125
per year so 1500-1700 people, nearly two-thirds of whom have a household income
exceeding $75,000 according to B&D’s November presentation, can regularly use
a rec center at a substantial tax subsidy above even operating costs?
7. Non-Restonian users. You are right, nowhere does any of B&D’s
reporting explicitly “contemplate that less than half of the users would be
Restonians.” Unfortunately, when you put
B&D’s numbers together from the 2009 report as
RCA did in its mid-2013 report on the Reston recreation center initiative,
that is exactly the result you will find.
As the table on p. 20 of that
report shows, with the exception of the swimming facilities with a low
non-Reston capture rate (10%), B&D’s data shows that all of the facilities would be used more by non-Restonians than
Restonians. B&D hasn’t updated those data or
calculations since, but we believe there is no legitimate reason to believe they
would change substantially.
A couple of related factors presented in
various B&D reports point to a greater use of a Reston recreation center
facility by non-Restonians than by Restonians.
- The B&D reports going all the way back to
2009 are confounding because they all assume that Restonians will account for 95% of total usage. In part, this leads to the low level of
facility use B&D describes in its various reports—and the resulting high
tax subsidy required to make such a facility financially sustainable. B&D, in fact, states in both its 2009
report and 2013 update that a 10%
capture rate of the extended market is a “conservative” estimate. The May 2013 update, p. 2.7, makes that
statement and shows the total area potential core market in Exhibit 2.5: Reston = 22,000, Non-Reston = 236,000, ten
percent of which is 23,000—and more than the number of Restonians likely to use
the facility. As the table in RCA’s
report shows, higher capture rates lead to a greater share of usage by
non-Restonians.
- We would also note that B&D’s May 2013
report shows, Exhibit 2.11, p. 2.12, that Reston’s private facilities serve
22,750 people—more than the core
participant market it now estimates for Reston. The result is that, absent huge
tax-subsidized usage fees for Restonians that undercut the existing private
recreational facilities, the number of Restonians who would likely use a new
Reston recreation center will be extremely small.
The fact that more non-Restonians
than Restonians are likely to use the new recreation center is a huge and valid
argument for the rec center not to be paid for by the citizens of Reston via
the STD#5 tax vehicle. The facility
should be an FCPA facility, built and managed by the FCPA within the County
budget and charging 100% operating cost recovery fees like other County
recreation centers. As it is, Restonians
are helping to pay for close to a dozen other County recreation centers as part
of our annual property tax bill. Reston
2020 believes it is time for the rest of the County to contribute to a
recreation center in Reston.
8. Cost recovery. Actually, the Reston 2020 post specifically
identified both the “Reston Rate Structure” (50% maximum recovery) and the
“Fairfax County Rate Structure” (71% maximum recovery) in our post. Both of these recovery outcomes are inconsistent
with the goals laid out at the beginning of the latest (and earlier) B&D presentation(s)
and the expectations of other communities of covering operating expenses
through operating revenues. In fact, B&D’s
May 2013 executive summary states (p. 1.3):
In
B&D’s experience, most of the successful recreation facilities are able to
cover 80-90% of operating costs with the remaining expenses subsidized by
various public monies. In the case of
Fairfax County, all of the recreation facilities operate at break-even or
better.
For the record, our calculation
of the County’s experience based on data for four County rec centers described
in B&D’s 2009 report is that they achieve a 114% average recovery rate (see
table on p. 21 of RCA’s report). Why should the people of Reston be forced to live with a
lower, unacceptable recovery rate expectation?
9. Future impacts. Actually, B&D’s May 2013 report lays out
a 30-year pro forma balance sheet statement for the recreation center (both
options) which we assume includes population increases. It explicitly assumes expense increases (3.0%)
and larger revenue increases (3.65%). Its
most recent November presentation update makes only cost recovery percentage
projections for the first five years of operations—and its results are little
different than the June 2013 update.
10. Offsite agenda: We look forward to seeing the agenda in a
timely manner and hope it offers significant opportunities for public
contributions.
We
would close by noting that we understand that FCPA will be forwarding
to the Park Authority Board its recommendations for the Baron Cameron
Park master plan for its meeting in February 2014--before the public has
had an opportunity to review it. Instead, the community will only get
to comment on it after it has been reviewed by the Board. We believe it
is important that the
Reston (and broader County) community have an opportunity to review and
comment on this draft plan--at least by correspondence if not a pubic
hearing--before it goes to the Park Authority Board. The County's Board
of Supervisors, Planning Commission, and Library Trustees--the boards
I'm familiar with--take public comments on their plans before reviewing
them. For the Park Authority Board to do otherwise would be absolutely
contrary to a constructive open process.
In the spirit of community
transparency, I will be posting your e-mail and my reply on the Reston2020 blog
for the public to see.
Regards,
Terry Maynard
Co-Chairman, RCA Reston 2020 Committee
Reston 2020
Blog Administrator
